CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of the Provincial Secretary estimates.

On vote 212.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3949

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3949

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3950

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3950

On vote 213.

Mrs. Jordan — 3950

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3951

Mrs. Jordan — 3951

Ms. Brown — 3952

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3952

Mrs. Jordan — 3954

Ms. Brown — 3955

Mrs. Jordan — 3955

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3955

On vote 214.

Mr. Curtis — 3955

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3955

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3956

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3956

On vote 216.

Ms. Brown — 3956

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3957

Mr. McClelland — 3957

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3957

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3957

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3958

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3958

Mrs. Jordan — 3958

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3959

On vote 218.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3960

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3960

Ms. Brown — 3960

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3961

Mrs. Jordan — 3961

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3962

On vote 220.

Mr. Wallace — 3962

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3962

On vote 221.

Mr. Wallace — 3963

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3963

Mr. McClelland — 3963

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3963

On vote 222.

Mr. Wallace — 3964

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3964

Mr. Wallace — 3964

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3965

On vote 226.

Mr. Richter — 3965

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3966

On vote 229.

Mrs. Jordan — 3966

On vote 208.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3967

Mr. Wallace — 3967

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3967

Department of Travel Industry estimates.

On vote 263.

Mr. Phillips — 3967

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3967

Mr. Wallace — 3967

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF THE
PROVINCIAL SECRETARY
(continued)

Vote 211: metric conversion, $102,468 — approved.

On vote 212: British Columbia lottery branch, $10.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): No, no, no. We should not be putting $10 into lotteries. We shouldn't be putting any money at all into lotteries.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): We're going to win!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You may win. Now, there's an example, you see — the Consumer Affairs Minister — everything's a lottery. You may buy something that's no good or you may buy something that's a winning ticket — none of this idea of value for money. She's got no concept of value for money. She doesn't understand that those little bits of paper are the biggest fraud and ripoff in the whole of British Columbia — those little tickets sold for lotteries.

If we're going to accept lotteries, Mr. Minister of Transport and Communications, why did you take the slot machines out of the Stena Danica? Because if we are going to accept government-approved gambling, why didn't you leave the slot machines in the ferry?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications) : The federal government doesn't allow it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, otherwise you would have done it? You'd have had it in, otherwise. You've got them locked up already to go as soon as the law is changed, is that it? Well, this gambling government….

Mr. Chairman, if I can return to the vote on provincial lotteries or the Western Canada Lotteries, I'd like to know what revenue is raised for the government. What is this as a percentage of the overall contributions and purchases of tickets?

Lotteries, as far as I'm concerned, are the worst possible way of raising revenue for government. I don't believe the. government should be involved in them at all. When you see down here $509,496 which is the cost of running the operation — it's not $10; it's over a half million — and you compare that to the figures of the money coming in, I think we'll find that it's very, very high cost.

I'd also like to know how much money you've spent on advertising the lotteries. I'd like to know how much this is as a percentage. I just feel that this idea of the Minister of Consumer Affairs getting so enthusiastic about little pieces of paper that are ripoffs on the public is wrong. I think we should have not a penny given to the lottery branch. I think, indeed, the government should get entirely out of the business.

I know the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) is away. He supports me on this, but he doesn't come in to vote on this one. He supported me when we opposed lotteries at the first instance when the Provincial Secretary brought them in. I wonder whether those questions could be answered by the Provincial Secretary.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Chairman, I have some sympathy with the Member in the fact that maybe there shouldn't be $10 — maybe the lottery branch should be entirely and utterly self-supporting, even to the extent of $10. That, I think, is the usual Finance department way of indicating it's a self-sustaining operation. So if the Member is offended by the $10, I hope he will realize that there is no basic governmental principle involved in the placing of $10 in the vote. It's the financial ukase to just simply indicate that it's self-sustaining.

The budget is there before the Member. As he can see, we anticipate that it is self-sustaining and the profit is distributed along the lines of the statements made in the House when we passed the bill that allowed us to have a co-operative agreement with the Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I think the Member should realize that behind the government's thinking in 1974, when we did enter into that, was that all the four western provinces had realized that a great deal of money was going out of the provinces — out of western Canada into eastern Canada, into the States, into the U.K. and other areas — that we felt should rightfully stay in British Columbia and in western Canada. It was therefore agreed in the House, by an overwhelming majority that passed the bill, to allow the establishment of the Western Canadian Lottery Foundation to maximize the financial return to the province through controlled lottery sales.

That process, which the Member objects to, is going on. Whether or not he likes it, it's going on. And the government felt that it should, in its wisdom, control lotteries, disallow the proliferation of lotteries, disallow even the entry of the Olympic Lottery until such time as the Olympic Lottery

[ Page 3950 ]

people conform to our basic rules and regulations.

I think, therefore, that if the Member wants to have the moral principle debate that he seems anxious to have, so be it. That's for the chairman to decide, not me.

The net proceeds of the fund will be used toward the development of sports, recreation and culture within the province. The branch, in addition to its control of lottery sales, is also the licensing authority for bingo and other forms of gambling which have been going on here for years and years and years. And there was a licensing authority — the very thing the Member's talking about — under the previous administration, in the Attorney-General's Department. We've transferred that aspect, that money, those people right into this branch.

AN HON. MEMBER: Power mad.

HON. MR. HALL: Power mad, that's right. I am power mad: this is "gamblers anonymous" of British Columbia.

I can give the Member the figures on the first two draws — the first two statements of revenue expenditure on the first two lotteries of the Western Canada Lottery Foundation. Basically they are: Series AA — receipts from ticket sales were $1,526,714; total expenses were $843,127. The costs included commissions to selling agencies and to the Western Canadian Lottery Foundation, our assessments, leaving an excess of revenue over expenditure of $683,587. In the second series — similar figures were $1,422,000; expenses $937,000; profit roughly $485,000.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, this is beginning to prove my point. These figures show that when the thing was novel and new we made a fair chunk of money. We made approximately a little over one-third, getting on for 40 per cent or so of the total $1,526,714. When the second series came up, the revenue went down and the expenditure went up and we made substantially less. We made only $485,000 out of $1,422,000. I think this trend is continuing whereby this becomes less and less useful as time goes an, as the enthusiasm of the Consumer Services Minister (Hon. Ms. Young) and others wane and they stop buying tickets because it's no longer novel.

As far as the comment of the Minister that this is self-sustaining and if we don't like it this way they'll simply lift it out of the estimates and not have that $10 in there, well, I think that's a pretty specious argument. We should be entitled to look at things such as this and we certainly should check fairly closely.

It appears to me that the Minister is absolutely correct where he says: "There's no basic principle involved." It's an unprincipled thing to do. We are doing it apparently for expediency to prevent "a great deal of money going out of the province."

HON. MR. HALL: I don't mind you twisting some of my words, but all of them is a bit much.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, which do you object to?

HON. MR. HALL: I didn't say that there wasn't a basic principle involved in the lottery thing. I said there's no basic principle involved in putting $10 in the book, and you know it.

MR. D ' A. ANDERSON: Well, $10 in the book. The basic principle then is that we should have an opportunity to examine these things.

HON. MR. HALL: All right, don't complain about it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I still think it's unprincipled of the government to get involved in lotteries. I'm afraid my opinions haven't changed from the time that I objected to this when it first came in. I don't think we should be involved. It appears the practical reason given about a great deal of money is not that convincing. The amount of money is not great and it's declining as expenses increase. I would simply urge the Provincial Secretary to consider bringing in legislation to change the B.C. lottery branch, to wipe it out and put us back to where we were previously.

HON. MR. HALL: The answer is no.

Vote 212 approved.

On vote 213: status of women, $200,000.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Glad to see you're awake this morning and on your toes.

I would like to address my comments, which are very few but I think important, to the Hon. Minister. I would commend the government for setting aside these funds — $200,000 — in order to assist the responsible achievement by women of greater opportunity in many aspects of our lives in the province.

I know that he is a very open-minded man, that he believes that government responsibility to a large degree lies in the realm of being non-partisan. It's in this context that I'd like to just address my remarks and caution him with good intent to not let this vote and this service become a matter of political manipulation. I'm sure he doesn't want this to happen. He has hired, I'm sure, a very capable lady to carry

[ Page 3951 ]

out the responsibilities under this vote, but it's common knowledge that there is very strong partisan support on her part for this government.

I think that if we are to really, as we all want to I'm sure, see this money and this effort truly help women, then we have to approach it from a non-partisan basis. The first thing I'd like to do is ask him to consider utilizing the services of many of the good women across this province regardless of what their political affiliations might be. I think it's essential that this vote and those working under this vote adopt a non-partisan approach.

