[ Page 1669 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Accidental incarceration of Mr. Wallace. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1669

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1670

Mr. Wallace — 1670

Routine proceedings

Truth in Autoplan Act (Bill 67). Mr. Bennett.

Introduction and first reading — 1670

Oral Questions

Turkey marketing crisis meeting. Mr. McClelland — 1670

Cabinet review of Indian demands. Mr. Gibson — 1670

Government add in Georgia Strait. Mr. Wallace — 1671

Funding for farm income assurance programme. Mr. Curtis — 1671

Equal pay for hospital personnel. Hon. Mr. Cocke answers — 1672

Consumer Services department statistics. Mr. Phillips — 1672

Compensation for expenses in Celista Motel hearing. Mr. Gardom — 1672

Transfer of inmates from Haney Correctional Institute. Mr. Smith — 1673

Change in Highway I terminus. Mr. Morrison — 1673

Cost of Marguerite refit. Mr. Curtis — 1673

Committee of Supply: Department of the Provincial Secretary estimates.

On vote 189.

Mr. Fraser —  1674

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1676

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1679

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1682

Mr. Curtis — 1684

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1685

Mr. Wallace — 1686

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1691

Mrs. Webster — 1693

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1694

Mr. Morrison — 1695

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1696

Mr. Gibson — 1697

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1698

Mr. Phillips — 1699

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1701

Mr. Rolston — 1702

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1703

Mr. Chabot — 1704

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1706

Appendix — 1707

THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, it gives me a lot of pleasure today to introduce, sitting on the floor of the Legislature, one of the candidates for the federal leadership of the New Democratic Party later this year, Mr. John Harney, who is the former MP for Scarborough West. Apparently Mr. Harney had some trouble coming over on the ferry this morning; they were a bit late. I understand that the Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) was piloting one of them and that was our difficulty. But it is a pleasure to welcome Mr. Harney, and I take a great deal of pride in being able to make this announcement in the House.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I would ask the House to welcome a group of students from Centennial High School in the District of Coquitlam who also had some difficulty getting over here. Perhaps after today's performance they'll wish they might not have made it at all. But, in any event, let's welcome them.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd ask the Hon. Members to give a very cordial welcome to a group of grade 11 students from the Prince of Wales High School in the great riding of Vancouver–Point Grey. They're here today with Mr. Duffy and their teachers, Mr. Frizell and Mr. Mosdell.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I'd like the House to join me in welcoming a group of students from Burnaby North Senior Secondary who will be here later on.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to welcome John Harney and wish him luck. (Laughter.) But the real reason I'm standing on my feet is to ask the House to welcome a delegation from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association who are sitting in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, with their past-president, Mr. Reg Robson.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Today in the gallery is a group of women from the YWCA Women in Training in Vancouver who are touring the parliament buildings and the Provincial Museum. I believe they are in the galleries now; I would ask you to welcome them.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, there has been a contest undertaken between a number of Hon. Members to name the visitor to the gallery who has never ever been introduced and who has heard literally thousands of bid-welcomes but has never ever been on the receiving end of one. He is an individual, Mr. Speaker, who has spent more cumulative time in these precincts than all of the 55 legislators put together, and I'd say a person who is second only to the Member for Kootenay (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) and the Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan) for years of attendance to the debates of this Legislature. A brute for punishment indeed this individual must be. The winner is — if I can have the, envelope — under the seal of the comptroller-general, Mr. Speaker....

AN HON. MEMBER: Auditor-general.

MR. GARDOM: I wish we had one of those, Mr. Premier.

And the winner is...Mr. Fred Moonen! (Laughter.) We all, I know, Mr. Speaker, wish to bid him an especially cordial, though long overdue, welcome to this most genuine, highly respected and kindly person.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond by pointing out how invalid the auditor-general is. Although I welcome the announcement for the selection of Mr. Fred Moonen, Mrs. Ruth Johnson obviously should have been the committee's choice. I want a recount.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I have a grave question of privilege to raise affecting all Members of this House. I would refer you to chapter 215 of the Statutes of British Columbia, the Legislative Assembly Privileges Act, section 6(8) dealing with obstructing Members of this Legislature.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know the Member responsible, namely Mr. George Scott Wallace for Oak Bay, would be too diffident to discuss this matter, perhaps a trifle embarrassed. I know, perhaps, that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), who has been trespassing on parking lots of fried chicken stands and might feel he has been accused of trying to steal Colonel Sander's recipe, would be a little diffident about it.

As the only opposition leader at the present time not trespassing on either government or Colonel Sander's property...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Or who has yet to be busted.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that obstructing a Member on his way to and from the Legislature is an offence, and this Legislature could sit as a court of record. I think that

[ Page 1670 ]

we could point out that the Member in question though that he was doing his duty at 2588 Cadboro Bay Road in Oak Bay, the property of CLEU, the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit, which I understand is now being renamed Scott-land Yard. (Laughter.)

We would like to know, Mr. Speaker, whether or not the Member was taken into custody on the instructions of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) as part of the protective custody arrangements to protect this rather lonesome Member, who is important, of course, to the government strategy and plans; whether there has been a promotion of the individual who arrested him for following the full letter of the law; or, indeed, whether he is being demoted. We feel that would be a question the Attorney-General might like to comment on.

As a final point, Mr. Speaker, we feel he should pay a lot of attention to the question of who released him. Was he released on the instructions of the Attorney-General — or over the objections of the Attorney-General?

I think, Mr. Speaker, these questions are well worthy of your consideration, and I commend them to you.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker.

Oh, dear! What can the matter be? Scotty Wallace locked in the laboratory.... (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nobody seemed to care.

MR. SPEAKER: If you say nobody seemed to care, you are forgetting me. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We are investigating as to who made the release. (Laughter.) The security there entailed that somebody who had been working for a week and left late had, as security required, to lock doors behind him. As this person was leaving, he stepped back to pick up his newspaper, and at that time a man who looked like Sherlock Holmes type if ever there was one, in a raincoat, with keys in his hand, was seen. He assumed that he was a member of the organization. (Laughter.) So he went out and locked the door behind him. I have to apologize to the Hon. Member, and we will make him an honorary member of CLEU. (Laughter.)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I really don't feel that an apology is necessary because the most successful part of the CLEU operation is the security in the buildings, and that's as it should be. (Laughter.)

Introduction of bills.

TRUTH IN AUTOPLAN ACT

On a motion by Mr. Bennett, Bill 67, Truth in Autoplan Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

TURKEY MARKETING CRISIS MEETING

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture regarding the story this morning in the paper about the coming crisis, perhaps, in the turkey marketing industry. I wonder if the Minister has anything to report about the meeting which was held apparently in Victoria this morning and as to whether or not an impasse has been resolved.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): The meeting was held at my request, but I haven't had a report on the meeting yet.

MR. McCLELLAND: Have the government or the Agriculture Minister instructed the government-controlled processing plants, which now make up the majority of processing facilities in the province, to reach some agreement so that the turkey producers are not left out in the cold and are able to move their product?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I can only repeat that this meeting this morning was held at my request.

MR. McCLELLAND: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Premier has instructed the Agriculture Minister to make any agreement with the poultry producers, and has he threatened violence to anyone in the industry?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not today.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask if the Minister has had any indication of whether the egg producers and the broiler growers have approached the government to withdraw quota from Panco Poultry;

HON. MR. STUPICH: Panco Poultry has no egg quota. The broiler board has discussed this with the Department of Agriculture.

CABINET REVIEW OF INDIAN DEMANDS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano):

[ Page 1671 ]

A question to the Premier in his capacity as being in charge of the cabinet agenda. Mr. Premier, in view of the growing disillusionment and unrest in the Indian community caused by the government's statement that they can't decide their position without a thorough cabinet review, will the Premier agree to schedule such a thorough cabinet review and meeting on the subject, say, within the next three months?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I welcome the question. I wish to inform the House that Mr. Judd Buchanan sent a wire which was just received today requesting a meeting, and we are acknowledging that wire today.

MR. GIBSON: To repeat my question, would the Premier agree to schedule such a thorough cabinet review within the next three months?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's no way that I am going to discuss cabinet agenda here. I have enough difficulty discussing it with cabinet.

MR. SPEAKER: I think you realize that you can't ask what cabinet is going to do.

MR. GIBSON: No, Mr. Speaker, I am asking if the Premier is willing to do this, because the government has taken this position that they can't negotiate with the Indians until they have had that meeting. I am asking for that meeting, Mr. Speaker.

GOVERNMENT AD IN GEORGIA STRAIGHT

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier a question with regard to the full page ad on the budget which appeared on page 9 of the Georgia Straight, dated March 13.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Do you read the Georgia Straight?

MR. WALLACE: No, I don't read the Georgia Straight. (Laughter.) A taxpayer does read it and has a very interesting question for the Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Caught in a locked-up building reading the Georgia Straight.

MR. WALLACE: The ad in the Georgia Straight provided financial support for this publication. This taxpayer writes to me: "Was the government aware of the highly erotic classified ad section on page 23 seeking partners for perverted sex practices?"

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have no budgetary provision for that particular activity. We do not determine what each newspaper puts in its newspaper. We advertise and we're not politically elective. We don't want to punish anybody. If we were, we would have to consider the Georgia Straight, The Vancouver Sun, the Province — all those papers who write editorials attacking us. Some of those editorials border on hard-core porno. But I don't mind. I take it in good grace. We advertise in the free press, which we will never interfere with.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Premier is being very flippant about this, but I don't think that's a very fair way to answer a legitimate question from a taxpayer. He is asking the Premier if he believes in spending taxpayers' money to advertise in a publication which also promotes which society surely would accept as being undesirable.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in no way do I determine what society considers to be desirable or undesirable. The laws of this nation determine that. There are things that I consider to be offensive in terms of the daily newspapers showing advertisements by oil companies, by automobile manufacturing companies, by liquor companies; but there is no way we would interfere with the pushing of booze through stupid advertising in the big newspapers or other people advertising other things in free society. If people want to go to blazes on their own carts in a free society, that's their free right. I don't intend to make moral judgments on anybody's behaviour, including the opposition.

FUNDING FOR FARM
INCOME ASSURANCE PLAN

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of Agriculture on the subject of farm income assurance for approximately 130 greenhouse growers on the Saanich peninsula, the lower mainland and, I believe, a few in the Okanagan. Would the Minister tell the House if it is correct that his department has recently informed these growers or their representatives to the effect that the original plan of income assurance, which was apparently agreed to some time ago, has been reduced by something in the order of 50 per cent of the dollars which were to have been made available in 1974?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, many things have been said in communication between staff and the committee negotiating the income assurance. None of this will be official until I sign the letter; I have signed no such letter to the greenhouse growers.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary. Would the Minister indicate to the House if it is likely that the terms which have been discussed between representatives of his department and the representatives of the

[ Page 1672 ]

commodity group will be the terms which will finally be agreed to by the Minister?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, many terms are discussed during the process of negotiation. When the plan is ready for my approval I will take it to cabinet. Until then there is no plan.

EQUAL PAY FOR HOSPITAL PERSONNEL

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, on Monday last I was asked a question by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). He asked whether or not we would do anything regarding the fact that technicians or technologists within the hospital system are being paid more than residents and interns. He didn't put it in those terms but I believe that that's what he meant.

They're not supervising personnel, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to make that clear. Residents and interns are trainees at the hospital. The technicians are supervised by chief technicians, and the chief technicians are supervised by the pathologists. So there is no conflict there whatsoever.

CONSUMER SERVICES DEPARTMENT STATISTICS

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer Services. Are there statisticians and librarians in the various storefront offices of the Department of Consumer Services throughout the province?

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Statisticians and librarians in the various offices?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.

HON. MS. YOUNG: There are in the Victoria office.

MR. PHILLIPS: Prince George?

HON. MS. YOUNG: No. Not to my knowledge.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I have been advised that there are a statistician and a librarian in the Prince George office. I'd like to know if the statistics prepared in these offices by the statisticians and librarians are monitored for accuracy or cross-checked with files or cards before being released by the Minister as statistics?

HON. MS. YOUNG: I'll take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

COMPENSATION FOR EXPENSES
IN CELISTA MOTEL HEARING

MR. GARDOM: A question for the Minister of Health. A couple of days ago the Minister responded to questions from the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) concerning Celista Motel on Shuswap Lake. In that situation parties were successful in obtaining an interim injunction in the public interest before His Honour Judge Lamperson in August, 1974, which was to restrain the use of a field for sewage disposal. Then the government's order-in-council came in on January 23, 1975, which changed the regulations under the Health Act and literally turned legal success before the court into legal failure, and essentially legislated these people out of court by changing the rules in the middle of the trail.

I'd ask the Hon. Minister, since he did see fit to change these rules in midstream, if he is prepared to compensate these well-meaning individuals for the expenses that they have occasioned in these judicial hearings.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar question, I believe, on Monday, though not about the compensation. I would, however, take the Member to issue on this particular situation in that the reason an order-in-council was brought in was because there was no definitive measurement as to what was high water. The judge, as a matter of fact, in that particular case couldn't even come to a verdict on the case. So the Health department decided they'd better make clear the Act, not only for Celista but for the whole province. I think that was absolutely prerequisite. We could have held it off and I'm sure that the judgment would have been held off. As far as any kind of monetary.... If we were to try and reimburse those people, I would say that that would set a precedent that I couldn't recommend to cabinet.

MR. GARDOM: On a supplementary to the Hon. Minister, an injunction was granted by the court, and the position was taken — I'm quoting from the transcript — "that the people were legislated out of the court by the government and that any position taken to maintain the injunction would be untenable as the grounds on which the application was made had been entirely removed." So you emasculated the grounds....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member is entering upon an argument. The Hon. Member for North....

MR. GARDOM: No, I was just.... Mr. Speaker, if I may finish this point....

[ Page 1673 ]

MR. SPEAKER: There's no question....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: You are making a speech, Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: I am not, Mr. Speaker. I am raising a supplementary question, if you will just bear with me and let me finish it, I would ask the Minister if he doesn't consider this to be interfering with the administration of justice.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This asking for a solution to a legal problem is really not the jurisdiction of this Minister.

TRANSFER OF INMATES FROM
HANEY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Hon. Attorney-General. Recently, Mr. Attorney-General, you announced plans to phase out Haney Correctional Institute and transfer the person incarcerated there to other centres in the Province of British Columbia. Will the Attorney-General inform the House what other centres he plans to use in this programme?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Jordan River, a few in Oakalla, and other community correctional centres.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oakalla!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A few. You know, there are some older people in the Haney Correctional Institute — not very many, maybe seven or eight. They are not all youngsters or even young adults, so I don't rule out that maybe some close custody may be necessary for some. Then some will be in community correctional centres close to, where they live, which is one of the objectives of this government, including, say, the Prince George area, and things of that kind.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question: has the Attorney-General, or any department of government acting on behalf of the Attorney-General's department, recently purchased property and buildings in Terrace to accommodate this programme?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll take that as notice.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison).

MR. SMITH: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to recognize the Hon. First Member for Victoria. He has been trying very hard to get the floor.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, there has to be a break sometime.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You two fellows get it together over there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would like to recognize the Hon. Member.

CHANGE IN HIGHWAY 1 TERMINUS

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is addressed to the Minister of Highways. Now that the British Columbia government has acquired a new ferry, the Princess Margaret, under the Lands, Forests and Water Resources department, and paid for through the Green Belt Protection Fund, I wonder if he could advise the House if the Highway 1 terminus will now be changed to the Victoria ferry dock or left at the end of Douglas Street at the waterfront.

HON. MR. BARRETT: "Marguerite" is the name, Mr. Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: I said "Marguerite." I'm sorry.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): I'll take that as notice.

COST OF MARGUERITE REFIT

MR. CURTIS: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: on the same subject. The Princess Marguerite is now undergoing refit and some alteration in preparation for the 1975 season. Would the Minister indicate the approximate dollar amount of the cost of this renovation and refit work for this season?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I would really like to know if the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands is in favour of this particular programme. It is not clear if Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has taken a stand on this important matter in the capital region. It is most unfortunate to hear the silence from the Victoria and the Esquimalt ranks.

We expect that the costs will be most acceptable and endorsed by the people of the capital region.

[ Page 1674 ]

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply: Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
THE PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

On vote 189: Minister's office, $76,595.

Interjections.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, first bring to order these people who haven't got the floor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. Will the Hon. Members come to order, please.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are going to have a short discussion on the Department of the Provincial Secretary. This Minister is also the Minister of Travel Industry, so I assume that we can talk about both, and we will.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Ask him about the Princess Marguerite.

MR. FRASER: Yes, maybe we can get into the Marguerite on this vote as well.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Are you in favour in the Marguerite purchase?

MR. WALLACE: Sure!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We would like to hear from the Member for Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: Thank you. We are talking here about $85 million, which is a lot of money, but it works out that we will discuss it at the rate of about $20 million to $25 million an hour; then we will, of course, end up without passing the vote. But I would like to deal with a few things, and first of all, in the Department of the Provincial Secretary, ask a few questions. I would like to start off on the library services in the province.

It is my understanding that some two years ago a new library project was announced by the Provincial Secretary which in effect regionalized the library service throughout the province. I was never clear on how many regional library districts would come out of it, but on the regional district level we have 28 regional districts. I think the policy on the library was to amalgamate two regional districts to become one library district. So we could be looking at, say, 14 regional library districts.

The question I would like to ask is how that has proceeded. If 14 were envisaged, how many were actually in existence today? I've had problems in my riding of the Cariboo, and I have reason to believe that this policy is not developing in the way that was originally thought. In other words, there is resistance to the policy. I would like the Provincial Secretary to advise the House how many of these regional library districts have actually started to function.

I can relate what has happened in the interior. In the one area that I have the honour to represent, the Cariboo Regional District was to go in with the Thompson-Nicola, and that hasn't happened. I know the reason why it hasn't happened, and I don't agree that there on the local level the Cariboo Regional District has even denied the citizens of the Cariboo a vote. I appreciate the Minister's position on that. I think we agree there that this is certainly what should happen, and it hasn't happened so far — that is, having a vote.

But while all this is going on — and it's over a year now — library service is starting to get into difficulty to the point that the open-shelf library service has discontinued. That is conducted by the provincial government. Now the citizens are becoming not alarmed but wondering just where this impasse will be broken. So I would like to hear from the Minister on that. Really, does he feel that it is developing successfully throughout the province, or is this just one isolated area where there are difficulties?

I do think that the subject put to the voters, the 1.5 mills for library, is a bit rich. I think there is going to be difficulty when it does face the voters. But I would like to ask the Minister if the library commission, which comes under him, is reconsidering anything — more specifically, lowering the mill rate that is put before the voters from 1.5 mills to probably give it an assist in getting an affirmative reply from the voters.

