Hansard — Thursday, June 24, 1976

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): We are very lucky to have on the floor of the House today Her Excellency, Ambassador Dr. Dolatshahi from Iran who is president of the International Council of Women, Princess Ngarmchita Prem Parachatra from Thailand, who is the president-elect of the International Council of Women, Mademoiselle Françoise Dissard, the vice-president of the International Council of Women from France, and Mrs. Cathryne Armstrong, who is now living in Brentwood Bay.

We're fortunate, Mr. Speaker, not only in having these ladies here today, but that the people of British Columbia and our country of Canada have been honoured to be the site of the triannual conference of the International Council of Women which is taking place at UBC between June 21 and July 2.

This gathering of brilliant and dedicated women from all parts of the world is addressing itself to the challenge for the future and the many concerns crucial to society of our times.

It might interest members in the gallery to know that the International Council of Women consists of national councils from 62 countries. The organization was founded in Washington in 1888 for the purpose of unifying and advancing the role of women in those days in society, and they were vigorously and successfully continuing to pursue this role today.

The council of women, Mr. Speaker, has provided around the world through the years ideas of leadership and strength, and in Canada they have taken up causes where the need was evident. Their success is paramount to all of us in such areas as public health, the promotion of the arts, the franchise for women, family law and the peaceful use of atomic energy.

This is the second time that this international conference has taken place in Canada and the first time in western Canada.

It would also interest members to know that the National Council of Women of Canada was founded by Lady Aberdeen, who played a major role in the development of agriculture in our own province and was then wife of Canada's Governor-General in the year 1893. Our council has been in federation with the International Council of Women since 1897 and is one of the 62 national councils so federated.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members to join with the Government of British Columbia on whose behalf I speak in welcoming these distinguished ladies to the floor of our House and to wishing them success and challenges in their deliberations.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, I, too, would like to join with the government in welcoming our four very distinguished guests to the floor of our Legislature.

I am really thrilled that the International Council of Women decided to have their triannual convention in Vancouver this time and regret that due to the unusual sittings of the Legislature I was unable to be with you on Monday morning as invited for your official opening.

Believe me, my thoughts are with you throughout this time and lots of very good wishes for a great success at this time. Thank you.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to associate my party with the remarks of the hon. member for North Okanagan and the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard and would wish them a very productive and happy stay in British Columbia.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my welcome to the distinguished ladies attending the convention. It's a very timely date that you're here because we're about to debate the estimates of the Provincial Secretary's office, if we ever get past the estimate we're on, I guess. (Laughter.) Don't count on it, Tom.

I just would say that if you're following in the steps of someone as noble as Lady Aberdeen you're bound to be headed for great success.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery this afternoon are also two very distinguished women, my wife Sheila and my mother-in-law, Mrs. Evelyn Boyce from Sudbury, Ontario.

Introduction of bills.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of any other bill I would like to introduce Bill Backup. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't know that was a subject of debate on the floor of this House.

Oral questions.

SUBMISSION OF GOVERNMENT
RATE INCREASES TO AIB

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Premier in the absence of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). Yesterday the Minister of Finance introduced the signed agreement between the provincial and federal governments respecting the Anti-Inflation Board

[ Page 3098 ]

programme, and I would like to ask the Premier if he would indicate now to the House when it will be submitting for review to the Anti-Inflation Board the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, the ferries, Hydro, hospital insurance and other increases that would be subjected to the Anti-Inflation Board regulations.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Well, Mr. Speaker, in response, all of this is clearly spelled out in the agreement, and due to the fact that the member hasn't read the agreement, I might just quickly review for him what was also on the news last night. That is, these agreements will be reviewed with any rate changes that are made now that the agreement is signed.

MR. BARNES: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Premier's response.

I have read the agreement and, to my understanding, it does not include on a retroactive basis the increases that I have indicated. If so, when will the application be made to the Anti-Inflation Board for review, specifically? When will it happen? What are the mechanics involved?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, again the agreement is just that. Any rate changes that may come up in the future will be subject to the scrutiny of the AIB.

MR. BARNES: No, not in the future, in the past. These are already on the books. ICBC increases have already taken place. Will they be rolled back as of October 24, 1975, when the agreement was in effect? Is that not right?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, these agreements are not in the agreement for retroactive study. The member asked when they will be rolled back. I would hesitate to judge in advance what the AIB would say on anything.

MR. BARNES: Perhaps the Premier is not aware that some time ago — I think it was May 26 — the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) quoted the Premier in previous statements in which he indicated that he would welcome a review of any increases that had been made beyond the allowable guidelines. I'm just asking him if the member was speaking for himself or for the government, because I also asked the same question of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and he confirmed that that in fact was government policy and they would be submitting all of the increases for review on a retroactive basis. I hope that they intend to do that.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): This is a supplementary to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Since B.C. Hydro has been excluded from control of prices, and since the rates have been increased twice in the past nine months, has the government decided to keep the commitment in the throne speech of March 17 that an independent agency will be established to monitor the pricing decisions made by all public service agencies and corporations?

Will that independent agency be set up?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the government hasn't changed its mind on policy that was announced. The timing may be something else again.

MR. WALLACE: A further supplementary. Since the Premier affirms that the commitment in the throne speech will be kept, has the decision been made that...?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Oak Bay has the floor.

MR. WALLACE: Can the Premier tell us then if, in fact, all future proposed price increases by B.C. Hydro will be brought before, and will require the permission and approval of, this independent agency as and when it is set up?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, at such time as the government gets the time to tackle all the problems in British Columbia, certainly at that time we'll spell out, as any agency is created, the terms of reference. At this particular time, I don't want to go step by step through any future policy.

While I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, in response to a question yesterday by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) concerning the use of a government car requested from the Provincial Secretary's office, any such invoice that the Premier's office might have for such a vehicle I'll ask leave to table in the House.

Leave granted.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary on this matter of the independent monitoring agency. The Premier has stated repeatedly in this House that inflation is the No. 1 battle, and now that he's had time to write the agreement, can he not tell us if he regards it as a rather...? In view of the double standard that wages can be rolled back but prices will not, and the fact that B.C. Hydro is excluded from the agreement although prices have gone up twice in nine months, can he not assure the House that it is a very urgent matter which will receive his immediate attention — to set up the independent monitoring

[ Page 3099 ]

system?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I might say that I appreciate the comments that prices should come under review. The member is correct that under the former government Hydro was given an increase, and they've had one since we've been government. Last year they showed the first loss in electrical sales they've had in years. Up until that time, the losses have been attributable to.... It's the only loss they've ever had on electrical sales. Up until that time, losses have been associated with transit. Certainly we're concerned about pricing on government corporations and that's why we had a policy statement in the throne speech. I just can't give you the specifics today.

POSSIBLE ICBC REFUNDS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): A question to the minister responsible for ICBC: yesterday the minister was quoted as saying that accident claims for the first three months of the fiscal year could be down as much as 50 per cent, which more or less bears out the kind of advice they had earlier from Byron Straight of the board of directors that the premiums had been set too high. In view of the fact that the corporation predicted a 15 per cent increase rather than a drop, and given the fact that this year's exorbitant rates were based on those predictions, and now that they aren't proving true, will the minister undertake to refund to the motorists at the end of the year the surplus that looks like being something over $100 million if this rate of low claims continues?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, it would be a wonderful thing for the motoring public of British Columbia if there could be a surplus of $100 million to distribute at the end of the year. But we have made it very clear from the outset that the rates for ICBC were established on a break-even basis, based on the performance under the NDP. And the policy of the government is to provide insurance for automobiles at cost to the motoring public of British Columbia. Therefore, of course, any surplus that may be achieved, because of better driving habits and better efficiency of ICBC under a Social Credit administration and a businesslike board of directors, will be returned to the motorist. There's no question about it! I would like to think, to the member, that we would be $100 million better than the NDP, but that's a very high target indeed.

Mr. Speaker, while I'm on my feet, I wonder if I could answer some questions on ICBC that were taken as notice a couple of days ago.

NUMBER OF LICENSED AUTOMOBILES

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) asked about the number of licensed automobiles on the road. I'm afraid that we have no better update on the figures than the last time when I reported on this. I am told that the most recent date has been put through the computer and it will not be too long before we can give accurate figures. Again I reiterate, however, that gasoline sales are up this year.

ICBC STAFF REDUCTION

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) asked about the number of adjusters: were we going to lay off 50 per cent of the adjusters? The answer to that question is no. But the answer to the question posed by the member for Port Alberni (Mr. Skelly) is that the branch in Port Alberni, as with a number of other claim centres and branches in British Columbia, is overstaffed at the present time, so there will be a reduction in staff to keep pace with the amount of business which ICBC is doing at the present time.

ICBC CASH ON HAND

The member for New Westminster asked about the cash on hand in ICBC. ICBC has no cash on hand because all of the receivables are immediately invested to bring an income return to the corporation and directed to the people of British Columbia. As of May 31, 1976, the total amount held in short-term investments was $311.9 million. Of this, Mr. Speaker, $251.4 million was in unearned premiums — that is, premiums that had been collected on behalf of the motoring public but which had not been yet applied to accidents that are expected to be incurred before the end of the year. In addition to that, there were $164.6 million of unpaid claims. In other words, the corporation owes to people who have incurred accidents over $164 million which has not been paid.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you speed it up a little?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Would you defer to the hon. member for New Westminster who had a number of replies given to him? Then I'll come back to you, Hon. Member.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Education, the minister in charge of ICBC: in view of the fact that the government was accused, at the very outset of the new rate schedule, of rating very, very

[ Page 3100 ]

high, extraordinarily high, and now that the minister comes in with the answer that he came in with today, will the minister now admit that they were way out of line in putting up the rates the way they were?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the rates were set, as I have said before, by actuaries of the corporation on a break-even basis.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I repeat: the rates were set by actuaries of the corporation; they were ratified by the cabinet but not set by the cabinet, as with the former administration....

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: The rates were deliberately set low!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. McGEER: There was a great deal of publicity to a suggestion by one member of the board of directors, Mr. Byron Straight...

MR. COCKE: An actuary.

HON. MR. McGEER:...that the rates may have been set 4 per cent too high. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, no one could have predicted the amount of waste that took place in ICBC...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McGEER:...and the encouragement to bad driving that was under that administration.

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, when rates were deliberately set at the cost level, it was done by the former Premier (Mr. Barrett), by the former Minister of Hospital Insurance (Mr. Cocke) and by the former Minister of Transport (Mr. Strachan).

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, the minister didn't really answer my question, which was: will a refund go to this year's motorists? They need the money to pay their extra sales tax. Here's my supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister was quoted yesterday as saying the staff has already been reduced 10 per cent by attrition and he is looking at chopping it further. Could I ask him what his target is in cutting down the ICBC staff for this year?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the second question — the member will understand this — whatever will bring maximum efficiency to that corporation.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS
(continued)

On vote 75: administrative and support services, $28,755,041 — continued.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Chairman, I wish to change the topic from this morning's discussion. I am a bit concerned about the many independent operators in this British Columbia coast. Under the previous Social Credit government over the last 20 years prior to our becoming government, large tracts of timber were given away, particularly on this coast, by a method of tree farm licences and pulp harvesting licences and this type of thing. The result of all this, Mr. Chairman, was that a large number of small independent operators who provided jobs and a way of life on this coast and in the interior and in these communities were forced out of business.

I realize that under the provisions of a TFL there were provisions where a certain percentage of the harvesting to be done was to be done by independent operators. But some of these operators were not small and certainly not independent. They were directly under the thumb of some of the larger private corporations. For the remaining timber that was left in some of these areas, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, areas were set up which were called public sustained-yield units. The few remaining independents that were left had to compete in those areas for the timber within those areas. However, the regulations at that time did not provide for the fact that if one of those independents wished to sell his quota, he could do so without the approval of the minister at that time. The result of that was that some of these small independents being forced out, particularly when the market was at a low level, sold their quotas, some of them quite cheaply, without reference really, to the department or to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, and further reduced the number of small independent operators on this coast.

So I am asking you and hoping that prior to the Pearse commission report being tabled hopefully this July you will make sure that the small independent logging and sawmill operators of this province will once again have the opportunity to participate in the forest industry in this province.

[ Page 3101 ]

On another topic, very briefly, I would hope that the minister, in view of some of the remarks that were made this morning regarding the Ocean Falls Corp., would see fit to table the Simons report and make it public. In a public accounts committee hearing approximately two weeks ago, the general manager of the Ocean Falls Corp,, Mr. Vesak, told us — and he has seen the Simons report — that there were three viable alternatives. One of these alternatives was through expansion and upgrading the community and the planned facilities in that community, and one which he favoured. Now I don't know which one he favoured. He briefly outlined, as I recall during the public accounts committee hearing, these three or four alternatives.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, may I just interrupt you long enough to remind you of something that I'm sure you know, and that is that details of information or proceedings or evidence presented to public accounts committee cannot be discussed here in committee.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you very much. I'm very pleased you reminded me, Mr. Chairman, because I'd completely forgotten that.

So just to change the subject, I would ask the minister to read the draft of the public accounts committee, and read those remarks of the general manager, because I think he would find them very interesting.

But basically what I'm asking is that the Simons report be tabled in this House, because it involves more than Ocean Falls, Mr. Chairman. It involves the community of Bella Coola, which must have a tax base, and will provide employment in that area if some of the recommendations, as I understand them, from the Simons report would be implemented. There's a high level of unemployment in that area, and it would alleviate some of those problems in that community — and Bella Coola as well, a community of some 1,200 people where there are horrendous problems of unemployment.

So I'm hoping that the minister will take a few minutes and answer some of these questions.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In response to the queries from the member for Mackenzie, it is quite true that the H.A. Simons report has been available to the Forest Service; in fact the former Minister of Forests has a copy of it. The base studies made in that report indicated a marginal rate of return, after rather massive capital investment, of approximately above or below 10 per cent, which is not sufficient return to entice an capital to make investments in the Ocean Falls Corp. as it is now.

Additional studies are being carried out by the Forest Service. We are still looking for a way of utilizing the Ocean Falls operation and possibly tying this in with other developments on the coast. I realize that Mr. Ted Vesak, the manager of Ocean Falls Corp., feels that the return is sufficient. However, as stated in the H.A. Simons report, Mr. Vesak does not have the $100 million, $200 million, or $300 million required to bring that about, and until such time as the return is sufficient to get that capital into the province, then another approach has to be taken, and we are continually working on this.

We're very concerned about Ocean Falls and about the people living there. We don't want to do anything that will jeopardize their employment in that area in the forestry industry. We will continue to study this, and, hopefully, some solution will come about as our studies proceed.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, just a very brief follow-up. First of all, I should tell you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the manager of the Ocean Falls Corp. did tell us, for starters, that there was enough resource in the central coast area to supply three pulp mills. So we have the basic resource in that area. But we were further told, Mr. Chairman, that the 9.5 per cent return on the various options that were proposed, apparently in the Simons report, was based on a time when the market was at its very worst, and at this time we could expect a much, much higher return. Certainly I don't think now, because the markets are improving and the world market for pulp and paper products is improving.