Just today, where there is a world conference sponsored by the United Nations taking place on women, we see that it is being warped through politics, partisan politics. The whole point of any exercise in trying to help people and provide an environment of equal opportunities for people will be defeated if politics and partisan politics become a manipulating force, and this is what has happened.

I'm not suggesting that I would take a position on either side. I'm not that deeply involved. But I suggest that it is a tragedy for women today when this international conference is being destroyed because of the manipulation of some people for partisan political purposes of what could be a very open-minded and very objective conference.

It would also be a tragedy if those women who, for one reason or another, haven't the opportunity or the personal ability to speak for themselves or to take the steps that do require a good deal of courage, depending on one's conditioning in life, found themselves part of the manipulation for political purposes and in essence changing one master for the other.

If one adopts the position that men have ruled the world, which I think is subject to considerable discussion which I am not prepared to go into today, then if those women who need the assistance in terms of developing confidence in themselves and having the opportunity within the system to meet their own objectives are to have this opportunity, they mustn't become any more dependent on other women, political parties or any other form of unconscious or conscious control.

So I would urge the Minister in this context to take this money, to take these services that are already offered and to utilize the services of other women and other men around the province on a non-partisan basis and to make the recommendations brought in by this committee available to the public, to all Members of the Legislature, and when there are conferences held under the auspices of this vote, assure that they are open and that the invitation is open to all women and all men in this province.

We see under the federal programme a great effort being made to try and offer women an opportunity to get together. Finance is often a problem. But there is a tendency under that vote and under the federal auspices again to channel it through partisan channels. I believe this is wrong. I believe the Minister will agree with me that it is wrong, and I ask him to do his bit through his authority to see that it doesn't happen.

Certainly I am sure that on this basis our party and myself would offer every support to any effort that was made under, this vote to provide women with a more equal opportunity in our province.

HON. MR. HALL: I thank the Member for those comments. I do share her concern. If indeed any partisan support or any political coloration or configuration of any of the groups of people working in the groups would render the work of this programme or the aims and ambitions of the programme useless or not successful, I share that concern, We have just started. The first few months have been spent looking at programmes, looking at governmental effort — starting at home, as it were, with equal opportunities in the government service. There is a whole list of things that we have been doing right here in the seat of government. Economic Development, Attorney-General, Labour, Health, Highways, Transport and Communications, Education and others have been getting into particular programmes sparked off by the arrival on the scene of a co-coordinator. I think it is in the second area that your words are particularly appropriate, which is being tackled right now, and it will be redoubled in effort as soon as this conference is over. The one in Mexico, I presume, is the one you are talking of.

The second level of responsibility of the status of women co-coordinator is to work closely with the appropriate community groups throughout the province with respect to women, to assist those groups in the development of their own programmes and to assist in the co-ordination of community and government programmes. It is that area that I think should be stressed now. We've got some of the high profile stuff and some of the more dramatic things launched. We've done the granting mechanism; it's all been gone through. The budget is just about committed, believe it or not. But the second responsibility, I think, is the one where your point is well taken. I will stress that point to them.

MRS. JORDAN: I have just one more point. I hesitate to touch on it, Mr. Minister, and I thank you for your words and I also reaffirm that my own assistance is available at any time if I can be helpful.

I have a resolution on the order paper — upon which I don't wish to transgress, Mr. Chairman — and I know it isn't specifically your vote. But I think the matter of community property should just be

[ Page 3952 ]

touched on, because this involves all people, men and women and children. It is highly complex, as everyone now appreciates.

I believe that the majority of the people feel that this principle must be adopted and is acceptable to all fair-minded, thinking people. But I fear that this may be shunted aside too much into the legal hands of our province and into the bureaucracy. I would urge the Minister to utilize again this vote, or perhaps other portions of his office, to see that there is wide and responsible public discussion on this subject, and that the lay people, the average people, the people who are going to be affected most by this legislation have an opportunity and a good opportunity to have their input into any policies that might be developed.

I would also urge the Minister and the government not to shy away from this subject because of impending elections or anything else. It's an area that needs vast analysis; it's an area that needs rapid action. I hope that the Minister would give me a commitment that he is prepared to be aggressive in this area and to see that we have an opportunity for women and men all over the province to have their input and not get hung up on all the legal technicalities. I'm sure that adjustments of various Acts can be made when the responsible recommendations are in.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I, too, would like to congratulate the Minister on the setting up of this office and in particular to congratulate him on the person whom he appointed to be the co-coordinator. I don't think there is any question about the fact that Jean Errington, the woman appointed, is partisan. She has demonstrated over the years that she is very partisan on behalf of women. She certainly demonstrated her partisanship, if it can be called that, during the years that she operated as ombudswoman for the Status of Women Council in this province. Certainly the office of ombudsperson under her leadership did more on behalf of women in this province than it ever had either before or probably ever since. Certainly his appointment of her is one of the very good things that has come out of this office. I congratulate her on her partisanship on behalf of women.

I am also pleased that under her leadership this office has not seen fit to spend the $200,000 issuing buttons or radio commercials or TV commercials or any kind of publicity in the way that the federal government has seen to celebrate this 1975, designated International Women's Year by the United Nations.

I think this is certainly one of the great ways in which this government has seen fit to celebrate International Women's Year. It's not the only way, but certainly it's one of the good ways in which it has seen fit to celebrate this year. I am pleased that this office is dealing with programmes, not just with the granting of money from groups around the province who are asking for it — women's groups of all political stripes around the province. Also, this office has the right to instigate or to start studies in various areas or to look into specific areas where it recognizes that there is a need for a programme to be introduced or some kind of study to be done. I think those are two very good things that this office is doing as well as co-coordinating its activities and the activities of all the other departments working on behalf of women this year.

I always find it very strange when people stand up and tell women that they shouldn't be partisan. This is a country in which everyone is political; this is a world in which everyone is political. Yet we're always being told, us woman, that we shouldn't be political and we shouldn't be partisan. I think that's utter nonsense, The sooner we realize that the political process is one of the tools we have to use in order to recognize and to fight for our liberation, I think the better it will be for all of us concerned. I'm totally against women not being partisan.

The other thing I want to say is that I hope that, although this office was brought into being to celebrate International Women's Year, the Minister at the end of the year will take a good solid look at what it's done and have a real appraisal of its job and see whether it is not an office that should remain in existence after this year is over; whether, in fact, the funds should not be increased; whether, in fact, some of the programmes started this year are not worthy of continual support by this and any other government in the future.

So I would like to ask the Minister seriously to make some kind of commitment to looking at the work of this office at the end of this year with a view to, not seeing it die but certainly with a view to seeing it continue in the future. Let this just be the beginning.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, this vote is something that we certainly approve of. It comes in a very bald fashion — just $200,000 and no indication of anything in the way it is spent.

I would like to say a word or two, though, about this government's improvement of record in terms of equal pay for equal work. I remember that back in 1973 I asked this particular Minister about a job at the Queen's Printer being classified "men" and "women." He explained that in actual fact there was no discrimination because the women couldn't do the work the men were being hired for, which added insult to injury. But it has improved enormously since.

Interjection.

[ Page 3953 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I can give you a Hansard if you like. You said that there was no discrimination because the men and the women were being hired for different things. Later on you changed that, Mr. Provincial Secretary, once you realized how foolish that first reply had been. That's a fact; there are people here who will vouch for that.

The fact is that the government's record has improved. When the question was raised just recently about B.C. Ferries and job discrimination there by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), the problem was rectified at once. I would like to congratulate the government on improving their record when it comes to equal pay for equal work.

I might add that there's still a way to go, as the Member who spoke previously to me has indicated but I would like to say that you are improving. If the Provincial Secretary objects to that, well, that's tough lines. Maybe he's not improving, but the government is.

There are a few other things I'd like to comment upon. Unfortunately, status of women questions are scattered throughout all government departments. I know the previous speaker restrained herself in talking about having a Ministry of women's affairs, or at least a focal point. She did talk about this office continuing, but, as she has indicated, this should be the focal point. I think it would be in order, perhaps, for me to say a word or two about the general programmes dealing with the status of women and the problems that women face in our economic society, as well as the political society which was talked about by the previous speaker.

I was surprised that she did not mention the Royal Commission on the Status of Women and the 49 recommendations directed toward provincial governments. In British Columbia, according to my précis here, we have started or implemented 15 out of those 49 recommendations. Not started or not begun are 22 of the recommendations; questionable are 10, and partially are two, according to my breakdown. People may dispute whether it's 10 or 11 or 12 or 9, or what-have-you, but basically we have not really got very far.