In this vote today, Mr. Chairman, we have some new items here. One of the new items we've never had before is the office of the planning adviser to the cabinet. This vote is new, the first time we've ever had it, and it's in the amount of $276,131. I assume that this is Mr. Eliesen, who has recently come to British Columbia, and the staff support. But I would like to know if this is so. My concern is whether, as adviser to the cabinet, he supersedes all other advisers to cabinet. The one I'm particularly thinking of is the Deputy Minister of Finance. Where is his position with regard to the Deputy Minister of Finance? He's quite a senior public servant, and I would like to know just where this gentleman fits in?

Another item that comes under this Minister, and which I think has been quite successful, was set up by the prior administration and continued on by this Minister. I refer to the First Citizens' Fund. I hope

[ Page 1675 ]

that the Minister will have something to say about that, how it's progressing and whether it is still well funded, or just what the case is. I realize that grants made are of great assistance to our first citizens.

Another item in here that I'd like a little explanation from the Minister on for the House is the item of Grants, Etc. In the amount of $2,180,000. That seems to be a fairly large amount of money to be described and spent under that title of Grants, Etc. So I would look forward to the Minister probably giving us more information than appears in our books on that.

The other item I have to ask some questions of is under the historic sites protection Act. This is where the funds come from for the Fort Steele restoration, the Barkerville restoration, and so on. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that these are very successful projects. What I would like to know — and it isn't broken down — is whether the funding for Barkerville and Fort Steele is the same as last year, or is there any increase? These restorations have been highly successful, well patronized by the tourists and also our own citizens, and I would like to know if the funding is up for the individual projects.

A few years ago the government of the Province of British Columbia had Essondale Farm, and on that farm they had some fine animals, including purebred Clydesdale horses. I lost a battle here in 1970 or 1971 when they were getting rid of the livestock at Essondale. I lost to the now Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) and they ended up in the bush there at Fort Steele — all these beautiful Clydesdales. I asked at the time that some go to Barkerville. Now I believe there are two or three of these animals at Cottonwood, which is on the road from Quesnel to Barkerville. I'd like to know what plans there are for these animals this year. Are they going to be on display? I believe they had the animals last year and nobody supplied any money to buy harness for them. I would like to know if they're going to have harness for them this year and have them so the public can see these beautiful animals.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Well, maybe all the harness is in Fort Steele; I don't know.

While we're on historic sites, I'm sorry that the Member for Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Hartley) is not in his place — the Minister of Public Works. I guess he's busy getting ready to defend himself tonight when his estimates come up. I want to refer to the announcement made by the Provincial Secretary's office that Yale is going to be a resort. I got quite a kick out of that. I understand that the MLA for Yale-Lillooet was quite upset over this announcement because he didn't make it. There have been a lot of conflicting stories about it — that this department is going to buy out people in Yale.... That leads me to the question: is money provided in here for making purchases in Yale? Overall, what are the plans of the Minister for the historic community of Yale for this year and in the future?

The other item in this vote which is up quite substantially is under the section titled Provincial Elections Act. Last year the budget was $165,000 for the Provincial Elections Act; this budget is $539,000. My question is: what is this money going to be used for, this additional $300,000 odd? Is this in preparation for an election? What kind of preparation is this really big 200 per cent or so increase for — to set up the machinery for a coming election? In what way are they going to use this money?

Those are just a few points in this large portfolio. I'd like to go now to the Travel Industry portion of this Minister's responsibilities. Again here we see an increase from $5 million-odd to $8 million in the travel industry budget. I would like to hear something about the recreation side that appears in this vote — the promotion of amateur sports, et cetera. Being more specific, I believe this Minister's had the request, but now we have no end of requests for travelling teams of young people in sports activities, whether it be basketball, hockey, and so on. We have these young teams, amateurs, winning the title in British Columbia, and then they're strapped for funds if they have to travel to a national event — say to the Province of Quebec. I know I certainly have had these requests as an MLA, and I'm sure that every MLA has had them. I don't think there's any provision in this.... It's not the intent in this department. My question really is: are they planning to be able to assist these worthy endeavours of young people in the amateur sports?

The other thing that appears in this portfolio which is of great importance to all British Columbians is the tourist industry. I believe the Minister, if he was quoted correctly the other day, said that tourism will replace the mining industry as our second industry in the province at the rate of its growth. I'm happy in one way that this is happening, but surprised that the Minister didn't go on to say that it's because of his government's legislation that the mining industry's going down. What I would like to know is what you anticipate will be the income from tourism this year as compared to last year, The other thing is that I feet we have, at the regional level in tourism, a group of good citizens. I notice again in this budget that the amount of grants for the regional level of tourism has advanced from $350,000 to $400,000. Mr. Minister, that doesn't even look after inflation. They have their problems and I would like to hear from you how you would arrive at a figure like that, a very small increase.

I really think that at the regional level the local citizens, who are a lot of volunteers, are doing an

[ Page 1676 ]

excellent job of promoting tourism not only in British Columbia but going to all parts of the world. I know that they have been strapped for funds. It might be that they're not applying as they are supposed to apply for their matching grants. I would like to end now and, hopefully, you will be able to answer some of the questions I've put up.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): May I deal with them in simple reverse order and deal with the last question first? The question of grants to the regions for tourist development is a good point. Everybody wants more money. We received a great deal of input from the various regions. As you know, they're well represented on the provincial tourist advisory council. No question; we could have used a bit more money. That's true all over the place. However, we have a responsibility to try and budget in terms of going to the first rounds of talks in Treasury Board in a way that would accomplish continuation of essential programmes and leave a little bit of money loose for new ideas.

Frankly, what we're facing here is that we've got a good thing going in most of the area in the middle months of the year. Really now, rather than just giving more money after more money after more money — because most of them are working reasonably well and accomplishing a great deal — we're looking now for some response to come that would make sure that our tourist season is expanded to bring up the shoulders of these peaks. If we don't do that, we're going to just keep on causing trouble for Graham Lea, the Minister of Highways and for the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). I have a great deal of sympathy for their position in terms that they have the on-line job of handling those problems.

If we don't do that as well, you and I won't be able to go into nice coffee shops, have a nice glass of apple juice in a nice place served by a nice person who is earning a nice piece of change as a wage. Unless we have an industry that is fully efficient, fully supported, viable throughout the year, we're going to have that kind of inefficiency of operation that will lead people not to build accommodation here in British Columbia. If we're a seasonal 75-day tourist operation in this province, we're not going to get the kind of accommodation we should have. Before I simply keep on adding in an incremental way to line-by-line budgeting, I want to see some ideas back to make sure people are travelling around the province at the right time.

Next one: tourism as the second industry. I think we're going to get there. This was first predicted by Kiernan — your old friend, Ken. I don't know whether he was attacking Mr. Brothers or the Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) at the time, but I don't think I'm getting after my friend from the Kootenay (Hon. Mr. Nimsick). I'm saying that it's inevitable, given the kind of facilities, the kind of province we live in, world travel, a disposable income, the shrinking globe, that tourism will inevitably, in my mind, replace mining as the second industry of the province.

At the time we had to give the figures to make up the throne speech, we thought it was $700 million worth of business in this province. We've rechecked the figures, and it's $859 million worth of business in 1974. I'm looking seriously, in view of the predictions from the departments, at closing in on that magic figure, the big chunk — the billion. And we're going to get somewhere in that neighbourhood.

Travel in terms of recreation. No question about it, one of the biggest problems in our department, both Travel Industry and Provincial Secretary, has been the request for people to go from place to place. We've had a hard line out: if you're a championship team you're representing the province, you're doing something of real significance and we'll find the money somehow. Most of it came from that discretionary grant vote that you were asking questions about in a question that I'll come to in a few seconds.

That's not good enough, because it means that if you're not careful, you serve the kind of elitism that only the winners travel, and only the hot shots get anywhere. There's no reason why good participants in some leisure activity from the Queen Charlotte Islands or from the flood plains shouldn't go somewhere, even though they may not be wearing the gold medal on their chests.

What I've been able to do is to develop now — and we're just at the final stage of it — a formula approach with the money that is being generated by the lottery fund. What I promised and what I'm committed to is that lottery money would be split three ways: one for culture leaning towards fine arts, one for recreation leading to what you've been talking about, and a middle for heritage and those kinds of developments.

Yale: We're looking at it generally. Yale is a very important part of British Columbia's history and we'd be very foolish if we were not on top of the job and watched what is going on in Yale. We're not making any hassles. If anybody tries to give us a bad time in terms of money, we just withdraw. We're not being whipsawed up or anything like that. But we don't intend to see an opportunity pass by. No matter which government is in power, we have a responsibility to the future generations to make sure the past is enshrined, and that's what we're trying to do at Yale.

Horses — Clydesdales. The Provincial Secretary of the previous government, Wes Black, took these beasts when nobody else would touch them. You and the Member for Kootenay (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) no

[ Page 1677 ]

doubt — I remember the debate — both thought they would be an attraction. You were right, and the other Ministers in your old government should have been more alert. My predecessor decided to put them at Fort Steele and they went there.

As you know, there's been some reproduction going on at Fort Steele and we've got a more numerous group of horses — letting nature take its course. Some of them now are at Cottonwood. The reason they are at Cottonwood and not at Barkerville is that we're trying to really mirror-image what happened. You weren't around at the time, I'm sure — although sometimes you tell me that you've been around long enough for me to believe you were there.

Cottonwood historically was the place where the food was produced for Barkerville, so it makes sense to get those beasts there and try and see if we can develop that kind of mirroring of the past, as we've done with the Royal Hudson and some nostalgia over the Princess Marguerite and so on and so forth.

Okay, now back into the Department of the Provincial Secretary — historic sites — Fort Steele and Barkerville, the details you were asking about. We've just continued the levels of operation. We're making good progress — they're very popular. The actual details: $440,000 will be expended in Barkerville/Cottonwood; $350,000 will be expended in Fort Steele. So this year you're beating your opponent from the Kootenays by about $90,000.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: Let me just finish this sheet off; I'll be up and down all afternoon.

The First Citizens' Fund. Frankly, I'm not happy with all that I see and observe about the First Citizens' Fund. I'd like to spend a second talking about it, if I may. The trouble with the First Citizens' Fund — and this bedevilled the previous government, as it's troubling us — is that when you get a fund which is so closely identified with a group of people, there is an inevitable tendency among the decision-makers — and that starts at some level in the bureaucracy and finishes up on my colleague's desk, that when an application comes in that has something to do with, in this case, Indians, there is a tendency to look at it: "Oh, well, there's a fund for Indians — off you trot."

The First Citizens' Fund is receiving requests for assistance which I maintain should legitimately go to some of my colleagues. I'm having, as you all realize — and this is what the business of government is about — difficulties from time to time in trying to ensure that things are looked at on their merits in a functional way rather than simply they happen to be attached to the word "Indian." That's point one.

Point two is that there never have been first-class policy guidelines laid down for this fund to support cultural activity. That's now taking place and we're getting input.

The next thing is that when I first came into office wasn't happy with the structure of the committee. We made rapid changes. I should advise you that Mrs. Gottfriedson, Mr. Helin, Mrs. Miller, Mr. Pierre, Mrs. Pearle Pearson and Mr. James Sewid, from Kamloops, Nanaimo, Vancouver, Cranbrook, Queen Charlotte City, Alert Bay, and so on, are active members of the community to which the fund refers. They know the community well. We're under some pressure from the organized groups that they should be entitled to name committee members or directors, if you would use the word in a descriptive way, of these funds. I don't know whether that's the right way to go either.

But the First Citizens' Fund is an alive affair, and discussions are going on. I met with the committee very, very recently to develop some of those things hat you are talking about. I don't think anybody can be absolutely 100 per cent pleased with the activities in the sense that we should all be doing better and making sure that we don't get these awkward things.

For instance, I think it was at Burns Lake, or some area like that, where they wanted industrial support for an industry that only by longest stretch of the imagination could you describe as really being cultural. I can stretch it a bit in terms of trying to get on with the job and trying to get some achievement going.

The question about the First Citizens' Fund is timely. I think I'm reporting good progress, but I'm still not totally satisfied by any stretch of the imagination.

Next, the question about vote 191: planning adviser to the cabinet. You were right in naming the gentleman, colloquially called "the Exorcist." Mr. Eliesen is paid at the level of a Deputy Minister. He has supporting him two or three senior officers, a research officer, a secretary and a clerk. The total vote for the operation is $276,000. I don't, frankly, think we're overpaying anybody in terms of getting that kind of cabinet infrastructure together in this day and age.

We established the positions; their tasks are policy analysis, the research and co-ordination of expenditures, advising us on federal-provincial things and other intergovernmental things. But more importantly, in my view, they are assisting cabinet committees, which we're now, frankly, restructuring and redefining all the time so that we can do our business in a co-ordinated way.

You asked specifically, however, what the area of contact and responsibility was vis-à-vis the Deputy Minister of Finance.

I think it's fair to say that Mr. Eliesen attends committee meetings with the Deputy Minister of Finance. Mr. Bryson gives us the facts, the numbers, and Mr. Eliesen assists us in determining the impact

[ Page 1678 ]

of those numbers on our past or future policies. There is no conflict. They come from two different areas of endeavour to give us a joint submission so that we, as the Treasury Board — and I happen to be on the Treasury Board, as you know — can make some solution. I think it is working very well and I think that the apparatus that we have assembled over two and a half years is now starting.... There has obviously been comment about that, and I would be foolish to ignore it, but the Liberal Party and others have made mention of it. It's working much better than it was when there was simple on-the-job training in the first month of our office. Anybody is going to find that out, wherever it is and in whatever jurisdiction. I am not suggesting that there is any other method of getting on these benches but getting elected and then going through a period of on-the-job training either. There is nothing wrong with that as far as our system is concerned, Your first question to me was about the library service. That is a continuing problem in your area, Mr. Member, but I think I should spend a little time discussing what has happened, if I may, on the development of library services because I haven't really spoken about it for quite some time. If I can find the right vote, I will take you through the history. I think it's vote 196 and it goes thusly.

First of all there was a five-year programme developed by the Library Development Commission which never really received the endorsation of anybody — it just lay around. I asked for that to be retooled and represented, discussed, and I eventually adopted and announced its adoption as government policy. It seeks to provide library services on a province-wide basis using 10 integrated library systems, and that embraces the total area of 27 regional districts and the Stikine area plus one federated library system in greater Vancouver and a provincial resource centre to give backup service to those 11 systems.

We are not starting from scratch. Library service for years has been organized at the municipal level, to a very sophisticated degree in some areas. There have been three regional library services operating for almost 40 years. We have nearly 50 smaller libraries, half of which have been working cooperatively under the commissions and the staff since the '40s. This programme — and we give it the name "the" programme, the definite article — offers a greater degree of cooperative service to everybody in the province. We've guaranteed substantial financial support from the province as well as from the local authorities.

Now once you develop a system like that and you say, "These are the ground rules for getting in," if somebody comes to you first time off and says, "Look, I like the system, but I don't like the ground rules — change them and we'll join," the results are chaos. You have to stick with it. You have got to say, "Now, look, if you want to join those are the rules, and you must obey the rules," not in a dictatorial, fist-slamming way, but that was the policy that was adopted and accepted by lots of areas.

Now one new system has been established since I came to office, and it is working very well in the Thompson-Nicola Regional District. We are hopeful it is going to operate in the near future in the Cariboo as well, because that's the way it should have gone in the first place. The blueprint is ready as soon as the day of local decision takes place. I should advise the House that the regional group in the Cariboo, in the Member's area — and I want to publicly again record my thanks to the Member for sticking with it on our side of this argument, that is, the Library Development Commission's side of the argument — by one vote defeated the idea of having a public vote. Now I think that's pretty grim and I wasn't prepared to move that by one vote...

MR. FRASER: The regional directors.

HON. MR. HALL: ...of the regional directors, by a. difference of one vote, the whole of the area was disallowed to express its opinion. Now they have come to us with all sorts of proposals as to how they want to get back in on the deal but with certain changes. One of the changes that the Hon. Member's area wants is to develop, and to have as a condition of entry, a user charge. Now we've nailed down whether there is a user charge for libraries a long, long time ago, and there is no question in my mind that their brief failed on that one account alone, let alone anything else.

Now I understand that the Member has been active and busy and he's been doing a little massage here and there. I have been sending a few messages down the pipe and I think they're going to have a vote, and I think we are going to see a good, integrated library system in the Cariboo, Thompson, Nicola areas.

The next system is likely to the southeast which will serve the regional districts of East Kootenay, Central Kootenay and Kootenay-Boundary, where we are presently doing the field work. Local interest is growing in the Okanagan, the north-central area east and west of Prince George, and the north coast, including the Queen Charlottes and the Peace River. I think, frankly, that's the only way to go.

I will end this first round of answers to the Member by just commenting on what is now becoming a sort of by rote remark when they open estimates. You said, Mr. Member, that we were going to expend this money at $25 million an hour. I don't want to get involved in the argument today about estimates and the rules of the House, but may I tell you that if you expend the money at $25 million an hour today, you will slow down your rate of

[ Page 1679 ]

expenditure in my two departments by about 1,000 per cent.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I don't precisely know what the Provincial Secretary meant by the financial juggling that went on just at the end of his speech. Perhaps I will take my $12.5 million worth of time, if that is the way it is to be calculated. I'm not exactly sure. I would like to take a little less than 30 minutes, as I have done with every other Minister, so perhaps we can deal with some of the actual totals.

Mr. Chairman, before I start, may I thank you for your change of policy which allowed the Provincial Secretary to refer to a specific vote under his heading in his salary vote. The previous practice would have made the estimates debate even more unworkable than it is at the present time or has been. To allow the Provincial Secretary to do this and to allow us to do this will at least make it possible to simply do a bad job instead of a terrible job in the estimates debate.

The Provincial Secretary, having used up, I guess, about half a million dollars worth of time, is responsible for a very large number of things. He gets the grab bag, the odds and ends that come up. I would like to start off, as I normally do, by congratulating Ministers where they deserve praise, and congratulate him for the appointment of Mr. Marc Eliesen and the planning division which we find here in one of the Provincial Secretary's votes — if only I can find it. I think it's....

AN HON. MEMBER: It's 191.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Ah, 191. Thanks very much.

I think it's a very, very important thing that we have a gentleman to do this job. I've no wish to comment on the civil servant's position one way or another, but I think it is important that the job is occupied and the government realizes the need for a planning and co-ordination division within the Provincial Secretary's department.