But I can't understand, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, how the mill is expected to pay its own way if we don't as a province, as a government, or as a corporation, provide the funds necessary to improve, upgrade and modernize that mill. The mill, at the moment, is deteriorating so much every year and the situation is just getting worse. You've indicated that there are further studies taking place, and I wonder if you could indicate to us — and if you have indicated this already, I'm sorry, I missed it — who is doing the study, when you expect these studies to be completed and what general direction they are taking.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The Forest Service at the present time is having a very close study of the timber resource available in that area, and they are attempting to come up with an invitation for bid proposals which will fully utilize the resource in the area. Ocean Falls, of course, must play a big part in whatever invitations are made. We haven't resolved this problem yet, and when we do it will, of course, be public knowledge.

The member also mentioned the independent logger and the importance of the independent logger to the forest economy of British Columbia. I couldn't

[ Page 3102 ]

agree with him more. I have stated on many occasions that I feel that the independent logger has been the backbone and the starting point of many of our major industries in this province related now in the forest sector.

I've done all I can to encourage the independent logger, and I know that Dr. Pearse, when he brings in his report, will be addressing himself to this problem. We don't want to see the independent logger disappear. He's a vital part of the industry, and we will do everything we can to encourage him to continue. The independent, free enterprise loggers are something that we need in this province.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, there's just one final question I'd like to ask of the minister and it relates to a problem that's been drawn to my attention in the riding of Alberni, particularly on the west coast of Vancouver Island. A large number of people in that area have built or use cabins located in provincial forests or in tree farm licence lands for wilderness activities — for hiking, fishing and this type of thing. Although the cabins are built on public land or built on tree farm licence lands that are administered by forest companies, they're not really used by the persons who build them. They're used by a number of people. They're wilderness cabins and they're generally accessible to a number of people using the forests for recreation uses.

Now the Forest Service comes along and they put the torch to these cabins, and there's a lot of money invested in the cabins — stoves, repairs to these cabins. I've just been notified by one of my constituents that one of these cabins on Megin River, just north of Tofino, will be put to the torch by the Forest Service. This person has been ordered either to remove the cabin or it will be burned down by the Forest Service. I've talked to some of the officials of timber companies involved — for example, in tree farm licence 19 — and those officials feel that the cabins constitute no danger to the forests; that there's not much danger of fire.

I'm sure the minister is aware that very few fires are caused by the location of these cabins in forest areas, and yet they do provide wilderness recreation to a lot of people on the west coast of Vancouver Island. There are cabins located at Rugged Point on Kyuquot Sound near Zeballos, and there are cabins located north of Tofino.

The Forest Service has notified a lot of the people on the west coast that they intend to destroy these cabins and have told the people to remove their property. I'm wondering if the minister will not consult with some of the recreation groups in that area, with the people who operate tree-farm licences in that area, and perhaps allow these cabins to remain as wilderness shelters for people involved in wilderness recreation on the west coast of Vancouver Island. What is the minister's reaction to that?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, there is a problem not only on the west coast of Vancouver Island but throughout the province where people build cabins on Crown land and proceed to squat and eventually claim to have some form of title to the land. I would never encourage citizens of British Columbia, or people who are not citizens, to attempt to acquire Crown land through illegal means. This is a great problem. There are literally thousands of these throughout the province. It is a problem which is presently before the land use committee, and we are trying to determine a way of solving this problem.

Now as far as wilderness cabins in areas which are used in common by many people, there is a very fine line to draw here, too. If someone builds a cabin in the bush, puts a lock on it and that's his cabin, he is in effect saying: "This piece of land is mine." I can't buy that at all. However, if a cabin is in an area which is used generally by the public as a refuge in a remote area, I think consideration must be given to that fact also, because I think in many cases it is good. It's nice to have shelter when you're exploring wilderness areas of the province and I would not encourage such cabins to be destroyed.

However, many times the case is simply that people are squatting on Crown land; they're attempting to acquire title and use of Crown land through illegal means, and I can never condone that. There are ways of obtaining, through the Lands department, title to Crown land in such areas and these procedures must be followed.

MR. SKELLY: I think the minister is aware, though, that on the west coast of Vancouver Island these cabins are generally built to provide access. It's very difficult to go in and out of some of these areas in one day, and overnight shelter is a requirement for access to these areas. The forest companies involved themselves, who either hold tree farm licences in the area or hold quotas in the area, generally have no objections, and in fact many of the people involved in the forest companies themselves use the cabins. Even those people who do put locks on the door find that a lock in a place like Megin River, 30 or 40 miles north of Tofino, generally doesn't last more than a week at a time. The cabins are used by a number of recreationists — fishermen, travellers, this type of thing — so I don't think there's any question of people laying claim to the land.

As the minister is well aware, forest land can't be alienated in that area. People have made applications in the area and they've always been rejected because the lands are located in provincial forests. But the cabins do provide a source of wilderness recreation and shelter for people on the west coast, and there are a very limited amount of recreation and shelter

[ Page 3103 ]

opportunities out there.

I would hope that the minister, until a report is brought down by the Environment and Land Use Committee on this problem, would hold off on destroying these cabins until some type of policy decision has been made in consultation with the recreation groups and with the managing companies involved in those tree farm licences. Would the minister give us an assurance that they will hold off on destroying these cabins until consultation has taken place and a policy has been drafted?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: As long as cabins are available to the general public and are not claimed to be the sole possession of some individual on Crown lands.... As I said, I think refuge in wilderness areas as a place to stay overnight and to use as an operational base for wilderness travel is good. Yes, I will give the member assurance that we will not destroy cabins unless each individual case has been thoroughly investigated. The member, not correctly, says that because a provincial forest covers an area lands cannot be alienated for a single-use purpose such as being acquired by an individual. Small tracts of provincial forests can be removed by order-in-council if individuals have a good reason to wish to acquire them. This has been done many, many times.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: One very quick question to the minister, Mr. Chairman. Something that hasn't been raised in the estimates when I've been present is the matter of junk wood and debris in the strait and on the Fraser River. I know the Council of Forest Industries has been quite active in this matter along with the Forest Service over the last several years, and with some degree of success. It is my understanding that this year there are problems because of so-called lack of funding from your department, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, and that the programme of trapping debris on the Fraser River, for example, may be abandoned because of lack of funds from your department. I wonder if you could clear up this matter for me.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I realize there is a problem this year. We have been required to cut back on funding in various areas of the department of operations. We don't do this with the intention of creating additional debris problems. We are aware of the problem and I hope by next year we will be able to get back to more comprehensive debris-control operation.

However, further to some of the discussions we had this morning, we're making it unnecessary for this junk to be taken out of the bush in all cases before it becomes debris in the waters. This is a very practical way of controlling this material because it is of no value to anyone and if it's taken out of the bush it just becomes debris and becomes a hazard to the boating public and becomes an eyesore on the beaches. This is one thing we are doing which costs no one anything, really. In fact it ends up in an increase of revenue to the government. We are aware of the problem and funding will be required more so next year than this year. We'll do everything possible to prevent this problem from continuing to exist.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The problem may be, Mr. Minister, that by the time you get around to funding this programme, or assisting in the funding — and some of it is being borne by the operators and log salvagers and this type of thing — the programme will be down the tube and there will be nothing to fund. So I would really suggest to you to seriously consider allocating some funds to this programme. I know the fishermen out in the strait — the sports fishermen and the people who use our waterways — are very interested and concerned about this matter.

Vote 75 approved.

Vote 76: resource management programme, $6,378,077 — approved.

On vote 77: reforestation programme, $22,853,993.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): On the reforestation programme, Mr. Chairman, I believe there was a cutback in the allocation for this particular programme as compared to last year. I just wonder if the minister could give us some indication of what the programme objectives are — what he sees as the need in terms of keeping pace with good sound management policies in the forest.

What does he feel that the general budget area requirements will be? What numbers does he feel will be involved in ensuring that all areas of the province are adequately restocked on an annual basis? I haven't got the precise vote last year, but it does seem to me that it's a reduction, and I wonder if he anticipates a cutback for budgetary reasons or does he feel that simply because the progress has been adequate to date a cutback is justified?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the original budget last year, for the fiscal year prior to this, was for $22,093,000 for the reforestation programme, and that budget was cut back by the previous government. In fact, last year $16.3 million was spent on reforestation.

Our budget this year is for $22.8 million, which is an increase of over 40 per cent above what was actually spent last year. I think this demonstrates the awareness of this government that reforestation is a

[ Page 3104 ]

very important thing. Is is, in fact, an investment in the future of the forest industry. We are very concerned about it and that is why this is one of the few areas of the forest budget that has been dramatically increased. It's absolutely essential, and we will be planting this year something in the order of 75 million trees, plus doing a lot of preparation work on areas for reforestation. It's very important to this government, and, as I say, a 40 per cent increase over last year I think is an indication of our sincerity in this area.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, there's no increase at all in terms of the budget for the programme. In fact, if you view increasing costs on an annual basis, one could say that there is a reduction in the estimated budget for the reforestation programme.

Now whether or not it was all expended in the past year is another matter. Whether or not it shall be all expended in the current year is something we won't know until next year either. I disagree with the minister that there's any increase in the allocation for this programme. The budget is apparently almost identical this year to what it was last year.

I'm more interested though in the numbers. The minister's indicated 75 million tree plantings and I wonder if this is considered by your departmental officials to be adequate to keep pace with the alienation of the forests through all the logging activities in the province. Is there a backlog of areas that need planting? Are there adequate seedlings available? Just what are the prognostications for this programme in terms of keeping pace and ensuring that there's no net depletion of forest reserves?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member remarked that last year they budgeted for something in the order of $600,000 or $700,000 less than what we had budgeted for this year. But budgeting does not plant trees. Trees are planted by expending the money that is allocated in the budget. We have every intention this year of doing exactly what we say we are going to do and expending this budget for the reforestation programme for which it is designed.

Approximately 400,000 acres are logged each year in British Columbia and approximately 120,000 acres are replanted. Now, this combined with the natural regeneration that takes place, does not really keep up fully with what is required. But there has been over the last number of years a 15-year programme which has not yet expired, and each year progressive increases in the reforestation programme have taken place. We are following along with that programme.

We can't just turn on tree planting, because you have to provide the nursery stock, and this is being done as fast as it's practical. I know the previous government carried on with this programme, although their commitments in actual expenditures last year were not what was budgeted. We intend to carry on with the long-range programme of constantly increasing reforestation programmes.

Vote 77 approved.

On vote 78: research programme, $2,450,998.

MR. SKELLY: This is another section of the forest vote that has been cut back from previous years and I'm wondering.... The description provided in the estimate book says the reason for these funds is to provide technology and improved quality of information germane to the reorganization of forests and the regrowth of an acceptable crop of trees. I'm wondering just what type of projects are being carried out by the Forest Service under this vote and what programmes are going to be cut back because of the decrease in funding this year.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Right now I don't have the details of our research programme at hand but we do have a comprehensive report on this.

Any programmes that we have been committed to will be continued, those that have a continuing nature to them. We are not initiating new programmes. For a full answer to the question I think perhaps I could provide a report of our research group to the member.

Vote 78 approved.

On vote 79: fire suppression programme, $9,202,000.

MR. KING: Again, Mr. Chairman, in my own particular riding there was a cutback this year in the number of people employed for fire-lookout duties. I appreciate that the department has gone to alternate methods of identifying forest fires — plane patrols and so on. But one of the things that bothered me and the individuals involved who had lost their temporary status, I suppose it was, with the branch over a period of as long as 15 years where they had been employed part of each summer as a forest lookout was that they were rather arbitrarily and unceremoniously dumped. Although they were not permanent employees, it seems to me that the department might well have taken into consideration the years that they had been associated with the department performing a very difficult task, a very isolated one, albeit on a temporary basis. But they were fulfilling a role that was very, very important to the security of our prime resource.

I wish the minister would have a look at the status of those individuals. They did not seem to have been

[ Page 3105 ]

represented very well under the new union arrangement, perhaps because there was such a very, very small group of people in this category. Nevertheless it was a source of employment to many of them over a period of the year, which was what is needed in a more or less rural area. Many of them farm part-time. As I said, they were unceremoniously dumped in some cases, in the Nakusp area particularly.

I know there were about five individuals involved there who were just notified that they would not be required for the coming year. I would appreciate it if the minister could have someone on his staff have a look at the circumstances of these people, and perhaps if there is not budget or if there's an improved method of fulfilling that important function of early spotting of forest fires, they could be offered some alternative employment in another branch or another area of the forest service. I think they should certainly receive some kind of consideration along those lines.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It is a fact that the method of spotting forest fires is changing. We are going much more to the use of aircraft now than we have in the past. One of the reasons this had to come about was because of the overtime provisions in the collective agreement signed by the civil service employees union. It made it much less competitive to use stationary lookouts than it is to use aircraft. Aircraft are much more efficient and cover a much wider area, and in the interest of the efficiency of government and the best possible use of government funds, we found it necessary to go more for the use of aircraft rather than lookouts.

I might add, however, that the Forest Service is making every effort to employ people formerly used in lookout service in other seasonal employment programmes. I don't think anyone was unceremoniously dumped. It may seem like a shock when the time comes up when you're expecting that job you have had for a number of years and it's not available. But every effort is being made to provide alternate employment for these people.

For example, this year in our seasonal employment code throughout all of our votes we are hoping to employ some 2,125 students for the season. This all comes into the same area of part-time work. Some of these funds will be used to give part-time work where it is required to people formerly on lookout work. But we are concerned about individuals who have lost their seasonal work, and we will make every effort to look after them.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Minister's remarks. I would like to draw to his attention, despite the overtime problems which I recognize flows from the collective agreement, to the fact that it is possible under the labour contracts existing with the government employees and under the labour laws of this province to negotiate a special arrangement for small components, particularly, those people in isolated circumstances where, if on the basis of continuous overtime, certainly it would be a heavy burden on the employer, the Crown in this case. But as with employees in the Highways department who are sometimes required to maintain highways, particularly in the wintertime, under isolated circumstances, arrangements are made whereby they can perhaps work two weeks on at very lengthy hours and then get out of that isolation for a reasonable period of time.

Through discussion with the union, the hard applicability of the overtime provisions in the collective agreement are waived out of mutual agreement between the component of employees involved and their employer, and it makes sense. This goes on in the isolated areas of northern British Columbia in the private sector with respect to drilling for oil and that type of thing. No one wants to work for eight hours a day and sit in their isolated camp hundreds of miles from civilization six days a week and on the weekend be prevented from travelling out because the distance is too far.