Some of the recommendations put forward by the royal commission which have not been worked on are recommendation:

No. 56: establishment of household workers' bureaus;

No. 58: the establishment of agencies or co-operatives for household workers;

No. 72: a committee to review government publications to ensure that women are represented in various occupations — nothing done there;

No. 73: introduce co-educational guidance classes in schools, and encourage girls to consider all occupational fields;

No. 77: equal opportunities for girls in sports;

No. 87: more adequate educational programmes for women in rural areas;

No. 92: adult education for Indian women to prepare them to work in northern communities;

No. 93: the recommendations dealing with education for Indians;

No. 107 is changing matrimonial law to provide equal sharing by husband and wife in property accumulated during marriage. The Berger Commission has reported on that and I personally believe that is most important.

I wish to stress that the last time I spoke on this I was accused of assuming that all marriages would break up. That's not the case. Some marriages, however, break up and we have to realize that. In that case, in that situation, it is quite inequitable for the wife, the woman involved, to be treated as she has been in the past whereby she may get absolutely nothing despite many years of contributing to the joint economic state of the partners. It is quite unjust and I trust there will be changes there.

Child-care centres. I'd like to say a word on that, Mr. Minister, under this co-coordinating vote. We really don't have very much done at the present time. Certainly there is a minor amount of provincial funding, but it is not enough. The previous Member, I know, agrees with me that more could be done in this area and more encouragement could be given to groups trying to set up child-care centres. There is a bureaucratic morass which prevents many groups of women from getting going. I think the province could do a lot more in straightening that out.

The Human Rights Act, under Ms. Kathleen Ruff, is working I think as well as they can. But I do not believe that they are either adequately staffed or adequately funded. I have had a number of cases which have come to my attention, and which I have tried to work out with the Human Rights people, and they have worked effectively. But they are clearly hampered by simply being too few and too poorly funded to deal with the enormous problem which involves not only cases of discrimination against women, but also involve all other cases of discrimination as well.

So I think, in actual fact, if we gave the government a mark on this, Mr. Chairman, it would have to be, at the very best, just a passing mark, probably somewhat below.

The Premier has indicated that he does not regard women…. I think his quote some time ago, was that women are not a priority. He then won the male chauvinist award of the year. I think it is time for the government to get out of doing the minimum and get into doing the maximum in this area.

I have said this before in this House, but it is the appropriate place to say it, the province has had, in the past, an excellent record. The first woman cabinet

[ Page 3954 ]

Minister in the British Empire was Mary Ellen Smith who sat right in this very chamber. People used to come over from Vancouver on the night boat in those days just to hear her speak in the House. She was a mover and a shaker. She was a very, very effective person. That's over half a century ago. A quarter of a century ago, more than that, we had a women Speaker of the House — again, the first one in the British Commonwealth.

We've had a number of firsts in British Columbia, and I think that it would be a very good thing for this government to make sure that the firsts that we've had in the past are matched by action now in the status of women so that again British Columbia could be the lead province rather than one of the following provinces in this whole area.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, referring to the comments made by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), he is quite right that British Columbia has historically consistently led Canada in legislation and opportunities for women.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): The most women without portfolio.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, that just shows the mentality of some of the cabinet Ministers over there — picayune. We are concerned with the broad issue of women, not the partisan issue.

That Member is quite right, British Columbia has led in legislation. Now that you have brought up the partisan approach, it was the British Columbia Social Credit government that led in the development of the Act for equal pay for women. It wasn't perfect…

AN HON. MEMBER: Rubbish!

MRS. JORDAN: …and neither are the Acts brought in by this government perfect. But it certainly helps.

I would point out that the Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) just can't get off the fact that she's on a leadership kick and that she knows about how you manipulate people into politics. But again she twisted the context and I don't feel that's helpful to women. I think this is one of the weaknesses in the Member for Vancouver-Burrard's approach.

We, as women, should be adamant in our position that benefits to women, developing better opportunities for women, should not be used as a manipulation for partisan political purposes. I oppose that Member in that context and I believe she is wrong. I believe she is guilty of it and I believe she should change her attitude if she is really concerned about people and our country and our province. You simply cannot ask women to change one so-called master for another.

I believe that we should use whatever process we can to encourage women to step forward, but I don't believe any party should be guilty of manipulating women who obviously have had problems and have problems today in standing up for themselves to manipulate them for party partisan purposes.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would say further that British Columbia has led, along with Prince Edward Island, in maternity leave and maternity benefits for women. In 1966 only British Columbia and New Brunswick had legislation for maternity leave for women who were working, and that involved a six-week period, and people were not allowed to be fired for getting pregnant.

Today British Columbia under the NDP government is at the bottom of the heap, Madam Member. Did you know that? Why aren't you standing up championing that? Let's get down to some of the basics. British Columbia today, Mr. Minister — I don't know whether you are aware — is at the bottom of the heap in maternity leave.

You now require two doctors' certificates for qualification under UIC, and at the federal level there's a possible maximum of 16 weeks allowed for maternity leave. But this is not so in British Columbia. We have fallen behind badly in this area. I appeal to the Minister under this vote to take his colleague aside — the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) — and set him straight on the facts of life regarding this legislation, because that Minister told a women's group some weeks ago that he had no intention of bringing in legislation to protect women in maternity leave and that they could appeal to the human rights branch if they wanted to. I believe this is the wrong approach.

I would ask this Minister to charge Miss Errington and this group to see that British Columbia has at the next session of this Legislature up-to-date maternity legislation, legislation that will not infringe on the rights of the lady employee.

I would suggest that a close examination of the federal legislation would be in order. I won't go into the details now but I would be glad to assist the Minister. There are some changes in that legislation which I believe would be fair to both sides and would offer women the protection they need but without abusing the other responsibilities.

I hope, Madam Member, that this is the type of thing that you'll get up and champion, and this is what I mean about being non-partisan. Let's not play one woman against the other. Let's deal with the issues. Certainly the maternity leave Act in British Columbia, which is now on the bottom of the heap with Prince Edward Island at this time in Canada, should be upgraded immediately.

[ Page 3955 ]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) that I appreciate the wisdom of her superior years and superior experience in the political arena…

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: …which she has chosen to share with me. She is quite right about our maternity leave legislation. There is no question about that. Maternity leave legislation has to be improved and has to be brought up to date. I was not aware that this was supposed to be the responsibility of the Provincial Secretary, however. That's the reason why it was not debated under this vote. But I think that she would be doing a disservice to all the women of this province if she, with her superior years and experience in politics, would demand that other women not also use the political arena in terms of fighting for the kinds of things that all of know that we need.

No one is saying that it's the only arena. Sure, there's education. Sure, there is the church. Sure, there are other arenas in which one can fight. But please, because you have made it, Madam Member, do not try to prevent other women from using the same arena that you've used — probably not as effectively as you could have used it — in order to fight for other women.

MRS. JORDAN: I have one last comment (laughter), but I think that her twisting and turning is classic of the problem she faces.

Certainly I have tried to encourage any women to use the political arena. What I object to is politicians, Madam, who use women for their own partisan purposes. My approach is to encourage women to run for any party. It was not me that got involved with the status of women group in Vancouver to provide funds supposedly for every candidate, but in fact only for NDP and Liberal candidates.

I think this is something, in all good faith, that we shouldn't do. I think we should encourage women to run for the part of their conviction. I'm not going to encourage them or particularly try to manipulate them into the Social Credit group. I believe that if they're committed to British Columbia and a better life and a better way and a responsible government and lack of mismanagement and waste of taxpayers' dollars, they'll automatically come to the Social Credit. So let's not twist the facts.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that both these women Members could do a lot to improve the participation of their own sex…

MS. BROWN: There's a man telling us what to do again.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …in their own political parties. I take pride in the fact that in our convention, 47 per cent of the delegates were female. In the other two party conventions — the other two parties represented — I believe the figures were 34 and 32, very, very low. The figures came from a study by a University of Victoria professor who was interested in participation of women in politics, and it's a very good study. I would urge you to look at it, Madam Member, and made sure that women do take a stronger part in politics, because I agree with you entirely.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, we run them and they don't win. You have more success. I can assure you that we'll be running more. And when you go on, if you win your leadership race, despite the objections of the Premier and all the others who are supporting Broadbent, and people running out — a shameful practice…. They should be supporting you. When you win that, despite their efforts, and your seat comes vacant, there will be, who knows, a woman running for that seat from other parties as well as perhaps from your own party.

Vote 213 approved.

On vote 2114: public information, $250,000.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, one would have to view this vote in company with the next one, 214 and 215. I would look to the Minister then to elaborate on the very extensive information which is provided for vote 214.