Again, naming no names, it is well known that this job was previously handled entirely by one man who was responsible for just about everything that went on in the province, namely the Deputy to the Provincial Secretary. I think it is a recognition of the increasing need for some co-ordination at the cabinet level and perhaps a recognition of the enormous competence of the Deputy Provincial Secretary (Mr. Wallace) that for so long he was able to carry this burden single-handed.

I think the government should have this division. Again, no comments as to who is in it, no comments as to how much it cost, but certainly when the government spends $3.22 billion, when the government has had reverses, to-ing and fro-ing, and backing and filling, which this Minister last year at this very time over daylight saving gave us such a stirring and classic example, I think it is very necessary to have a planning division, a group of people who take a hard, cold look, perhaps, and restrain the enthusiasm of the politicians in cabinet. So let me congratulate the Minister for setting this up. That cost another half-million.

Let me now deal with another subject for which this Minister is responsible, namely negotiations. I raised a question earlier this week with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke). I actually raised it with him because the Provincial Secretary was out of the chamber that particular day. I raised it concerning technicians being paid more than the supervisory, personnel who oversee the work of the technicians, The Minister of Health came back with an answer today which, while it may — and I'm not convinced of this — solve the specific case within his department, really does not detract at all from the' general problem which I raised and of which I am sure the Provincial Secretary is fully aware. We do have situations where the person being supervised is paid substantially more than the supervisor.

Let me give you an example in the engineering, technical and inspection group. The ETI 1 is $816 per month; 4 is $933; ETI 12 is $2,205. Engineer 1 is $860, some $44 more than the starting salary for the technician, for the university graduate engineer. Engineer 6, the upper level, is $1,907. So without going into the ins and outs of the Health department, we have there a pretty good example of supervisory personnel in a situation where they can be overseeing the work of the people below them and who are paid less.

I know this can happen in government services. I remember a good case at the airport, in — the federal service, which I took up at the time I was a federal Member. It does happen, and I would like to know what the Minister is doing to make sure this does not become a real bone of contention. It is all very well for me to tell him that it happens, and for him to say', "Yes, I agree. It happens." But the fact of the matter is that it does affect the morale. It seriously affects the happiness on the job of these particular people. I would like him to tell us what steps he is taking to make sure this doesn't happen on a continuing basis and that these grievances are only fleeting and temporary.

While I am on the subject of professional employees, I would ask the Provincial Secretary to give us some explanation of the incredible performance of the government with relation to the B.C. Government Professional Employees Association. To refresh the minds of other Members as well as of the Minister, we know that the bargaining group of the government and the

[ Page 1680 ]

bargaining group of this association got together and hammered out some sort of agreement. It went to cabinet for ratification — if I can deal with it as briefly as I can — and it was rejected. So the poor union found itself defending clauses which it originally objected to but had accepted in a spirit of goodwill. It found it then had to go out and try to defend those clauses, put in by the government, against an attack by the government at a later time. It was a really weird situation. There were 90 clauses affected, so I'm told.

I wonder whether the Provincial Secretary would perhaps at this stage like to start off by reaffirming his statement, which I find in the November 6, 1973, Hansard, page 1318, dealing with collective bargaining. The Minister will recall with, of course, crystal clarity that he and I at that time were discussing the question of who should be included in groups for bargaining within the civil service. I raised the point that there were a certain number of groups in confidential positions, and others who should be excluded. The Hon. Mr. Hall talked about: "In fact the Premier is often on record as saying that everyone should be in the union, right up to the Deputy Minister." Well, we've not gone that far; hopefully he's out, but we won't tell him at the moment.

This is a little garbled. He was interrupted, I understand. But the fact of the matter was that he was telling me how far they wanted to go. And it appears to me now that he has backed off, substantially backed off the position he took in 1973. 1 felt at that time that he had not understood some of the difficulties he was talking about.

I think it's time for another clarification of government position because the professional employees association took the government at its word then, and the professional employees certainly did. They then went into collective bargaining. They hammered out a tentative agreement. They got it thrown back at them and they're now, as I said, in that weird position where they are now trying to defend government-proposed clauses, which they didn't particularly want, from the government itself, which has now changed its mind as to what it wants.

I would like in particular to have the Provincial Secretary talk about the loyalty clause to the government. He knows what I'm referring to. It was in the original agreement, and perhaps he would like to say a word about the government's attitude towards that loyalty clause or loyalty statement. Obviously, provincial civil servants should be loyal to their employer, just as indeed all should. Perhaps you'd like to say a word on that particular situation.

Now another subject I'd like to raise is the question of superannuating in the civil service which is, again, under the Provincial Secretary's vote. I would like to plead the case for those civil servants who retired some years ago. I've done this before, and I do it again. It's great to work out new systems of pension, new systems of salary with existing civil servants. But in my view the government has a very, very real responsibility to people who have worked for the government for many years. I have in my hand a letter; I'd like to read part of it; I've been unable to check the figures in this, but I would like to point out the difficulties that some of these people are running into by way of quoting someone who is in that position.

"Dear Sir: I am writing this letter on the futility of contributory pensions. My husband and I worked for the B.C. government for 36 years between us. We retired early last year and find that owing to inflation our pension is inadequate. On writing to Ernest Hall, Minister of government pensions, to inquire if the retired employees' pensions would be raised, the answer was: not at this time. I understand that there has been no change since '71, when they received a 3.5 per cent...."

Now that, of course, I believe is not correct in terms of detail, but it is indicative of the problems facing these people. I would like to know what formula the government and the Provincial Secretary will be using to make sure that the retired, former civil servants get cost of living increases, get increases in their pensions, so that they, at least, do not fall further behind the civil servants who retire at the present time.

Mr. Chairman, I just would like to interrupt my speech. As there are no Members for Vancouver Centre in the room, I'd like to introduce to the House Evan Wolfe, a former Member for Vancouver Centre, who is sitting up there. If we don't get better attendance from the Members for Vancouver Centre, no doubt he will find his way back to the floor.

Now a word or two about another subject. We realize that the Minister of Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is itching to get his teeth into his job in London as agent-general. I wonder whether the really substantial increases for representation, for a new car and these things for the agent-general in London are related to this particular gentleman. It seems that we're having an enormous increase in the agent-general's costs. It's not the first year this has happened, It's happened every year this government has been in. I wonder whether or not the agent-general is entering into new responsibilities, or whether it's just the inflation in Britain, or whether or not we're having any real analysis of the importance of that job.

Mr. Provincial Secretary, the agent-general's office was set up many, many years ago when the provinces were looking for capital abroad. It may be that it fulfils that function well now. It may be that it doesn't. But I would like to know whether or not we are analyzing it in terms of its function and the role

[ Page 1681 ]

and the duties that it carries out and whether or not we are getting our money's worth.

So many of these things simply continue to exist, as the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) found when he went down to San Francisco. He came back saying that the office was just there and it wasn't doing anything. I wonder whether we are doing any study of the London office along that line. It is now becoming a very expensive office, and I wonder whether it is really needed. I would like to know what studies are being undertaken to determine this.

The place may well be prepared for the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan), who is in the House today. We appreciate his company. But is he just enjoying his last hours here, and is he then off to London?

Mr. Chairman, vote 196, the Library Development Commission, was touched on by the Minister, but I would like to use this as an example of a problem we face in terms of the government increases in expenditure.

You have here a very substantial increase in expenditure. Under salaries, four more people were hired, bringing the number from 42 to 46. But salaries have gone up at an enormous rate in this particular vote from $392,602 to S614,3 11 — a very, very substantial increase here. Yet, Mr. Chairman, when we come down to the guts of the library work, what I would think it would be — namely, the books, the bindings the periodicals, the printing and the publication under code vote numbers 013 and 018 — we discover that these are unchanged at $305,000. We have enormous increases in the amount of money for people; very little, indeed nothing here, in the actual product, if I could use that term somewhat loosely. The fact is that with inflation there will be less.

It is the type of thing that gives us concern. I would appreciate some words by the Provincial Secretary on this, because in dealing with that library vote as he did, he did not in any way touch on this particular problem. We seem to be getting more people, we seem to be paying them more, but the amount of money going out in actual services, the amount delivered to the public, appears to be declining.

Mr. Chairman, the vote of the Minister is very high under the heading of Public Service Commission. Last year, $1,714,000; this year, $8,722,000 — a 400 or 500 per cent increase. Much of this is explicable in terms of the public service grievance board and things, of that nature, the public service benefits trust. But the fact is that when you get down to the grievance board, we have had, so far as I know, no appointments. Thus, when Mr. Stanley Knight and his friends were unceremoniously fired, when they had their probationary period terminated in a way which was well against the standard procedure of the civil service, there were no grievance board appointments under the legislation that we ourselves passed in this House. We are using the old legislation because no appointments have been made. I would like to know when those appointments are coming forward.

It is great to listen to Ministers recount the virtues of the legislation they are presenting to the House, but when they don't implement it, when they don't make the appointments that bring that legislation into force, you wonder whether or not we were discussing the proverbial $4 bill. I suspect that there has been something similar in this instance.

The public service grievance board is important. The appointments to it are important. Just to say, "well, we are using the old procedure," doesn't make any sense, because people are now being appointed under the new Act. It just seems that we are going to have to clear up this business and get on to the new system as soon as we can.

As I mentioned before in this House, there is no question in my mind that the procedures for the hiring as well as the firing of Stanley Knight and his friends were irregular. There is no question that they were not given the opportunity of seeing their assessments done on them, the assessment forms of the Public Service Commission. There is no question that all of them who were considered unsatisfactory were not given the opportunity of taking the three-month period to pull up their socks, a right granted to civil servants generally. There is no question that none of that took place. Then, when I looked into the matter to have these people go to the public service grievance board, I discovered no appointments under the new legislation.

That is simply not good enough. We can understand the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mrs. Dailly's) desire to get some people out of her hair whom she didn't particularly like. We can understand her personal feelings, because it was, I think, a personal matter. But in terms of the civil service, in terms of the structure of the civil service and the fairness of the government in treating civil servants, this has been a very, very shabby business indeed.

I'm sure the Minister won't want to comment upon the firings done by his colleague which were, no question about it, against all the practices of the civil service commission. He won't want to comment on that aspect, but perhaps he will tell us when we are going to get appointments to that grievance board.

The grievance board and the proper functioning of the government, when handling things like termination of probation or firing, becomes increasingly important as we get a more and more professional civil service. The retrogressive step for essentially political reasons of the Minister of Education should, in my mind, have been vigorously criticized by the Minister responsible for the morale of the civil service and for what goes on in those

[ Page 1682 ]

many thousand people who make the backbone of the Province of British Columbia's public service.

These are a few questions, Mr. Chairman. I'm well within my time limit. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on them.

HON. MR. HALL: May I explain to the Member, who didn't seem to appreciate my point when I closed the previous round of answers, that you can talk all you like about how much money you're spending as each minute goes past, but in terms of scrutiny of my estimates and the terms of the length of time given to the scrutiny of those estimates, you'll have to speak about 10 minutes longer than you've ever spoken before to fill the time that has been allocated you today. Normally you've looked at my estimates, in one year, for seven and a half minutes, so it seems to come passing strange that a lot of time is spent discussing how much time is available to you when you've been content to see the kind of rates of expenditure in this department without so much as a raised eyebrow before.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: I just wanted to get that on the record because you like to make a few political points and so do I.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HALL: I listened to you in silence. Don't start all over again.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: The Member congratulated me because I was going to answer questions and he was all very nice and encouraging. He congratulated me, and then he spent 10 of his minutes, completely out of order, discussing the conduct of another Minister and trying to tease this House as to whether I should make any comment about the firing of somebody, and 0 the rest of it. If that's the kind of double standard you set for yourself, Mr. Member, don't expect me to follow.

The second thing is about the Public Service Commission and the grievance board. The Member didn't even read the material. He keeps on saying that Dr. Knight and his friends have to go before the public service grievance board. Mr. Member, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. You're wrong every time you talk about it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: Now, just listen and you'll learn something. The five members, apart from Dr. Knight, who have been dismissed from the service in terms of probationary period do not have to go before the public service grievance board.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have to.

HON. MR. HALL: They do not, sir. They are covered by the collective agreement and they have a grievance procedure laid down in the Act. I advise you to ask your researcher to work it out for you.

Dr. Knight does have to go before some sort of tribunal. We have not appointed a public service grievance board. In every piece of legislation passed by this House that takes a length of time to come into operation, there is a transitional section. If any one of the steps has not yet come to pass.... The Member says he's a parliamentarian; he's always lecturing us about what happens in other places. I advise you to read the Act again. Justice will be served. Dr. Knight will have his hearing, as laid down by statutes of....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Law.

HON. MR. HALL: ...this government, of this province, that your party has supported year in and year out.

Now, your specific question was: when will the public service grievance board be appointed? My answer to you is: in the fulness of time. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The fullest time we've got.

HON. MR. HALL: The next question had to deal with library development in the province. The Member looked at the two votes and he made a cursory examination, obviously, of the details. I wish they would get a critic established on that side of the House for this department. He just looked casually at the incremental increases.

The Library Development Commission's job is not to provide books, in the main. The Library Development Commission's job is to nurture, to persuade, to set down standards, to help to develop, to encourage the development of standards. At the same time, it provides a level of service in terms of grants on periodicals and things like that. But its main job is work — work and suasion. I think it's doing a successful job and is, as far as my intelligence tells me — and I travel around the province a great deal; I talk to the library people all over the province — it's being received with a great deal of enthusiasm. I notice by the support that the previous questioner gave to this whole idea, it is doing fairly well.

The next question deals with the agent-general. Again, I will refer you, Mr. Chairman, to the kind of remarks that were passed about who might fill that

[ Page 1683 ]

post and that kind of political showmanship. If we want to get answers to these departments, I suggest we get down to our work the way we should do.

The agent-general is a position in London, U.K. There's no resemblance at all to anything that was in San Francisco or California. My colleagues visited down there in 1972 to examine what was happening in the trade development office or the tourist development office. It had nothing at all to do with the question of a B.C. House or a question of an agent-general in London.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: I will answer the questions. Don't get into an uproar.

The first thing we had to do, when we looked at the budget this year, was to look at the incredible rate of inflation that is taking place in Europe. Let me advise you of the figures. For instance, postage rates in the U.K. Increased 50 per cent; telephone charges up 30 per cent; stationery and printing charges — the sharpest increase of all in that office — increasing from 40 to 100 per cent. Maintenance charges on office equipment: we've looked at the whole gamut of the basic operational expenses there, and that reflects inflationary costs.

Secondly, we have now completed a thorough study of the wages,, the working conditions — a policy which has never been done before by the previous government — in terms of offshore personnel work, in terms of how they're protected against illness, in terms of how we can effectively deal with those people who work out of this country. The Member knows well that the federal government has to grapple with the same problem. We've used the federal government formula in many instances to try and establish base rates.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Did you table that report?

HON. MR. HALL: I'll certainly search the files and put all the stuff I can put down for you, and I'll certainly file copies of the policy statement.

We then looked at the U.K. nationals that happen to work here, because of trade qualifications and other requirements that are necessary, and we found out that their wages had fallen further behind even in comparison to the way we've fallen behind here in our public service. So all those had to be adjusted.

Similarly, we found that the previous policy was to encourage or to persuade, or to post the vacancy for an offshore position in the public service in Victoria, or elsewhere, calmly accept the applications and put the guy on the plane with his wife and children and say goodbye. No basic plan, no policy for his return, for indoctrination, for reorientation, for familiarization, no guarantee he'd ever seen in the public service at anything like the same level of activity. All that had to be taken care of.

Now then, an evaluation of the function of the office was the second part of the question. We've evaluated the function of the office and we maintain, in view of the economic opportunities and the tourism opportunities, that that office is a must as a base for Europe. I have a note given to me, for instance, that the tourism from the United Kingdom was up 31 per cent since we've come to office in 1972-73. It looks like a 33 per cent increase in 1974. That's one of the functions of one of the desks in that office.

Secondly, it's always used as a base when the Premier and Minister of Finance, Deputy Minister of Finance and others go to the U.K. to the money markets and do that kind of work. As a matter of fact, the other part about it.... I cannot give you the figure, but I certainly will get the figure if you're interested, because it shows up on the revenue side. There's a great deal of revenue, as it happens. I don't say that that's justification for continuing the operation, but as it happens there's a great deal of revenue from 1 Regent Street. As a matter of fact, I think, if you work it out in rough dollars, that it's not that far from really being self-supporting.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: Quite, I agree. That's not a reason for keeping it there, but I thought it would be of some passing interest to the Members that we are in a reasonably sawn-off position there.

The loyalty statement that the Member referred to is part of the three previous questions about negotiations and licensed pros and so on. Let me deal with them in a piece if I may. The first specific question was: am I going to allow to be continued the disparity between technicians and supervisors? Well, the disparity is not one of my making, not one of the government's making. The disparity exists because the contract that applies to most of the people you are talking about is signed and the contract — this is my understanding, which I'll have to double-check, and if I mislead the House I will certainly apologize tomorrow.... My understanding is that we're dealing here with a situation of a signed contract and dealing in the second instance with negotiations that are currently going on. Obviously the pitch will be, and the Member in effect is making it, I suppose, inadvertently, for the lower persons to get a wage increase, at least getting over the figure that was first mentioned. That's, as I understand, the situation.

Secondly, that opens up the whole question of where we are with the licensed pros. You may criticize me for this, but I don't want to get into some of the detail the Member asked me to do for

[ Page 1684 ]

this simple reason: we are at a very crucial point today and the rest of this week and next week. We are about that far away from signing the contract. I would hate to get involved in anything in my specific position that would tend to rock that boat at all. Now you may say that I'm running for cover. Well, say that if you want. The fact of the matter is that the December 11 proposal made by the licensed pros to the Public Service Commission was not supported by the Public Service Commission. They would not recommend it to Treasury Board. Therefore it was impossible to recommend it anywhere else or sign it. The genesis of the clauses the Member makes reference to is interesting, but perhaps irrelevant when one decides that the package is just....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What went wrong with your negotiating committee?

HON. MR. HALL: Ah, well that's a, subjective matter that I don't think I'm going to discuss. Obviously a man's career is involved and personal deportment is concerned. Because a thing breaks down do you nail somebody down? I don't want to get into that, if you don't mind.

All I'm saying is that what was a proposal — I don't deny that — through the membership of the union and through the Treasury Board to the Public Service Commission of this government was not accepted by, in effect, the employer group; so you're back to the table.

Now some of the things that happened since then, I agree, were not as smooth and as successful and as good as I would have liked. However, we then got an understanding with the Licensed Professional Government Employees Union, went back to the bargaining table, negotiated a core agreement, et cetera.