So they strike an arrangement whereby they work for two weeks of perhaps pretty intense and long hours. Then they come out of that kind of isolation for a period of weeks. And upon application to the Department of Labour for exemption from the Hours of Work Act and the overtime provisions of the Hours of Work Act, and upon mutual agreement of the two parties, this kind of arrangement can be made. So I think it should be looked at.

As I say, many of these people have rendered a very important service to this province for as long as 15 years. And they were unceremoniously dumped. Sure, they weren't permanent employees, but they received no advice notice that they wouldn't be required again. They were banking on that work; they require it for their way of life. I think they deserve consideration, Mr. Chairman.

Vote 70 approved.

On vote 80: forest protection programme, $7,101,520.

MR. SKELLY: Again, Mr. Chairman, this is another vote that has been cut back — or estimated expenditure that has been cut back — from the previous year. I am particularly concerned about the pest management, and I believe I mentioned this initially in the minister's estimates. For example, there is something like 300,000 acres of provincial forest that is affected by spruce budworm damage. Yet the only amount of acreage they can work on is

[ Page 3106 ]

something like 50 acres out of 300,000 acres of damage.

I see in pest management that the money allocated is $29,000, which doesn't seem to be a large enough amount to handle, say, spruce budworm damage over 300,000 acres in the province. I am wondering if we can expect any increase in this budget. Is the Forest Service taking the issue of pest control in the forest seriously? Just how much of this vote is going to be spent on the control of pests such as the spruce budworm in B.C. forests?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the protection vote is down this year because we are not buying any new equipment. However, pest protection last year was for $23,000; we have increased that by 25 per cent because, once again, we are aware of the necessity of looking after our forests for the future of our forest industry and the well-being of the future generations of British Columbians. We are budgeting 25 per cent more this year than last year. The only cutback is on the purchase of new equipment to do this. We will continue to pay great attention to the control of pests in the forest.

MR. SKELLY: According to the estimates, you've got it backwards. It looks like last year the amount allocated for materials, supplies and utilities, for example, was $1.2 million; this year it is $2.25 million. For machinery and equipment, granted, it is down from $392,000 to $32,000. You have cut back on rentals by about half, but I am wondering what type of machinery and equipment you are cutting back on. Why the cutback from one-third of a million to $32,000?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 80 pass?

MR. SKELLY: I think the minister is trying to study his estimates, sir, before coming up with an answer.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The purchase of equipment used has been cut back because the equipment is available from previous years. The details of the type of equipment we are using — I don't have the information at hand now. However, as I said, the pest-protection vote is increased. We will be doing at least as much, if not more, this year in actual pest control than in previous years.

Vote 80 approved.

Vote 81: inventory programme, $5,470,023 — approved.

On vote 82: scaling programme, $9,308,904.

MR. SKELLY: Just a small problem: the IWA local in my area has contacted me concerning acting official scalers. People who are log-dump operators operating machinery in log dumps have been appointed by the Forest Service as acting official scalers. It says in their notice of appointment by the Forest Service that they can be terminated at any time. This could jeopardize the job of that person as dumpman working in the log dumps removing logs from the water. I am wondering if the Forest Service has come to any kind of an agreement with the IWA to protect the jobs of these people should they be summarily dismissed as acting official scalers. How has the Forest Service come to an agreement with the IWA to handle that problem?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, we don't have any official agreement with the IWA. However, no one is required to accept a position as a temporary scaler. The people have to be qualified to do the job; they are taken on as needed. We find that it is essential to use these people. Because of the intermittent nature of the scaling work we cannot possibly take on people under government staff to do scaling. Once they are on, then they have to be maintained at other jobs that perhaps do not exist. It is essential that we use temporary scalers. There is no official agreement between the unions; however, as I said, these people are under no obligation to do so and obviously would work out some kind of arrangement with their employers should they be required for scaling work.

Vote 82 approved.

Vote 83: range management programme, $1,231,540 — approved.

On vote 84: forest development roads programme, $4,617,194.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Chairman, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), when these estimates were under discussion some time ago, raised the question about the roads in the Nimpkish Valley and roads that applied particularly in his own riding.

I, too, am concerned about that Nimpkish Valley road, particularly because, as the minister may be aware, it is the only road which the 12,000 people on the north end of the island have now for travel. Every year, particularly in the winter months, the complaints that come from the north islanders are just constant. They're just complaining constantly about the condition of that road.

Now if there has been a cutback in the road-servicing programmes, as is indicated in this vote, how are those people going to manage next winter? You indicated, Mr. Minister, that you are

[ Page 3107 ]

going to talk to the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) with respect to some sort of cost-sharing in order to maintain that road, but in my conversations with the Minister of Highways he indicates to me that he has no money to spare for anything. I'm just wondering how we might resolve this problem, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I, too, am concerned about the road access for people in remote areas. I know it is a great problem. We have discussed it with the Minister of Highways and I believe some $60,000 is being made available from that department to the Forest Service for the maintenance of these roads when they are not being maintained by the logging operators. I'm sorry to hear that the member had constant complaints from the area last winter. I would have hoped that the previous government would have done something about fixing those roads up for them. We will do everything we possibly can and provide the best road service that we can as far as the responsibility of the Forest Service is concerned.

I would like to think that as the Highways department's budgets are improved in future years, perhaps more responsibility for these roads can be assumed by that department, especially as logging moves off into different areas. The logging companies only maintain the roads while active logging is taking place, the Forest Service then assuming some responsibility for them. But really, servicing a community of 12,000 people, I would think that it's not going to be that long before the Highways department will be able to provide some funds for upgrading the road access.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the minister. I don't think it's going to resolve the problem this winter, though, particularly on that Nimpkish Valley road. Under the previous government there were significant funds diverted into maintaining that road following the numerous complaints that were brought down, but obviously, with this kind of a budget, they're not going to be able to funnel those extra funds into maintaining the road during the wintertime.

If the minister is talking about the Nimpkish Valley road as the public access road out and that the Forest Service, in conjunction with the Highways department, will expend some funds when the forest companies are not operating, could the minister also tell me how the road into Holberg from Port Hardy is going to be maintained this winter? There is a significant section of that road on which there is no logging company operating at the moment. Would that come out of the funds that are available here? Does the department recognize that there is no logging company operating there this year and that the Forest Service will have to be responsible for the entire maintenance of that road during the winter?

The other question — just one other brief question, Mr. Chairman — relates to section 6 of the Highway Act which, in fact, says that if funds from the Highways department are used on forest roads the companies will be responsible for paying gasoline tax and licensing and everything else as though it were a public highway. Has that problem been overcome between the two departments and the forest companies?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the charging of taxes for gasoline really does not come under vote 84, as it isn't the responsibility of the Forest Service. Perhaps that question could be raised with the minister responsible. As far as the Holberg road is concerned, my department is presently negotiating with the Department of Highways hoping that that department will take over that particular road. It will provide some hardship to the small amount of logging that takes place there because, with the bumps, it will reduce the size of loads that they can haul on the logging trucks. However, with the limited amount of hauling on that road we feel that the hardship will not be that great and that the greater benefit will be by the Highways department taking over. A resolution has not yet been completed on this problem, but we are still discussing the matter with the Department of Highways. Hopefully, we can resolve it to the benefit of the people who must use this road.

MS. SANFORD: What about the Holberg road?

Vote 84 approved.

On vote 85: reservoir waterway improvement programme, $7,130,710.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, in 1973 a considerable amount of money was spent, I think for the first time, towards clearing the areas behind the Duncan Dam. I'd like to inquire from the minister how much money was spent last year clearing in that area, thinning, and what the plans are for this year in terms of expenditure.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid I don't have the figures for the amount of money expended last year, but we have budgeted $300,000 for....

MR. NICOLSON: The same amount?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, the difference

[ Page 3108 ]

between the votes this year and last year is substantial. This year we're voting $7.1 million for reservoir waterway improvements programme and last year we voted $10 last year.

I'm wondering if any of this expenditure is attributable to the mess that the previous government left behind Williston Dam, the mess that they left behind some of the Columbia River dams and if any of it's going to be expended on the McGregor River diversion area.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, it is quite a substantial increase from $10 million to $7 million and some dollars....

MR. SKELLY: Ten dollars.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: From $10 — I'm sorry. However, this is what we used to call a $10 vote. The moneys which were recovered from B.C. Hydro previously went into the Forest Service. This year they go into general revenue and we have to budget the total amount because we don't get it directly back into our department.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the member for Nelson-Creston brought up the Duncan reservoir which is in my riding. It's been raised in this House many, many times over the last number of years, the colossal mess with the flooded timber that is evident at the Duncan Lake. I'm aware that many operators in the Meadow Creek and the Coffee Creek area who run shingle mills and things of that nature are unable to get wood on any permanent basis for their operation. That's virtually the only source of employment in that region in the Lardeau valley. I wonder if the minister could tell me whether or not, first of all, there are any accelerated plans for clearing from the reservoir and also what the chances are for the local small operators to be provided with a more secure supply of mainly cedar products.

Much of it is simply salvage material from the Duncan reservoir so their operations in that region, albeit small ones employing only a dozen or 15 men, at least can be guaranteed some security of operation. Over the past year they've been obliged to close, and not only the past year. Quite frankly, I think it's over the past number of years that they've been obliged to close from time to time, simply for lack of material. It's rather disconcerting when we see operators burning all kinds of cedar material that would be completely adequate for the kind of shake product and plants that they have in that region. I hope the minister's aware of it and will have a hard look at it in that area.

The other question I wanted to put to him with respect to salvage from reservoir areas is the question of the proposed Revelstoke Dam which would, I suppose, flood approximately 80 miles of reservoir between the Revelstoke and Mica Creek. I wonder if the Forests department has any inventory of what is left for clearing prior to the inundation of that valley due to the construction of yet another Columbia chain dam.

I think it's safe to say the majority of the material has been taken, but I would be interested to learn from the minister precisely what assessment has been made by the Forestry branch of the inventory that must be taken prior to flooding of that valley.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the indications we have from studies the Forest Service has conducted are that we will have sufficient lead time to completely remove the timber from behind the new Revelstoke Dam. It will depend to a certain extent on the length of time that these studies and hearings go on. However, I understand from our staff that the time is there and we can fully recover the timber before flooding actually takes place, and we will make every effort to do so.

As far as independent people acquiring products, especially wood for their specialty mills, I'll make every effort, as will the department, to see that this material is utilized, because it is a shame to burn it when it does have value and when people require it to operate their plants.

For the Duncan Dam, as we mentioned, there was $300,000 budgeted this year. We would have liked to have had more. However, our budget is restrained by that of B.C. Hydro, because they ultimately pay the cost of doing this by paying into general revenue of the government. They have limited their expenses their year to $300,000, so I'm afraid the Forest Service is stuck with that. But we will continue to make every effort to clean up Duncan Lake.

MR. SKELLY: This seems strange; it looks like there's a subsidy to B.C. Hydro taking place out of general revenue, and that B.C. Hydro used to pay the cost of clearing reservoirs behind their dams, with the exception of $10 which was voted from general revenue. Now B.C. Hydro is no longer paying that $5 million, and the total burden of clearing behind the dams built by B.C. Hydro is now being shouldered by the taxpayer. Is that not the case? We're not getting $5 million from B.C. Hydro this year, we're not getting the cost of clearing the reservoirs this year; it looks like it's a subsidy to the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, the member must have misunderstood me. I said the money is not coming into the Forest Service directly; it goes into general revenue. The Forest Service budgets for it; the money for the Forest Service comes from general revenue. B.C. Hydro is paying the

[ Page 3109 ]

total cost. It's just the way it's handled by the government Finance department. The money comes back into general revenue rather than directly into the Forest Service.

MR. SKELLY: Sounds like a case for the auditor-general.

Vote 85 approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT
OF THE PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

On vote 152: minister's office, $75,258.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could just take a few minutes of the time of the House to introduce the vote of the Provincial Secretary. In so doing, I wonder if I could have agreement of the members of this House that we would discuss under this vote the salary of the Provincial Secretary's office and then move on to superannuation and the Public Service Commission, then do the Department of Recreation and Travel Industry following — if that's agreeable.

MR. SKELLY: What about the other way around?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: All of the votes under Provincial Secretary first, followed by superannuation and the Public Service Commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which vote are we on?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We're on the Provincial Secretary's vote which pays the salary of both of my departments. I was just hoping that you would agree that we would not mix up Recreation and Provincial Secretary under this particular debate. It is traditional that we do the Provincial Secretary's vote first and keep the votes separate, and I think that tradition would be observed. I just wished to put that on the record so we would not jump from one portfolio to another. Agreed?

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): On a point of order, and to the Provincial Secretary on the exact mechanics of that — in other words, would Travel Industry be done under a different vote than the vote she's just introduced, or would it all be done under this vote but segmented in terms of discussion?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, in the order I have just noted, and it would be the Provincial Secretary's vote and all the votes therein in the estimates book. Superannuation and Public Service Commission comes immediately following, and following that we could go into my Department of Recreation, followed by my Department of Travel Industry.

It is somewhat....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Provincial Secretary still has the floor.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It is....

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Point of order: is the Provincial Secretary suggesting that on the first vote we should not discuss all of the departments for which she's responsible?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Not at all.

MS. BROWN: Okay, fine.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, not at all. You are saying that all the departments of the Provincial Secretary that I am responsible for should be discussed under that vote.

MS. BROWN: No, no — also Travel, Recreation and everything else.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think it is traditional, Mr. Chairman, that under the vote of the minister's office that is paying for the minister's salary.... As you know, the minister's salary is only paid once, whether they have one department or two departments, and it is traditional that the vote is taken first on the one department for reasons of staffing. I would like to have the opportunity of having my Recreation department staff here when you question me under the recreational vote. I would appreciate it if you would confine your remarks in the first few moments — and I'm sure it will only take a few moments — to the department of the Provincial Secretary, followed by superannuation, Public Service Commission, and then hopefully we could have my staff of the Department of Recreation and Travel Industry...and you will query me under those votes after that. Is that agreed, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If I may make an observation, this is the kind of an agreement which perhaps ought better to be made through the Whips of the House, because it is not provided that we can make this kind of an agreement in committee.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, it's so traditionally.

MR. CHAIRMAN: However, if the House is so inclined, then so ordered.

[ Page 3110 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, may I continue then with my remarks of introduction?

MR. KING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. KING: I don't think that it is so ordered at all. There is no agreement as yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, we can't take the time of committee to make agreements on the kind of subject that Whips should be making agreements....

MR. KING: Very good. I agree. I don't intend to discuss that; I do intend to discuss the Chairman's assumption that an agreement was in effect, and giving an indication by "so ordered." There is no such agreement as yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In a vacuum of an agreement by Whips, we must come to agreement somehow. My observation was that this is not the place to make that kind of an agreement.

MR. KING: Right on!