HON. MR. HALL: The first vote, the one we're discussing now: the public information programme is the one in which all the political speeches should be made. The next one, the distribution of government documents, is the one in which no speeches were ever made for years and years, and that really is part of the Queen's Printer operation. It's technical gazetting, you know, the sort of bric-a-brac of government. So please make the political speeches on this vote.

MR. CURTIS: A political speech? Just so I have the understanding of the Minister…a political speech with regard to the B.C. Government News? Well, others have spoken about it. I didn't particularly care for it under the former government and I certainly don't care for it under the present government. But that is solely this vote? Is this $250,000 worth of material or, again I ask the Minister, is there other propaganda that's covered

[ Page 3956 ]

with this quarter of a million dollars?

HON. MR. HALL: This vote is to provide government information service to the public of British Columbia. The starting point of that information programme was B.C. Government News. The next project is the telephone inquiry system, and the third element of it is the staff for those two functions, those two programmes. That's what we envisage, $250,000. I wish it was more detailed but when we decided to do this, we were in the formative stage of the estimates. Later on in the fall I can give a listing of staff or whatever you want to do. I've answered a couple of questions on the order paper already from the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

Essentially, this programme is government information. You're going to call it propaganda and we're going to call it information. You're going to say it's wasteful; we're going to say it's needed — and that's estimates.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that some of the information won't be available until later this year, but could he indicate an approximate cost as of now for B.C. Government News in this fiscal year? Does he have a breakout?

HON. MR. HALL: It's already been answered on the order paper, Mr. Member. I don't have it with me…

MR. CURTIS: Some time ago.

HON. MR. HALL: …but if you want to put it on again, I'll answer it before the end of the session.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I want to ask the Minister a question on Hansard. One of the things which should be distributed as widely as possible for we politicians and for the purposes of politics in the province is the provincial Hansard. At the present time, I understand, only about 1,000 subscriptions have been taken out and we….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I think you're on vote 215.

HON. MR. HALL: It may be vote 1. I have no objections to listening to your point, but I think Hansard is vote 1; I'm not sure.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I'm sorry about that. I just looked under distribution of government publications. And if I could just finish the plea, then, and that is this: the price for Hansard, Mr. Chairman, is $15 a session. That's very, very high in comparison with the federal Hansard which comes out more frequently, in two languages, et cetera, et cetera, which is $3. Now maybe the Member is right to call for order, but the fact is that if we're to put so much money into publications like B.C. Government News and advertising by the government — the total bill is something like $6 million or $7 million — surely we can afford to divert some of the advertising money to subsidize Hansard subscriptions.

It's an excellent tool for students who can't come to the galleries, because they live too far away, to learn something about the political process. I may be out of order, but I just urge the Provincial Secretary to consider giving us a cheap Hansard so that more people can benefit from the words of wisdom that fall from his lips in this Legislature.

HON. MR. HALL: I think we can answer that. I agree, probably the actual money provided for the Hansard service is in vote 1. It's under the control of the Speaker.

I would share this with the Member: while not rejecting his overture at all, I share with the Member my fear or my caution at not getting involved with Hansard. You know, it's been for all those hundreds of years not part of the government system, and I'd ask for the Member's advice and assistance in how we should, as a Legislature, deal with the fact he brings up. A record of our debates may be too expensive; I'm not the person who really sets it in that sense of the word. Maybe we could look at that as legislators.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I think the Minister has given me….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has been somewhat tolerant. It has been indicated that this is not under this vote, and I think to be correct, that we should not discuss it here.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, the Chair is extremely tolerant. I have lots of bright ideas of how to get Hansard into doctors' waiting rooms, how to get Hansards into schools and how to get Hansards onto aircraft. I'll be delighted to give him some ideas.

Vote 214 approved.

Vote 215: distribution of government publications, $250,000 — approved.

On vote 216: British Columbia culture, $575,000.

MS. BROWN: This, again, is another vote under the Minister's department that I would like to congratulate him on. As you know, a lot of careful study went into trying to design a cultural policy for this province, and get it off its feet.

I would just like very briefly to ask a couple of questions. One of them has to do with the regional

[ Page 3957 ]

arts boards that were supposed to have been established under this vote. Have these arts boards actually been elected? Have there actually been elections for membership on these boards? Are these boards presently operating? Is it becoming an involvement on the part of all the people in the various regions about the cultural direction of that particular region, or are we still sort of in the formative stages?

The second question I want to ask has to do with a problem in the interior and in the northern parts of the province. When we travelled with the education committee we found that the difficulty with getting teachers and other professional groups into the north has to do with the fact that there was so little in terms of recreation and culture, so little in terms of crafts and handicrafts for these people to do and for their families to do after work was over.

In terms of developing the north and in opening up other areas, has there been any specific and special thrust on the part of the department to take into account the cultural needs of the people whom we're encouraging to move into these areas? Are their cultural needs are being taken into account? If so, at what level do they have an input into the decisions about developments in these areas? To what extent are they being met?

HON. MR. HALL: The first thing that happened at the beginning of the year was the establishment of the interim arts board on the provincial basis. Their first three jobs were, first of all, to examine the various documents that were the subjects of all the meetings, all the studies, and the government's response and basic policy paper. The second one was to deal with the budget and the granting mechanisms that they have now taken over. Thirdly, was to make a priority list of activities.

The first one is accomplished. On the second one, the budget is being worked out. And if I may add, in that budget is some assistance for your second question, that is, travelling. We've been aided and abetted in that because of the money that's coming from the lottery foundation.

The regional panels, which is the most important part of our work — and you put your finger right on the nub of the situation — they're in the formative stages. It's a No. 1 priority with the arts boards. It's a No. 1 priority with Mr. Tom Fielding who's now on staff. His budget will see arts panels set up, if not all over the province, over a great deal of the province this year, and in the way in which you've described.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether I can ask this question in this vote or not. I'm looking for some advice on a sports matter. I know that the Provincial Secretary is in charge….

HON. MR. HALL: Community recreation branch, Department of Travel Industry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Under Travel Industry would be the proper place.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister has talked about the interim arts board, and I wonder why this board has not been elected, as was the original intention of the Minister, and the expectation of the people who were involved. It appears to me that the arts access conference — and I have some information here on that from the arts access executive committee…. The impression was left that there would be an elected board, and that this board was meant to be in operation by the fall of 1974. We still have an appointed chairperson, I understand, an appointed cultural amateur and an appointed interim board. In fact, the suggestion of this committee, this executive committee of the arts access group, is that there is no real change from the old B.C. Cultural Fund Advisory Committee, excepting in the name.

So I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary what happened to the concept of an elected body? What happened to the timetable he indicated? Why is the executive secretary a straight civil servant, hired in accordance with the civil service regulations, instead of having the arts board hiring its own director? Perhaps the Minister could start on those particular points.

HON. MR. HALL: I suspect the Member is quoting from a document that's being sent around the province by the old arts access committee. It contains a number of very gross errors in fact — a number of deliberate misleading statements. Frankly, with respect to the Member, I don't intend to get into a debate based on what arts access says about this programme at all.

It was my commitment that there would have to be an interim arts board. There was no electoral mechanism possible because we didn't have the panels to which the Member for Vancouver Burrard (Ms. Brown) has just made mention. When those panels are set up, there will be an elective process and there will be an elected board. That was my commitment all the way through. Frankly, we have decided not to rush headlong in a madcap dash towards a cultural nirvana. We decided to go with some caution.

I've learned my lesson over rushing in the years that I have already been on this side of the House. I trust that people appreciate that things as sensitive as culture aren't going to be Stalinist in nature or anything else; they are going to have to be created by people involved in the projects. If the Member wants to take advantage of the information that has been sent to him by arts access, he must feel free. But I

[ Page 3958 ]

don't really intend to get into a debate or even to give that the courtesy of much of a reply.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Those are fairly harsh words. This information did come to me from the arts access executive committee; they do raise a number of questions. Could I ask one or two more? What is the relationship between this particular vote and the Public Works arts policy? Is there an advisory role played by the British Columbia culture executive director there? How about the Broom report? Are we going to have any supplement to it? Those are two questions which come out of their two-page mimeographed newsletter. While the Minister clearly is not very fond of the people concerned, they have raised some questions which perhaps could be answered.

HON. MR. HALL: As far as the question on the Broom report, I think the government's actions in appointing Eric Broom as an Associate Deputy Minister indicates that we've got not only faith in his recommendations, but also faith in his capacity to carry them out. Not only as Associate Deputy Minister for leisure services, he will also have some overriding responsibilities in the field of culture, heritage and recreation. I feel that the reaction from both the artistic community and the recreational community on his appointment speaks loudly in support of what we have attempted to do.