Now the Member talked about exclusion when he made reference to my speeches. Exclusions were not part of the December 11 proposal. We didn't deal with them. We're only talking about the....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Do you still stand by what you said?

HON. MR. HALL: I'm saying that everybody should be in a union except those members who are required to administer the contract. If I'm guilty of omitting that clause, then I plead guilty. But obviously you've got to have somebody at some desk somewhere on one side of the table who's in charge of that contract, who's performing, as the Labour Relations Board lays down, the function of labour-management relations.

On the level of exclusions — I stand proudly on my record. I've been congratulated by most of the people in this province that the record of exclusions in the B.C. Government Employees Union, which is the general group, and the nursing group, is second to none in the country. I think that my statement in hand is totally vindicated by the master agreement with the 13 components, in terms of exclusions, that was laid down on the table the other day.

By having a committee to pursue collective bargaining, as I did in the other two instance, I had hoped to be able to get the question of exclusions settled very early on in the process. I was not successful. I was doing it as a committee, not at the negotiating table. We developed a system called a "committee to pursue collective bargaining" upon which two commissioners sat with two representatives from the work force. We tried to grapple with problems before they became an issue, and we were successful. The beauty of that system is, I suppose, that when you're successful you can stand tall, but you have to run for cover and disappear from the scene immediately if you're not successful because you will get in the way of the negotiating process. That's what happened, unfortunately, in my view. We were not able to get the degree of success generated when we were meeting at the committee because exclusions were on the table. We just couldn't come to any terms.

I'll be making a speech in the supper break tonight to the first convention of the Licensed Professional Government Employees Association. I am advised now that we're very close together on not only the core agreement but also on the question of exclusion. I think you will observe and I will be able to report some success in that.

Lastly, I think you made some comments about the planning adviser to the cabinet and the necessity of that operation. You passed some nice remarks about the staff that I have a great deal of pleasure working with. I want to endorse those remarks and tell you that I feel very fortunate that I've got two first-class Deputy Ministers in the Deputy Provincial Secretary and the. Deputy Minister of Travel Industry and my commissioners as well.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be very brief. On previous occasions I have enjoyed participating in the discussion of the estimates of this particular Minister, the Provincial Secretary. I also would like to say that, by and large, I think he's most helpful in his answers; I trust that he will be so again today.

A couple of points, really, and they are in no particular order. My colleague, the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), spoke earlier about the First Citizens' Fund. I note from Hansard in May of last year, page 3205, that the Provincial Secretary was quite frank in speaking to the committee with respect to the Indian Advisory Act. He said in part:

...I would like to see this Act rescinded. I don't

[ Page 1685 ]

think it serves any real, useful purpose other than that which we may do — such as looking after the First Citizens' Fund and some community development projects. I don't like the Indian Advisory Act. I don't like the concept. As soon as my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) and the cabinet get the final approach and policies worked out, I hope that we will see the end of that Act.

I notice it's in the estimates again this year, with a slight increase, so one can presume that the Minister's opinion of this particular point has not prevailed, or matters of greater priority have.... A most disarming smile from the Minister; I'll look forward to his answer. I do remind him of the view he expressed, again, quite frankly, not quite a year ago. The Capital Improvement District Commission: I'm afraid that I will want to refer in this context, Mr. Chairman, to the points I raised at length with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) earlier this week when we were discussing his departmental spending for 1975-76.

It is my continuing concern that notwithstanding — I underline that word — the excellent projects which have been undertaken by the CIDC, under the former administration and the present administration, and the fine works that are within a stone's throw of where we stand today, I still fear that it is possible that the CIDC, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, the municipalities, the regional district, the many agencies which, on behalf of the public, are spending public dollars in and around the capital region and particularly in the Inner Harbour area, the core of the capital city, may not be working in as much cooperation as we would all like to see.

Again, I won't quote at length from Hansard but I note in the estimates discussion one year ago, Mr., Chairman, the Minister also agreed on that particular point in reference to a communications gap. I am very happy to see that the vote for the CIDC has been increased from $250,000 to $400,000 for the fiscal year now started, and I emphasize for the Minister and for those who are interested in the comment.... I am not being critical of what the CIDC has achieved, but I wonder if the dollars could not be put to even better use — and I state it positively — if the CIDC was brought more into the ongoing discussions not only of provincial government, but regional and municipal government. And I recognize that there is municipal representation on the CIDC.

I would also like to ask the Minister on that point if there is any possibility of the functioning area of the Capital Improvement District Commission being expanded. Again, we talked about this briefly in 1974. The capital region really should include not just the four core municipalities of Victoria, Oak Bay, Esquimalt and Saanich, but, in my view, should extend into the so-called electoral areas of Colwood, Langford and View Royal in particular, and further out the peninsula to take in the three northern municipalities out to the Swartz Bay ferry terminal. It is at Swartz Bay where so many visitors have their first glimpse of the capital region and the capital city of British Columbia. The Minister may care to speak about that.

I also would not want to let this opportunity pass as I don't know if I will be recognized again, this afternoon or not, but I want to congratulate the Minister and all concerned with the Provincial Museum which just has to be a source of tremendous pride to all of us, regardless of where we sit in this House. Repeatedly, we encounter — I encounter, certainly — individuals who have paid their first visit to the facility or perhaps their 2ist visit. We do have a museum which should be a source of pride to all of us, and I just wanted to make brief mention on that point.

Now the Provincial Archives has come to public attention in recent days with respect to the late Emily Carr and some of her now very valuable works. I hope the Minister will take just a few moments also to tell us about inventory control in the Archives. The case of the missing painting being offered for sale a short while ago raised a number of eyebrows, and then the more recent story, if the newspaper story is correct, suggests that there may, indeed, be four more works by Emily Carr which are missing from the Provincial Archives. It is also made clear that at least one of the paintings has been missing since 1968. Indeed, perhaps the case of the missing artwork could go back a number of years prior to that, but again understanding and attempting to appreciate the tremendous amount of archival material which is presented to the Provincial Archives officials, the material which they have in their care, is there some step being taken to improve inventory control to determine that what we think we have we indeed do have? I look forward to the Minister's comments on that point.

I think that's it for the moment, Mr. Chairman. Hopefully I can participate later in the debate.

HON. MR. HALL: Thank you, Mr. Member. You will appreciate that I was expecting a question about the great art mystery. I don't want to lurch into what I was just critical about the Member for but the fact was that we didn't have a list to begin with in 1972. Let that just lie there and examine it if you like, We have inventory control now. We have got security.

Frankly, the missing watercolor wasn't on the catalogue list in 1971. It was carded by a Mrs. Keir, circa 1962, but I suppose one could argue that there could have been a couple more hanging around somewhere that no one ever knew about. I don't want to get into any apportionment of direct responsibility. It was just one of those things. We

[ Page 1686 ]

have now remedied the situation.

In passing, may I tell you, because I know you are interested, the total number of Emily Carr works — because we talk about Emily Carr a lot. The Newcombe collection has 226 works and the May collection has 26 works, for a total of 252. The Vancouver Art Gallery has the largest collection of finished works of Emily Car; however, the collection in the archives is more extensive in its sketches, its notes, and the memorabilia.

Acquisition since September, 1972: in October, two oils were auctioned; in September, 1973, a sketchbook and some other sketches from a Mr. Ohler; some other sketches at the same time were purchased by other museums. In October, two oils from the Flora Burns collection; in 1974, the donation of "Kispiox," which is a large charcoal donated by Alistar-Bell in Vancouver. We expended about $86,000 very selectively and well on Emily Carr. We've also got letters which have been acquired and we are presently negotiating about other letters and sketches.

We loan Emily Carr works to established art galleries and museums. At the present time, the archives are exhibiting "Emily Carr in the Queen Charlottes." And, of course, we are studying the Emily Carr home on Government Street to display the works. We will get a report very shortly in that regard.

CIDC. The answer to your comments is: "I agree, yes." I've not seen quite the restoration of communications I wanted to, although they are better than they were in a couple of periods of hiatus. But that's politics being what they are and activities being what they are. I am telling you, if I may announce, that I am expecting to introduce legislation on the CIDC this session. The area will be redefined. I don't think I should say any more than that at this point.

The First Citizens' Fund. You were quite right in drawing my attention to the fact that the Indian Advisory Act is still in the estimates. I've got to keep it in the estimates for part of the reason that we have to show what we did last year. Your query is: why is it in this year? The reason is really staff.

It is my hope that you will see in the omnibus thing at the end of the session a simple line doing in the Indian Advisory Act. That doesn't mean to say we must do in the people who have been supporting the committee, offering the secretarial services and so on. They will be transferred to some other vote. They will continue to be involved with this kind of work but not under that heading. I just won't have anything more to do with that any longer.

May I just for the record answer a question which I omitted to answer to the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) on pensions? I suppose that is what raised my temperature a second. The Member is now back in. He asked me what we are doing about increasing pensions. He voted for legislation that increased pensions. He has voted for legislation that increased the pensions he is talking about every time we've had a session. We've now got an adjusted formula for pensions. They go up now with the cost of living. He said: can you tell me what you are thinking about doing? We've done it. He voted for it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: Everybody on pension gets an increase in his pension if the cost of living goes up. That is as simple as A-B-C — 3 per cent, 6 per cent, or 8 per cent. In May, 1973, it was 12 per cent. On July 1, 1974, it was 12.4 per cent. Effective April 1, 1975, it scheduled; it just regularly goes up.

If you are talking about the level of pension, the base rate, it is the old story. It is a combination over the history of money purchase plans, cash distribution plans and so on. Recalculation of pensions is a subject we've gone into over and over again.

I am now in possession of a report commissioned for $5,000 by the B.C. Teachers Federation, who have been the most vociferous about this and who asked for an actuary. His name is Mr. Wiggins. He presented a report. If you are interested in seeing it, you can have a copy or I'll table a copy, if you like. He says what I have been saying on my feet in the House now for three years: the recalculation of pensions is not feasible. It is not feasible.

Now we are going to look at some other methods; maybe we can do something to assist. But I wanted to get that nailed down. As I say, Mr. Member — because I omitted to answer you off my list — by way of information, the total, bill right now, the total monthly pension roll going out of this department, is $50 million.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: For financial reasons is it not feasible?

HON. MR. HALL: It's not feasible to what?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: For financial reasons. You said it is not feasible.

AN HON. MEMBER: To recalculate.

HON. MR. HALL: There is a 20-page report. I will table it in the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A computer should be able to recalculate in a flash.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister commented that perhaps in this session we are spending more time on

[ Page 1687 ]

his estimates than we have done in the past. I think when the Minister has just negotiated an increase of $60 million in wages — I'm not necessarily saying that is too much or too little or whatever, but it is a pile of money — we are agreed that maybe we should look at it.

Just as an observer and a listener in the community, I find that the people in the community have been wondering just what kind of new manoeuvre this all is of having 13 components and a great aura of secrecy around negotiations. You don't want one group to know what the other 12 are doing or vice-versa.

Earlier this afternoon the Minister hedged, and admitted hedging, on an answer to a former question, because apparently we are very close to some agreement with the professional employees' section.

I'm not unaware of the Minister's practical difficulty in avoiding the answer for that reason. But more and more it seems to me in this House that our capacity to debate some of the more important public issues is progressively obstructed by this same kind of situation. We find that we can't debate a principle because somebody has presently got a grievance before some board or other. We can't even debate the underlying principles in good hiring and employment practices. We find that we can't talk about the municipalities or education because the school boards are in a strike — a whole variety of obstructive reasons why when we get up in the House, and we only have a limited time.... I think it is regrettable that this is the trend which is. developing in the House, that so often we can't get to the nuts and bolts of the problem because it will intimately affect some group of negotiations or some other procedure elsewhere outside the House.

I wonder if the Minister has any thoughts. I know we are in a relatively new area with the contracts which have been brought under the new legislation, but at this point in the Minister's experience, has he got any suggestions or any changes of policy which might be useful for the opposition and the public to know?

For example, what about this component strategy of having 13 components where there is all this uncertainty and attempt at secrecy and so on, while they are all going about the business of negotiating? I just pinpoint, for example, the fact that when the employees in the liquor stores negotiated their increase, the report talked about the still secret negotiations, but it was quite an increase. It says: "Liquor store employees win $245 a month pay boost." It goes on to say that some 2,200 employees of the liquor administration branch have won a $245 monthly pay boost in one of the still secret contracts negotiated by the provincial government with various components of the B.C. Government Employees Union.

I'm not specifically picking on these employees, Mr. Chairman, in trying to make the point. I'm just saying that over a long period of time we've had intermittent semi-secret, semi-official, perhaps unreliable, inaccurate figures being bandied around by whatever component seems to be coming close to a decision. The Minister and others have stated that an attempt was made to keep it secret so it will not unduly influence the others.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: As the Member behind me says, they all really know what is going on. This particular increase, I think, must have been quite significant in its impact on other non-government employees busily negotiating wages at the same time, because it went on to state that the basic wage increase for the LCB workers is $175 from last October — with a cost-of-living allowance clause adding at least $70 per month come July 1. These are very substantial increases. I presume, from what the Minister said earlier, that some of the lower-paid workers received 56 per cent.

While the Minister is quite accurate in saying that it would be wrong to pick a minority group and bandy a figure around, the length of time over which all these negotiations have been going on, with this interspersed practice of percentages, COLA clauses, the time it will apply and so on, I think in itself, while perhaps well-intended, has a damaging affect. Certainly, I hear many complaints from the private sector which now finds that the government, in promoting the idea of catch-up, appears to be trying to catch-tip what may have been a shortcoming over many years, all in one step. The sudden and dramatic impact on the economy is something that many employers are expressing great concern about.

I had the advantage of talking to Evan Wolfe, for example, who is a former Member introduced from the gallery today, and he was just talking exactly about the psychology which now applies in all bargaining. Everybody just starts talking about the 20 per cent level. It seems to be accepted that everybody who has any part to play in negotiating their own wage increases just starts thinking at somewhere around 20 per cent or higher, plus COLA. I just wonder if the Minister would care to comment — I don't want to belabour the point unduly — whether, in the light of experience and some of the points I have made, he thinks there might be a faster way to do it. Or should we reduce the number of components? Is there not a better way which would have less impact and a more desirable air of public awareness as to what negotiations are going on and what kind of figures are being discussed, rather than the unfortunate effect of so many unofficial figures and rumours, plus the odd grain of truth? I guess this

[ Page 1688 ]

premature announcement about the LCB employees was accurate.

I want to touch a moment on Point Ellice House. It seems to be my week for buildings, Mr. Chairman. I went through Point Ellice House today because I've been really interested to know whether the $455,000 that was paid for Point Ellice House was reasonable spending of taxpayers' money.

Point Ellice House, Mr. Chairman, is a house that was built in 1861 in Esquimalt. It is the original home of Peter O'Reilly, who was a gold commissioner, a judge and a Member of this Legislature, and it's certainly an historic building. Being that age, it's like the old gray mare — it ain't what it used to be. Nevertheless, the concept of preserving that kind of building, I think, is sound. It's on two acres of land and has the O'Reilly collection of many very interesting fragments of history — furniture, clothing and many of the period elements of that time.

I just wish the lady Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) were here, because yesterday she was discussing in the estimates of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) what slow progress we are making in improving the lot of women, the status of women. One of the interesting items — perhaps I can call it an appliance — which was shown to me in Point Ellice House today was a chastity belt. The thought went through my mind that at least we're moving a little along the way in our attitude towards the female sex.

Anyway, in passing, I wonder if the Minister could tell us two or three things about the Point Ellice House project. First of all, it appears to me, from looking at the grounds and from looking at the building, that it really does require a great deal of money to be spent bringing it up to some kind of standard that would be reasonable if we are to encourage visitors, both Canadian and those from outside our borders, to visit the place. I wonder if, for example, the tremendous potential in the gardens, which I believe were once very well known throughout the province if not the nation, have obviously been allowed to deteriorate because of the obvious upkeep costs. At the moment I understand that the charge to see through the house and to look at the collection is 25 cents. I wonder if, since we are going to have to spend quite a bit of money, it would be reasonable — if not to make it self-sustaining, to bring up the standard — to charge a more reasonable fee to visit the building.

There are a whole lot of other questions I am sure I could ask. But, basically, it seems to me that the acquisition has already cost close to $500,000. The potential to make it a very attractive tourist spot is there. Maybe the Minister could tell us what his longer-term plans are for Point Ellice House.

To go back to the whole question of bargaining for a moment, I just want to make it plain that....

Quoting the Minister of Labour, yesterday he said, and I quote from the Blues: "I would think that that would be the objective of most governments which believe in the right of the working people to make their own decision as to representation." I certainly subscribe to that approach.

I am referring back to the professional group and particularly the salaried physicians in the government employment who all along have certainly been under the impression that they could continue to be represented by the B.C. Medical Association and that it has never been their wish, and it isn't their wish now, to be in any way compelled to be represented by the professional group. I think that Mr. Richardson of the Public Service Commission made a statement in January, I believe, or February, perhaps, that we could anticipate amendments to legislation this session to exclude the salaried physicians from the government professional group in order that they could continue by their own wish to....

I shouldn't be mentioning names; I am sorry...the chairman of the Public Service Commission. I don't even know Mr. Richardson, and if that's him sitting behind here, I apologize for mentioning names of civil servants, which we don't normally do.

At any rate, the point I am trying to make is that if the government really believes and follows through on the kind of statement that we had from the Minister of Labour that the wishes of groups are respected as to the method of their representation, then I think there could be no doubt, and I am really confident that there could be no doubt, that the salaried physicians who have unanimously chosen to be represented by the B.C. Medical Association will be given that opportunity, which is certainly the majority wish if not the unanimous wish.

[Mr. Lockstead in the chair]

There are one or two other points I would like to raise and I have to refer back to some of the Minister's chagrin in regard to the Liberal Leader. I do feel, without referring to any specific individual, that it's quite legitimate in this debate, I think, to ask the Minister certain questions, since he is responsible for the hiring. and dismissal procedures and practices, or at least in seeing that they are obeyed. We've heard a lot in this House in recent sessions about "collegial" decisions — the whole question of share decision-making.

I wonder what the official policy of the civil service is on the so-called collegial approach. In other words, can a group of people be given the opportunity collectively to make the decision, or is the civil service really no different from the image we all have, I think, that there's always one person up the line who brings down the hammer regardless of

[ Page 1689 ]

what the collegial decision and feeling might be at the lower level?

What about the hiring policy itself? Could the Minister tell us what the current procedure is in regard to applications by non-Canadians? Has it changed at all? I understood that last year, when I asked this year, the person had to be in this province one year before they could be employed unless there was no Canadian person available to fill the job. I'd like to know to what degree that policy is the same or whether it's been changed to any degree.