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

MR. SKELLY: Another point of order — just a question to the Provincial Secretary: would it be inconvenient to have the Recreation and Travel Industry people first? Would it be a staff problem to have them appear first? Oh, it would be difficult.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, my salary is paid under the Provincial Secretary's vote.

Just in introducing this particular department, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that it is difficult to take each and every aspect of the Provincial Secretary's department and make remarks, so I will save the House from remarks on all departments, because we cover some 20 different subjects, and I know that you will want to do those individually as you question me today.

I do want to say, in rising on this particular vote, that since nowhere in our estimates do we pay tribute to the office of the Speaker and the Clerks of this House, I feel that we should recognize today that in this House, although they are silent members of the House and servants of the House.... I would like to recognize today the great service that the Clerks of the House give to our House.

It also should be noted, Mr. Chairman, that one of the long-standing members of that office, Mr. George MacMinn will be retiring from that office this year. Although he mentioned earlier to me that he has been 20 years in office — and it only seems like about 19 and a half years — I do want to pay tribute to the service he has given, and the Clerks have given, to this House. I know that all members of the House will join me in wishing them well.

Mr. Chairman, the office of the Department of the Provincial Secretary is a very challenging one. It covers very many subjects, and one that has been given a great deal of attention is that of the grants programme. There is one particular grant which I would like to mention today because our cabinet approval has just been given today, and it may well be that we have members of the Vancouver Status of Women in our gallery today, because I know they were visiting my office very early this morning and I hope they are still in the precinct. It is my pleasure to announce the additional grant for the balance of the six months of this year of the $75,000 grant which is a continuation of the grant that the Vancouver Status of Women had last year.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of concern over whether or not this funding would be continued. My department has, in the past few weeks since giving the first part of that grant, undertaken an assessment of the programme. Because the Vancouver Status of Women serves the whole province and because of the work they do we are very pleased to announce that grant. I hope that there are some members of that very dedicated group of women in the gallery today to hear that announcement.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No. In total the grant is $75,000, which is the like amount that was spent last year. It is a duplication of the amount of money last year; it is a continuation, then, until the end of the fiscal year for that amount of money. It duplicates the same amount.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, in the debate that will follow I appreciate that all members of the House and certainly members of the public will want more money for various programmes. In addressing myself to the remark of the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) when he said, "Is it the same as last year or more?" in most programmes, unfortunately, we have not been able to give more money. I think, without any more than has been said on the floor of this House, the hon. Liberal leader knows why, as do all members of the opposition — the amount of money that was left for us to work with was very much less than the previous government had in their first term of office.

At any rate, Mr. Chairman, I will look forward to

[ Page 3111 ]

the constructive comments of the opposition. I just say, in rising for the first time on my estimates as Provincial Secretary, how pleased I am to represent this department and how pleased I have been with the tremendous cooperation I have received from all the staff members in the department throughout the province as well as here in the city of Victoria.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I am very, very pleased that the cabinet has approved a part of the request made by the Vancouver Status of Women council for their continued funding, and I have no doubt whatsoever that the hon. Provincial Secretary by so doing has certainly shortened her estimates by a couple of minutes anyway. (Laughter.)

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Vancouver Status of Women did submit a budget for quite a bit more than the $75,000. They were actually asking for over $102,080 and I think they submitted with it a very detailed description of the kind of work that they have been doing since their inception five years ago and some very extensive and valid reasons for their needing the additional $30,000 or $40,000 over what they received last year. So, although I'm happy that they certainly have received $75,000, I feel some sorrow that they didn't receive the full amount that they asked for, because I think the budget which they submitted was the absolute bones in terms of their requirement.

They submitted for salaries in their office, $864 a month. That's the kind of salaries that they are going to be paying the people working in their office.

What they have also done is to deal with a concept which we believe in in the feminist movement. That is, all work that people do is valuable and it is of equal value. So they pay everyone in the office the same amount of money because they believe that whether the person in the office is typing or dealing specifically across the board with people with problems or giving legal advice or whatever, that particular role — the job the person is doing — is valuable and that nobody's work is more valuable than the other. So they submitted salaries of $864 which would cover the service of people working as legal people in the ombudservice, a bookkeeper to ensure that the books are in order, co-ordinators of various programmes as well as the clerical staff. They submitted for eight salaries and the $75,000 is not going to be enough even to cover the basic eight salaries at the very, very reasonable and below reasonable level of $864 a month.

When one compares the request for a salary of $864 a month with some of the salaries being paid to advisers and consultants of one sort or another, we find that actually, in a way, the Status of Women in submitting this budget have fallen into the old trap of under-asking in terms of their services. In fact, the kind of service done by these women in that office is worth a lot more than the $864 a month which they will be paying themselves for doing this job. But to ensure, because they are dependent on public funding, that they do not ask for more than they absolutely need, they have cut their request down to the absolute minimum. Their budget, Mr. Chairman, also included things like rent, telephone, transportation, postage, bank charges and one thing or another. But there really isn't anything in this budget that can be cut out.

So although I am glad that they have received $75,000 from the provincial government, I am really very, very disappointed that the grant allotted to them did not come closer to the request which they put in. But I don't want to talk about the Status of Women in a vacuum, Mr. Chairman, because I think that unless we understand and appreciate the work being done by that organization, we really can't understand how much money they are saving the province, quite frankly, just by the work they are doing.

I want to read a letter which was submitted with their application in support of it, from someone who has used their services, to give you an idea of the appreciation out there for them. This letter was written by Donald Moir, who is the chairman of the family law section of the Canadian Bar Association. What he said in his letter is:

"I suspect that if one were to do a cost-benefit analysis of the services of the Vancouver Status of Women, one would find that it had saved in reduced welfare and other social costs many, many more times its minimal cost of operation. I suspect it might be found that it is among the most efficient organizations, public or private, serving the community."

This sentiment, Mr. Chairman, is echoed by Alderman Darlene Marzari, one of the councillors from the Vancouver city council, in her letter of support. She goes into great detail about the kind of services rendered by this organization throughout its five years of existence and its importance to city council as well as to other levels of government.

What I'm trying to say is that it isn't as though the Status of Women council is asking for money in a frivolous manner to carry out superficial or luxury kinds of activities. In fact, the work done by the Vancouver Status of Women saves the government, at all levels, a considerable sum of money. The Vancouver Status of Women, Mr. Chairman, is involved in a number of different areas. I want to talk a little bit about the area that I'm most familiar with, and that's the ombudservice.

After the royal commission on the status of women came down, Mrs. Bird, who was the chairperson of that committee, came to Vancouver, and a meeting or conference sponsored by the

[ Page 3112 ]

University Women's Club, and the Faculty of Continuing Education at UBC sponsored a conference of women to discuss the report. There were approximately 300 women present at that conference, including the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). That was the very first time that I certainly had had an opportunity to meet her in the flesh.

Out of that conference came the decision that what was necessary in this province was an umbrella organization to work very actively towards the implementation of the recommendations — the more than 164 recommendations — in that report. That's how the Status of Women was born — primarily to deal with the recommendations in the report.

Soon after their founding, and I was one of the people at the conference who became one of the founding members, it became very clear that there were so many problems affecting women that were not even covered by that report — instant, immediate problems that had to be dealt with — that the Vancouver Status of Women created what was known as the ombudservice. The function of the ombudswoman, as she was called at that time, was to deal with the immediate problems of any woman who phoned or wrote or turned up on the doorstep of the Vancouver Status of Women council with an immediate problem.

I was the first ombudswoman and had a lot to do with the setting up of this service. It's interesting to me that over the years, Mr. Chairman, the kinds of problems that are brought to us by women really haven't changed that much. They are still in the area of family law; they are still in the area of housing; they are still in the area of employment; but most of all, the one thing they all seem to have in common is poverty.

Just about every one of the women who came with a problem was poor. There were very few exceptions to that rule. So the ombudservice developed resources throughout the community that could be called upon in terms of dealing with these problems which were presented to us. What it served to do was to lighten the load of other groups like the Children's Aid Society, like the Welfare department, which is administered now by the Minister of Human Resources, like the emergency department of the hospital. It dealt with things like rape. You know, out of the ombudservice developed the concept for transition houses and rape-relief centres. It was used extensively by the police in the community. Out of that also came the idea for the family law commission.

It started with one person, with a grant of $1,800 from the Secretary of State, but it has really grown to be almost the core of the Vancouver Status of Women council. It used four people; there are four women now working around the clock in that service for the salary of $864 a month — four. The additional four people on the staff deal with such things as education, because there is no question that one of the largest hurdles that we have to deal with in this society in terms of the problems that women have — in terms of our rights, discrimination, oppression, whatever you want to call it — has to do with lack of information. It's just absolutely clear that people do not know what the facts are. So education is a major role of the Vancouver Status of Women Council, and the Provincial Secretary was quite right that the council operates not just for Vancouver, but for the entire province. In fact, it's a misnomer to call it the Vancouver Status of Women Council, because it's a provincial body.

One of its roles has to do with the educating of legislative representatives and municipal representatives. It has to do with the whole concept of teachers and the school counsellors, as well as everyone else in the community. One salary was asked for, Mr. Chairman, to cover that as well.

The other thing that the Vancouver Status of Women has become involved with is the plight of immigrant women coming into this country. It is working very closely with another outstanding women's group in this community, the YWCA. Over the past two years their service in that area has expanded and been developed extensively. Another salary was requested for that, again at the same level of $864.

As I mentioned earlier there was also a request for a bookkeeper, again at the same $864. The final salary requested for for a co-ordinator of volunteers, because a lot of volunteer work is done by this particular organization. I'm sorry that the hon. government Whip isn't here, because I know how committed he is to the concept of volunteerism and I'm sure that he would want to say his bit on behalf of the Vancouver Status of Women Council and the volunteer role that they're doing throughout the entire province.

So which of these salaries are to be cut? In fact, the same plight that the provincial government finds itself in, in terms of funding...the Vancouver Status of Women Council have been notified by the federal government that they too find themselves unable to fund them.

They do raise some money from the community at large and will have to continue to do so. There isn't any question about that, but what I really want to say to the Provincial Secretary is that in last year's budget there were $200,000 budgeted for the office of the co-ordinator of the Status of Women for the province. That office has now been terminated. It had been my hope, however, that that $200,000 would have reappeared somewhere else in the Provincial Secretary's budget. Certainly out of this $200,000 there would have been sufficient funding to meet the

[ Page 3113 ]

very limited request of the Vancouver Status of Women's office for their $102,000. Seventy-five thousand dollars is just not enough for the Vancouver Status of Women Council to do the job that has to be done.

There's an increase in every single area that they're involved in, Mr. Chairman. There's an increased demand on their services, whether it is in legal counselling, whether it is in employment counselling and the whole area of credit, housing, single-parent families, assisting in the setting up of women's centres, transition houses, rape relief, dealing with legislators, dealing with municipal councils, education in the schools. You name it — there's an increase. More and more people, including male people, are using the Vancouver Status of Women Council. To allot that organization the same amount of money that they had last year is really, in fact, to cut them back quite severely.

Everyone else recognizes that there is an inflationary spiral. The cost of everything has gone up. Their rent has gone up, their telephone, postage — everything has gone up. It just doesn't make any sense, Mr. Chairman, for the government to slash their budget quite as intensely as they have. I certainly hope that the Provincial Secretary will find it possible to come up with some more money from somewhere to try and meet the budget of this really very responsible organization.

What I also want to talk about, Mr. Chairman, is the whole concept of funding for women's groups throughout the entire province. The reason I started with the Vancouver Status of Women Council was because that was the issue raised by the Provincial Secretary.

In fact there are about 200 women's groups that we know of throughout the province, all of whom are seeking funding because they're all non-profit organizations.

The most important task, as far as I'm concerned, being done by the Department of Economic Development has to do with the encouragement of women and women's groups to go into the business of doing things on an economic basis so that they can become self-supporting, but that is not yet true. The kind of work being done by the women's economic rights branch of the Department of Economic Development is excellent, but it's just a start.

For the most part the 200 women's groups around the province are still totally and completely dependent on either public funding or government funding, either at one level or at all three levels. That's why I think it's so important that the Provincial Secretary outline for us her criteria and the machinery which she will be using to deal with all these requests for funding coming in from these 200 or so groups.

Under the previous administration that was one of the major responsibilities of the office of the co-ordinator on the Status of Women. That office has been disbanded. So be it. The decision has been made. We have been told that it is irreversible and when a decision is irreversible.... One just has to learn to live with irreversible decisions.

But I am hoping it is not irreplaceable. What I am hoping is that the Provincial Secretary has worked out some new machinery, some new mechanics for dealing with the funding for other women's groups throughout the province at this time. I am hoping she will outline for us just how this system is going to work and the kind of criteria she is going to be using in terms of deciding which groups shall get funding and which groups shall not. Now there is the whole issue of duplication of services and I would like to know how the Provincial Secretary is going to be dealing with this and who decides when one group is duplicating what another group is doing. Does she have an advisory committee? Spell it out for us in detail, Hon. Provincial Secretary, when you get up to respond to my questions.

The other area that I want to talk about is the whole issue of the cabinet — the government itself — in terms of dealing with the matters affecting or decisions affecting women. A number of groups in the community and a number of problems are dealt with by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). Others are dealt with by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland). The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) takes responsibility for one or two. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is responsible for the Human Rights Commission, which is a matter of vital interest and concern to every woman in this province. As I mentioned earlier, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has the women's economic rights branch, and you, Hon. Provincial Secretary, deal with the grants.

What kind of communication goes on between these departments around this issue of the needs of women? Is there an intracabinet committee consisting of the Minister of Human Resources, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Economic Development, the Provincial Secretary, the Attorney-General and the Premier?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the whole cabinet.

MS. BROWN: That's right. It is the whole cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: We meet every week.

MS. BROWN: But do you talk to each other in terms...? No, not do you talk to each other — but in this particular area, what kind of consultation, what

[ Page 3114 ]

kind of dialogue takes place? Also, at the level of the departments in terms of your deputy ministers and associate or assistant deputy ministers, what kind of intragovernmental network do you have to deal with the problems that are brought to your attention surrounding the area of women?

Specifically, I want to talk about one particular issue which was dealt with earlier under the Attorney-General's department and that had to do, of course, with the rape relief centres which are presently being funded by the Minister of Health's department. When the Minister of Health found that there was not enough money to meet their needs, the Department of Human Resources agreed to pick up a part of the responsibility. However, what we have now found out is that the Minister of Human Resources has come up with a concept of matching grants. He said to the rape relief centres, if you can raise $25,000 out there in the community, we will give you $25,000. What I am saying to you....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Sure, he broke his deal but that's another issue. What I really want to talk to you about, as the person responsible for most of the granting dealing with the whole area of women's rights, is what kind of dialogue goes on across departments at the top levels — that is, at the level of the directors and the deputy ministers and, of course, in the cabinet itself.

AN HON. MEMBER: They never talk about it.