As far as the Public Works arts policy is concerned, that question must be directed to the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley). There is, however, a co-ordinating function going on between Mr. Fielding and the staff of Public Works.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I had to chuckle to myself when the Minister said he learned his lesson, because I'm sure he has. In part, I was referring to this type of thing with the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard. There was strong feeling when the Minister established that first meeting. Rather than having a genuine interest in cultural development, he was tending to have a genuine interest in partisan politics. If it fell down, then I would suggest that that substantiates those impressions that there were abroad. I think the general opinion is that many very good people served at that arts access conference, and they went about it in a serious way. But it proved that the involvement of partisan politics in these programmes can be very destructive, although the people who are there in partisan view may be most competent in their particular role — in this instance, speaking of culture.

I would only criticize the Minister in terms of what he has said in that I hope he has learned his lesson, and I hope those people who attended the arts access conference, who were part of this early group and who were genuine in their commitment to cultural development in British Columbia with an open mind, won't be cast aside, and that there will be very opportunity for their input.

I would reaffirm — or perhaps not quite agree with the Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) — that one of the most serious concerns on the basis of the Minister's first action at the local level of cultural interest was that, in fact, he was going — to quote his own words just a few minutes ago — "take a Stalinist approach." That is simply no way for a province or a jurisdiction to develop a free, open and expressive cultural programme, and attitude and fibre within its province.

There is concern, Mr. Minister — or there has been concern — that, in fact, you were going to take a very hard line and impose regional arts boards. What people at the local levels who are interested in the development of culture are concerned about is that this type of top imposition will fail. The people within the region will be able to work out a very acceptable means of overall voice for a region.

I would cite the Okanagan Valley as one of the outstanding examples in this province, where because of the interest of local people and because of their dedication none of it with any pay, we have one of the finest overall cultural development and opportunity programmes in the province. I won't go into the details now, but I'm sure the Minister is aware of them. They were afraid that what they had developed on a voluntary and commitment basis would be destroyed from above.

I hope the Minister will assure these people in his reply to my comments that this is not the case, and that there will be ample opportunity.

We all, Mr. Minister, believe that there must be greater opportunity to create excellence — this must be available in our province. This is in terms of more assistance available to promising students to expand their educational opportunities so that no one who has a genuine talent in the arts — be it music or painting or whatever — who is young and who wants to dedicate themselves to a productive career in this area, shouldn't be hampered grossly by a lack of funds. Everyone can't have everything, and I think there is a lot of feeling that there must be a lot of personal input.

But there are still young people in this province, and perhaps some people who are in their 20s, who could go on to very promising and contributing careers in the arts, that are still hampered by lack of funds. I know funds are hard to come by, but I would hope that there would be more opportunity and emphasis on this opportunity.

I also would hope that at no time would anybody be authorized to sit in adjudication as to what is in fact quality culture in the main means in any area. In other words, let us provide the avenue for excellence.

[ Page 3959 ]

Let us provide the avenue for experimentation and fresh approaches and new ideas, but also let us leave room for self-expression of any individual who wants to take part and can contribute.

I speak in terms of the Hon. Member who was talking about other areas of the province. It was very exciting to me, after the cultural fund was brought in, and I'm sure the Member would agree this was a good move, to go to areas like Pouce Coupe, to go out to the isolated areas like Tofino, to go to Quesnel and to see, in their community halls, to see in their public buildings, local cultural displays, local pottery, local painting, where you might find a logger who was cutting trees, a faller all day, having interest.

Because there was a little bit of seed money to get them going and there was encouragement, he was able to take part without any severe adjudication of what his work was. What was important was that he wanted to do it, and he had an opportunity to do it, and there were people to do it with.

I think we must never lose sight of that very simple approach which is, I hope, the opportunity and the right of everyone in British Columbia to utilize and take part in, and that they would never be excluded, never be put down by anyone who might be a world authority in art, but perhaps couldn't quite appreciate that art and culture, apart from excellence and the other matters, are a matter of human expression, and that is expression of the time.

It is only if we take this broad approach and a fairly loose approach, Mr. Minister, that we in British Columbia will have the courage and the ability and provide the opportunity to develop the mosaic of culture which is so much a part of our life.

People from all countries and from all "cultures" have come here, and together we live, together we express. I hope that this, along with the opportunity for excellence would be one of the main objectives of this programme.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I would like to just go over briefly what has happened here, because I think if we are not careful we may get some misleading ideas. Words are being either misunderstood or are not being used correctly.

When I said that I had learned my lesson in terms of rushing programmes, I meant to say that…what I want to re-emphasize is that there is no point in anybody trying to develop an activity on the regional level in either sports, or culture or health care or anything else to simply say, "I know the answers. It is going to be this." Even though they may be correct, they have got to let the public worry the problem out.

I think if any lessons are to be learned by this Minister it is that on occasion we have tended, in our department, to not worry the problem long enough and to allow the public to catch up, in effect, with the activists that are making the pace.

If you will, contrast the expectational timetable on cultural development with that of the recreational programme, and we find we've got a much better timetable, a much more concerted effort that will culminate in a programme. A year and a half ago 1,000 people started to put a programme of culture together. It was a year and a half ago, and in no time in any of my words, or any of my statements, or any documents that have gone out under my name, have we ever suggested for one second that there would be any laying on of a heavy message to anybody.

In fact, the record in 1974 shows that we have supported to the tune of well over $.25 million, 59 community arts councils, the very groups that the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) was talking about, 67 non-profit cultural organizations. We've had scholarships, conferences, acquisitions, all totalling well over $1.5 million in the cultural field.

The areas of concern that were delineated at Simon Fraser University at the arts access conference, were responded to by this government, where a continuing dialogue went around, all over the province, with Nini Baird, whom we put on staff as a consultant, by order-in-council for a certain period of time, and I think we have now got a programme which is far-reaching and which will ensure the very things that the Members are worried about.

MRS. JORDAN: Would the Minister break down in percentage points what he proposes for the budget this year in relation to the amount of money going for administration, the amount of money going to regional grants and the amount of money going to scholarships and the amount of money being used for general recommendations?

HON. MR. HALL: I haven't got it in percentage points but I can tell you that the administration cost expressed as a percentage of the money that is going out in the cultural programme is so small as to be almost non-significant.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, if you could file those figures, Mr. Minister, I'd appreciate it and also if you could give us a commitment that one of the major efforts will be to keep administration costs to a minimum and keep the money flowing where it's going to do the most good because it's always a problem.

HON. MR. HALL: I agree with you on that provided you're talking about central administration costs. But if you're talking about the administration costs that we are going to support in the regions, that is that a regional arts panel in the Okanagan Valley say, if that is what happens, for us to provide that arts council with one person to co-ordinate all that

[ Page 3960 ]

activity I think, is essential if we're going to have an alive cultural programme.

Vote 216 approved.

Vote 217: Salary Contingencies, $1,785,811 — approved.

On vote 218: Public Service Commission Administration, $3,023,301.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I raised with the Provincial Secretary the question of the government, by way of Order-in-Council — two Order-in-Councils, 147 of January 16 and 542 of February 6 — simply giving ranges of salaries for the people who are not covered by collective bargaining.

Our efforts in my office to find out the details of what salary levels had been granted within those ranges, and by the way some of these ranges are from $39,000 to $48,000 a year — $9,000 difference between lowest and highest figures — were unsuccessful on the grounds that only a directive from the Provincial Secretary's office could release the information.

So I have taken this up with the Provincial Secretary. I've gone over with him the two Orders-in-Council which I have in my hand here. I believe this is the right vote, after all it talks about the Public Service Act and they are signed by the Chairman of the Public Service Commission and I wonder whether the Provincial Secretary could indicate whether he will make public the actual amount paid to the people excluded from collective bargaining.

The reason for this, of course, is that it's now possible to make variations in pay of the non-union people, and the people who are in the collective bargaining units would not necessarily know that until public accounts come out in a succeeding year.

I think it's important for this information to be made public because we have no way in the House of knowing what the differential is between different appointees and we don't know when a pay increase is given or how much it might be. So I wonder if the Provincial Secretary could answer who is being given these increases. Perhaps he could do that by memorandum or something. How much have these increases been and who is being excluded from increases and why?

HON. MR. HALL: I'll make a commitment to the Member to table the salaries of that particular group of personnel in the department which would include Deputy Ministers, Associate Deputy Ministers and other excluded personnel. I'll table it in the form of a return. If I'm unable to get all the information together before we may adjourn for a week or two, I will make sure it's deposited in the Clerk's office and copies are sent to the leader's offices.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you.