We've heard the Minister talk about the public service grievance board. I think he was being a little less than fair to say that it would be set up in the fullness of time. That could be one month or one year or 50 years; well, it wouldn't be 50 years because none of us will be here in 50 years.

But I wonder if the Minister couldn't be more specific, because I believe that one of the individuals who wants to go before the board has named his nominee and he's waiting for the government to....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Look, we've agreed that we're not going to mention names; I'm just talking principle again.

I just want to get on with what I think is another very important point. I often hear comments made — I hope they're made loosely and without real thought — that wiretapping is indulged in in these parliament buildings. Comments are made to me that secrecy is very difficult to maintain in parliament buildings. Judging by some of the questions that have been asked across the floor recently, I confess that I have to wonder where some of the opposition Members get their information.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I'm not suggesting for a moment that they indulge in wiretapping. I'm just saying that various people within the ranks of the civil service make comments off and on or talk to me on the phone and say: "Maybe we should be careful what you're saying because you're on a government phone." That's a terrible implication to exist. I read with interest the report by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) on wiretapping giving the details. He tabled the report just a little while ago.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: For the period July, 1974, to December, 1974.

I think it would be very useful publicly and in this House for the Minister to clear the air completely on any kind of implication not based on evidence that anything such as wiretapping goes on within the parliament buildings. Maybe once and for all we can stop this very unhealthy and damaging kind of suspicion, which is not based on evidence but based only on suspicion. I hope the Minister could perhaps touch upon that.

I had a few comments I wished to make about the planning adviser to the cabinet, but I think the Minister has answered most of it, except that I'm not quite sure just exactly who Mr. Eliesen is responsible to. Is he responsible to this Minister, to the Premier or to cabinet? It doesn't seem quite clear to me. The Premier and Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) is presumably the No. I man in cabinet. That being the case, I wondered why Mr. Eliesen's position isn't listed in the Minister of Finance's or the Premier's office. Perhaps the Minister could explain this. I'm still not clear to whom Mr. Eliesen's direct responsibility is, or is it collectively to the cabinet, or is it directly to the Premier or to this Minister?

Of course, the question comes to mind as to what degree — I think the Minister was asked this question, but I'd like to get it very clear — the basic method of cabinet functioning is being altered by the greater use of cabinet committees and the insertion of an individual, however skilled, into a position of high authority in advising the cabinet, which would appear to short-circuit senior members of the civil service who have been spending many years in government service. I would ask the question: is there nobody within the government civil service of the calibre or capacity or experience to have filled the position which was filled by someone else? What was the exact method by which Mr. Eliesen was selected for the position? Was it an advertised position which went through the usual Public Service Commission procedure, or w as it an appointment by order-in-council?

These are some of the questions. It's a substantial sum of money within this new group in which there are nine other people involved in addition to the adviser himself.

I did want to talk for a moment, too, about the Public Inquiries Act which had its budget increased by 50 per cent. Is this in any way related to some inquiry which the government intends to hold, or is it just trying to make provision against the possibility of this inquiry into the Columbia River figures and all the public debates we've had? The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) has said there will be a public inquiry. Is this extra $50,000 earmarked for that inquiry or is there some other kind of inquiry?

I'd like to ask about three particular items which add up to three-quarters of a million dollars, namely public information — $250,000; distribution of government publications — $250,000; and the status of women — $200,000. We're all in favour of fair play

[ Page 1690 ]

and reaching a better equality for women in employment and in the public service, but I wonder about that other half-million. How much of that half-million is incurred in publishing B.C. Government News? How many editions of B.C. Government News can we expect? Is it a monthly, or is there no set frequency? Regardless of that, out of the $500,000 for public information and distribution of government publications, I wonder if the Minister could give us some idea how much is spent on the B.C. Government News and what other government publications incur this kind of cost.

Lastly, I would like to ask the Minister if morale among public service employees is not somewhat impaired by recent events where, indeed, some of the practices which have been demonstrated, particularly in the Department of Education. Do these practices not leave the Minister with some real concern that the usual established procedures, particularly for probationary appointments, are being followed? The information I have is that there is quite a bit of concern in the civil service because of some of the techniques recently developed.

For example, to be more specific, is it normal for an employee to be dismissed by a letter delivered by the deputy sheriff? This happened to one of the research officers of the research and development department of education. I'm not wishing to intrude into the area that would compromise any grievance procedure that's going to be held in regard to one specific person, but I think that many of these practices — and that's perhaps one of the more blatant ones....

On the whole question of the appraisal of a probationary appointee during his period of probation, can the Minister tell us if he's made any inquiries into departments to find out if in fact the normal procedure is being followed? I understand that even after the six months are terminated, the general procedure is to give a person three months under terms of reference as to why they should improve their performance or, at the end of the three months, they may be dismissed. The whole question of evaluation of the work shouldn't take place a day or two before the six months expire. Has the Minister initiated any investigation in the civil service to see if this rather loose approach to the rules is being used and whether, in fact, he's carrying out any studies or actions to make sure that the morale in the civil service doesn't fall? Other probationary appointees, I presume, after what happened in the example I quoted, are probably wondering if the same very inadequate kind of attitude might be taken towards them.

Two points arise out of this: I wonder if the Minister could give us some idea what the words "just cause" mean to him and mean in general terms. It's such a delightfully vague phrase, "just cause." What may seem a just cause to one employer or one individual supervisor may be far from just in the eyes of many other people. I think that individuals either seeking government employment or who are presently employed by government might be interested to know the Minister's view on what dismissal for just cause generally implies.

What about the oath of office? The Liberal leader talked about loyalty, and I wonder how long the oath of office is regarded to be applicable by this Minister. We've heard some discussion already that individuals, once they're dismissed from government service, prejudice their future by commenting publicly on what they believe to have been unfair cause for dismissal or unfair dismissal practices. Does the oath of office end the day you're fired or are you tied down by the oath of office until the day you die?

HON. MR. HALL: Which oath are you talking about?

MR. WALLACE: The oath of office taken when one becomes employed by the public service.

HON. MR. HALL: There are three different oaths.

MR. WALLACE: Well, maybe the Minister can tell me about the three different oaths. I thought an oath was an oath was an oath — you either agreed to secrecy and so on, or.... Maybe the Minister can enlarge on that.

A lot of the work of civil servants involves involvement with the community, whether it is in Human Resources or Health or Education or whatever. I wonder if we could have some indication from the Minister as to how you can encourage collegial decisions by the community and the professionals together if the professional employee employed by government has some real doubt as to how much he or she can discuss publicly the policy matters relating to whatever issue they are involved in.

If the government wants to involve the community, particularly in the field of education, what kind of guidelines might it be wise for the Department of Education to spell out for the professional employees as to the degree to which they can take the public into confidence on certain information and certain government policies?

From what has happened recently, it seems that maybe the time is now. When bargaining is such a hot issue and so prominent within this Minister's department, it might be very advisable to have his department spell out for the use of employees a more up-to-date and useful outline of what their responsibilities are in regard to discussion with the public.

[ Page 1691 ]

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, first of all may I deal with the question the Member raised? I was alarmed, and I welcome the opportunity to put at rest and demolish any suggestion for one second that eavesdropping, wiretapping and those kinds of things are happening. I know of none. I can't imagine any set of circumstances that would ever see them installed, instituted, except for the most grievous of conditions in terms of the activities of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) in matters affecting security of the state and criminal activities and so on, which are laid down in the Act.

I've heard those jokes, too, and I hope I am describing them accurately, that they are lighthearted remarks. If I ever found out that there was that kind of activity — and I was one of the main speakers on the Privacy Act when Robert Bonner introduced it in this House, I wasn't satisfied with it and I'm still not satisfied with it — I would be the first to report to the House, regardless of an oath of office of anything I've ever heard of. I would think that would supercede anything with which I've ever had to deal before. I can only utter in the loudest and clearest terms that that is a comment that couldn't possibly receive my support and it wouldn't receive, I'm sure, the support of any one of the 55 Members in this House. If I've seized the opportunity to do that, I would thank the Member for his question. I hope that he will join me in saying that as often as we can, if the occasion is that bad.

Point Ellice House. Well, it is a deal we've got going here. It's an historic site. We've got a tremendous collection of material, of things of nostalgic value, things of very intrinsic value, and others that are in the general area of memorabilia. There could be an argument about value. If you put the whole thing together, take into account that the City of Victoria is going to be a partner with us in terms of giving us some land if we are able to get the intervening stuff, and we have some assurances from the private sector of industry who have some working rights in the waterfront, we can see developed here a park. And I use the word "park" in its widest possible sense. I don't just mean a grass field; I mean an area, the centre of which will be Point Ellice House. I agree with the Member that it needs better upkeep. That is one of the reasons it was bought. It was getting beyond the possibilities of the owners. Public Works will look after the grounds. There is extra land involved.

The charges are the same as Helmcken House and Craigflower Manor, but I agree with the Member that 25 cents doesn't seem very much. It seems to me when you get down to thinking about that, it should either be nothing or something. It may be that it costs more than 25 cents to actually pick up the 25-cent coin. I think that is worth looking at and we certainly will live a look at it.

As far as the negotiations are concerned, I think I could best respond this way: no act of this government, I am sure, is forever written in stone. It doesn't say 13 components in the Act, it just says "components" and then describes what the components seek to serve.

But I want you to remember that it was the first year. The union didn't even have trained negotiators, and they will tell you this. There is a problem to find people who can do this job. That is one of the real areas of difficulty. If you discuss it privately sometime with the Minister of Labour, I know he knows that sometimes trouble is caused in all sectors of the community by having people not experienced or qualified, doing that job.

For instance, a good friend of mine who is in the "Y" was negotiating a first contract with the employees of the "Y". He had a great deal of difficulty because nobody on the employers' side had experience. You can appreciate how difficult it is if you think about who does have experience, in terms of the "Y", in negotiating. That's why some Members know, looking around, individuals in this province who make a living at negotiating.

Similarly, the Public Service Commission was thrust into that system of having to staff up those negotiations. That's one reason why they were drawn out. I think that it will certainly be faster next time.

I should announce this, I suppose; I think I missed this. I was absent from the House the last two days of the week. We successfully negotiated an extension of the 12-month contract to 18 months so they now all have common terminal dates on an income maintenance basis of a simple COLA clause — no actual increase at all, just a COLA clause. So now we have all 13 contracts posed, at least in the general union, at the same date.

You asked if it can be faster, if it can be better, if it can have lasting impact. My answer is: yes, it can be faster. Whether it can be better, I don't know.

I wouldn't get as upset about the secrecy thing. If you really start to get into public discussions and posturing about what's going on every minute, I maintain and this may be where we differ in opinion that's a dangerous practice, especially when you've got a first-time approach.

Will it have less impact? I certainly hope so, Mr. Member. I am on record as saying that, as far as I am concerned now, the expression "low-paid workers in the public service" is dead. It's all over; there ain't none as far as I'm concerned. There are lower-paid workers, as there are higher-paid workers. But the simple definition of a low-paid worker, in my view, is not any longer a fact. That's what catch-up, that's what $60 million is all about.

I maintain now that we're talking in the future in terms of income maintenance plus some adjustments on comparability. We've laid down the policy and

[ Page 1692 ]

announced it oftentimes. I'm into the seventh deciles of comparability with most of the reasonable groups to compare with. The public service is another jurisdiction; the public service in municipalities; other union contracts which have a direct relationship that's provable. So I look for income maintenance and some adjustments. No more catch-up — that's what I'm looking for.

Now the success of that is going to be proven at the bargaining table next time around, and I'm either going to receive your applause or else my estimates are going to take a hell of a sight longer — if I may use that expression — than they've taken hitherto.

Doctors. Well, Mr. Richardson who is sitting here ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

HON. MR. HALL: Here. (Laughter.) ...made a statement about possible amendments to the Public Service Labour Relations Act, but he never said that doctors would be excluded. If he did...but he didn't. I'm not going to comment on that. There may or there may not be amendments to the Public Service Labour Relations Act brought in at this session. As we're going along, looking at these things, we'll have to see that.

I wanted to say also that doctors joined the licensed pros. They pay membership in it and have been actively involved with the licensed pros. I agree — not the majority, but some. So that's a problem we've got, and I'm not backing off and saying that I'm closing my eyes and saying it's not a problem. I'm not trying to pretend they don't exist. I've got a number of doctors in Surrey who have written to me. I think you know a couple of them. I'm not entirely sure what motivates doctors to write to me but we'll leave that unsaid.

The 13 components are not forever.

The public service grievance board. You've talked a great deal about it, but the fact of the matter is, Mr. Member, that you really never left the fact that you're really only talking about six people. You really got a general argument going in my direction that was really based on what you think happened to six people. We know who those six are, and I really don't think we should fudge the issue or fuss around any longer between us in not accepting the fact that I'm not going to say much about the fact that you went down the road. I don't think you'd expect me to just brush you off, and I'm not trying to do that at all. But you really erected a whole argument of morale and procedures based on what you think happened to six people. Those six people are currently going through an investigative process, and I don't know whether I really should get into it. Another politician, not in this House, said outside the House: "I could tell you lots about this and that." He finished up through three courts. I ain't going that route, and I don't think you should follow that route either, Mr. Member, and I don't think you intended to.

But let me quote from, if I may, the annual report. The fact of the matter is that, pending the establishment of a grievance board — and I am backing off; you're not going to get a much better answer than "in the fullness of time" — "the commission has continued to hear grievances that were not settled by mediation or covered by the arbitration procedures in the collective contracts." That was what I made reference to with the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson), who doesn't do his homework.

"During the year the commission heard three appeals. The director of administration and employee relations had 118 grievances referred to mediation. Eighty-five were settled, 10 were pending, 23 were referred to the commission. Of the 23, a group of 20 was dealt with as a single case."

That's not a bad record for 35,000 people.

"Size and composition of the public service." It goes on to statistics, giving you the size of it. You've asked questions on the order paper. I think I've got one question to answer on the order paper.

Separation — this is what we're talking about. During the year, 3,779 employees left positions in the public service — schedule 1 employees — they're the permanent employees. This represents a turnover of 17.1 The turnover dropped in 1973, when it was 17.2. Now that doesn't indicate to me that there's any morale problem. Just one statistic! Not one swallow makes a summer...but not many separations. The 10-year average has been 17.3. We have a graph.

During 1974, 74 employees had their probationary period extended and 52 were dismissed. Now I don't think that a dismissal of 52 probationary employees out of all the hiring and firing we've done — and you've done as much asking about this and as much public speaking about the size and rate of growth as anybody.... I don't think that 52 is a bad record. You know who five or six of them are. My goodness me, we could almost get down to names. And you ask: what's the practice?

Well, I don't know what else I can say. I don't go into every department and say: "How are you running it?" I'll tell you this: if somebody doesn't cut the mustard, Mr. Member, he should be down the road, period. We're paying good wages now. If he messes around — and I'm talking in the most colloquial of terms that you will follow because we come from at least the same area — he's down the road. What's wrong with that? The point is that you then say: "What is just cause?" I say that that's a subjective matter, and the reason why it is a

[ Page 1693 ]

subjective matter, why I'm not bothered at present about those words in the Act, is because the grievance procedure follows it. What's wrong with that?

I say: "You're no good; down the road! You didn't cut the mustard in the first three months." He says, "I did cut the mustard," and he goes through the grievance procedure and somebody says something about it. That happens all over British Columbia, and we're doing the same thing.

Okay, so you've got me over a barrel for a little period of time because I haven't appointed a public service grievance board. That's okay. You won that debate.

We don't hire non-Canadians in the sense of our permanent staff. They are all temporary employees. The preference is for Canadian citizens. We have had a tangle about this, no question about that. If you remember in the fall session we changed the Act and said that the discrimination in employment and insurance rates is not a discrimination under the Human Rights Act.

Your last question, Mr. Member, dealt with collegial responsibility. The final responsibility of the Minister, if he's prepared to say to a team of people, "Get on with the group, get on with some work, get it together, get a consensus and report back to me," is one thing. But the collegial decisions to which you make reference I don't think were that kind of a decision. I think that you're involved in a game. You're back to that sick-smile affair, and I'm not going to get into it. I don't think that that kind of stuff can be put up with. If I want collegial decisions from these people, I'll tell them; but I don't think there's any real area for those kinds of decisions in the public service of British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: That's right and that's why I say we should put it straight out. I'm not going to get involved with the quality of analysis. That's why we pay wise people to make those decisions, in terms of grievance and appeal.

Lastly, the planning adviser to the cabinet. His administrative work, the establishment, the office are all responsible to me. His basic work is shared. He's mostly responsible to the Premier, with some to me in terms of being Provincial Secretary and having the overall view. Only two people give him orders. I think it's working out very well. It was an order-in-council appointment. There was no advertising. I'm not too sure that a planning adviser to a cabinet would necessarily be the planning adviser to a cabinet of another political stripe.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): I would like to get into this debate quickly, and I'll try to be brief.

First of all, however, I would like to congratulate the Minister on all the changes that took place during the last year in regard to superannuation payments and schedules for the public service, for municipal employees and for teachers. I think that that's been a great step forward. We're very inclined to forget those things that we have received and are getting accustomed to receiving, but it certainly has been a great improvement.

Secondly, I would like to say how pleased I am that the base rates of our lower-paid wage-earners among the civil servants have been bottom-loaded so that some of those rates are a little bit higher than they were before. For instance, in some of the fields like psychiatric aides and practical nurses, people of that kind, they were getting salaries or wages that were far below the cost of living.

I don't think that the increase they receive should be accredited in relation to percentage the same way as percentage increases have been accredited in other wage negotiations. I think that that's something that has been imperative for a long, long time, and I congratulate the Minister on seeing that these situations were ameliorated.

I am very pleased with what's happening in relation to libraries, particularly in my constituency. The expansion of the library, particularly in the Marpole area, has been wonderful because Marpole is growing exceedingly rapidly — now we have a beautiful new library. Everyone is very, very proud of it. The information centre for the area resource council is right in the library so that people feel not only comfortable about the library, but it also encourages more of them to go for information in more than one way, not just through books but through the information centre.

There is one area on which I would like to question the Minister, and that is in relation to recreation. I can't say that I am exactly happy about the Western Canada Lottery for raising money for heritage, culture and recreation. Maybe I have never been happy about lotteries. I know that the Irish sweepstake is a huge worldwide lottery to raise money for hospitals in Ireland.... It is a chancy sort of thing as to how much money will actually be spent on the hospitals.