MS. BROWN: Right. The absence of dialogue surely must have been what resulted in your, for example, funding the Women Alive programme despite the fact that the Department of Health had said that particular programme was not worthy of funding. I am wondering whether since that incident occurred you have worked out any kind of communication with the other departments so there is not this playing off of one department against the other, so when a submission comes in for a grant everyone looks at it and decides which department should really be ultimately responsible for it, and whether the funding is dealt with that way. What happens in so many instances is that the groups have to apply here and then it gets turned down, and then they apply to another department and they play this musical chairs around the cabinet until somebody comes up with a sympathetic approach and says, "Okay, I will fund you."

I have a number of other questions, but maybe if you could respond to those dealing with these issues, I could carry on from there. Are you making notes? Oh, okay, that's fine.

This has nothing to do specifically with the civil service, although it may sound like that, because I will raise it under the civil service, but I want to talk about the whole issue of equal opportunities and equal employment opportunities that you are responsible for. Or would you prefer that I wait and discuss this under other...?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: A committee was set up by the previous government — what has happened to that committee? I'm kind of curious to know whether they've met, what kinds of criteria they have worked out, what great things they've been able to achieve and in what ways have they really enhanced the status of the women within your jurisdiction — within the government itself. If you want I can go into more detail, if you are unable to find....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: You can find that particular thing — okay. So I would like to hear from you on the whole issue of affirmative action, which is really the other way of saying what that committee was trying to do.

You keep newspaper clippings on me and I keep newspaper clippings on you, but in one of your speeches....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Our secret files. (Laughter.) You keep a secret file on me and I keep a secret file on you.

If I can take press reports seriously, you said that women can achieve anything they want through this government as long as they are really serious about it.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: You were misquoted, were you? In any event, I think I actually have the clipping here. What I really am hoping is that what you were doing at this time was revealing some government policy in this area in which you would be willing to outline for us the ways in which, now that you are responsible for this department, it's opening up and that indeed women are really going to be moving into the top echelon ranks of the government under your jurisdiction.

There are a couple of other really serious things I wonder if you are looking at, and that's the whole business of women in prisons. There was funding last year for a programme, and I think it was being carried out in Oakalla. That funding made it possible for pre-employment training for women in Oakalla. I'm wondering what has happened to that particular programme. You funded it last year, and they're up

[ Page 3115 ]

again for additional funding from you.

There is an interesting article in a women's magazine known as Priorities. The title of it is "Mission Impossible" and it talks about the plight of women in prisons and how really important that pre-employment programme was. I really am quite anxious to find out whether the decision has been made by your department to continue funding that particular programme.

How many of the other programmes funded last year by the co-ordinator's office, out of that $200,000, are being carried on by you? What about, for example, the medical women of Canada branch — are they continuing to get funding from you? The Western Canadian Women's News Service, on which all of us are so dependent, what about the...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Two minutes, Hon. Member.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that time had gone by.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I'm the designated speaker. I'm recognized as the designated speaker. (Laughter.) No, I'm not — I know that.

The Hope Cottage factory — that was to enable handicapped women who are on social assistance to develop skills within their homes. I think they were working on quilting at that time — they were making quilts which were supposed to be sold. What is happening to that kind of funding?

I notice that my 40 minutes are up so I'll have to sit down, but I'll be up again to ask about Isis, the news media, and also about single-parent families.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I hope that perhaps the Provincial Secretary might, once these introductory remarks have been made, adopt a practice of answering reasonably soon after people have asked the questions.

But since I'll be following along the same line as the previous speaker, it does fit in on this occasion, and I will first of all very much welcome the words of the Provincial Secretary with respect to the officials of the House who have provided such excellent service in this session and in other sessions, and welcome her words with respect to the Law Clerk in particular who has announced that he will be retiring this year. Anyone who can so splendidly retain his sanity through 18 years in this Legislature is evidence of great mental resilience, and I think we all owe a great deal to Mr. MacMinn.

I would also express some words of admiration with respect to the minister's deputy. As we started out going through the estimates it was kind of normal to do that, but as passions have become inflamed as the estimates went on, we perhaps haven't observed these things as much as we might. But I must say that her deputy is a man who, in the interests of my constituents, whenever I went to him with a problem, has been able to solve it in an expeditious, gracious and diplomatic way. Those are his characteristics, and very highly regarded, I think, by all members.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would join the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) in welcoming the announcement the minister made with respect to the grant to the Vancouver Status of Women organization. I will not attempt to go over the same ground as the hon. first member for Burrard did, but I will make some general remarks. The first one relates to the whole area of advocacy funding, which in a sense this is.

One of the most difficult things for governments is, in a sense, to buy the bullets that outside organizations are going to shoot at them. When you fund outside groups that do have the job of representing the interests of particular groups of people in society you have to accept the fact that if they do their job well, they are from time to time going to make things uncomfortable for governments. But at the same time they will be helping governments do their basic job, which is to make the society run better. Governments need advice from outside groups tremendously in order to have the sensitivity and appreciation of the evolving problems of our society that they require. So I say to the minister that I am very glad she made this grant on that account. I hope the government will continue to have the courage to go along that route.

Very specifically, on this particular grant, it should be applauded because of the extremely important nature of the women's movement in our society. I have said before, and I will repeat at every appropriate opportunity in this House, that, in my opinion, the women's movement is unquestionably the most important movement in human affairs, at least in North America, in the second half of this century. It's a "quiet revolution" — that was the phrase, I guess, that was developed in the last decade — that is changing the relationships of all members of the human race with each other. It is allowing the unlocking of potential that our society has overlooked or kept locked up for far too long. Groups such as the VSW are groups which urge us onward in this area and which make it possible for so many women especially in our society, but men as well, to understand in their own minds and to continue the dialogue with themselves and others about ways in which we should be thinking and advancing.

I hope and trust, Mr. Chairman, that next year's funding will be expanded. I would apply this to the funding to all women's organizations, not just VSW, but they do play a very special role in this province as

[ Page 3116 ]

a kind of central organization. The funding will not only be upgraded but will not be done in such a way as to keep the organization hanging and wondering for month after month as to whether things are finally going to come through. I would hope that the studies the government has felt it necessary to do this year will now be considered to have been definitively done and from here on we can endorse this as the kind of thing, at least throughout the term of this administration, that it feels it should support.

I want to make some general remarks about what I see as the role of the Provincial Secretary in the government and in the province as being the person among others, but particularly at the cabinet table, charged with advancing the cause of women throughout the government. I say that not because the Provincial Secretary is a woman, but because it seems to me to fit properly into her portfolio. She is charged with the Public Service Commission generally and she is charged with grants generally and has therefore a sensitivity, hopefully, to all of the various currents that are arising in the province, of which this is very much one.

I would suggest to her that she should make representations to the Premier that there is a need in the government for some kind of a woman's office. You can put any kind of title on it you want, Mr. Chairman, but it would be an office that would be concerned in an ongoing, day-to-day way with the cause of women, their rights and their potential throughout the government service. This would be, if you like, the bureaucratic reflection of the concept of affirmative action. This would be the body that day after day would look through the agencies and the departments of government and sit on committees and ask the question: "Where do women fit in here?" They would say that in the Public Service Commission, looking at the personnel policies with respect to women in the public service, in the various departments, at the various levels of executive and other authority.

Such an office could look at this in the Crown corporations. This morning, in public accounts, we had the British Columbia Railway people there. I took the occasion to ask the executives of BCR if they had any kind of an affirmative plan to try and arrange for more women to be working in the service of the BCR and to go out and look for that aggressively and make promotions aggressively.

Mr. Premier, who just came in, I might say to you that I've asked the Provincial Secretary to represent to you that there should be some kind of a woman's office in the government — probably reporting to you — which would be constantly seized of the advancement of women's rights in the public service of British Columbia.

Such an office would constantly look at questions of pensions and pay and equal pay for work of equal value. Such an office could, from time to time, review our statute law, especially relating to the family, and again always be a voice and a conscience inside the government and with the right to make representations to all the ministers in all of the departments as to: are they doing their job in this area? Is it always on the checklist as the government goes down the checklist of whether legislation or executive action satisfies the various criteria it must? Is this always on the checklist? Some kind of a woman's office would make sure by its presence and by its vocal activity that it would be.

Mr. Chairman, that is all I have to say on this particular subject, and in order not to make a confusion of things that are being discussed, I'll sit down at this point. I will once again congratulate the minister on having made this grant and announced it today. Also it would be wrong if before sitting down I did not pay tribute to the hon. first member for Burrard (Ms. Brown) who has been an absolutely tireless fighter in this cause in this province for many, many years, and in this Legislature. I congratulate her on it.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): If I could just avoid some of the 101 interruptions that we single-party members have in this House, I might be able to put a more coherent speech together. But I would like to comment on the question of women's rights and the fact that the provincial government is making an effort by providing at least part of the funding that was requested by the Vancouver Status of Women. I would like to add my strong support to the comment of the Liberal leader in regard to the first member for Burrard (Ms. Brown) who obviously has dedicated a great deal of her time in a most effective way in bringing a lot of the problems of women's rights and the particular problems women have in the wide area of public life, whether it's a matter of getting employment, fair conditions of employment, problems of child care and matrimonial problems and so on. They're enormous, and I can't think of anyone in this province who has done more, at least to bring this to public attention.

There's no question that until we start educating the community as a whole as to some of these inequalities and unfair practices, we are not likely to make much progress. I feel that there would be no better time than now to recognize the work done by the first member for Burrard.

With regard to the Vancouver Status of Women and the report dated February 9 which was made available to the minister and which we were able to have also, again I think the efficiency and the clarity with which these women have not only outlined the history of the movement of the Status of Women, but the wide range of problems with which they are asked to deal, only convinces me of one thing, not only of

[ Page 3117 ]

the need of this kind of service, but the fact that government itself would be having, through various departments — Health, Human Resources and other departments — even more pressure on them to meet certain human needs than is presently the case, simply because of the particular example of the ombudservice in Vancouver.

Mr. Chairman, when you read the wide variety of needs which this service is trying to meet, not the least of which is screening many of the problems which in turn makes the work later on of the department of government that much easier, then it's quite obvious that if this kind of service wasn't in existence, certain departments of government would be even more pressured and more busy than they now are and would probably require more paid staff to meet the need which is presently being fulfilled by the persons the first member for Burrard mentioned were working at a salary which is a great deal less than the equivalent type of job within the public service.

So that $75,000 grant is one of the best deals this government has made in a long time. Since it prides itself on being a government which is businesslike and gets good value for its money, I would have to think they're getting excellent value for the $75,000, in relation to the large number of women who are receiving benefit from that money.

It's such an enormous issue, the whole question of trying to correct some of the archaic practices in our society regarding women — and unfair conditions they're subjected to in our society — that one could speak far longer than this House would want to listen. But education, Mr. Chairman, is certainly the key.

I was somewhat shattered the other day when I was asked to speak to a group of medical doctors and their wives at what was a social function essentially, but when I was asked to make comments as a politician, I suppose, I was absolutely stunned at either the prejudice of the medical profession or their ignorance, and I'm not sure whether it was a bit of both.

I cited some of the problems of women, first of all in getting employment and secondly in getting fair pay once they are employed. The principle of equal pay for equal value is just so fundamentally just and right that I don't think it's a debatable issue. The issue is how we go about implementing that. Goodness knows, the best place to start would be at the largest employer in the province, and that's the provincial government. If we can't set that kind of example through the vehicle of the biggest employer in the province, then indeed it's going to be extremely difficult to expect that other employers are likely to blaze any kind of path towards the goal of equal pay for work of equal value.

As I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, one area where women have a major problem is in the area of matrimonial breakdown and sharing of the material possessions in marriage, and the whole question of how this has to be improved first of all by legislation, which in turn means that we need leadership from all the provincial governments and the federal government. At last, Mr. Chairman, I think we can see a little bit of light on the horizon when we read the kind of issues that were discussed last week by the federal minister and the provincial Attorney-General from each province in the area of divorce and the community of property when a marriage breaks up and this type of issue.

I'm rather straying just a little bit from the responsibility of the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Chairman, but it is a fact that women in this province are entitled to look for leadership from the largest employer in the province. Figures that were quoted earlier this year are worth repeating: there are approximately 37,000 persons in the British Columbia public service, and 55 per cent of that 37,000 are women. They are not represented at significant levels in the power structure. We do not have a female deputy minister to any cabinet minister. There are no female associate deputy ministers, and the statistics that I have access to show that there are only eight women at the salary level of programme manager 1 and above.

It keeps coming back to the theme, Mr. Chairman, that until women can be given access to the important policy-discussion level and the decision-making level, they depend on the leadership of the present power structure, which is totally composed of men. It's quite clear that we should have some feeling of relief at the present government inasmuch as the Provincial Secretary herself is a woman who has, both in private and public life, shown that she has a great deal of ability and capacity and has the personal tenacity to compete with any man and make it into the cabinet of this particular provincial government. I pay great credit and recognize the outstanding ability and achievement of our Provincial Secretary. For that reason I'm all the more optimistic that she can be a tremendous source of hope for the women of British Columbia that she will, in fact, appreciate the validity with which the opposition parties are expressing the need that this government has to take the leadership role.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: It's a little bit like charity: I think it begins at home. If they can be the leaders, then the example must be set in the employment practices of the British Columbia government.

The provincial government has this obligation to enhance and improve the rules as they now exist. I'm not only thinking of the provincial or parochial levels of government; I'm thinking of the fact that we just

[ Page 3118 ]

ended, three months ago, International Women's Year.

We've had the kind of convention of the International Council of Women that was referred to earlier this afternoon and we have the United Nations, which published a 10-year World Plan of Action promoting equality of opportunity and the recognition that women are entitled to equal rights in a wide variety of public and private affairs.

So, Mr. Chairman, there is every reason this afternoon, in debating the Provincial Secretary's estimates, that the focus should particularly be on the degree that she, in this particular cabinet, at this particular point in the political life of British Columbia has an outstanding opportunity to show the leadership and educate the public and to initiate ideas about the required kind of legislation to her fellow cabinet ministers, so that in future sessions of this House we won't have to take up further time. Late in the session when everyone is keen to go on holiday, we won't have to spend as much time as the three opposition spokesmen have this afternoon in hoping that conditions for women in this province are bound to improve.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I'm sure that the hon. Provincial Secretary and the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) recall when the three of us first took our place in this House together. We all came in following the 1966 election. That's 10 years ago — it hardly seems possible.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): You don't look any older.

MRS. DAILLY: We lived through it, did we, Pat? We're here — we're the old ones.