MS. BROWN: I have a question, but I don't know whether this is the vote under which to talk about the equal opportunities commission or not, is it, Mr. Provincial Secretary?

HON. MR. HALL: I guess that you could talk about almost anything in the government on the Public Service Commission.

MS. BROWN: There was a statement made that the government was looking at the setting up of an equal opportunities commission and I wonder if the Minister would be able to give us any information as to whether this equal opportunities committee is already in operation and if so what kinds of decision is it making, and what kinds of matters is it dealing with. Is it really coining to grips with the whole business of the fact that most of the women in the civil service are in the bottom and in the low-paying jobs and very few of them seem to be able to certainly get past the Associate Minister, Deputy Minister, even Directors level? We still have not got in this government even one women, certainly at the level of Deputy Minister …

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got a Minister.

MS. BROWN: No, we've got a couple of Ministers and they have a portfolio, unlike that great government of yours….

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, but they get the rough cut….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MS. BROWN: But, however, I would still like to have some kind of report on this committee.

The other thing I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary is about the whole business of affirmative action in the civil service. A number of times I've spoken on this in the House and exhorted this government to become a model employer that in fact, even before the Private Member's Bills which I keep introducing on this matter, before they even should be accepted as law and forced on other employers, that we should first of all set our own house in order.

We should set the example, we should, in fact be the model to try out affirmative action, so we can work out the kinks in it, and we can see where it works and where it doesn't work.

Out of this experience we can guide and help other employers who might want to introduce this kind of

[ Page 3961 ]

thing in their offices voluntarily even before it becomes law.

I want to know whether the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) can tell me whether there is any serious consideration of the institution of affirmative action in the civil service or not. Has it been discussed by the BCGEU? Is it something that has been taken into account at bargaining time? Is it something that the equal opportunities commission is talking about? Is it something that anybody in the government is talking about? Are we really going to try to do something about redistribution of jobs as it applies to women in the civil service? That is what I'd like him to tell me.

HON. MR. HALL: The equal employment opportunities office is being set up now. Part of it is in operation.

Frankly, one of our problems has been staffing levels just on new programmes these last two or three months. As the Members are aware, the Treasury Board have had some restrictions on hiring in new departments, new programmes. But the office is partially set up in terms of equal employment opportunities.

As far as affirmative action is concerned, I have no comments to make on that. I can't comment on whether the BCGEU is going to use it as part of its bargaining technique or anything else. That would be, I think, incorrect of me. Also I understand there is a bill on the order paper about it and I'd be out of order to discuss it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhhh!

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to speak long but speaking of equal opportunity I must bring up too points.

The first one is in response to the Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), speaking of equal opportunity and fair treatment of women and affirmative action. I would remind her that it was the lady Minister within her government that had the ankles cut off her by her Premier and Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett). I'm speaking of the Hon. lady Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) who had her leader and her boss fire one of her chief appointees while she was in the east and she knew nothing about it.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

So I hope that the Hon. Member for Burrard will support the Minister of Education from these chauvinist attacks by the Premier of this province, We want the Premier of this province to practice what the government is preaching. Actually, come to think of it, too, he only attacks minorities because it was the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder), who was the Minister without Portfolio who also got the chop in an unseemly manner.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, don't you like us all to talk about the same thing — equal opportunity?

AN HON. MEMBER: The leadership candidate.

MRS. JORDAN: But I feel the equal opportunity extends not only to women but to men. Once again, Mr. Provincial Secretary….

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: I wonder if the plots against women that are going on there could be set aside because I have brought this matter up before, Mr. Minister, and I must bring it back again because there has been no action.

That is this matter of the negotiations that went on between the government and the government employees' union in regards to last year. It appears that the government set out playing a number game and said to those behind the scenes that: "We will go for these raises providing you keep the numbers in each classification limited."

This can be the only reason that there was such rank discrimination as a result of some of those negotiations where in the one example which I have used and which still exists that people who are in a department who were permanent employees — and this was the Highways department — some with long-standing excellent records up to 20 years who had received their promotions and classifications by appointment, through merit, were reclassified and were told that this wouldn't affect them in any way other than just a matter of numbers.

It was indeed a numbers game because in the reclassification these people had a down-graded effect. They lost in terms of their pension benefits. They lost in terms of their compensation benefits. They lost in terms of their holiday pay. And they lost in terms of their over-all pay.

If they are operating in the former classification they are indeed paid on an hourly basis of that classification. But if they get hurt while operating on that basis their compensation benefits are as their labour as classification.

These people were reduced from motor operators at the various levels to labourers with all the same requirements and benefits that go with labouring as opposed to those increased benefits that they had earned and would have in their other classifications.

Mr. Minister, I appeal to you again to investigate this case because the contract is coming up for

[ Page 3962 ]

renegotiation. The union has not come up with a satisfactory answer. These people have been rankly discriminated against in these negotiations and I'm sure the union and no one else would want this to happen. I urge you to investigate it. I urge you to allow these people to have their former classifications that they had won and the benefits that go with it.

As the last point I would point out that if they were a motor operator in their highway district and they were reclassified down to a labourer their opportunities, even though they may have 10 years or 15 years of responsible and respected service, their chance of getting back up to their former classification is drastically cut down now that those positions are open for bids all around the province. So basically a lot of these people have been cut off at the pass, and there's no chance for them to gain their former classification. I hope the Minister will stand up and assure me that he will review this case and call for an inquiry into this case. It doesn't have to be public. All I ask is that they get the equal treatment that everybody else got, that they get the increased benefits that everybody else got and that they participate in a programme — or an attitude that is supposed to exist within this province — where there is equal opportunity and no discrimination. They were cut off and they were discriminated against, and they're paying dearly in terms of income, mental attitude and the effect that this has on their families and their future.

HON. MR. HALL: I don't object to looking into any complaint by any Member about anything that affects the well-being of any of our employees at all, provided the Members remember that there is a collective bargaining agreement with all the procedures that are required. I have no objection, but it does tax one a little bit, when you ask for us to look into something, by prefixing your remark that there was some agreement that I would give the union all they wanted if they….

MRS. JORDAN: I didn't say all they wanted.

HON. MR. HALL: They would get what they wanted, were your words, provided they kept their numbers down. That kind of stuff put on the floor of this House is really not doing anybody any service.

MRS. JORDAN: Just one last comment. If the Minister is so concerned and wants to twist this around, why did you not in the original agreement say to the union: "No one must suffer declassification or any loss as a result of this readjustment that is taking place"? That's all the Minister had to do. If he had done that, if the agreement is to cut down the number of motor operators 2 in a district, or any other classification, that may well be the right thing to do. All you had to do was institute a grandfather clause, so that this would be the objective, that in fact anyone who occupied those positions through merit now wouldn't lose. It's just a matter that the positions wouldn't be filled when they become vacant until the required component was reached. It's a very simple thing, Mr. Minister. I don't think that you should object to that. It would have protected….

HON. MR. HALL: Your question shows a remarkable lack of knowledge about the collective bargaining procedures. You are hardly likely to be successful in a collective bargaining procedure when you say that when management goes in to negotiate a collective agreement its first item on the table deals with the rights and the grievance procedures and the classification procedures of people that are represented by people on the other side of the table. It just shows you….

MRS. JORDAN: You don't care about people.

HON. MR. HALL: Of course I care about people, but that's the kind of statement that really delays this debate, delays any understanding that you and I might have about solving this problem.

Vote 218 approved.

Vote 219; grants re public service — gratuities under sec. 68 of Public Service Act and other government employees, $300,000 — approved.

On vote 220, Retiring Allowances — Public Service Act, sec. 64, and other government employees, $1,750,000.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'm just interested in this item which is $1.2 million under the title, pre-retirement leave. I guess that's a new item and it's a substantial sum of money under code 040. Could the Minister just explain that item?

HON. MR. HALL: That's the amount of money that's going to be required to service part of the master agreement when people take up their accumulated credits in terms of not being sick and not having days off. It's a standard procedure of the agreement.

MR. WALLACE: But why is this a new item? It's not listed under the 1975 column on the left. It seems to be a new item. If it's a standard part of this contract, how come it wasn't…?

HON. MR. HALL: It is now; it wasn't then. Before it was just a gratuity.

[ Page 3963 ]

MR. WALLACE: By gratuity, you mean it was at the whim of the government, whereas now it's written in? Where was that equivalent sum of money listed in the estimates last year then? It's just that it's a substantial sum of money. I'm not trying to split hairs.