Lotteries in Canada over the last few years have started and flourished, and I know that people like the idea of chance. Certainly it is fine to have bingo for senior citizens or for people who want to go out to the country fairs and places of that kind where what they get back is not necessarily something that is required for an essential service. I still feel it is rather deplorable that we have to leave it up to lotteries. Lotteries for the Olympics, lotteries for raising money for the Orpheum theatre, lotteries for our cultural heritage and recreational fund — surely there must be a better way of getting money for these

[ Page 1694 ]

essential parts of our whole process of living than through a game of chance.

There's a larger implication in recreation which does not deal with lotteries. It is the fragmentation of the whole recreational branch. The community recreation branch is under the Provincial Secretary. Then there is Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford). There are sections in relation to recreation that deal with Education and others that deal with Human Resources. So there are probably fundings of different kinds and there are responsibilities of different kinds.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), rightly so during the last few years, has tried to promote as much as possible community and personal participation in recreation by all members of society for health reasons. I think that's wonderful, but where does the full responsibility lie? I would like to see one department act as sort of an umbrella over the others, maybe in the same relation as the super marketing board that has been set up in the Department of Agriculture, in such a way that there is a rationalization so that people from various community groups, when they are seeking assistance in relation to recreation programmes, whether it is funding for capital grants, for construction of community facilities or whether it is for operational expenses for other types of things in relation to parks that will be used for recreation, will have one central area which they can approach. It would make it much simpler, because I think for the general public it is very confusing. For people who are in charge of some of these recreational projects it is very confusing. It is to me. I don't know whether it is to the rest of the Members of this assembly, but it is difficult to know just where lies the responsibility for these particular sections of funding of recreational facilities, or of sponsoring them, or of trying to organize programmes.

We have a great variety of 'citizens who require a huge variety of recreational programmes, right from our tiny tots to our senior citizens. Also there are many new Canadians who require recreational programmes of one kind or another. It's through sports and recreation that people get to know each other better than any other way there is.

Ask teachers in the schools what is the easiest way for them to get to know their students. Get involved in sports with them. That is also true with the general public. Many of the new Canadians are shy, and we are trying to encourage them to come in to the community centres, into the schools and places like that. The best way to do it is through the recreational and sports programmes.

Similarly with young people who get into trouble; very often one of the difficulties is that they are on the outside of programmes. Maybe they have been dropouts from school and they don't know how to co-ordinate once more with the rest of the community.

Another area where we need better recreational programmes and better recreational facilities is among our native people.

All these groups have to be able to find a simple way of approaching one or maybe two Ministers, but surely they shouldn't have to sort out and say: "Now, which branch do I got to for funding for this, or which do I go to because I would like to have something in relation to bicycle trails?"

Bicycle trails and bicycle sections on highways are becoming exceedingly important because more and more people, young and old alike, are turning to the use of the bicycle not only for work, but also for recreation. Surely, before long the Highways Minister (Hon. Mr. Lea) will be involved because every time we build a highway we will have to say to ourselves, just the same as they say in Holland and Denmark: "Now besides needing the highway for cars, we need a separate section for bicycles."

These are things that I think have to be co-ordinated a little bit better than they are. I would like to hear a word or two from the Minister as to what his thoughts are in relation to co-ordination of these programmes, and where the umbrella coverage of it could all belong. Thank you.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, let me first deal with the lotteries question. In 1974 we entered into a cooperative agreement with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba to establish the Western Canada Lottery Foundation to maximize the financial returns to the provinces through controlled lottery sales.

There is a principle involved in there and I was not successful in getting a unanimous vote in the House during the passage of that Act. Some people object to it on principle. I made a commitment at the time that the net proceeds of the fund would be used towards the development of sports, recreation, culture and heritage within the province.

Thousands and thousands of dollars were leaving the province and going elsewhere. I think we had the responsibility to corral those dollars. The Member mentioned the Irish Sweep and others.

I want to report to you that we have had two lotteries on Western Canada and I have a statement of expenditures here for the period July 1, 1974, to April 21, 1975. We have 855 agencies selling Western Canada lottery tickets. Not one of those agencies is a private profit-oriented group. Every one of those agencies is a volunteer kind of a group — the senior citizens, the soccer clubs, the hockey clubs, that kind of thing. They have gained in commissions, which they never would have seen had we not passed that Act, $338,000 to do the kind of work it is entirely theirs to decide to do. That's their earnings on two lottery sales. In addition, we, as a government, are

[ Page 1695 ]

going to share in the excesses of revenue over expenditures of $1,118,000.

I want to assure the Member that there isn't any intention of this government that essential services will ever be covered by lottery money. The lottery money is the extra; it's the icing on the cake. The fact of the matter is that if we look at our recreational expenditures, we find that it's in the millions of dollars. It's all over the place, and that will come into the second part of the question that the Member has rightfully expressed some concern about.

But we've spent $800,000 from the Community Recreational Facilities Fund in the community recreation branch; and hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the Physical Fitness and Amateur Sports Fund. We pay the wages and the salaries of all the support necessary for the provincial coaches in a number of sports. We have the discretionary grants for those who don't qualify for the normal programmes.

I announced in response to a question earlier that the lotteries money is going to go to assist travel. I think the Member herself knows I've been able to assist a high school in her own area in that way.

But that really doesn't answer the Member's concern about some confusion in terms of function. That is a problem. Whether we like it or not recreation is going to be part of a number of Ministries' or departments' activities. I don't think we can avoid it even if we were the toughest people in the world in terms of discipline in our Legislature, our regulations and our cabinet structure. There's got to be recreation education; there is going to be recreation in the parks; there's got to be community recreation. What we really need is to pull it all together in this sense: we should have a department of leisure services which is providing the bulk of the services in terms of the community recreation branch and that kind of thing, and making sure that those other avenues are well covered, well co-ordinated, and all of those nice words — liaison and all those others — take place.

I asked for a study to be done. Dr. Eric Broom did the study. The study has been analyzed, and it's been taken around the province. Now I think it's fair to say that everybody in the community understands exactly what Eric Broom was saying. Instead of laying on a message, instead of jumping up and saying — "Okay, folks in British Columbia, here is the answer. I have gotten the message from on high. This is the way it's going to be" — what we have achieved now is that every community organization involved in recreation or in leisure services understands the Broom report and now is asking for the implementation of the basic recommendations of the Broom report. I think that's the way government should go. That's the better way to go, and that's the course upon which the government has embarked. I hope to be able to make some more definite statements about implementation of that report at some later date, but I agree with the Member. There is no question at all in my mind that there is some confusion.

When we met, as I did the other day, the Vancouver recreation people, they too pointed out that it's difficult to know who to make the ongoing opinions available to. It's not just: "Give me some money"; not just "Can I have some money to send a bunch of kids here or a bunch of adults there?" What's going to really happen in the future? That's why we've examined facilities in Europe. That's why many of us are concerned that the simple erection of facilities is only begging the long-term question about operating grants.

One of the things that bothers me is that I don't think we are doing enough research and enough examination that would ensure that we build facilities that have a family orientation so that part of the operational expenses in the future will be taken care of. Instead of putting programme co-ordinators, instructors, supervisors, lifeguards, babysitters — glorified babysitters.... . We would build our facilities in such a way that there would be a great deal of activity by the family in those structures. That's what's happening in Holland, that's what's happening in West Germany, that's what's happening in the United Kingdom. A great deal of the operational pressure is being taken care of by some good design in building multi- functional, family-oriented recreational centres.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I, too, would like to comment on the museum here in the City of Victoria and the asset that it is. I would like also to ask the Minister if he could tell us what the programme and plan is for the forest museum in Duncan. They are doing an excellent job there. Also, I would like to comment on the Royal Hudson, the train that runs to Squamish.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The best buy in B.C.

MR. MORRISON: My understanding is that we had about a $5 million capital cost. My understanding is that last year, or the first year in operation, we had a total loss of about $288 million....

Interjection.

MR. MORRISON: Sorry, $288,000. I'm just so used to these big numbers around here that I ....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not all of us have dealt in cars like you have.

MR. MORRISON: I wonder if the Minister

[ Page 1696 ]

could....

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you deal in?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Bananas. But I never got skinned like your old man did.

MR. MORRISON: I wonder if the Minister could tell us about the Royal Hudson — incidentally, I would like to comment that I think it's an excellent acquisition and I'm glad to see it operating — and whether we have any programmes for similar operations here on the Island.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Hear, hear!

MR. MORRISON: But I must confess that I'm not happy about the losses, if there are any. If I'm incorrect, I hope you'll correct me on that.

You commented also about the $1,118,000 revenue that came from the lottery. I wonder if you could tell us where that shows up in the revenue area, or is that amount then left to be spent at your discretion? Does it come in as general revenue and then go out, or what's the programme on that?

One area we haven't discussed so far today is the provincial emergencies programme. I gather there has been a very large reshuffling of that programme, and I see an increase of $518,626. I'd like an explanation on that programme.

While he's in that explanation, I also wonder if he could advise us if they are encouraging communities for emergency airstrips under that programme. I know there are no funds in the programme for that, but is that part of the programme to encourage communities to put emergency strips where necessary or practical?

In looking at that particular expense, there are sundry employees listed, but I see no permanent employees listed. I wonder if we do have permanent employees under that provincial emergencies programme, or do they all come under that sundry employees section?

I'd also be curious if he could advise me of the number of people who have been brought to Victoria for that emergency programme in the last year. I understand they've had a number of meetings. Roughly, what was the cost of bringing people to the city? I believe — and you'll correct me if I'm wrong — those expenses were paid for by the government. I'd like to know the percentage of people who are active in it after they return to their own communities. Is it an ongoing programme, or do they just bring them here for a short-term programme then call them as they need them, or is there something then planned in their own communities after they return home?

HON. MR. HALL: Some of the questions, I'm afraid, I'm not going to be able to answer in the detail that the Member wants; he's picked on some real specifics. I can either answer them by letter from the Blues, or if you want, put them on the order paper. But I'm going to attempt to answer every one you asked and if I miss any out it's because I don't know the individual specifics. So let's have a go at it.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

Duncan: the historic sites Act looks after the forest museum at Duncan. I think it's a good collection. Our plans are to improve it and make it a viable attraction. We're currently looking at, possibly, some trips up to Duncan on the tracks to look at the possibilities. I'm going to have to talk to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) about the costs of fire patrols, the sparks off engines and all that kind of thing. But we're currently looking at the possibility of Victoria-Duncan and the museum as another Royal Hudson trip. I think it's to be encouraged and it's in the general area of activity that is good for history. Historic sites and all those things are good for tourism and good for our general educational process.

The Royal Hudson. The figures you got, Mr. Member, are really away out. The revenue was about $188,000, We carried 50,000 passengers. We're still arguing and talking about the capital which is not anywhere near that figure. The biggest figure I can find on here, if I add all the totals together, is $ 1.69 million, and that includes all sorts of accounts that are outstanding and paid. But there's been an argument, frankly, with the B.C. Railway. It's all our money to one extent, and I want to know why some of these bills are so high. I'm having a bit of a tussle with a fellow a bit further down the line...

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Poor management. That's why it's down.

HON. MR. HALL: ...bit of a tussle about the bill. You've argued about the price of things in a shop, surely. I'm doing the same thing here.

However, may I add these remarks: we don't expect to make any money on Barkerville. We don't expect to make any money on Fort Steele. I'm not sure we'll make any money on the trip to Duncan.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HALL: Nope. Matter of fact, it's a cost item isn't it? I just gave you the cost: $550,000 and $440,000 — something of that order.

So I'm not all that upset about not making money, certainly the first year. I would be able to table a report of some sort on the Royal Hudson as soon as I can finish my arguments on the price of a couple of

[ Page 1697 ]

tickets here.

MR. PHILLIPS: When is ICBC coming up?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shush! Your leader can't control you.

HON. MR. HALL: We were getting on very nicely before you returned.

Provincial emergencies programme: some of those specifics I'm not going to be able to answer. First of all, there are permanent employees. No question about that. We've put on two courses on community emergency planning; a course on emergency health services, that was part of the ambulance thing. First aid, five, courses; heavy rescue — that's using pretty big equipment; map and compass use, one course; nine courses on search and rescue; advance search and rescue, one course; techniques of instruction, one course; and that is all useful information which goes back with the people and they do work at it. The volunteer groups that come are first-class. I can't give you the costs of the meetings, I'm afraid. I just don't have that figure. If you'd like write to me, I'll give you the answer.

The aviation programme: my Deputy shows me it's been looked at. We're talking to Highways; we're talking to Lands, but I can't, at this point in time, as I stand up here, give you any details. I have not got that with me.

MR. MORRISON: Is there an ongoing programme on the oil spill, and would that come under that particular department? Have you had any meetings on that yet or are they just planning?

HON. MR. HALL: Yes, we have had a number of meetings and we are the co-ordinating force. But of course we are using a great number of staff personnel out of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and, I think, Municipal Affairs. But we are the co-ordinating....

MR. MORRISON: Would it come under this vote?

HON. MR. HALL: Yes, it would come under this vote.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): The Minister is responsible, it is my understanding, for what you might call the administrative machinery of cabinet. I would like to explore a couple of questions in that area with him. The Minister knows my views, that in a way we are fortunate in British Columbia that we aren't encumbered with a huge, central bureaucracy as is the case in Ottawa and some of the other provinces. But at the same time, the Minister spoke of the on-the-job training that the cabinet had to go through when they came into the position. I imagine he must have been hampered by a lack of — to put it conservatively — any co-ordination system in a formal sense, since my understanding is that the previous government tended to exercise all of this co-ordination through the person of one man.

I would ask the Provincial Secretary what tools the cabinet is building up to ensure the co-ordination of governmental policies as they evolve in all areas. The House is reasonably familiar with the operations of the Treasury Board and the growing operations of the Environment and Land Use Committee, and I would ask the Minister what other committees are in operation or are contemplated and in what areas. Environment, as I said, is assigned. How about the whole question of growth with its many, many ramifications stretching across several portfolios? Has this been assigned perhaps to the Environment and Land Use Committee? I don't know; I ask the question.

The question of industrial development. While we have a portfolio of Economic Development in the government, industrial development is importantly conditioned by the operations of other departments, particularly the Crown corporations and various other regulatory agencies.

How about the whole question of leisure time? Is there a cabinet committee which sees to this question? We explored that briefly before when the Minister spoke of the way that recreation cuts across so many departments.

With that question asked, I would ask the Provincial Secretary as a matter of practice if it is usual for submissions and proposals to the cabinet to go through these committees en route. Does there have to be a rubber stamp on the document saying "cleared by the cabinet committee" on whatever it is?

This is an important question to this House as well as simply to the cabinet: what kind of effective machinery has the cabinet and the government for what you might call performance auditing of the policies that it has instituted to make sure that the decisions that the cabinet has made are really followed out?

Changing to another area, I would like to speak briefly to the Provincial Secretary about the question of settlements in the public service. The Minister announced that the average wage increase...I think the way he put it was 17.3 per cent. I would ask him how this figure was arrived at and if he would be prepared to table these calculations in the House perhaps, because they are very complex, I am sure. In particular, I would like to know if the 17.3 per cent is a simple, arithmetic average of all of the settlements that were made or if it is a weighted average settlement, weighted by the number of people covered by each category.

[ Page 1698 ]

Continuing on in the area of public service salary settlements, the Minister seemed to be contemplating in future years that what would happen would be a sort of a real income maintenance, a sort of a COLA principle without too much advance beyond that. I don't know just how agreeable the public service unions would be to that concept.

I would like to ask the Minister if he agrees on one what you might call guiding principle for the reaching of agreements in the public service sector. I would suggest to him, as he well knows, that British Columbians — all of us — earn our way in this world through the goods that we manufacture here and export, principally the produce of our natural resources. The House knows, as well, that we do not have control in British Columbia over the value of the Canadian dollar. The way in which we earn our living in the world is, to a certain extent, beyond our control. We can't adjust the exchange rate. We have to make sure that the things we sell are competitive in the world.

Now, given that, it makes sense to me that the wage returns in other sectors of the economy should be preconditioned by what we can earn as British Columbians as a whole in the rest of the world by exporting our produce. I would ask the Minister if he would agree with the general principle that public service salaries and, indeed, all service salaries in the British Columbia economy should, of course, be comparable to equal work with equal working conditions in the export sectors but that they should not lead the export sector. Rather, they should follow that sector because that is the way that we all make our living in this world.

Moving to another area, I would like to ask the Minister if he could tell us, with his responsibility for the elections Act, a little bit about plans for redistribution. First of all, strictly on the elections Act, I will make my regular plea for voters' lists henceforth to be made up on a geographical rather than alphabetical basis. In practical terms at election times, that makes it so much easier to go door to door.

On redistribution, I would ask the Minister if he could tell the committee anything about the following questions. The Premier advised the House the other day that the process would certainly be a public one and there would be consultation around the province. Will that process start with a draft reallocation of a constituency or will it, rather, simply go out and gain advice from the public as to how that task should be approached? Has the government at this moment any draft maps of its own that it proposes to put forward?

Secondly, I wonder if the Provincial Secretary could tell the committee something about the timing of these hearings and the hopes of the government as to when they might be concluded and the matter brought back, presumably, to this House for approval. I wonder if he could tell the committee whether any decision has been made by the government as to what, in their view, should be the resolution of the question of two-Member ridings — whether they should be continued or cut down to one-Member ridings — and whether the government has reached its conclusion as to whether this Legislature should be expanded by the rumour of five seats, the current figure that seems to be going around.

HON. MR. HALL: May I deal with the last question first, Mr. Chairman? I don't have very much to add to what the Premier said. It is for the simple reason that many of the questions you ask beg the question of whether the commission is a commission is a commission. You want an independent commission yet you tell the House that we are supposed to be telling what the commission is supposed to do. Well, we are not going to go that route. If the commission decides that they want to go around with maps, they will go around with maps. If the commission decides they want to meet tomorrow or something like that, then that is fine.

We are going to utter — I think that is the correct word — an order-in-council that will set up the commission as announced by the Premier. There will be some terms of reference. That we must give them, obviously. Then, I am afraid, you must wait that happy day.

MR. GIBSON: When will that be?

HON. MR. HALL: I have no further news to add to what the Premier said the other day. What did he say — "A short, short while"? I don't know. "A short while." He made the statement two or three days ago. The elections Act is coming down this session, and you will be looking at it in the not-too-distant future, depending on how things go. We are moving along as fast as we can.

Settlements. Two questions, basically. I thank you for giving me notice of this, by the way, which arrived, I think, on Friday or Monday. The wage increase of 17.3 per cent that I mentioned in my press release was a weighted average per annum for fiscal 1974-75, excluding COLA which you pay if it happens.