Anyway, my point in reminding the Provincial Secretary of that time is that I'm sure she and the member for North Okanagan must recall that whenever any debates took place on women back in 1967, right through I'd say to the beginning of the 1970s in this House, the whole atmosphere in this Legislature was entirely different. As a matter of fact, as I recall — I think you'd agree with me — if any of us stood up to talk about women at that time, we were greeted with laughter and cynicism from many of our male colleagues. I'm not referring to just any one party. This was on both sides of the House. All I can say is that I guess women's rights have progressed to some degree in British Columbia in the last 10 years but they've a long way to go yet.

In this Legislature now when we talk about women's rights, we have the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) and the Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) on their feet speaking on behalf of women, which we would never have had 10 years ago. We have silence now, which may be unfortunate. We don't have the laughter any more, but we've gone to the extreme, where I find that many of our male colleagues are very silent on this issue. I hope maybe we'll hear from more of the members of both sexes on this vital matter of women's rights.

So I just think it's rather interesting to stand here 10 years later and notice a complete change in climate in this Legislature, which is reflected, of course, throughout the whole province now. The member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) has fought so long and hard, as has been pointed out already, for women's rights in this province. She has pointed out over and over again that the women of this province still have so many areas where discrimination exists. As the Tory leader mentioned, it exists in the whole area of the public service.

When we were in government, I remember the member for North Okanagan bringing up this point also — why do we not have more women in positions of responsibility in government? That is an area that has really been very, very slow. I know that there are many problems in that area which the Provincial Secretary will face, where we have to encourage women first of all to apply. That is one thing, but in that encouragement we have to recognize the fact that women have had barriers placed before them — not just artificial barriers, but sometimes very specific barriers — in attempting to move into positions of responsibility.

So basically I just had two short questions at this time. As far as the Provincial Secretary's role goes, I agree that she has such an important role to play in this whole area of women's rights. I know that the hon. Provincial Secretary is interested in many other areas, and so she should be, but in this particular area she can give the leadership, as has been pointed out. My question is: first of all, with the matter of the cancellation of the provincial co-ordinator of the Status of Women, which has already been mentioned, I would like to know what the policies are of the hon. Provincial Secretary to fill this vacuum. Just to dispense grants is excellent. We were delighted to hear of the grants handed out to the Vancouver Status of Women today, but that is not enough. I think what people are looking for is a mechanism to be be set up, hopefully through your department, where the women really know that they have a government that will be responsive to their needs. I wonder if the Provincial Secretary will tell us what is going to fill this vacuum now, since the Status of Women co-ordinator for the government which was set up under the NDP administration, no longer exists.

So I think we'd like to hear from her on her whole philosophy on how to meet the needs and the rights and eliminate discriminations against women, how she feels about it and how as Provincial Secretary she intends to move in alleviating the problems, because she has a marvellous opportunity in her specific role

[ Page 3119 ]

to do this.

Also the fact that she is responsible for the Public Service Commission ties in very well with the whole area of women, discrimination and opportunity to move women into positions of advancement — naturally, if they have the ability. No one denies that. But even women with ability have found barriers placed before them. So I would be interested in her reactions to what is to fill the vacuum of the co-ordinator for Status of Women in this province initiated by the former government. How does she view her role in relation to the public service in encouraging women to move up into positions of responsibility?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I really hadn't intended to enter this debate at this time. I had much opportunity internally to discuss this subject. But just sitting here listening...there were one or two things that I would like to say. I would like to associate myself with many of the remarks that have been said by all members of this House and recall a conversation that I had the privilege to have just a few minutes ago and relate it to the member for Burnaby North's (Mrs. Dailly's) comments just now.

When I was talking to Mme. Dissard she was pointing out how there had been these problems for women in France but that the change that was coming there, as it is here, wasn't a matter of women just being united together because of a concern for one cause to women. Women were evolving and developing their own avenues of thinking — many independent ideas of other groups of women. This way we were getting a very broad representation, a much more mature representation in many fields from women as a whole. They were feeling freer to debate as women, with each other, knowing that regardless of whether they disagreed or were debating how it should be accomplished they knew that they had a common goal, that women should take their place along with every other citizen in whatever jurisdiction it was.

I do recall, as the hon. member says, the opportunities, the fun and the hazards of being in this Legislature some time ago. It is interesting to recall as we were in a sense pioneering the role of women in British Columbia in the Legislature in any great force. There were those women who sat in this Legislature before us — Mrs. Hodges, who sat as the Speaker in this Legislature. I think all women wherever they are in the world, but particularly in North America where we have so much more opportunity for independence and expression, are still in a sense pioneering this way. That is why it is so incumbent on us to be responsible in our efforts.

I think we have to also recognize that women tend in many areas and many organizations to think in terms of power and that power, if that is what they are looking for, is government and that that is the only avenue to power or to independence. From my point of view, I feel this is too narrow. I feel we have to recognize that there are many forces shaping our society. Certainly government is one, although sometimes I wonder if maybe the problems aren't so sensitive and great that they are too important to be left to politicians and to government. But money is a factor of power through the independence it gives, through the freedom it gives. I feel that there is still a strong tendency among women not to want to talk about money, that it is a "hush-hush" that we shouldn't express and that if ever we speak in terms of our movement of women or our group of women or we as women seeking economic independence through our own capabilities, this isn't quite the thing to say.

Yet we have among women some of the finest minds in this world. The hon. first member for Burrard (Ms. Brown) knows — you all know — that in Vancouver at this moment, at the triannual council of the women, if you want to speak in terms of mental capability, there are perhaps some of the brightest minds in the world there. We as women must use our minds and our energy and our drive and our capability for people. We must recognize that financial independence and being part of the fiscal picture is very much a vital part of this. I would like to see us in this Legislature who are women also suggest to women's groups when we have the opportunity of speaking to them that there is nothing wrong in seeking your own financial independence as organizations.

This triannual council meeting there made it known to me — I found it quite shocking — that most of those women from all over the world had paid their own way. I would ask you in how many Kiwanis groups or how many business organizations or really how many political meetings or UN meetings do the delegates pay their own way. Why? Because this group is non-political in the greatest sense for which we all respect them. They have such a fine record of accomplishment in terms of legislation and shaking public attitudes. Are they in a position where they have to pay their own way? I challenged them then and I think it is part of our challenge as public people.

I think that with that ability, that energy, they should be quite capable of raising the money needed so delegates from all parts of the world, whether it's Pouce Coupe in British Columbia or Zambia or wherever it is, have some funds to help them get together. Why should it be a penalty to a family if one member wants to go to that type of a conference and it happens to be a woman? I'm not a noted liberationist as such, but I feel very sincere in saying this.

[ Page 3120 ]

I think this relates — and perhaps this is in the form of a question to the Provincial Secretary — to what we have to do in British Columbia. We can't go around inducing women to be liberated by working in Woolworths for eight hours a day. We have to also help them understand the value of their ability to achieve their own economic independence. And it shouldn't necessarily be confined to the new ladies who are driving the forklifts in Kitimat at the Alcan plant, which is an innovation between government and industry. It shouldn't necessarily be on a paid-for-service basis.

We should make opportunities through the Industrial Development department — and I hope at the initiation of our Provincial Secretary, which I believe she will be doing — to make it possible for young women, older women, who have an idea they might like to go into business. But how do you begin? How do you learn? We haven't had the opportunity because of nature and raising children, and we must honour the right of a woman to stay home and mould the family and children for so many years. But she loses time — not unhappily — and she loses exposure during those times. So there she does need special help in conferences on how to run a small business, how to finance it.

I think, basically, in many homes today women do manage the finances. While the principles are similar in terms of pay-as-you-go.... I see the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) shaking his head, so I know his wife manages his finances. Ours would become disastrous if my husband started managing ours. (Laughter.) But they need the same exposure.

If you look at the brochures that have come out from our own Industrial Development department, there is training in business management but the fee is $300. Basically it is open for everyone, but the opportunity for people to go there generally resolves in the fact that they are in their own business now and can make it tax deductible, or their company pays for them. I would ask the Provincial Secretary to initiate the thinking in this type of a programme where we will go into our schools and encourage young women, young men, to learn what it is to operate your own business, to make an opportunity for women, who are really interested in exploring the opportunity of being in their own business, to attend this type of conference or educational programme without the barrier of this high fee.

I feel it's the same in terms of our schools. I say, with great respect, that I do feel we still have in our schools a strong tendency to streamline the thinking of young people, whether it's male of female, into certain occupations. There is a great opportunity for the Women's Bureau of our Labour department to increase its staff and increase its capabilities, and to be available in all schools strictly on an employee-employer...subject to women, not partisan, and speak to our young people, both female and male, in terms of their rights and their responsibilities in employment today so our young people not only learn of the opportunities but that we do break down the barriers for girls to enter these areas, but we must also introduce into this a full understanding on the part of us as women, young people, young girls, that when one works and when one has independence, also one must assume responsibility. It's when we see tremendous independence without that sense of responsibility that we see the independence itself destroying its opportunity for independence.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

I would also like to ask the Provincial Secretary just her thoughts in terms of the older woman — and I say that with a smile on my face because I believe that category is 40 to 60, and I am getting there. But it is the single woman, for whatever reason, who has spent many years in her home, hasn't had the opportunity of these outside contacts and, for one reason or another, has to support herself. Again, there are some opportunities for employment, but generally this is the lower end of the wage scale, or she has had a long period where she lacks confidence or really hasn't had the opportunity to see what scope there is to expand her own abilities and assume responsibility.

Training programmes through Canada Manpower in this area are almost nil because of the age barrier — and I realize that this applies to men too, but we are addressing ourselves to women. I believe that as a government we must pay special attention to the opportunity for these women who are going back into the work force to not just take the first job that comes along or the job that seems to offer the least amount of responsibility. But there has to be programmes to help them gain experience and to upgrade their education in order that they can still move up the ladder.

It was interesting when I had a chance to talk to one of the lady executive assistants to the current government, Mrs. Joan France, who is with the Minister of Transport and Communications, and she was saying that in her former employment — and it's very interesting to know her work history; she has worked in the mining industry — she needed someone to manage the fiscal affairs of this company. When she advertised for an economist or an accountant, no women applied. She knew of a woman who had this ability so she said: "Would you come and keep a few books for us at the company?" Because she termed it that way, the lady went to work. But if she had said, "you are going to be the accountant for this company," she's sure she wouldn't have gone — again, because she had the ability but she hadn't, for one reason or another, been exercising this ability and therefore hadn't gained the confidence.

[ Page 3121 ]

I'd liken this to us as politicians: we often say that if we had really known what it was like when we got into politics, we probably would never have come in. But once we come in, we learn to grow and mature with the job. This is the opportunity we must provide women.

I would hope that in time the Provincial Secretary would give a good deal of thought to perhaps a third-matching grant, a quarter-matching grant or a grant up to a certain amount of money to those organizations who are working in terms of greater opportunity for women, and to match and to apply this formula on the basis of what they can raise on their own.

When we speak to some groups and they say that if they get involved in fund-raising they are defeating their purpose, I really don't think this is true. We look at the mental health programme in British Columbia where a very great part of their therapy is having what they call Georgette shops, second-hand clothing stores, for the clients to come in, learn to get the confidence to deal with the public and to deal with such challenging situations as maybe even writing a bill. That is part of the therapy, and that is part of helping our fellow women gain the confidence necessary, and the experience.

I'm sure there are many topics one could talk about on this subject, but again I'd like to summarize by saying that as far as this government is concerned, I hope that the realignment of the interest in women's concerns will appear very soon through the Provincial Secretary's department, that it will appear in terms of an expansion of the Labour department, the women's bureau of the Labour department, which has great opportunity to carry out education programmes and information programmes, as well as through the Department of Economic Development.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to speak before the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) but lest the females in the House....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member like to defer?

MR. KING: No, that's all right. I think it's maybe appropriate, Mr. Chairman, because I think perhaps the females in the House were gaining the impression that none of the male members were interested in the subject. I want to disabuse them of that view. I want to disabuse them of that view because I, as Minister of Labour in the province for the past three years — in the former government — have had quite a great deal to do with trying to come to grips with and remedy some of the obstacles that lay in the way of women in the work force, particularly — not only in the private sector but in the government service too.

I would certainly like to share some of my observations with the Provincial Secretary, with the government and with the House, because I think very often we tend to view this whole subject of opportunity for women in the work force as something a bit patronizing, something that only has a human rights interest. And indeed it has that. It has that because there should be equal opportunity for all people on the basis of their ability, on the basis of their right to participate in every aspect of society. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that there is a dimension that goes far beyond that, and which I shall talk about in a few moments.

Traditionally, I certainly found there were indeed obstacles in the way of women having an equal opportunity to gain access to many of the crafts and vocations that are readily open to men in British Columbia. Under the Department of Labour, of course, resides the whole area of training — that involves apprenticeship training; it involves pre-apprenticeship training, and so on.

I want to say that last year — it was, I believe, for the first time — we had women enrol successfully in some of those craft programmes that previously had been the sole preserve for men — the apprenticeship trade of painting and a variety of others which normally are associated with building trades where you find precious few women involved.

We made a conscious attempt, through the Department of Labour, to encourage apprenticeship counsellors of a reasonable proportion between men and women so you are not only going into the schools and advocating to women the opportunities they should seek, but you are actually placing women in key, crucial roles of decision-making so that they can influence the attitude throughout the department, so that they can demonstrate to the public that, yes indeed, there is opportunity in that service and in that preserve for females.

I think that's perhaps more effective than enlarging the women's bureau of the Department of Labour and going out and attempting to advertise to women that this is what your rights are. I think if we, as a government, can demonstrate that, yes, there is access and opportunity, yes, we are anxious to remove the obstacles and the bulwarks, here is living proof that women are becoming involved in all of these areas in a senior way.

MRS. JORDAN: Do both.

MR. KING: Yes, or certainly do both, but we have a women's bureau. The point is, though, that I view that as a bit of tokenism. I hope that we see the day pretty soon where there is no need for a women's bureau, when there is such an inter-relationship of people in the Department of Labour making the decisions affecting every aspect of the function of that department, as in others, that it's not necessary

[ Page 3122 ]

to highlight or to have an adjunct to the department which is advocating equal opportunity and equal access for women.

The Provincial Secretary's vote does have a great deal to do with this because the Provincial Secretary can't influence the policies of the whole public service. The Department of Labour should be working in close harmony with the Provincial Secretary's department to attain these things.

I was interested in the member for North Okanagan's remarks about the Alcan experiment which, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I had something to do with. I was extremely pleased and excited by the results of that programme, and I want to share with the House a bit of how it came about.

It came about basically because of tremendous industrial relations problems in that area. One of the problems was not labour conflict with respect to bargaining, but a tremendous problem in the turnover rate of the work force — a turnover rate that posed a tremendous cost impact on the company having to continually retrain people — and because of this large turnover in the population, there was an instability in the population of the town as a result of people coming and going,

My department at that time collaborated with the industry to determine what might be done. The industry was quite prepared to spend large sums of money in terms of trying to improve the social and cultural amenities of the region in order to try and attract a more stable population and a more stable work force. Rather they were persuaded that it might be a good idea to try to bring some more reasonable balance to the work force in terms of women and men, and that is the route they chose — less costly, certainly, and the results were absolutely amazing.