HON. MR. HALL: Can I get that information for you as to what that amount of money was last year specifically?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, that's what I'm trying to find out.

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

Vote 220 approved.

On vote 221; public service grievance board, $80,000.

MR: WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if the Minister could tell us whether that grievance board has been set up and who the Members are.

HON. MR. HALL: No, it's not been set up yet.

MR. WALLACE: Does the Minister have some idea as to when it will be set up? I think he's well aware of the fact that there are certain staff members no longer employed by the government who wish to have access to that grievance board. I wonder if the Minister could tell us when he anticipates it will be constituted.

HON. MR. HALL: I know of only one staff member who is no longer with us who wants access to the grievance board — only one. Frankly, there is no real problem there, because in the repeal and transition section of the Public Service Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, we said that until these devices are established, the old methods will be followed. There's a full appeal procedure, a full grievance procedure and a procedure that anybody can take. That's in line with the questions regarding the one person that you have a mind to ask about.

The second point you mention is when it will be set up. As soon as I can assure myself and my colleagues that I've got adequate competent people to do it.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I realize that maybe there is only Dr. Knight who wants to come before this board, but it is in the budget…we're allowing $80,000. The Minister's answer is a bit vague in saying that it will be set up when he's satisfied that he's got the right people. Could I be more specific and ask whether there are certain names being considered who have been approached, or is it simply at the pondering stage?

HON. MR. HALL: To reveal my state of mind on this might take a long time. I'm pondering; I've got some names; I've talked to a couple of people about it. It's an important position.

I don't want, by the way, Mr. Chairman, to allow the thought to go past that there is only one person who wants to go before the board. There may be more than one person who wants to go before the board; there is only one person, however, who has been dismissed who wants to go before the board. So I hope you don't think that I am trying to mislead you.

MR. WALLACE: I accept that.

HON. MR. HALL: There are, I know, some cases. In fact, I had occasion to be interviewed by one on Saturday in my constituency clinic in Surrey, who probably would like to go before the board on another…. That person is still employed by the government.

We're looking at names; I'm pondering. It will be announced just as soon as I am ready.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I just thank the Minister, because I think he has cleared the matter up in his last comment. I think there would be lots of people who want to come before this board.

When we talked about the Workers' Compensation Board recently, the Minister told us that the new appeal procedures in that board were dealing with a lot of items which were very old items but which hadn't been resolved — some of which are getting resolved after many years, in some instances. Do you expect that this might happen with the new grievance board as well? Will you consider cases which may be very retroactive — 10 years, 5 years, 3 years old — but in which the prevailing appeal procedures just haven't worked? There may be cases where the person may have got the tough end of the stick unjustifiably.

HON. MR. HALL: I'd have to consider that. I make no commitment about retroactivity. The Act is fairly specific on that.

The one thing you must remember is that there was a very elaborate appeal procedure for civil servants under the old Civil Service Act — a very elaborate one. I was one who stood on that side of the House and criticized the previous administration for a lousy labour policy. But I will say this: most grievance procedures from the civil service that went through grievance were found in favour of the applicant. That was the time-honoured, paternal civil service ending. There were a few who were got rid of,

[ Page 3964 ]

a few who left. I know a couple of people who still write to me complaining of a grievance of 10 years ago. But they've had avenues right through to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. So I'm not going to make a commitment that this public service grievance board will open up that long ago.

In answer to the first part of your question, I am concerned that it is likely that the longer I delay there is more likely to be some backlog to look into. I'm conscious of that pressure. I can assure you that both the Public Service Commission and the BCGEU are frequently after me about getting on with appointing.

Vote 221 approved.

On vote 222: public service benefits trust, $3,000,000.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this is an item that is not listed on the left-hand side; it's $3 million on the right-hand column. Could the Minister explain that item?

HON. MR. HALL: It's the extended programme effective October, 1974, for dental and extended health benefits that came out of the master agreement. It covers public servants, MLAs and excluded groups. It's a group benefit; there's a management committee of people and they are covering those extended dental-care benefits that you have had information about. Nothing last year at all.

MR. WALLACE: I gather from the application forms which we have received as MLAs that there is no contribution as a premium required by the employees or by the MLAs. In other words, the government as the employer is providing the total cost of these extended benefits.

HON. MR. HALL: At this time. It's new and it's in the nature of an experiment. We're keeping solid cost analyses on it. For the time being, as we are only paying X per cent of the bill, we are not requiring a contribution at this time. The trust is very cognizant of the escalating cost in benefit plans. That will be part of our continuing agreements and negotiations.

MR. WALLACE: Just a quick final question. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the concept that there is no contribution by the recipient at the moment is a very flexible approach that the Minister is not committed to maintaining. As he well knows, I feel that the $1 a day for the hospitals, for example, was started years ago on a certain basis. Here we are starting a new programme where the recipient of the service contributes no premium towards the cost of the programme. I think the Minister would be fair enough to admit that once you've established that kind of precedent, particularly in the employer-employee relationship, it's very difficult if costs escalate — it's very difficult politically — for the government to turn round a year or two years from now and say to the employees and the MLAs: "Look, fellas, it's been a real good free ride. You haven't been paying for certain benefits, dental care and physiotherapy and what not. But now we find the costs are rising and we think you should pay 20 per cent of the costs." Now that has not applied in other programmes, either in this province or elsewhere, in which the start is made with a minimal or nil contribution by the recipient of the service, and where the costs rise the recipient is then asked to contribute. I wonder if the Minister could just comment briefly on the precedent that's being set in embarking upon potentially very expensive programmes where the individual receiving the service is not making a financial contribution towards its cost.

HON. MR. HALL: I think first of all, let's get our principles delineated, First of all, you are using the hospital-care programme, or something of that order, as a comparison to this programme. First of all, one is a universal programme. This one is employee related, a benefit related to the question of employment. So there isn't the universality principle involved in that, which I think makes a big difference.

While I might tend to agree with some of your remarks on the universal programme, you must remember that in an employee-related benefit it is part of the package, part of the business of working. In other words, if I work for a week I can get $300 in money, or I can get $150 in money and $150 in cloth — now you and I remember the debates in our school days on the truck Acts and things like that — or I may get $150 in benefits, i.e. time off, pensions, low-cost loans, you name it. There is a multiplicity of benefits available to people who work for other people — from stock options at the top, to where the employee pays all of the pension plan. That's where we are. It's in those areas.

I agree that once you've got a deal going where there's no basic money changing hands, you have some problems changing the formula. But we might look at, and what we have looked at in other areas, is that when these costs reach a certain percentage of payroll then somebody has to put a buck or two in. Those are the options that are open to you in negotiation.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I accept the Minister's argument up to a point. But I think I would like to go on record as saying that he may be overlooking the unique nature of this particular employer.

I agree that my analogy between a universal

[ Page 3965 ]

programme and an employer-employee situation, perhaps, was stretching things a bit. But in this particular case the employer-employee relationship is between government and employee — the government depending on the taxpayer for their revenue to pay the employee in the package deal.

If I run a plant and I decide that I'm making thumbtacks or peanuts or whatever, then I come to that agreement with my employees, well, that is on my head to raise the revenue from my business to give them that kind of benefit.

But where it's the government whose only revenue source is the taxpayer by one way or another, it bothers me just a little bit to see the government embark upon a programme of this nature. As the Minister well knows and as has just been demonstrated nationally by the budget two days ago, the federal government is turning the thumb screws on cost-sharing for hospitals and medicare because it's escalating at between 15 to 20 per cent per year. Here we are with the government, dependent on the taxpayer for revenue, embarking upon what could be a very expensive series of benefits where, at the moment, at the inception of the programme, there is no financial input by the person who's getting the benefit.

I'm very much in favour of trying to give employees the widest range of health benefits. But I wonder if our enthusiasm might not be running away with our economic good sense by starting off on this basis. I am pleased the Minister gives the taxpayer of British Columbia the reassurance that if the costs exceed a certain percentage of the payroll, then the method of financing will be reviewed.

HON. MR. HALL: Don't take that as an assurance, Mr. Member. All I'm saying is that those are the possibilities available to the negotiating team. Now I'm not negotiating at this distance, at this point in time, with our employees, 34,000 in number. I'm saying that when you get into this situation there is a cost when you're trying to look at other methods of protecting the work force against the ravages of inflation and others, trying to do bottom-end loading in the work force, social progress and good labour-management ideas. There is a different style. I agree that when we do those things we must remember we're not a factory; we are wearing the two hats of a government and an employer. We try and do that. I think I've tried to accomplish that. That's why I get, perhaps, a little bit cross at times when I think political debate takes place on things that are sometimes careless and would spoil that situation we are trying to develop.