The second one: leading. That question — whether we lead — was part of your general statement about exports, about productivity, about economic life generally. Am I contemplating real wage maintenance? You remember what I said. I said that I am looking from now on towards wage maintenance plus adjustments to deal with the comparability burnps and grinds. I think that meets your criteria. Certainly, there is no question; we just can't keep

[ Page 1699 ]

going on-on-on-on-on-on forever in terms of large wage increases which don't bear any relationship to what is really happening. Nobody can do that. We haven't done that and we don't intend to do it.

I endorse what the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) said just a short while ago about the level of settlement. I spoke to the chamber of commerce in Duncan on Thursday of this week. I followed an ex-politician, Mr. Hamilton, of the employers council. I pointed out to him that we are not in possession of and we do not control all the levers. It is a whirling dervish of prices and wages and so on. It isn't necessarily susceptible to our attempts to stop it. I'll leave that simile alone for a while before it gets too convoluted.

I've made some proposals which I think follow a number of admirable suggestions the Minister of Labour made regarding provision of information, regarding provision of structures and mechanisms to cut out some of the posturing and some of the misleading statements that have been made at the times of negotiation. If we can cut out arguments about really rational things which are available to us, we are left with an argument on the basic irrationality that is collective bargaining. To put it in the crudest possible terms, if we then put them in a room and lock the door, they must then meet each other and be responsible to their constituency for a continued argument on an irrational basis. I think that that is a good pressure point for us to get into.

I said that in '68, '69 and '70 in this House, and I think it is now being thoroughly worked over by the Minister of this department. I think that is the only route that is left for us who are not in possession of all the handles to do with inflation, that we can do something about it in British Columbia.

Lastly, cabinet administration and structure. I'm not being shy. I don't want to hide and not tell you. We've changed a number of ways of doing things.

You say on-the-job training — how did we go on for the first six months? I'll tell you how we went on — we lived together. We lived together for the first 12 months, 17 hours a day, just about, until I couldn't stand the sight of the Minister of Health's (Hon. Mr. Cocke's) face, because we happened to live in the same place. We were called "the odd couple," and I was feeling odder and odder and odder. But that's what happens in the first days of government, and you observe it at close quarters, I am sure.

Now we put into operation some cabinet committees. Some of them were successful, some were not. That's the way of all committees. Now we've got some extra help. We've got some people who had a bit of experience in other jurisdictions. Some of the committees I think we have put more into the ELUC committee. We've now given it a wider look at resources generally, because we used to have a resource committee that, frankly, there was a lot of duplication of effort. But there are only so many hours in a day.

We've now got the equivalent of the ELUC on the other side of the operational fence, the human services committee. That's fairly new. That's working like billy-o. It's really grappling with the things that have come from the Berger commission, things that are coming out of Human Resources, things that are coming out of Health. That's taken over from the old youth committee that the Minister of Education and Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) was very active in. That's dealing with some of the problems of leisure. In fact, it met today at lunchtime.

There is also a transport, housing and urban development committee — acronym THUD. You can make whatever political hay you want out of that one. (Laughter.) That's a committee that is grappling with some of the newer things the government has represented by two or three of the newer portfolios. Treasury Board you know well. There is also a committee, of which I am a member, dealing with communication, computers, and that kind of thing, because that is also very new to the government. That's why it has been changed around.

We are developing those structures, and with the able assistance of the Exorcist and his staff men, at least we are getting all that together, and I think that it is good.

Now there are two measurements that we should talk about. You talked about one. Let me talk about mine first. We audit the books. Do we really audit performance, productivity? Do we audit administration? That is an area that I am getting into now. You particularly asked a question about performance in terms of a government and programmatic auditing. Let me respond, if I may, in way of debate: that process is called a general election, and maybe we will have that audit sooner than later, later than sooner.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to survey with the Minister, for just a moment, the whole matter of pamphlets on the British Columbia ferries. I'd like the Minister to advise me just what the situation is going to be. I'd like the Minister to advise me if the Department of Transport and Communications and the ferry service have signed a contract with any group or company to pay them, or to allow the Motel, Resort and Trailer park Association to allow them to pay any group, or body, or company, to have these pamphlets put on the ferries.

Was there a contract signed? Is it going to cost the motel owners upwards of $260 a month to have these pamphlets exhibited on the ferries? Has there been a contract signed? Is this a monopoly situation? If there was a contract signed, was the contract put out to public tender to give more than one operator an opportunity to bid on this contract?

[ Page 1700 ]

I think the Minister is aware that in the past the various pamphlets by the association were taken to the ferry terminal where they were distributed on the ferries by the travel counsellors. Is this going to be the case now, or is it going to cost the association, each individual in the association money? What is the situation?

Did the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) sign a contract without consulting with the Minister in charge of travel in British Columbia? Is there a contract signed?

HON. MR. BARRETT: He's not the Godfather.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you are.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like the Minister to be candid with me in his answers and tell me where the situation is at the present time. Are we going to have pamphlets at all? Are we going to have pamphlets at all on the ferries?

There is just one other area that I would like the Minister to give me some more information on, and that is with regard to the information service that the government is going to set up under the Provincial Secretary.

I understand the Premier has asked the Provincial Secretary to draw up a full report on the feasibility of the government information service. Is this report available at the present time? Is it going to be released? Is the study being undertaken? Who is doing the study? Are they being paid to do the study, or is the study an interdepartmental study, or was there a commission formed?

Does the Minister have any idea what form this information service is going to take? Is it going to be a propaganda machine of the government? This concerns me. Or is it going to be like the government newspaper and just print propaganda?

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): We'll put a comic page in it for you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are offices of this information service going to be available to the opposition MLAs so that they can give out some information to their constituents as well, or is it going to be strictly a government propaganda machine?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier says: "We brought in a lot of legislation, but the public doesn't know anything about it and how to make it work for them." Well, the opposition have brought in a lot of suggestions too that we'd like to tell the people who phone in on this information what we've recommended. We'd like to tell them how the cost of government has gone up.

One other question, Mr. Chairman, I'd like the Provincial Secretary to tell me if there is a new type of executive assistant. What are the duties of his executive assistant? Does he dispute the fact that his executive assistant, Chuck Hatherly...is his prime purpose of existing and being paid by the taxpayers to be a go-between between the Provincial Secretary and his constituency? Or does he deny this article in The Surrey Leader dated November 24, 1974, where it says:

"Surrey MLA and Provincial Secretary Ernie Hall's new executive assistant, Chuck Hatherly, is not, as some have thought, a go-between or a trouble-shooter for the provincial government in its relation with Surrey municipal council and the administration."

The Minister goes on, and he says that with two portfolios, he's overworked, he's very busy and he has a backlog of constituency problems. So he's hired a new executive assistant at $19,000 a year to handle these problems. Now are all the cabinet going to have executive assistants, not to do the administrative work in the cabinet Minister's office, but is it going to be to handle the constituency problems?

Is that what the executive assistant to the Minister of Labour is going to do up in his riding? Is he just going to handle constituency problems, or is he an executive assistant to assist the Minister with the executive responsibility, or the executive responsibilities of running the department? I would like the Minister who is in charge of the public service to delineate to the House this afternoon just exactly what are the duties and responsibilities of an executive assistant.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where did you get that big word?

MR. PHILLIPS: I got it from the Provincial Secretary's information service. We've got Associate Deputy Ministers and Deputy Ministers and I think the Minister should tell us exactly what the duties of all of these are, particularly the Associate Deputy Ministers. Tell us what their duties are.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, it's not under my vote. I've no Associate Deputy Ministers. They all work, Mr. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Before we proceed, would one of the Members please be seated — either the Minister or the Hon. Member for South Peace River?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister if he disputed this press release in The Surrey Leader, dated November 27, 1974. Now if you

[ Page 1701 ]

dispute it, and you haven't got an Associate Deputy Minister, that's fine, that's what I'm asking.

Interjections

MR. PHILLIPS: So you're disputing this article? I didn't write the newspaper, and you're not responsible for what goes in the Sun, you told me this afternoon....

HON. MR. HALL: I'm not disputing with you, Mr. Member, any piece of paper you've got in your hand at any one point in time. As I asked the Speaker the other day, we can have a special section one of these days that handles apologies. It will be full of apologies. I don't want to bother with press releases that you've got in your hand, Mr. Member. You send me a copy and then I'll talk to you about it.

The fact of the matter is that if the Member is asking what the duties of an executive assistant are, then I suggest he asks the guys that sit in the corner with him over there. There used to be one there — what was his name? Campbell, was it? He's gone down the road, down the tube. Another fellow — Weeks. Where's Weeks? He's down the tube. Who was the young slim fellow that was here for a while? Then there was Grace. Hell! I don't know, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Down the tube.

HON. MR. HALL: They've all gone down the tube. You can't even use the people we provide. At least I can find some work for the people that are provided to me.

MRS. P..J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You provide?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes. You never let us hire anybody.

HON. MR. HALL: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that the Member is doing his usual half-past-five lighthearted thing for the Peace River Bugle or whatever it is. His money for marks programme at half-past-five every day.

Mr. Chairman, he asked some questions about the government information service. I think they were straightforward questions and I'll deal with them in a straightforward way. As a matter of fact, I should have answered the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). I couldn't read my own writing there for a moment. Public information, $250,000; distribution of government publications, $250,000; status of women, $250,000. That was the question — let me answer it.

Status of women, first of all. That's a programme announced with a fairly detailed press release. I spoke on it in one of the formal debates of the House.

It's International Women's Year. The slogan that you know is a slogan that I don't particularly happen to like, but that's the slogan that's been picked. I think that's a programme we can all support and get behind. In fact we've augmented it. You've had the benefit of a number of statements from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) and myself regarding employment opportunities and that kind of thing.

The next vote I want to deal with is 215, which is the distribution of government publications. That's nothing to do with the government information service that the Member seems concerned about. This is a repetition or a reworking of the money that used to be in the Queen's Printer. This is not a new programme. I want to assure the House that this is not a subterfuge of any kind whatsoever. This is to do with the distribution of the basic work of the Legislature: the bills, the statutes. It's the old Queen's Printer kind of thing.

The vote you are concerned about obviously — that you are thrashing around — is the public information vote. We're going to have a public information programme — we really are. The Member wants to know can he have the studies, the working documents and so on on the table. Mr. Member, just like the question of the calculations of 17.3 per cent, these things aren't available in that kind of form. Some of it's on a computer, some of it's on Addressograph lists, some of it's information from B.C. Telephone.

MR. PHILLIPS: That isn't what I asked.

HON. MR. HALL: I want to assure the opposition they'll have full access to the public information programme. They can use that telephone any time they want. Just phone us and we'll give you the answers. They say: "Is it going to be used for propaganda?" I might dust off the film one of these days. I think it's still over there in Travel Industry, signed R.B.W. — "The Good Life." I might dust it off. We might dust it off and have a look at it — play it on the old movies one night.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You could call it "Son of Good Life."

HON. MR. HALL: "Son of Fang." (Laughter.)

So much for the government information service — you know what it's all about, Mr. Member.

The first question, however, was a sincere and accurate and discerning question — the brochures on the ferry. The Member asked me to be candid. I think I'm always candid with the Member. In fact, I think the last time when you asked a question about employment in the Peace River area I was probably

[ Page 1702 ]

too candid with you.

The fact of the matter is that the Member has stumbled across a bit of a problem. The answer to the question "Is there a contract?" is yes, there is a contract.

MR. PHILLIPS: There is?

HON. MR. HALL: Yes.

MR. PHILLIPS: What are the terms?

HON. MR. HALL: Well, if you like, we'll talk about the contract. I haven't got the contract with me; it's not in my department. I'm not responsible for that contract. You must ask that question perhaps during some other estimates. However, I want to advise you that talks are going on to make even better the service that was contracted for to the satisfaction of all concerned. I have already met on two occasions with the company that has made a proposal to the government regarding the servicing of a thorny problem in terms of brochures on the ferry.

I shall be meeting again later on tonight — about 9 or thereabouts — to perhaps finalize an augmented service over and above that which I made reference to in terms of a contract. If I'm successful in that, then, of course, there will be a superceding contract and the first contract will be negated, torn up, destroyed — whatever word you want to use.

The brochures have been a problem — no question about it. The ferry system is tough enough to run, as witness some of the remarks at 2:00 today when an engine broke down. Rosemary Brown must have pulled the plug on John Harney. (Laughter.)

The fact of the matter is that the ferries, the highways and the tourist information services are all part of an ongoing programme. It's my responsibility. Everybody is dedicated to looking after that thing in the best possible way. I know you want me to be successful tonight in my negotiations.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): I, too, would like to delineate a few questions. (Laughter.)

First of all, to the Minister as Minister of Travel. The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) made a very compelling speech about a month ago asking you and the Minister of Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), to seriously realize that if you're really going to have a successful resident ski industry, you've got to have hotels, motels and a mid-week residential business. I thought it was an excellent speech. I hope it was heard by the Minister of resources and also by yourself.

My question is: what can we really do? First of all I remind you that there are 1.2 million skiers in Canada. It's a very big industry. But in nearly every place in the province...Whistler is only one of several places where there is not an adequate hotel and residential accommodation.

I would certainly do anything to encourage your department to not just push the weekend thing but to push the midweek business, which means probably less expensive skiing for the rest of us, but better skiing. It means you can bring the 747 with people from Tokyo or Toronto or Winnipeg to Vancouver and that you can provide a better service, which means, in the skiing world, more runs, better-groomed runs, more lifts. Then you can really stabilize that income for five months over seven days a week, rather than two days a week. It is not a good industry if you are looking for a return as it is right now. That is the first thing.

I just might point out that I think Alberta has done a fantastic job in promoting skiing. We have made an attempt. Our ski brochure, I think, was not as good as last year's. I guess I'm just not subtle enough, but it had some little gremlins on the front page of the ski brochure. I would have gone back to a much simpler, thinner brochure without the gremlins and the subtle creatures on the front page. That is one thing.

Similarly, I would like to ask you: did we as a province inherit a tradition of paying for the big banquets for the chamber of commerce of British Columbia and for the national chamber of commerce groups when they occasionally meet in British Columbia? If so, what is the criterion for selecting groups and hosting these groups at considerable expense by your department of the provincial government? It is fair to ask: does the Crown host the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, the B.C. Sports Federation, the B.C. Federation of Labour when they have big meetings. Are there any criteria?

I remember speaking at a corrections conference — I think a national corrections conference. Is that an automatic carte blanche to a convention?

I sent you a folio just a few minutes ago — at least, 1, sent it to your Deputy Provincial Secretary. Do you see a need in the Province of British Columbia for something like Ontario's Orillia or Alberta's Banff School of Fine Arts or something like they have in other parts of Canada, or certainly in the United States, where there is a major Mecca for the arts? I've read your arts access policy and you and I have talked privately, but I can't say I've asked you the policy of your department on art and culture for at least one really top-flight arts centre.

As you know, there is a group out at Harrison who are hoping to use the international name of Harrison for an international festival, a festival where the top professionals in the world in every art — thinking especially of sculpture, tapestries, dance, crafts, arts, paintings, theatre and music — would perform, but also where the people of British Columbia and the lower mainland would perform, where we would have

[ Page 1703 ]

a residential school. The Banff School of Fine Arts comes to mind. As well as saying, okay, there is going to be arts access to all the people all over the province — and we are supporting that and I have read your excellent speeches on it — there also is a time when you have to go to the professionals, to the top-flight people of the western world, to try to attract them.

If you say that tourism is going to be the second biggest industry, it is obvious to me as an MLA with some large hotels in my riding that it would be a good idea to maybe promote Harrison as an international Mecca for the arts. But there is no sense doing this if you think it is really out of touch with the general thrust of where we are going, if maybe there are a lot of complications we just haven't thought of. Of course, we would like to have a spin-off for the local people, but international recognition also. There are certain places that are known in Europe as international places for the arts.

Then, of course, I guess the final thing I would certainly like to do is to congratulate you on the collective bargaining. I guess my last question really is: first of all, are we still a touch below the federal equivalent in nearly every job in the public employ? I think that that should be known. I think a lot of people abuse us for our bottom-loading. But is it still true that we are basically below the feds? That is a reality in this so-called competitive marketplace for labour.

Finally: is the COLA an acceptable mechanism for today — which simply is catching up? Is it an effective mechanism?

HON. MR. HALL: May I deal with the last question first with this collective bargaining? I think it is important that we deal with these questions whenever they come up and never let them go unanswered because of their importance in the fact that we are the leaders of the government, legislators sitting, as it were, directing in many ways the efforts of all those public servants.

The collective bargaining process has produced comparisons which are a lot closer than they were when we first started. I think it is fair to say that they are comparable now, at the same levels, as the federal government. Some are a touch higher, a dollar or two higher; some are a dollar or two lower. I think I quoted one not too long ago regarding the penitentiary service and our corrections component. We now know that many of the PSA people, the federal government people, begin negotiations very shortly so I think that their calendar — I'll just turn around and get a nod if I may — is ahead of ours. Basically, their calendar is ahead, so if they achieve some progress then the people will be looking again at the differences. That's part of the problem and there's no solution, I don't think, to that, other than one big union which may get some applause if one goes back in history. But I don't think it's available to us, given this point in time.

The COLA mechanism is receiving a great deal of attention and I think it's a subject of some controversy. Employers are pushing CGLA, it's fair to say. Many of the private sector unions are resisting it. Many are accepting it. The public service area is accepting it, I think, almost totally. Whether or not it's the best way of dealing with inflation, I'm not prepared to say. It depends really on your stance, your own particular viewpoints; but more importantly I think it begs the question of where you are at the moment of the inception of COLA. In other words, if you are on track and you are in comparison and you are satisfied you're getting the rate for the job, then COLA may be much more acceptable than if you consider yourself $150 behind. By accepting COLA, you really reduce the chances of a substantial improvement in the basic wage level.

So the theory of COLA is one which I think is going to receive a great deal of attention, particularly this summer as some of the bigger negotiations get going. Those questions might even be more fully debated when we get back to the Minister of Labour's (Hon. Mr. King) estimates, particularly when we deal with the research and development branch.

AN HON. MEMBER: Things go better with COLA.

HON. MR. HALL: Things go better with COLA.

Now dealing with your three basic questions regarding skiing, regarding banquets — or government entertainment — and regarding the arts. Mr. Member, it took this government a great deal of time and a great deal of effort to come out with an ongoing, fully-accepted, fully-supported cultural policy that was not just an imposition of somebody's ideas on a community but was, in fact, a very real reflection of what happened in a number of conferences. I think that for us to simply say that it would be a good thing to have some sort of temple — and I use that word probably ill-advisedly, but let's use it. A Mecca perhaps is a better word, although that's another name perhaps for a temple. I think that's got to come from the community itself.