The results in terms of the stability of that work force were tremendous; the productivity of the work force improved considerably. I think it's instructive and tells us something. I think it tells us that there's a relationship between a poor balance — an imbalance of males and females in the work force — and job satisfaction. There's a relationship to hostility which is manifested at the bargaining table come contract-bargaining time.

It just seems to make sense to me that if we have some reasonable social mix throughout our whole life, it's closer to the reality of life. Frequently when you look to hotspots in terms of labour problems, in terms of high turnover rates, you are looking at areas where there is isolation, where there's an imbalance, both in the community and in the work force, of males. It's an unnatural thing. We don't live like that in our communities. We don't live like that in our homes. Why should we live like that in the work plant?

If women choose to work, access should be readily available to them. And it is a choice, you know. I agree with the member for North Okanagan that some ladies may choose to stay in the home and direct their interest toward other things, and that's fine. The point is that they should have the free choice. We should not assume by our policies, by our laws, or by our attitudes that only men are appropriate for a certain kind of work. If women are interested and feel that they would like to do this kind of thing, there should be no obstacle in their way.

As I say, I think the Provincial Secretary can do a great deal in terms of conditioning the attitude of the public service people. You know, it's not always easy — and I cast no reflection on any of the staff of the Public Service Commission or any of the senior civil servants, indeed, of the government — but many of them have been brought up through the old school and it's very difficult for them to perceive the problem, to understand it and to adjust themselves to a new approach.

I think that the Provincial Secretary is going to have to be very tenacious and she may have to take off the velvet gloves once in a while to persuade some of the mandarins that, by golly, there is a problem here and women haven't been granted access to the Liquor Control Board outlets of the province or the various other agencies where the imbalance in terms of employment is obvious simply by entering the premise.

In this regard, I can say that the Department of Labour previously, in cooperation with the human rights branch, in cooperation with the former Attorney-General and his staff and the Provincial Secretary, addressed some of these problems and made some impact. The problems are not all solved, and I hope that the Provincial Secretary perceives the problem and acts as the catalyst within the government service to make these things continue to happen.

It's obviously going to be necessary to collaborate with other ministries because it's a government policy programme. That's the only way it can be tackled. We have a long way to go, no question about it. We made some good strides, I feel during our stewardship, strides that I'm very proud of. And I think that between the Status of Women group in the province, between the human rights branch of the Department of Labour, which is a natural, and the Provincial Secretary particularly, if there is a dedication to the objective of tearing down all of those old obstacles which are artificial and foolish, and which in real terms are not only partisan and condescending but lose us a great deal in terms of direct, hard, economic benefits in this province.... If we would understand it in those terms, then I think we can continue to make progress, which the opposition will be very happy to collaborate in in every way.

[ Page 3123 ]

So we have the agencies and I think we have the common sense today to identify the problems and to develop the kind of co-ordinated thrust from all interested and relevant sections of the government service that is needed to continue to open up all areas of equal opportunity for women. As I say, all you have to do is look at the number of people enrolling in the training programmes that we mount through our regional colleges, which are funded by the federal and provincial government, basically, and some by private industry — and we have to exercise an influence and say: "Look, let's get a better balance of people going through for this training," and those people that are....

I beg your pardon, I haven't even got the Irish light down there yet and I'm getting the bell rung on me. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, I do think though that there's a great job to be done here and I'd like to see...and quite frankly, I'm going to share with the House that I had planned and was actively recruiting a senior woman for the employment section of the Department of Labour. I think that's a crucial thing that should be done in all of the training policies for an overall employment strategy for the province which we do need.

I think if these kind of things can be looked at and if the Provincial Secretary will dedicate herself to that role and to that objective — I believe she's a tenacious individual — she can certainly have a major impact.

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order. I just wanted to help the male member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) along and clarify his statement when he talked about the Alcan project, which was an excellent project, and he gave an excellent history and quite rightly took some credit. But I would hope that he would want to make it very clear that the women's bureau of the Labour Department played a very major role in helping put that package together.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): This is certainly women's day today. I'm going to be very brief. The first comment I wish to make is that many years ago, as some of you know, I worked as a steno here in Victoria, and at that time there were five women members in the House.

I won't tell you how many years ago that was, but it's interesting to note that now we have increased by only one body, and I think this is indicative of the slowness of this whole business of working towards equal recognition for women, be it in the political field, the business world, the economic field or wherever.

The member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) made reference to the need for some training facilities and opportunities for women going into business and urged the Provincial Secretary to introduce such a programme. I would like to point out that that programme has already been introduced. It was introduced by the former Minister of Economic Development (Mr. Lauk), and I would urge upon the Provincial Secretary to continue that same type of training. Certainly she should not overlook that it already is in existence.

Another point the member for North Okanagan made was the lack of opportunity to women over 40 for retraining. Now that may be true to some extent, but I know that in latter years, there has been quite an extension of that programme.

To my knowledge there have been a great many of the older women being retrained to go out and take their place in society. Again, I think that was something that happened over the past three or four years here in British Columbia and again, that is something that should be continued.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) made reference to the fact that every woman who wished to stay in the home should have that right if she so wished to do and if she wished to be in the home and raise the children. I agree, but I think that right should also apply to every man who wishes to do that.

I suggest that we must look at the overall equality of opportunities for both groups, both male and female, to do the type of work that they are best suited for and best wish to do, without any degree of discrimination or any feeling within the community or within society that that is not the thing they should be doing.

We have these stereotyped images of what male and female roles are and that is the process of education that we must embark upon, Mr. Chairman, in order to get away from that kind of stereotyped position and view.

The point that I particularly wanted to make was that there is a very great difference in the needs of women in the more remote and rural areas than there is in the urban areas. Those are needs that have not been really dealt with as fully as have the needs of the urban woman.

It's a different situation if you live 20 miles from your nearest neighbour. Particularly I'm thinking of the farm wife who perhaps participates fully in the occupation in which her husband is involved — they jointly operate a farm — and she is engaged fully in that kind of work, but very often the economic security is not there.

This again is a point of law, of course, and it's something that we must educate women and men to. We must extend the knowledge of what is available, what could be done, and we must change the laws so that women do have equal rights in the eyes of the law.

In these remote areas the kind of problems that

[ Page 3124 ]

face women, as to so many things, are taken for granted...as the opportunities that women in the urban areas do have are just not there in those rural areas.

I would ask the Provincial Secretary to comment and give us her thoughts on this situation with rural women and certainly urge her to move in the direction of extending the various programmes that she may undertake, or initiate, to extend them to include to an even greater degree than is being done now in the urban areas — because the need in those rural areas is still very great — to bring women into groups where they can discuss these problems, where they can learn about some of the situations and some of the things that are available.

This is a point that has been very difficult to do, I know, because of the scattered nature of settlements in some of our remote areas. But I would urge the Provincial Secretary to give some greater degree of attention to the needs of the rural women.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned about the Kootenay Library System Society and the funding from the provincial government. Were you going to get up and answer some of the women's things? Good. Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is the member for Nelson-Creston deferring? The member for Esquimalt has the floor.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): My remarks will be fairly brief. Most of what I wanted to say has been said by the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), the leader of the Liberal and the Conservative parties and by several other members.

I want to say that I'm pleased to see today the Provincial Secretary has made some funds available to the women's organization. They are certainly, I'm sure, gratefully received and will be put to very good use.

I want to also compliment the women from my constitutuency who have worked since March 22, the day of their lobby, along with me and made me aware of many of the problems that women in our province face.

I think that we have seen, as the member for Revelstoke-Slocan has indicated, some programmes implemented. Additional to that we have also had many briefs presented to us as MLAs, many briefs presented to the government from various organizations of women throughout our province. Frankly, I think the time has come for some action. Many of these briefs are excellent. They're on family law, education, child care and human rights. I'm sure every member has many of these in their possession. I really don't think that we need say too much more than what has already been said. I think collectively we should implement many of those programmes and work together.

In closing, I want to make one comment. Last week an hon. member made some reference to the kinds of people in this House who support various things. Then he went on to say: "What kinds of people vote for various things in the Legislature?" At that time he had in his possession cards — practical joke cards — but he did say, however....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Does this relate to vote 152?

MR. KAHL: Yes, most certainly.

He did say in the course of the talk that the card had my name on it, and he said, what kind of a mind would put out this kind of humour if, indeed, it was humour at all? Well, Mr. Chairman, it was a practical joke played on me by my brother-in-law. But what kinds of minds we have on the other side of the House is the question today. Everyone knows — it's in Hansard — what was on my card.

The other day I saw a member from the opposition, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) in fact...

I'm sorry he's not in his seat.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): No, he's never here.

MR. KAHL:...passing around cards in the hallway that had to do with women, women's rights — the ex-Premier of this province. Now everyone knows what is on my side as a practical joke, and I would like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) to let everyone know what was on his card...

AN HON. MEMBER: Here he is. Where's his card?

MR. KAHL:...if indeed it was a practical joke. Now this is the kind of mind that we will have voting for the legislation, for the estimates that are before us. I certainly do not want to end this debate on that note. I only want to say that I support many of the things that have been said here today under this vote.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would like to thank all members of the House who have spoken on this first part of the questioning on my estimates. I don't know when we've ever seen such unanimity in this House in regard to any particular concern or problem as we have today on the concern of women's rights in the province of British Columbia and in this nation. I would really like to sincerely thank those who have contributed to this part of the debate because I think it is in the public expression of their state of mind and the state of their philosophy that we will, more than anything, give to all of those people who are

[ Page 3125 ]

underprivileged, and who have not had an opportunity as women in this province.... It is through that expression that we will give them the confidence that what they are trying to do in their everyday lives will, indeed, come true.

I would just like to answer some questions from the members that raised them. I'd like to first of all start with the first speaker of the day who addressed her remarks to some concerns over the dropping of the Status of Women office in the province of British Columbia soon after I took office.

I would like to recognize also the service that she mentioned in regard to the Vancouver Status of Women. I appreciate, too, that she mentioned the dollars were not increased, as did I, in the introduction of the grant today. I want to say to her once again that all programmes are, in most cases, being held to the level. When she asked the question, "where will the money come from for the bookkeepers, for the office staff?" I would like to remind her that the Dominion government cut out the grants entirely and that the taxpayers of British Columbia today are carrying on their backs the excesses, the extravagances and the mismanagement of the previous government that left us less funds to do anything with than we would have wanted to do.

I would like to also assure her that the $200,000 which she mentioned in the discontinuation of the Status of Women office reappears under vote 164 in the grants vote. So that $200,000 goes for special projects in grants, and women can apply and have done so. Under that vote we have given contributions to women's organizations.

You mentioned, and I would just like to reiterate, that the common problem you have seen in the discussion on women's rights in the province of British Columbia has been one of poverty. I would like to reiterate that because all departments — and it has been mentioned here today — have to address themselves to not only the stated problem of the difficulties that women have, but have to address themselves very much to the practical problems of poverty — the practical problems which we see throughout the communities.

Poverty, the lack of dollars, has been the cause of marital break-ups, the cause of children being separated from their parents, the cause of some of the women's problems expressed by the Status of Women, by the women who came to our House on March 22 to give us their concerns. It is a very real problem and one that can only be handled in total by the community — not just by government, but by all sectors of society.

One of the things that we have said in this House over and over again is that until we can get the whole community and the whole province working and get the whole province right on the track of good economy, then and only then can we solve or go anywhere and to any length into solving the very real economic problems and those very real social problems that the member raises. It is only through that, and with the philosophy that we will all work towards that goal, that we will indeed solve them. I want to mention, then, that close cooperation is needed in all departments. It has been reiterated and we indeed are working towards that within this government at all times.

You mentioned, too, that you wanted to know what happened to the equal employment opportunities programme. I would like to just mention this to you. On April 1, 1975, Ms. Errington wrote and advised the planning adviser to the cabinet at that time, Mr. Marc Eliesen, that she was forming an interdepartmental committee for the purpose of examining the implementation of the equal employment opportunities programme and, following that, making any recommendations that may be appropriate. She listed on the committee, Eileen Caner, director of women's economic rights division, Department of Economic Development, Kathleen Ruff, director of human rights branch, Department of Labour, Candace Hanson, information officer, Department of Human Resources, Dr. Barbara Efrat, linguist, Provincial Museum, Department of Recreation and Conservation.

This copy was given to the Hon. Ernest Hall, Provincial Secretary, at that point in time. I want to mention to you that that was in April, and on June 13 Ms. Errington sent a memo to all members of the equal employment opportunities programme committee and I will quote it:

"June 13,1975.

"I will be attending the United Nations International Women's Year conference in Mexico from June 17 to July 3 and then the NDP federal convention in Winnipeg. I expect to return July 11. During my absence, I have appointed Rita MacDonald to chair this committee."

Ms. Errington, it should be noted, was on staff in the Department of the Provincial Secretary following her appointment as the planning adviser to the cabinet. During that time she received full pay, from the time that she was on staff in the department until she left just after the first of this year, when her place was no longer needed in the department. I mention that because she mentioned the women's economic rights branch, Department of Economic Development, in a further memo.

She is very concerned when she writes to the Provincial Secretary, who all in this House agree should have a very deep concern for the rights of women in this province. During that time she is mentioning in this memo of September 29, 1975, how concerned she was to learn of the staff cutbacks in the women's economic rights branch: "The

[ Page 3126 ]

winding-down of the activities of the women's economic rights branch constitutes a serious threat to the goals and objectives of this office and the progress this government has been making in this area."

The task force also was part of the work of that particular department where Mrs. Eileen Caner was on that particular committee. We had a report on that committee which was established under the Department of Economic Development. The women's economic rights division had Mrs. Eileen Caner as director and Ms. Sharon Bell as her clerical assistant. They retained a consultant, Ms. Diane Erickson, at $1,500 a month. The engineering department referred to did not exist, but the then Minister of Highways, Mr. Lea, hired four women as consultants through the Department of Highways to prepare a report: "The task force on opportunities for women in engineering." There were four women hired for that at a total cost of $13,000. Their advertising and travel expenses totalled $1,624.89, for a total of $14,624.98.

This particular committee was formed a year ago, and to this point in time — I am using the date of May 27; I have no other knowledge since that time — the report has not been submitted to the government, although $14,000 was expended. I bring that to your attention because I think it is tremendously important that we do not give lip service to women in the province of British Columbia and set up committees with token heads, be they headed by the female sex or not, just to say to the world at large: "There, now. We've done something for women." I think it is tremendously important that we address ourselves to the real needs and not to the window-dressing that has been too long prevalent not only in this province but in every province and throughout the world, as far as equal opportunities and equal rights for women are concerned.