Vote 222 approved.

Vote 223: Public Service Commission salary contingencies, $569,315 — approved.

Vote 224: Superannuation Branch, administration, $873,100 — approved.

Vote 225: Superannuation Branch, civil service superannuation and retirement benefits, $39,690,000 — approved.

On vote 226: Superannuation Branch, Members of the Legislative Assembly Superannuation Act, $150,000.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I have been warned that….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I don't mind deferring to the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): My mike didn't seem to be working. It does, now.

Mr. Chairman, in reference to the Members of the Legislative Assembly Superannuation Act, this particular vote, which is the contribution of the government towards the superannuation of Members of the Legislative Assembly, heretofore any Member who spoke on this seemed to speak with some trepidation. I don't know why they should. I don't think there is anything to be ashamed of in the fact that you earn a superannuation by being a servant of the public through the elected office of MLA. The Members also make contributions by way of deductions from their various remunerations which they receive by way of indemnity and allowances for sitting on various committees and other work that is done on behalf of the government.

When this Act was enacted it was considered one of the best in Canada, that is, pension plans for MLAs, but time and change has altered the situation very considerably.

Now only a year ago, as of June 18, the Provincial Secretary pointed out quite plainly to us in a letter, each MLA, the fact that through changes in the Constitution Act in the spring session of 1972, without changes in the Members of the Legislative Assembly Superannuation Act, had made the latter Act inoperative by the fact that we are paid on a different basis now. In view of this, Members have given little or no consideration to this matter which is serious and in our interests.

To show the hazards to an MLA, both physically and in the realm of going to election, from the time the Act was introduced in this House and brought into effect in 1955, there are only three of those Members who were in the House at that time here today. The role of an MLA, his occupation, is very

[ Page 3966 ]

hazardous. For an example, let us use the independent Members who formerly were Liberals. If you look at them, as I saw them in my eyes when they came into this House, they were a handsome, strong, athletic-looking group, (laughter) some from the legal profession and some from the teaching profession, and here they have frost on the roof. It shows the hazards. Even my good friend, the Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan), is getting thin on top, and my friend, the Member for Kootenay (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), has now got a ski-run rather than a head of hair. You can see the hazards that can take place, so we have to be concerned about this.

In all seriousness, I am concerned. All Members should turn their attention to the need to update and bring the Members' superannuation Act into conformity to the Constitution Act that was amended because we are in limbo at the present time. If anyone was to decide not to continue, he might find that he was in a difficult position in getting his pension until some amendments are brought in.

Along with bringing the provisions of the Act at least in line with the Public Service Superannuation Act in a number of areas, and in all deference to the public service, they are the administrators of the legislation that the MLAs draft and put into effect in this House.

Presently, under the two Acts, the MLAs are second-class citizens because they are not getting the benefits, for a number of reasons, that they should be entitled to.

We've all been told that MLAs' jobs are full-time occupations and let's give an example. For instance, a Member at age 30 is elected and he can spend nine years in this House covering two parliaments and be defeated. He would not be eligible to receive pension under the present Act.

On the other hand, a Member — an MLA in more than two parliaments within the same nine-year period could find that on his defeat at 39 he would be eligible for superannuation but not until he had reached 55 years under the present Act. There's a 16-year drag in there in which he would not be able to receive any benefits. In the meantime, because he has reached his mid-forties or early forties, and the trend today is that if you're forty you're over the hump and on the downhill grade….

MS. BROWN: Speak for yourself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order! Order! (Laughter.)

MR. RICHTER: Well, some of us have it and some of us haven't. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. RICHTER: In the meantime the need to start up in business or find employment isn't really easy at that age. I believe that attention should be given to bring the legislation up-to-date — that is the Members of the Legislative Assembly Superannuation Act should be brought up-to-date in line with the Constitution Act and of the legislation such as the Public Service Superannuation Act.

I'm thoroughly convinced that the averaging period should be studied. I think the age qualification should be reduced to at least 50. Surely the arithmetic should be brought into line with the current dollar value, in view of inflation. The cost-of-living clause should be incorporated into the Act.

I regret that action has not been taken at this session and time is overdue for all Members of this Assembly to take cognizance of what the future holds for then. Certainly this is not unjustified and I appeal to the Minister to use his best influence with his government to give very, very serious consideration to bringing on the proper amendment in line with the suggestions I have made.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the Member by telling him that he's essentially correct in all his facts. I am concerned about the various discrepancies that exist in the plans. As you know, I stood on my feet here on at least…I think we've had about 18 bills on pensions in 2½ years and each time I've stood up and said we are moving together, lock step, hand-in-hand, one plan to another and the one that's never moved is the MLA pension plan. I am concerned about it. The Member's correct in his details and I thank him for his very sincere contribution.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Vote 226 approved.

Vote 227: Public Services Medical Plan Act, $1,550,000 — approved.

Vote 228: Public Services Group Insurance Act, $277,240 — approved.

On Vote 229: Municipal Superannuation Act, $58,000.

MRS. JORDAN: Just one quick comment and I don't wish to transgress here if it's wrong. Mr. Minister, there is a problem between the interchangeability of pension plans for those who have worked with the federal government, the municipal government and the provincial government and go to work for a regional district. This pension, as I understand it, is not transferable…. This is on the

[ Page 3967 ]

interchangeability of pension plans between the federal government, the provincial government, the municipal government and the regional district.

I understand it's now to the point where they are all interchangeable with the exception with regional districts and there are a few people in British Columbia who've worked for the federal government or another provincial government, in terms of planning or other capacities, but they can't interchange their pension with the regional district.

I believe that there has been a recommendation made by the Union of B.C. Municipalities and it's now simply a matter of the government acting on it and I fully believe the government is quite willing. But it is causing problems because the federal government is holding this reserve out of the kindness of their hearts, and should they change their attitude, even though you would change your legislation, just a few people would be cut right out. If you could move on this as soon as possible I know they'd appreciate it.

Vote 229 approved.

Vote 230: Salary Contingencies, $220,196 — approved.

On Vote 208: Provincial Emergency Programme, $1,305,634.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I have collected, since yesterday afternoon, a great deal of information on the oil and chemical spills. I see the Member who was asking the questions is not here. I think we could pass the vote and I'll send the material on to the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), if they desire. It is about the schedule of meetings, who is on, what has happened in the last 12 months.

MR. WALLACE: I appreciate the Minister's comments. I wasn't so specifically concerned about the specific financial data in the report that he has mentioned. I was just wondering if he could tell us whether he does intend to proceed with redrafting or rewriting of the modern concept of an emergency programme Act, and can he tell us what the government intends to do in light of recent statements that the Minister has made?

HON. MR. HALL: No, I am not prepared to do that at this time.

Vote 208 approved.

ESTIMATES:
DEPARTMENT OF TRAVEL INDUSTRY

On vote 263: Minister's office, $22,430.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask a couple of quick questions of the Minister with regard to the Royal Hudson. I'd like to know first of all how much it cost to restore the Royal Hudson, who did the work on the Royal Hudson, and who owns the Royal Hudson. Maybe if we get those three questions answered we can move on rapidly.

HON. MR. HALL: I think the questions have been answered already on the order paper about the cost of the Royal Hudson. Who owns the Royal Hudson? The Government of British Columbia owns the Royal Hudson. Who did the work? A number of companies did, including Canadian Pacific Rail and the companies…the names of which I forget, but the ones I think you are asking about, Mr. Swanson's company. One of his companies did work on the Royal Hudson.

MR. PHILLIPS: What type of an arrangement do you have with the British Columbia Railway? Do you pay them a stipend for the use of the tracks? Who insures the Royal Hudson? If it is owned by the Province of British Columbia, what actual department owns it? Is it the Department of Travel Industry that owns the Royal Hudson? What kind of a working arrangement do you have with the BCR?

I'm particularly concerned about the insurance aspect of it because if the Royal Hudson should go through a trestle or have another accident or be involved with some of the employees…. What working arrangements do you have? Who carries the insurance on it? What department actually owns it? From where was it purchased?

HON. MR. HALL: I'm obviously getting a catalogue of questions about the Royal Hudson and you want some answers. Carry on asking questions about the Royal Hudson.

MR. WALLACE: I just want a brief question. Could the Minister give us some approximate figures as to the revenue which his department considers tourism has brought into the province in the year ending March 31, 1975, compared to the previous year? Is that some general figure he could give us?

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

[ Page 3968 ]

Leave granted.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. King presented the annual report of the Department of Labour for the year ended December 31, 1974, in manuscript form.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.