The arts board has it on its agenda for the future. I think we've got to work at that and it's got to be an honest expression of what is happening in the community, because we just simply build it. I'm not sure that's the right way to go, but let us jump a few years and look at what could happen if it was here, fully supported and arrived at by those methods that I described, that I shared with you. You know, enthusiasm, I think can be a great thing, but I don't think the getting there should be force-fed or greenhoused or glass housed at all.

Secondly, banquets. Now you asked a number of

[ Page 1704 ]

questions there, Mr. Member, about whether we inherited practices. Well, we inherited a lot of practices. That doesn't mean to say we continue them. It doesn't mean to say we abandon them.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: We inherited the practice of having a general election, somebody just said. We're not going to abandon that...I think.

But you asked if we gave a banquet for some chamber of commerce. The answer is yes. When a national association meets in British Columbia and asks us to assist them in the erection of the programme, then we invariably say yes; if it's an international group, invariably we say yes. We funded the Canadian Labour Congress convention. We've done a great deal of that kind of activity.

Now as far as skiing is concerned — I think the Member is an active skier. I share the Member's concern about some of the accommodation at Whistler. But what we are doing in our department is promoting packages that have skiing as the recreational component of the package. The package is mid-week. Our efforts with Japan, and shared programmes with airlines, shared programmes with Alberta, are all scheduled to try and keep the facilities going, as I said earlier today, the week round, and extend the season. Now we've put out a ski brochure. That's the general brochure. That gives the details of what is available to somebody who wants to ski in British Columbia, but there's a great deal more information than this. It's advertised; Western Airlines advertise it, JAL, CPA, and our joint programmes with the Alberta government.

Now I consider this brochure to be an excellent one. I'll tell you why I think it's excellent. Every ski brochure you see around the province has a picture of a snow covered mountain and a skier. What we did with this cover — and you referred to the fantasyland animals and so on — at least means that somebody who is interested in skiing or somebody who is interested in looking at brochures picks it up because it attracts their attention. This is the first element you must achieve in any merchandising, marketing programme. You know, the two-by-four approach. We found that our photographers may be the best in the world, but closely following our photographers are those of Alberta, of Austria, Vienna, of....

Interjections.

HON. MR. HALL: We found that our brochures were just the same kind of downhill, glamour pictures that you see in Cosmopolitan magazine and so on and so forth — the typical action shot of Killy or somebody like that. We felt that was an improvement — at least it attracts attention. It is also because skiing is a young person's sport, in the main, that's in keeping with where youth is at in terms of record alburn covers, posters and so and so forth. It's a very alive, a very vibrant sort of thing that attracts young people.

Skiing is just one element of our tourist promotion programme that is seeking, as I said at half past two today, to develop the community resources, seeking to develop the private industry resources so that we have a year-round season in this province.

Mr. Chairman, the only other question I have dealt with the arts policy; I think I answered that to the Member. So I think that gives us all the questions.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Just a couple of brief questions to the Minister of Travel Industry. I recall very vividly when the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) was embarrassing the provincial government — when he was venting his spleen against the American tourist; they were coming to; British Columbia. He was in fact suggesting that Americans should go home because they were contributing nothing to the Province of British Columbia. All they were doing was cluttering our highways, cluttering our parks and cluttering our ferries. He embarrassed the government so much with those irresponsible statements that the Minister announced last year that there was going to be a survey of the recreational vehicle contribution to the tourist industry in British Columbia. I think the Minister even went as far as almost suggesting that they bring their bathtubs.

I don't know how elaborate that survey was but the Minister, at the time, I think, suggested that it would be the Deputy Minister who would examine the implications of American recreational vehicles coming to British Columbia, and whether they do contribute anything monetarily to the province. That's one question.

Question No. 2 is one which puzzles me and maybe the Minister could enlighten me on this matter. It relates to an article that appeared in The Vancouver Sun of February 10, dealing with Yale. It said that Yale folk are asking: to protect what? I will readjust a few passages of this article:

"In Jim Lee's backyard there are two old foundations made of native rock, and providing a home for bushes and vines, and the big question puzzling residents is why Front Street where there is virtually nothing left of the days when Yale was head of navigation of the Fraser and scene of the richest gold bar on the river. Why buy vacant lots and houses that are not really historical in an area seldom visited by tour buses?

"Why not do what people wanted all along, which was to buy the Anglican church, St. John the Divine, which residents claim is the oldest

[ Page 1705 ]

church on the mainland?"

It goes on:

"During the summer busloads of tourists come to look at the church, and that's all there is to see. Some of the buses go down on Front Street but there is nothing to see down there.

"Mrs. Shilson claimed the plan to purchase 40 to 50 lots would include all of Front Street. Mr. Lee said, 'Besides this foundation, about the only remaining history on the street is another crumbling wall up the way a bit. There's a bit of wall up there that everybody says was part of the bank. You can barely see it from the road, but people say that it's the old bank.' Lee claimed the government could reconstruct the old town along Front Street, 'but if it's just signs they want to put up I can't see the advantage of buying it.'"

Now I have a few photographs here that appear to have been taken on a Monday because there is a lot of washing out adjacent to some of these buildings.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: All except one!

(Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: They're in living colour and one is a wall, an ancient wall. I have seen a wall that very much resembles this on the road between Wasa and Fort Steele.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Brick wall, earth wall or what?

MR. CHABOT: It's a fieldstone wall, I believe.

There are some entrances — it's much like a root cellar. Maybe you would have to put a plaque on it for people to recognize what it was.

Now here is another one where the washing is out again. It's a bit of a shack that was built — at least from this appearance, it looks like a shack. It could on the other side look more modern. But it doesn't look historical to me. There's nothing historical about that picture.

Now here is another one on Front Street — two fairly new homes, small homes, built probably eight or 10 years ago. There's the washing out again. Here is one that appears to have been built probably 15years ago and it has a burnt out incinerator in front of it. Maybe that's historical; maybe the incinerator is historical. Here's another one on Front Street, another house probably built 20 years ago. Here's another one that appears to be a barn of some kind — tar paper on the side.

AN HON. MEMBER: Any washing?

MR. CHABOT: No, Mr. Member, there is no washing in this one. It's an old barn, but it's not historical. Here is the historical picture. It's the church — the Anglican church. It's a beautiful church. appears to be well maintained and with some beautiful grounds. From what the residents of Yale say, it would appear to be an historical church in Yale.

Now here's another one that shows a locomotive, a CP Rail diesel. No, it's going by, and Front Street and the railroad tracks are pretty close, you know.

Then here's one with a coal car. I imagine a lot of coal goes by Front Street.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): A great speech, Jim.

MR. CHABOT: Another thing that puzzles me is some of the statements that were made in relationship to the development of Yale. It says here in the same article:

"Public Works Minister Bill Hartley, caught short earlier last week when the government announced plans to buy historic areas of Yale in his riding, said Friday he sees a potential Barkerville-type development.

"Deputy Provincial Secretary, Laurie Wallace, had announced the government want to buy 40 or 5 0 lots on Yale's Front Street. The sites would be marked, noting historical significance, Wallace said, and a tourist centre for visitors would be established. But he added emphatically there were no plans to refurbish Yale into another Barkerville."

Despite what the Minister says, the Deputy Provincial Secretary said no way, that won't take place because the town's geography is not suitable for that type of development. As I just recently pointed out, it's too close to the railroad tracks, too close to the river bank.

"Hartley, who did not hide his anger at the premature announcement, said Friday he has for many years been a strong advocate for Yale's restoration.

"At the time of Wallace's announcement, Hartley protested that property owners could raise their land values, knowing of the government's plan. He added that as the Public Works Minister, he would not authorize purchase if they did so."

He'll probably lease it in advance.

"But on Friday, he invited owners of historic property on Front Street, who were willing to sell, to contact his department.

"Hartley was so angry at the early announcement that at one stage he denied to some reporters that an announcement had ever been made and urged others not to write stories on it."

[ Page 1706 ]

Now quite obviously, there has been an announcement made. Why show his anger if he knows there has been no announcement made? Certainly there was an announcement made.

The Minister of Public Works saw another Barkerville or maybe another Fort Steel in the making at Yale.

Yet on April 8, 1975, this is what he has to say, very briefly: "Hartley said he wants to make it clear that the government has no intention of evicting anyone." He'll only lease the property; never develop it, only lease it.

"We're willing, if necessary, to purchase on condition that those living in them be allowed to remain as long as they wish."

Something like the Glenshiel. (Laughter.)

"Hartley said the government is anxious to avoid adverse effect on the lifestyle of Yale residents. No final decision has yet been made on the type of restoration to be undertaken."

On April 8, two months — exactly to the day — two months later to the day. On February 8 he sees another Barkerville, and two months later he doesn't know what's going to take place.

There appears to be a tremendous amount of confusion as to what's going to take place, whether it's going to be another Barkerville, whether it's going to be another Fort Steel, whether it's going to be a series of plaques on those vacant lots saying that once upon a time there was a building here.

I'm wondering if the Minister could clarify just what is really taking place in Yale. There's a lot of confusion and I don't really know. Maybe the Minister could tell me who started the confusion.

There's an announcement made regarding restoration at Fort Steele by the Deputy Provincial Secretary. And rightly so — he's in the right department. But then again, the Minister of Public Works becomes infuriated. He's extremely angry, and he says there will be the development at Yale.

Now the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) suggests that I should bring up the Hoodoos — the historical landmark that exists in my constituency in the vicinity of Dutch Creek, adjacent to the Fairmont Hot Springs. That was a matter of controversy some time last year. I'm sure the Minister received several letters suggesting that the government should purchase this area, that it not be developed commercially. I think there should be no commercial development adjacent to or on top of the Hoodoos. I don't think it's an area that can possibly be developed economically. But, nevertheless, I would hate to see this landmark being despoiled by any kind of development adjacent to it. I'm just wondering whether the department has given any consideration to the purchase of the Hoodoos. I hope that if it is purchased...I don't know if negotiations are through your department or not.

There's just one other short question I want to bring up. It is a matter that has bothered me to a great degree. You are tied in to the tourist information booth in Golden. I've raised that matter on numerous occasions. It is now called the British Columbia Reception Centre. I don't know, you might confuse the general public with that kind of a title. But what bothered me was its location. The Minister promised me it would be located in a proper place with easy access. That never materialized. So you end up, Mr. Minister of Travel Industry, with a tourist information booth that is located in the wrong place. It is most unfortunate that your colleague unloaded this on you. It's a very costly building, as well. I'm wondering if the Minister could tell me just what role this 3,000 sq. ft. building will play in the promotion of tourism in the province.

HON. MR. HALL: I knew the Member was going to ask about the centre at Golden, so I had a little bit of research done on it. It goes back a little way, Mr. Member. I'm not going to read all the information. But, if you like, you can have a look at the report any time. Just come to my office and I'll show it to you.

"On May 16, 1972, the Travel Industry department visited Golden with 40 travel counsellors. We were hosted for lunch by the Mayor of Golden, Mr. Zazuluk, and it was announced where the tourist information centre would be."

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: I listened very patiently, Mr. Member. Please offer me the same courtesy.

"On June 6, we visited Golden again and we met with Mr. Zazuluk and Mr. Shore. Mr. Zazuluk was in agreement with the site.

"July 5, 1972, we went there again; everybody happy.

"July 10, everybody happy. We talked to Alberta.

"July 11, it was reported to the then Deputy Minister, Mr. R.B. Worley, for a formal commitment. Mr. R.B. Worley, the Deputy Minister of Travel, formally committed that site.

"July 19, a further report to the Deputy Minister regarding a Treasury Board commitment."

Who was on Treasury Board? W.A.C. Bennett, Loffmark and others.

"Throughout this period, Mr. James Chabot, MLA for Columbia River, then Minister of Labour, was kept informed of the proposal by the Deputy Minister, Mr. R.B. Worley."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[ Page 1707 ]

HON MR. HALL: Kept fully informed!

AN HON. MEMBER: What was your policy? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. HALL: Hold it! "We do not have any written record of this communication as the files of the previous Deputy Minister are not available to us."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. HALL: There is no record during this time of any objection to the site by the chamber of commerce, Mayor Zazuluk or Mr. Chabot.

On July 24, 1972 — what happened on July 24, 1972? They called a provincial election!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. HALL: Treasury froze.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened?

HON. MR. HALL: On September 20, 1972, five days after I was sworn in, reapplication to Treasury Board was made, application of funds from the Deputy Minister to the Minister.

"November 10, Treasury Board approval." We were working! We were getting on with this House in November.

"March 7, 1973, the first record of any objection to the site."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. HALL: "May 17, approval access...further approval," et cetera, et cetera.

Mr. Chairman, no objections before the election lots of objections afterward.

Where is he? Down there somewhere.

Mr. Member, I've been waiting for you for a while. (Laughter.) You've had your fun. Now you're paying the bill.

Second question, Mr. Member: how many recreation vehicles? Let me tell the Member that 927,300 people visited British Columbia from outside the province in 1974 in recreational vehicles. We were visited by 281,000. They averaged a stay of 6.4 days and left behind them $65 million, 19 per cent of our summer total.

Third question was on Yale. If the Member had been in the House earlier instead of wondering what he was going to say about the Golden reception centre, he would have heard me make a full account of what is happening in Yale. I ask you to see the Blues.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Strachan presents the first annual report of the Department of Transport and Communications.

Hon. Mr. Hartley presents the 1973/74 report of the Department of Public Works.

Hon. R.A. Williams files the annual report of the Lands Service for the year ending December 31, 1974.

Hon. Mr. Barrett files answers to questions. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:10 p.m.

[ Page 1708 ]

APPENDIX

3 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following questions:

With respect to the $25,000,000 Green Belt Protection Fund Act introduced by the former Government in February 1972 —

1. What is the total amount of money spent under the Act between January 31, 1974, and the latest date for which figures are available?
2. What is the location and price paid with respect to each acquisition in the period stated in No. 1?

The Hon. David Barrett replied as follows:

1. " The total amount of money spent under the Green Belt Protection Fund Act between January 31, 1974, and the latest date for which figures are available is $6,292,355.23; of this amount, $5,676.69 is incidental expense.
2. " The location and price paid with respect to each acquisition in the period stated in No. 1 is as follows: (a) Naikoon Provincial Park, $130,000; (b) Delkatla Marsh near Masset, $127,787; (c) Antler's Saddle north of Summerland, $110,000; (d) Columbia Lake-Lardeau River area, $1,478,800; (e) Burnaby Municipality, Burrard Inlet, $620,000; (f) Rattlesnake Island, Okanagan Lake, $40,000; (g) Pine River, $27,034.94; (h) Reid Property, Wharf Street, Victoria, $1,700,000; (i) Dunsmuir Farm, Gp. 2, NWD, Mud Bay, Crescent Beach area, $313,905; (j) Brown Estate, Gp. 2, NWD, Mud Bay, Crescent Beach area, $110,036.40; (k) Mud Bay, Gp. 2, NWD, Crescent Beach area, $190,000; (1) Lakelse Lake, $30,000; (m) Swan Lake-Christmas Hill, Saanich, $97,000; (n) Swan Lake-Christmas Hill, Saanich, $127,50,0; (o) Courtenay River estuary, $97,135.20; (p) Haynes Point Park, Osoyoos, $125,600; (q) Galiano Island, $165,000; (r) Tofino area, $280,000; (s) North Arm Fraser River, Burnaby, $180,000; (t) Blue River, $25,000; (u) Saltspring Island, $180,000; (v) Esquimalt, $54,000; (w) Fort St. James, $34,500; (x) Sproat River, Alberni, $19,380; (y) Cowichan area, $24,000; total, $6,286,678.54."

61 Mr. Gardom asked the Hon. the Minister of Transport and Communications the following questions:

1. Are any employees of ICBC under a contract of service or a contract of employment with it?
2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, are they verbal or written contracts, or a combination of both, furnishing full particulars in each case, e.g., as to duration, amount of payment, if any, in lieu of such service or employment?

The Hon. R. M. Strachan replied as follows:

"1 and 2. No."

77 Mr. Curtis asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following questions:

With respect to the Green Belt Protection Fund Act-

1. What is the total amount of money spent under the Act between March 1, 1974, and the latest date for which figures are available?
2. What is the location and price paid with respect to each acquisition in the period stated in No. 1?
3. In addition to the legal description of each parcel so acquired, what is the commonly used description or identification of each parcel which has been purchased under this Act, in the same period stated above?

The Hon. David Barrett stated that in his opinion the reply should be in the form of a Return and that he had no objection to laying such Return upon the table of the House, and thereupon presented such Return.

[ Page 1709 ]

APPENDIX

82 Mr. Curtis asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following question:

With respect to the Select Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs and Housing and the following persons: Prof. Arthur Becker, University of Wisconsin; Dr. Jack Knetsch, Simon Fraser University; and Mr. Jonathan Rowe, Washington, D.C., who appeared before this Committee in 1974 —

What was the total cost for travel, accommodation, expenses, and fees, if any, incurred by the Government or any of its agencies for the appearance by these persons before the Committee?

The Hon. David Barrett replied as follows:

"Prof. Arthur Becker, honorarium and travel expense, $1,008.61; Prof. Jack Knetsch, travel expense, $74.75; Mr. Jonathan Rowe, honorarium and travel expense, $932.66."

123 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Premier the following questions:

1. Is Dr. Hugh Keenleyside presently acting as consultant to, or in any capacity employed by, the Provincial Government?
2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (a) to which department of Government is Dr. Keenleyside providing services, (b) what are the terms of reference and his specific duties, and (c) is there any deadline by which his duties are to be completed?

The Hon. David Barrett replied as follows:

1. " Yes.
2. " (a) Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources and Department of the Attorney-General; (b) for the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources, a member of the Copper Task Force Committee, acting in a capacity of adviser; and for the Department of the Attorney-General, consultant on an Inquiry into the Fire-fighting Services of British Columbia; the survey will consider the needs of all fire services, full time,, part paid, part volunteer, and the volunteer brigades re standards of service excellence to be set; better training programs and facilities beyond the present travelling instructional units; up-grading the status of the Provincial Fire Marshal's Office and the question of establishing district offices in a number of Interior points in the Province; improved assistance to local fire forces, particularly those municipal forces with few or none paid officers; the need to extend the fire-protection services to areas of the Province where at present the local RCMP officer is the sole fire brigade; and (c) no."

132 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Premier and President of the Council the following question:

With respect to Government advertising accounts: What is the total advertising expense paid out with respect to Government departments to Foster Advertising Limited between March 31, 1974, and the latest date for which figures are available?

The Hon. David Barrett replied as follows:

"Between April 1, 1974, and February 28, 1975, $717,148.73."