The first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) also suggests that there should be an inter-departmental committee. I suggest to you that it is in existence — an inter-departmental committee of cabinet members addressing themselves to the concerns which you have stated and which very many members of the House have addressed themselves to today. It is only going to be that when the total community and the total government address themselves to this problem of equal rights and opportunities for women that it will, indeed, be a fact.

I would like to also thank the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) for the remarks that he has made in regard to the place of women in this province, the need for some kind of women's office to take affirmative action in the bureaucratic areas of government where we can, indeed, have an effect. I do want to say to you — it may be in answer to the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) as well — that in the public service we do have women in ratio to men. In positions above administrative officer 1 there are 1,987 women compared to 8,814 men. So the ratio — 2,000 to 8,000, as it were — is not really as bleak or black a picture as we take for granted. It is better than you thought, I would suggest, but not good enough as far as the women in this province and, I suggest, the men in this province are concerned.

But I would like to say that Miss Campbell, who is a member of the Public Service Commission in this province, oversees the recruiting and the selection division of this department. Within her division there are eight women personnel officers out of the total of 27.

When you think of 27, that's almost a third of the recruiting officers or personnel officers in the recruiting and selection division that are women. I think that you will understand that the Public Service Commission has done in the past few years, and is doing now, a good job of addressing themselves to the needs of the women as expressed by all members of this House.

I would also like to say to you in terms of the Public Service Commission that it is not only against the human rights legislation but against all that is fair in our province that any business or organization should advertise showing a bias against women and that opportunities for women must be given.

I think that has been well documented — no discrimination in advertising for positions — but I would like to say that there is a very practical problem when it comes to women seeking positions in the public service. It is one that is of a very practical nature: it is that they very often do not apply for those top positions. I suggest to you that it is truly a very real and very large job of education to make sure that women in the public service reach for that high position and that they do, indeed, aspire to the higher positions in the civil service.

The fact that they do not is a practical problem because there are very many women who have two careers, one as homemaker as well as their career in the business world, and very often they do not want to give the extra time and the extra effort. It is because of that they deny themselves those positions. It is not that those positions are denied of them in the public service today.

I would also point out that there is a very high position also in the public service which gives public information, and I hope that it can give even more information to the people in our own staffing situation. And it is held by a woman, Wilma Wood.

I would also like to remark on the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) to agree with her that things have certainly changed in the 10 years since we first sat in this House. There has been a whole change of attitudes in the province of British Columbia and

[ Page 3127 ]

in this House, and it's a change for the better.

You wanted me to answer the co-ordination of these kinds of programmes within the government, and I think that's the thing that we dearly have to address ourselves to and have done. As you know, as a new government, we have had very many things to address ourselves to, but I can assure you that paramount in all of the discussions in programming and so on, the cause of women has been well enunciated not only by myself but by some very caring members of the cabinet who truly understand the problems of women in this province and the opportunities that could be there for them.

I particularly would like to mention that I have had a great deal of discussion in this regard with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams). He was mentioned by the former Minister of Labour (Mr. King) and has such a very great responsibility in regard to the hiring and the setting of the policy in regard to women and men in this province.

I believe it was the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) who gave tribute to the Women's Bureau and also to the need for using the Women's Bureau in a very real way in terms of education in the province. As you know, that comes under the Minister of Labour. Again, I can only say that it is just a combination of the philosophy that has been stated on the floor of this House by all parties and by all members of this House who have spoken that this kind of combination, these departments working with each other — the Education department, the Labour department, the Human Resources department and my department — will achieve the end which we all seek.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) mentioned the needs of rural women and the dollars for programmes needed. I think, too, there is a need for a real co-ordination of programmes within all areas, not just in the cities but those in the rural areas as well, a co-ordination of programmes under the Human Resources department and so on.

It is also a question of making sure that there is a need for a distribution of funds in a very, very real way in that area.

I would like to say that the remarks the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) made probably sum up the remarks that have been made in this House today very well — that we can talk about women in this province, working opportunities, equal pay for equal work. But if we're going to set up offices, programmes and so on to just give lip service, it's a bit patronizing, I think he said. His words were: "a bit patronizing."

I think if I can assure anything to this House when it comes to the rights of women in this province, I can say that it's more important that we work just as hard at getting rid of that tokenism in this province as it is that we work at anything else. Because I think if anything has spoiled the cause, the real cause of equal opportunity in this province, it has been that we have given lip service in many, many cases by just that kind of thing.

I want to say, too, that if women were at the bargaining table, more women at the bargaining table, I'll tell you there'd be more work in the province, fewer strikes and a lot more settlements a lot more early.

I want to thank the members of the House for the contribution they have made. You have not touched on other areas of my department. I know you will and I appreciate that you have kept the debate to one of the major concerns of this government, of this Legislature, and I compliment the members in their questioning, and I assure you that this government intends to uphold those things which have been mentioned on the floor of this House today. We intend to see that there are equal opportunities, and we intend to see that both women and men have opportunities in British Columbia.

MR. GIBSON: I would like to raise with the minister now a question that falls under her department.

You'd like to follow along with the previous line? I'll yield to the Hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MS. BROWN: I certainly appreciate the member for Vancouver-Capilano allowing me to follow up on a couple of statements made by the Provincial Secretary.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chivalry is not dead.

MS. BROWN: Right. Chivalry is just courtesy by another name. I was interested in the Provincial Secretary's statement about the grants turning up under Vote 164, the $200,000, and saying that groups had applied. I know there have been about 70 groups, I think, that have submitted applications. But what I asked for in my original question was what kind of machinery you have and what your criteria are in terms of making decisions about which groups receive their grants and which groups don't.

What I was suggesting to you was that the economics status of women section of your department which you terminated had the responsibility for screening the applications, for checking that other departments weren't dealing with them at the same time. Now that you have eliminated that section from your department, who is responsible? Do you have an advisory committee, or what is the structure that you use to ensure that there isn't the kind of musical chairs going on in terms of the application programmes that resulted, for example, in your giving the grant to the Women Alive

[ Page 3128 ]

programme after the Minister of Health and other departments had decided that that particular programme should not be funded? So the machinery is what I'm really interested in. What have you used to replace that particular section?

Now you made a couple of comments when I asked about the equal opportunities committee, and what you responded really had nothing to do with the question I asked. The equal opportunities committee was established within the Public Service Commission. Now you read a number of things about the task force which was established by the Department of Highways, which is a totally different issue altogether, one that was not raised because you are not responsible for it. The Minister of Highways was responsible for that task force.

It is true that Gene Errington was a part of the equal employment committee and it is true that she was the one who originally made the submission through the Provincial Secretary's department to the public service, for the setting up of this.

What has happened to that particular committee — which should still be in existence within the public service, is still in existence within the public service and isn't any of these other things that you have been relating to me?

Also, I think maybe for your information I should let you know that Gene Errington went to the International Women's Year conference in Mexico as a representative of both the federal government and the provincial government. She was not...what is the word? What do you men do?

AN HON. MEMBER: Moonlighting?

MS. BROWN: No, not moonlighting. She wasn't just having fun on her own. There's a word for it....

AN HON. MEMBER: Junketing.

MS. BROWN: That's it — junketing.

She wasn't just junketing. She was sent as a representative of the Canadian delegation, and after her tour of service in Mexico she took a vacation. Some people vacation at NDP conventions. Some people go to Hawaii. You know, some people go to other places, but I don't think it's fair to leave the impression that while she was a member of the staff and on full salary she took off to Mexico on an International Women's Year conference on her own and then took off to an NDP conference in Winnipeg, because that is not exactly the way it happened.

In responding to the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), you quoted some statistics in terms of the Public Service Commission, and of course it sounds good because you started at a lower level.

Interjection,

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry, I thought you said administrative.... What was the level that you used?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps the Provincial Secretary could respond a little later.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Administrative Officer I and above — and above.

MS. BROWN: But the level that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano was using — and I have the print-out sheets from last year here on the commission and we'll be using them later — do show that the ratio is worse than that. It really isn't quite that good, but I will be discussing it under the civil service.

You mentioned...and I'm not quite sure, Mr. Chairman, through you, when the Provincial Secretary was speaking about tokenism, whether she was speaking in a negative way about the concept of affirmative action, because certainly that was one of the responsibilities of the equal employment section of the Public Service Commission.

Really what affirmative action addresses itself to is not just a matter of having one person here or two people there, but actively and aggressively recruiting women to fill the openings that come up. I certainly share with the Provincial Secretary her concern about the reluctance on the part of many women to apply for some of these top-echelon jobs when they become available. That is the reason why this particular committee is so important, and that is the reason why certainly the provincial government has to be so aggressive in its own pursuit of the concept of affirmative action. It has to set an example. It has to be the model employer. Maybe the Provincial Secretary has had a chance to check through and find the reference to the particular committee in the public service to which I am referring.

The final statement I want to refer to is the one about poverty and getting the whole country moving again before we deal with the business of poverty and women. I want to draw to the Provincial Secretary's attention that we've been waiting for 2,000 years for the country to get moving so that we can come to grips with our poverty. I wonder whether she could give us some kind of indication as to how much longer we're going to have to wait.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, what I'd just like to say in reply to the last comment is that I think we've come a long way in 2,000 years. We may not have come as far as some members of the human race would like, but let me say that I wouldn't be standing here today if we hadn't come somewhere in 2,000 years. Nor would you be sitting there, Madam

[ Page 3129 ]

Member.

MS. BROWN: Ohhh!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Nor would the opportunities in the civil service, or anywhere else, be as good as they are today,

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: You mentioned the equal employment opportunities programme, and I have it before me. It was....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, do you think you could...?

MS. BROWN: Yes, let's have some order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: You mentioned the equal employment opportunities programme and I understand that that committee was set up under the provincial co-ordinator of the Status of Women who, by the way, you mentioned was sent to the convention in Mexico. I'm sorry, I did not suggest for a moment that Miss Errington was not a Canadian representative who had been sent by the provincial government and the Canadian government, which was a great honour.

I did say in my earlier remarks that I was surprised, though, that she attended an NDP convention following that convention. I would like to inform you once again, through you, Mr. Chairman, that there was no holiday. She was still on government payroll when she attended the NDP convention, and I have that information from the comptroller, Mr. Chairman. I just simply give that to you, Madam Member, for your information.

MS. BROWN: I thought everyone was entitled to two weeks holiday.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think everyone is entitled to have their own political beliefs, Mr. Chairman, and certainly I would not ever disagree with that. I do think there's another case to be made, though, that if you're attending a political convention you should do that in your own time. I feel very strongly about that, especially...

MS. BROWN: She did! She did!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:...if you're in the employ of the provincial government.

I would just give you more figures now in regard to employment in the civil service: the percentage of women in the total government service, appointed under the Public Service Act, is 45 per cent. There is one women associate deputy minister, as I mentioned earlier, Miss Campbell, Public Service Commissioner. There are at least 78 women receiving a salary at the level of programme manager and above. "This number will be higher when the licensed professional component contracts are negotiated," this report says — and those components have been negotiated.

I don't want to read through all of the statistics, but what I did give to you was the administrative officer 1 and above, which covers the total 2,000 people that I mentioned earlier.

Now in addressing my remarks to the equal employment opportunities programme, this proposal was submitted by an interdepartmental committee which was given by the provincial co-ordinator at that time. A report that was requested by the cabinet at that time did say.... I will quote one area of the report, and this did not come to our cabinet, as I say; it came to the other one.

"As stated earlier, we have reservations as to the need to set up a separate unit to deal with equal opportunities for women. We feel that the proposed organization of the board is rather extravagant and not organizationally sound."

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm not making those my remarks; I am simply giving that to the member for her benefit — that that is where it was in the last government. At this point in time this government is addressing itself to the very concerns which you have expressed, and so I think I have answered your question as to where it was. It was obviously not taken up by the former government, and we are now addressing ourselves to the same problems they addressed themselves to, and that is that it is difficult at best to make sure these people do apply. I think, as I said earlier in my remarks, I would like to see an educational programme stepped up so we do get more women applying for more of the positions.

You did mention and I think you did want to know about the application of grants, the $200,000 and a screening process. If anything caught my attention, as a new minister and a new government, it was certainly the application which we had so many problems over when we were first here in the very first few weeks. I have now instituted a new programme in the screening, and it will be very well screened.

MS. BROWN: Point of order, Mr. Chairman: I can't hear.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, it is past the 15 minute to 6 hour and I would ask you to restrain yourselves in the noise you are emitting.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I just

[ Page 3130 ]

want to say that the screening of grants, which the member raises, is a very real concern to me, particularly after the problems we had in the one she mentioned earlier. We have got a screening process set up since that time, which I think will probably eliminate the problems. I hope they will. It is intergovernment, one department checking with another, and the checking is so clear that certainly if the Provincial Secretary gets a request, or Human Resources gets a request, or the Health minister gets a request, there will be that kind of intergovernmental co-ordination.

I would like to also say to you that I'm trying to institute a new form of application for grants, which has not been quite worked out as yet. We are attempting to do that, and this gives further protection, and protection, I might say, that hasn't been instituted heretofore in the government — by any government prior to this time — and which will give a better a protection to the government as the granting authority. If there does happen to be a grant that we wish to take back because of non-performance, because of misuse or something, we will have a built-in protection.

That has not been the case in the past, and all of the people in my department who are handling grants — all the departments throughout who are handling grants and programmes — those grants and programmes are all handled by human beings who could make errors. We recognize that, and we are going to have a different application form drawn up, and that is in the works at the present time.

Mr. Chairman, unless there are further questions, I would move the committee rise, report resolution, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Curtis files an answer to a question. (See appendix.)

Presenting reports.

Mr. Stupich presents report No. 1 from the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs, which was taken as read and received. (See appendix.)

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, in that the report deals with the disposal of public documents, I move that the report be adopted, by leave.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. We have now gone past two private members' days without going into private members' bills.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: My concern, Mr. Speaker, is with motions 4 and 5 on the order paper, dealing with the first-strike nuclear power bases. I understand that there is unanimous approval of this House to those motions, and I'm wondering if I could ask the Provincial Secretary when she is proposing to call those motions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. First of all I would like to point out to the hon. member that Committee of Supply has precedence over all other business until disposed of. We have been in Committee of Supply in the last two days of the Legislature. It is the prerogative of the government to call motions and adjourned debates on motions if they are not going into Committee of Supply on private members' day. I would just say that once we have completed Committee of Supply, the type of question that you put to the hon. Provincial Secretary would perhaps then be in order, but as long as we observe the priorities of the House in the days that ordinarily would be considered private members' days, and that is that we go into Committee of Supply, we are fulfilling the obligations of the Legislature inasmuch as it is a priority of business. We still, Hon. Member, have some way to go in Committee of Supply.

MRS. WALLACE: This House is the supreme body, and if the Provincial Secretary were prepared to call that motion, I am quite sure she could get the unanimous consent of this House now.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY