[ Page 1753 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Consumer Protection Act (Bill 28) Hon. Mr. Mair.

Introduction and first reading –– 1753

Presenting reports

Joint Alberta-British Columbia Studies on Peace River Power Development report. Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1753

Oral questions

Rental assistance to senior citizens. Ms. Sanford –– 1753

Use of land at Lonsdale ferry terminal. Mr. Wallace –– 1754

Eurocan-Weldwood sawmill development. Mr. Levi –– 1754

Federal cost-sharing in GAIN programme. Mr. Gibson –– 1754

Review of assistance programmes. Mr. Levi –– 1755

Recruiting of British miners. Mr. Lea –– 1755

Federal subsidies for B.C. Ferries. Mr. Lockstead –– 1755

Railwest discussions. Mr. Barrett –– 1756

Cablevision costs in apartments. Hon. Mr. Mair answers –– 1756

Revelstoke Dam costs. Hon. Mr. Davis answers –– 1756

Committee of Supply: Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Travel Industry estimates.

On vote 19.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1756

Mrs. Dailly –– 1757

Mr. Macdonald –– 1761

Mr. Gibson –– 1763

Mr. Lea –– 1764

Mr. Cocke –– 1766

Mrs. Dailly –– 1766

Mr. Wallace –– 1766

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1768

Mrs. Dailly –– 1772

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1773

Mr. Macdonald –– 1774

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1775

Mr. Wallace –– 1776

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1778

Mr. Lea –– 1780

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1781

Mr. Gibson –– 1782

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1782

Ms. Sanford –– 1782

Mrs. Wallace –– 1783

Mr. Cocke –– 1785

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce two guests who are with us in the gallery today - Diana Lion and Helena Summers from the Vancouver Women's Health Collective in Vancouver, a group which is doing an excellent job of delivering primary preventive health care in the Vancouver community.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce in the gallery today Mr. Roy Jonsson and the students of Windsor Secondary School from the North Shore in Vancouver. I would appreciate it if hon. members would make them welcome.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, students from Claremont Secondary School in Saanich will be in the House today, accompanied by their teacher in charge, Mr. Kelly. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Later in the day, a second contingent from Lake Cowichan parliamentary forum will be sitting in the gallery. It is the intention of this forum to make repeated visits to our assembly to watch our proceedings. I would hope that the assembly would join me in welcoming not only this group but also the other groups that will be coming from time to time to visit us during this session.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): I'd like to ask the members to extend a welcome to a group of students from Portland University, Mr. Speaker, who are with us today.

Introduction of bills.

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Mair, Bill 28, Consumer Protection Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presented a report on the joint Alberta-British Columbia Studies on Peace River Power Development, which was taken as read and received.

Oral questions.

RENTAL ASSISTANCE

TO SENIOR CITIZENS

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): My question is to the Premier. In view of the recent announcements of rental assistance to senior citizens and the handicapped, will the government be removing rent controls this year?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the new legislation introduced dealing with initiatives for rent aid for those over 65 is a bill which is before the House and one of which we're very proud. This government is still discussing the rent control that was put in place by the last government at the rate of 10.6 per cent.

MS. SANFORD: Will the government be removing rent controls this year, or is that under study by a cabinet committee?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I just said that the 10.6 per cent rent control ceiling put on by the last government is under review.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): It wasn't 10.6. We rejected that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering if the July I date that applies to both the senior citizens' assistance as well as the handicapped rental assistance is as a result of the discussions that are taking place in cabinet with respect to the removal of rent controls. Is it a coincidence that those two both apply on July 1, or is this as the result of discussions?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's improper to discuss a bill that is before the House. If you want to ask about the removal of rent controls that would be in order, but without relating to a bill that is before the House.

MS. SANFORD: I am just asking about the date, Mr. Speaker. Is it coincidence?

HON. MR. BENNETT: July 1 is a very significant day in Canada - it's Canada Day. I can think of no better day on which to bring benefits to the seniors of our province.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): April Fool.

[ Page 1754 ]

USE OF LAND AT

LONSDALE FERRY TERMINAL

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): With regard to the 30 acres that were expropriated at the site of the new Lonsdale ferry terminal, can the Minister of Municipal Affairs tell the House, in view of his indication that the government wishes to generate revenue with the unused portion of the land - that part not used by the terminal itself - what specific types of use he has in mind to generate revenue?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No firm plans have been finalized or presented to my colleagues in terms of the ultimate use of the property, but I am on record with the city of North Vancouver council as indicating that I recognize the importance of open space or public access - and that's more than 66 feet, Mr. Member - to the waterfront on the North Shore. But we have not yet finalized any plans with respect to the use of that property other than that which is required for the ferry system, its maintenance and so on.

MR. WALLACE: Then could I ask if in the various options that the minister has referred to there has been any consideration given to the allocation of the unused portion of the site for use as a public park? Is that one of the uses being considered?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud of my record in elected office over the years ...

MR. BARRETT: What party?

HON. MR. CURTIS: If you have something to say, stand up later and say it.

. . . in terms of recognition of the need for open space and land for public use and enjoyment. It is simply not decided yet, Mr. Member. I would think that some park usage is very appropriate in that area, but what percentage of the land it should be is a matter which will have to be a recommendation to cabinet with a decision at that level first, I would think.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary.

MR. WALLACE: I will be very brief. I am trying to confirm the accuracy of the statement the minister is reputed to have made - that the land would be used to generate revenue. I don't see how it could generate revenue if we make it into a park. I just wonder if the minister could clarify that apparent conflict of purposes.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I don't think that at any time I have suggested in meetings with the North Vancouver city council or with any individual that all the land would be made available for park of for public use and enjoyment. I think there is sufficient land there, once the ferry terminal portion is set aside, for compatibility between some form of private use and public use.

EUROCAN-WELDWOOD

SAWMILL DEVELOPMENT

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): This is to the Minister of Forests, Mr. Speaker, regarding the development of the Eurocan-Weldwood mill in the Houston area and the controversy surrounding the Lieuwen farm location. Is the minister prepared to intervene in order to see that some of the Northwood land is made available for the new mill? The minister may be aware that the previous Minister of Forests initiated some discussions with Mr. Zimmerman regarding this matter, and he indicated at that time that he would be prepared to sell some of it at market prices.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): In answer to the member for Vancouver-Burrard, Mr. Speaker, it's not the responsibility of the Ministry of Forests to acquire industrial property for industrial undertakings, even though they may be related to the forest industry. I do not plan to intervene personally. I would think that making some of the property which Northern has available would be a good idea but I don't think it is the place of the Minister of Forests to come between negotiations between those two companies.

FEDERAL COST-SHARING IN GAIN

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I have a question to the Minister of Human Resources. Changes made last October to federal cost-sharing in respect of GAIN for seniors aged 60 to 64 has resulted in the province receiving about an extra $1.5 million in federal revenues. In view of the fact that this group has not had an increase in benefits since January, 1976, and in view of the fact that the purchasing power of the present monthly maximum of $265 has decreased by about $25 since then, will the minister take action to ensure that all of the extra $35 per month per person received by the province from Ottawa is earmarked to the cost-of-living increases for the 60- to 64-year-old GAIN recipients?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): The rates for GAIN for senior recipients are being reviewed and have been reviewed for some six weeks to two months. I hope to be making some announcement reasonably soon.

[ Page 1755 ]

MR. GIBSON: Quite independent of any review which the minister might be making, would he not agree that he has been receiving an extra $35 per month from Ottawa in respect of people 60 to 64 years of age and that this should be passed on immediately?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I should perhaps take a moment again to explain once more to the member that yes, we did negotiate a return of tax dollars from Ottawa to Victoria that have been due British Columbia for some considerable years. The citizens of British Columbia are certainly entitled to the 50 per cent from Ottawa. If we fall behind at any time - as was the case with the previous administration for not having negotiated properly and for having had relations with Ottawa that were somewhat lacking - we'll make up for that and we will obtain the 50 per cent entitled us from Ottawa.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Will you pass it on to people?

MR. GIBSON: I want to ask the minister if he perhaps made a slip of the tongue. Does he really mean that these dollars are due to Victoria, or does he mean they're due to seniors?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They are, Mr. Speaker. It's too bad that for this particular member everything has to be spelled out in such detail. I thought he'd understand they're for all British Columbians.

REVIEW OF ASSISTANCE PROGRAMMES

MR. LEVI: Could the minister tell the House whether, in the review that he has been making for the last six months, he's also reviewing the reinstatement of the quarterly cost-of-living increase that existed under the previous Mincome programme for the senior citizens and, in fact, for all of the people on the existing GAIN programme?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, we are following an approach that I think will bring far greater benefits to people in need. By way of example for the handicapped people: over the three years prior to our taking office, they received $55. During this last move, the majority of them receive $57. We are looking at the other programmes in the same vein - to bring the greatest amount of benefits to the greatest number of people.

RECRUITING OF BRITISH MINERS

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Mines. In view of the incredibly high unemployment rate in this province, how can the minister and his government justify the fact that Kaiser Resources has to advertise for skilled miners in Britain?

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I'll take the question as notice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: I understand perfectly.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No answer is required then. (Laughter.)

FEDERAL SUBSIDIES FOR B.C. FERRIES

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): This is a question to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. I wonder if the minister could now inform this House as to what progress is being, or has been made, in getting federal subsidies for the B.C. ferry system.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are continuing.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Isn't it true, Mr. Speaker, that negotiations are now reduced to face-saving, and that there will be no federal money, and that all you are after now is a reclassification of our waters to inland or protected?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That's an improper question, hon. member. Restate the question in a proper manner.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Drawing a supposition is not part of a question. Restate the question in a proper manner.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the safety standards of our vessels are very important.

MR. SPEAKER: Restate the question in a proper manner or take your seat.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: To the same minister then: are negotiations taking place that will result in our waters being reclassified as protected or inland so that labour costs for the system will be reduced and result in reduction of safety standards on our vessels?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, there are no negotiations. There are exploratory discussions going

[ Page 1756 ]

RAILWEST DISCUSSIONS

MR. BARRETT: I want to, first of all, thank that minister for explaining the difference between negotiations and discussions. It was a point I made last week.

I'd like to ask the current Minister of Economic Development a question, Mr. Speaker. The House was informed that discussions were taking place with Ottawa on Railwest car production. I'd like to ask the minister who in his department is involved in the discussions: with whom are the discussions taking place in Ottawa? On what particular contracts are the discussions taking place?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): I'd like to answer the current Leader of the Opposition (laughter) that yes, negotiations are currently underway. As the announcement said, hopefully we will be able to obtain some car orders in the near future to keep the plant going.

MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the minister for repeating the first part of my question. Now for the question. Who are the discussions taking place with in Ottawa? Who from your department is in Ottawa discussing it? On what contracts are the discussions taking place?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question, the negotiations are taking place between the Department of Economic Development and the Department of Transport.

CABLEVISION COSTS IN

APARTMENTS

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I've just been given an answer to a question put to me by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) the other day concerning cablevision costs in apartments. While this answer is a general one, I am instructed that it applies particularly to the apartment that the member was concerned about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If you're about to deliver the answer verbatim to the House, you must ask leave; otherwise you file the answer with the Clerks at the table.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to give an oral answer?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, most apartments are on a bulk cablevision rate, which until recently was $2.75 per month. Cablevision increased their rates 75 cents for both bulk and individual, making the fee $3.50. If the landlords withdrew cablevision at the bulk rate of $3.50, the tenants would then have been faced with the individual rate of $5.75, which is $2.25 higher. In view of this the Rent Review Commission allowed the cost to be passed through. I might say they also allowed a 50-cent increase last year. When the figure of 10.6 was computed, apparently it did not take into consideration non-essentials such as cablevision.

REVELSTOKE DAM COSTS

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, similarly I would like to ask leave of the House to answer a question posed by the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) .

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DAVIS: On February 21 the hon. member for Oak Bay asked:

With regard to the contract of $35.4 million by B.C. Hydro in connection with the proposed Revelstoke Dam, and with regard to the cancellation clause in the event that the conditional water licence be rescinded, can the minister tell the House if the whole sum of $35.4 million will be spent regardless of whether or not Hydro proceeds with the dam?

The answer is that the total termination costs for all the work presently contracted at the Revelstoke site could range from $3 million to $5 million, if that order were given to terminate the mid-April.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, may I observe at this particular time that I suggested to the House that if an answer to a question was to be made outside of question period, it should be filed at the table with the Clerks so that it didn't impinge upon the time of the House for the discussion of other business.

I would hope that the members and the ministers replying to questions would take that advice into consideration in future sessions of this Legislature.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF THE PROVINCIAL

SECRETARY AND TRAVEL INDUSTRY

On vote 19: minister's office, $155,690.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary and

[ Page 1757 ]

Minister of Travel Industry): Because the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Travel Industry covers so many facets I'm not going to spend a length of time discussing them. I know that the members will wish to question my department, as is the custom in estimates.

In introducing my estimates today, I would just like to say that I have been extremely pleased with the co-operation that I have had in this past year, and a very busy year it's been with reorganization of the department and with vigorous programmes under the Department of Travel Industry, as well as Provincial Secretary. I would just like to pay tribute at this time to those people who worked closely with me in that regard - the staff of my ministry, the deputy minister, Mr. Wallace, those senior people who have assisted in such a great way, and those whom they have to work with.

If I may say, hon. members, I see a great year ahead in the travel industry. I'd like to say in that regard that we have a vigorous programme and, for the first time in this province, a marketing programme, which has been adopted and will be shown to all members of the hospitality industry in the next two months.

In addition, I would like to say that in some of the other areas of concern under the Provincial Secretary there has been quite a programme of reorganization that I think has been most profitable to the citizens of British Columbia. I'm pleased at this time to accept any questions on my estimates.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for starting off the estimates with some remarks. Apropos of the way she started off, it is quite correct that there has been a reorganization of the whole government. So as opposition critics, it has taken us a little while to reorient ourselves to these changes. I notice particularly the Provincial Secretary portfolio, including Travel Industry. There certainly have been some changes made.

It's a very interesting portfolio, as I'm sure the hon. minister would agree, for any of us who've taken the time to study what now comes under the Provincial Secretary and Travel Industry. It's not -I'm sure the minister would perhaps agree with this j also - a particularly high....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The House is a little noisy. On a point of order, the member for Vancouver South.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): I can't hear.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. The House is noisy. The member for Burnaby North has the floor.

MRS. DAILLY: The member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) is listening - the one member. Thank you.

It is not a particularly high-profile ministry. I know many people say: "Well, what is the work of the Provincial Secretary?" When you mention Education or Health, it's pretty clear. But may I say, after looking through what is now under the Provincial Secretary, that while it may not have a particularly high profile it is a ministry that could be used in a very political manner. I want to use those words advisedly - "could be."

When one looks at what comes under it, just out of general interest to the members of the House and perhaps those in the gallery, we find under this minister the postal branch, the legislative library, provincial archives, Queen's Printer, Government House, agent-general's B.C. House, Indian Advisory Act, Public Inquiries Act - which, of course, we will have a few questions on later - dress and special services, and events. So the Provincial Secretary is responsible for a number of major decisions in the area of grants and special services and events, and also the Provincial Elections Act. I think we would all agree that that's a very major part of the portfolio.

Provincial emergency programme, B.C. lottery branch, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation, public service, provincial museum, tour guides in the parliament buildings, distribution -and I think this one is very interesting - of government publications, distribution of public publications, public information. Now when I mentioned this could be used very politically, I think these are the two areas particularly that we would have questions on how the minister sees her role.

Public Service Commission, administration and employee benefits, superannuation branch - and that goes into the whole area of bargaining, et cetera, with the public service - air services; and then the minister has a very important area, and that is the whole matter of tourism in this province.

Now I have a number of questions for the minister in various areas. I certainly won't cover them all immediately, but I would like to start off, if I may with tourism. Tourism B.C., as it's called, I know is the programme that comes under her area of jurisdiction of Travel Industry. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that we are very, very concerned - as I'm sure the hon. minister is - with the state of tourism in British Columbia today.

The hon. minister has certainly been very active in a certain manner in the area of trying to get movement in the tourism industry. But I am really here at this moment to question the hon. minister's approach in trying to improve tourism in British Columbia and improve the dollars that come into our province.

First of all, I do want to make a point here that

[ Page 1758 ]

this minister does have a tendency to make generalized statements when she is travelling around the province which, at times, are a complete misinterpretation of the facts. I really do think that this should be brought forward, and I would like the minister to answer me on why she made these statements, because they're sitting out there in newspaper columns. I would like to point out what I consider several erroneous statements, particularly one, to start with.

In one recent interview - or however it was given; perhaps it was a speech - the hon. minister states: "Before the tourism slump began in 1972, " she said, "tourism revenues were increasing by 15 per cent per year." Well, we have listened since this government came into power to recriminations against the New Democratic Party when they were in power, saying that the problems of this province were entirely the responsibility and should be left on the shoulders of the NDP.

Here again we have an implication made by this minister that tourism started to slump from the year that the New Democratic Party took office. Now I want to refute this, and I hope that the hon. minister will be able to either make a retraction of this statement or apologize. For instance, I want to give her these figures now: in 1972, tourist dollars per year were $574 million; in 1973 - $660 million; in 1974, they rose to $869 million. That's the middle period when the New Democratic Party was government; a 20 per cent increase in that period. In 1975, they rose from the 1974 figure of $869 million to $970 million; and now, in 1976, they are $1 billion. Now if we compare, that means there was only a $30 million increase in the year in which the Social Credit took over government in this province.

So, Mr. Chairman, I do hope that the hon. minister will stand up and apologize for making a statement publicly which is obviously incorrect. The tourist slump did not start in 1972 when the NDP took over. It started when the Social Credit government came in. All we have to do is look at this Island and at the whole province. I must say that we are getting a little tired of these generalized statements that are being made. We had similar statements - not on tourism -made in the same vein by that hon. minister in the lead-up to the last election. These were on the secret policy force, et cetera, which I will not go into at this time.

The other point I wish to bring up is this: just what is the hon. minister's basic thrust in improving tourism for British Columbia and bringing in increased tourist dollars?

I realize that the hon. minister is hard-working. She's going all over the province; she has made trips to the state of Washington to promote tourism. But my question is: is it a promotion of tourism or is it promotion of the hon. minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. DAILLY: I'm serious about this, and I want to back this up.

Mr. Chairman, may I make a point here?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. I apologize. You're having trouble....

MRS. DAILLY: I wish to make a point with reference to a remark made across the floor. It so happens that I am a woman member of this House, and the hon. minister is. It has never failed - and I think she would agree with me - that whenever you have two women members who are contacting across the floor in debate there is always some male member who says: "Stop being catty!" We never hear that remark when a man is on the floor, and I resent it, Mr. Chairman. I hope that hon. member would stop making those remarks. We're all equal here on this floor, we're all MLAs, and we get a little tired of those sexist remarks.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Men are a lot worse.

MRS. DAILLY: Oh, it all depends, Mr. Attorney-General.

Anyway, I'll go back to quotes made from the hon. minister. She has been travelling the province, as I said, in a hard-working manner. No one would deny that. But what is she saying, though, and what is this work producing? When she travels and speaks to various groups, she is constantly stating that we can double tourism in B.C. if, for example, the initiative to serve were restored. "If you would only use a smile, " the waitresses are told. "Smile when you give your service. We can double tourism in this province."

Now, Mr. Chairman, I consider that a very, very simplistic, primitive approach to increase the tourist dollars in this province. I also consider it an insult to many of the workers in the tourist industry, who are struggling today with enormous financial impositions brought about by this government's fiscal policies. If they're not smiling I'm sure they have many reasons not to because of the economic state they've been left in by this government. By and large, I think our workers in this province in the hospitality area are doing their very best.

I have gone through most of the minister's speeches I can find, and I find this same theme all the way through: "Keep smiling. Improve your service." Also there is a quote from the minister's new Tourism British Columbia, which is now out, in which the minister says:

[ Page 1759 ]

"We must be courteous. British Columbians have found out that when prices are high and services are down, people will not flock to our door. Too many fail to realize the serious economic role that the travel industry plays in this province."

Now, Mr. Chairman, we're all aware of the very serious economic role that tourism plays in this province, but I want to reiterate that we must get more from the hon. minister than complaints about the service of the people in the industry. We must get more. I don't want to suggest that your travelling show, the Royal Hudson, and the handing out of daffodils in Seattle were not very interesting ventures, but frankly, I don't see that as being the answer to the tourism slump we're in. We need more than the handing out of daffodils and travelling road shows to produce increased tourist dollars in this province.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Reduce the ferry rates.

MRS. DAILLY: I notice when the hon. minister is speaking, also, and her speeches.... She has been in the political arena a long time, about the same time I have. We both came into the House together, and I know she handles herself exceptionally well when she speaks. But the interesting thing is that when the minister has been travelling this province and speaking about tourism, at no time does she seem prepared to answer any questions on why the ferry rates were increased. Usually the minister evades answering those questions.

Now out there, the public cannot be underestimated, Mr. Chairman. They're quite aware that it is the government's responsibility to look at the whole economic scene in this province when they're looking at the tourism decline which my figures have just shown. We have quotes from the chamber of commerce in Victoria in which they say there is no doubt whatsoever that the decrease in tourism was definitely.... Part of it, of course, was definitely affected by the increased ferry rates.

British Columbia is becoming noted as one of the highest-cost provinces in Canada. The word is out. I've talked to people who work in hotels - they are having conventions cancelled. Why? People soon find out how much it's going to cost them to travel, for instance, from Vancouver to Victoria. We know for a fact that many American tourists in their campers stopped when they found out at Tsawwassen what it was going to cost to cross over. It has had an effect, and I don't think the hon. minister can deny it.

Why I'm bringing this up is that she is a senior member in cabinet, and I feel if she wants to improve tourism she must fight in cabinet to bring down some of these ferry rates. She must also fight to see that some of the heavy fiscal policies which have been imposed by her government are relieved and taken off the backs of the people.

It's not only the ferry rates. It's the unfettered increases in hydro rates and fuel rates which this government has made no attempt to regulate. The result is that there is less money available in the hands of the people of British Columbia. Therefore to suggest that our people must travel here and not go elsewhere is very nice, but they don't have the money to travel any more because of this government's fiscal policies.

It doesn't take the Americans and visitors from other lands long to find out - it started during Habitat - that if you go to British Columbia, you are going to pay one of the highest costs for meals anywhere in the continent. Good service isn't going to mean that people are going to come and pay double for breakfast what they would find in some areas, say, in the United States.

Now I'm not saying that the provincial government can control that whole field, but I want to make the point that they have made that area that the consumers are faced with even worse because of their actions. They have imposed on the people of British Columbia so much unnecessary taxation and increases that the consumer of British Columbia finds it difficult enough to just manage his day-by-day budget. They certainly are not going to have the opportunity to move around this province to the same degree.

I do hope that the hon. minister will discuss in the House, where she should ' what she is doing besides the promotion tours to tell people how beautiful British Columbia is. We all agree with that, but what is she really doing about the basic problem to help bring us out of this depression which we are in?

MR. LEA: She's travelling.

MRS. DAILLY: How can you deny that it exists? How can you deny that it does not affect tourism? I do hope that the hon. minister will answer in the House. When she is asked these specific questions on her speaking tours, she does not answer these questions; she evades them. The people of the province want an answer.

The tourist industry is important. We're all concerned about it. The minister has recently presided over the opening of the new building, and that's fine. But I do want to ask her a number of questions relative to the people whom she has hired to work with her. Here is a specific question. I hope you will also answer my general questions on what you are doing as a minister to help convince your cabinet or your Premier relative to your fiscal policies which are having such a bad effect on tourism in B.C.

I have a specific question about Mr. John Plul, who was recently hired by you, I believe, as convention

[ Page 1760 ]

co-ordinator or planner for your department. Now I understand that Mr. Plul was sent to Monte Carlo to drum up tourism - hopefully European conventions.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's trying to get oil money.

MRS. DAILLY: So I specifically want to ask the minister: following his trip to Monte Carlo, has he produced for you any European bookings? Have you a report to give to the House on that trip made by Mr. Plul? I would also like to know exactly what Mr. Plul's terms of reference are. What is his job? He's listed as convention planner or co-ordinator. Would you detail to the House exactly what he does?

There are a number of other people who work in the department. I believe many of them are involved in trying to promote conventions. I want to know just what conventions Mr. Plul has promoted since he came in. Taxpayers are paying his salary, I think the House deserves to know exactly what he's doing, in detail.

There are so many other areas I wish to cover. I'm going to give other members a chance to speak on it also, of course, but there is one other specific area that I wish to bring up at this time. It was brought up yesterday and I know the minister did give an answer. It's in the area of grants.

I particularly would hope that the minister would elaborate further to us today on just what she is planning to do about the request from the Vancouver Status of Women for their annual grant. Now the minister said she was hopeful, Mr. Chairman, that this money may be forthcoming. But my basic concern is that this is an exceptionally valuable group to the women of British Columbia. They need to know very, very soon whether they are going to be able to continue on or not. Until they get word from the hon. minister, it is making life very difficult for them.

I think the hon. minister must be well aware of the tremendous amount of valuable work that has been done by this group since they first came into being. It's interesting to note that when the New Democratic Party left office, there was approximately $200,000 set aside for Status of Women work in this province. Last year $75,000 was granted and accepted, I'm sure, very happily by the Vancouver Status of Women.

But I have a number of questions that I would like to ask you regarding this grant. For the members of the House who may not be too conversant with the Vancouver Status of Women, I would like to point out to you that it is doing a tremendous service, as I said earlier, to the women of this province. Since the funding for all women's programmes has come practically to a halt since the Social Credit came in except for the $75,000, which was well appreciated, we have seen a very sad thing happen in this province. We have seen at one time when the NDP was in office that there were approximately 200 women's groups in the province. I believe that is now down to one-third because of lack of funding.

Now we are down mainly to funding being given by the Provincial Secretary to the Vancouver Status of Women. I'm not quite sure what the criteria are -perhaps it's because she considers it a provincial body serving the public. Now if that is so, I want to point out that their workload has increased 100-fold because of the other women's centres across the province which have had to close down because of the pull-back on grant money since the NDP were in government. So one-third of these groups have gone. This means that the Vancouver Status of Women in the Vancouver central office, their only office now, are being deluged with calls from women calling them from all over the province - those, of course, who are able to do so. Naturally their workload has increased. They are practically having to handle most of the province.

What do they do? There are women who phone up there every day who have problems. Many of them are legal problems. Many women in this province, starting from square one, we might say, when they get into difficulties, either matrimonial, property-wise, or legal, haven't a clue what to do. Therefore they turn to the Vancouver Status of Women, whose employees are trained to assist them. They don't just listen to them and say, "Thank you very much for your problem"; they actually go into that problem. There are cases where they actually go into court when necessary to give solace and comfort to these women.

They are doing a tremendous public education service on the problems of women today and the need to remove discrimination in so many areas. They are in constant demand. I think if anyone really went into depth to see the work done by this group, they would really appreciate the great service they are doing for the women of the province.

Now if the Social Credit government feels that their grants must be limited to only the Vancouver Status of Women, so be it. That is your decision and the women of the province will have to make a decision on how they feel about it. But my only hope is that the hon. minister will stand up today and at least let this group know when they can expect their funding, because I know that the minister has her grant money. Surely by now she has made a decision on what areas and groups are going to receive grants. Why not ease the strain and the tension which the Vancouver Status of Women are going through at this time, wondering if they are going to be able to continue their valuable service?

Perhaps you could meet with them. I know the minister is busy, but these women, I understand, would be very pleased to meet with you. Perhaps the minister could meet with them this week, if possible.

[ Page 1761 ]

Perhaps she's even going to be able to stand up and announce today, hopefully, that their grant will be continued. So I do hope that the hon. minister, who did give them their $75,000 last year, will make some specific announcement, not just the announcement that you are considering it. That leaves these women under great tension and strain.

Now I would also specifically like to ask you what the criteria are for handing out grants to women's groups. If you're going to hand out grants, we know that you must have criteria. I think it would help the women's groups of the province to know what those criteria are for funding the women's groups in this province. To date, you have only funded the Vancouver Status of Women - and I understand a small grant was given, I think, in Port Coquitlam. Now that leaves some confusion, really.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Three minutes.

MRS. DAILLY: We would really like to know what the criteria are.

So as I only have my three minutes left at this time, I want to thank the House for their kind attention. I hope that the minister will be able and prepared to answer some of these questions now, and 1, of course, would like to get up again later. Thank you.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): I will defer to the minister if she wishes to answer at this time. I hope she won't forget the questions from the member for Burnaby North. I want to refer to the reply that the Provincial Secretary gave to the House on February 24 in Hansard with respect to the Broadbent retirement allowance. The questions, are well known but I want to repeat the answer.

On what basis was this gratuity allotted and on what basis was it computed?

First it was: is it normal policy? Answer: no.

Mr. Broadbent's case was unusual. He had given 29 years' services to the people of British Columbia, both as an employee of the public service of this province and as general manager of a Crown corporation. In the public service he had held the position of deputy minister before serving in the Crown corporation. Had he remained with the public service during the interval when he was with the Pacific Great Eastern Railway he would have....

But he didn't. I don't want to continue with the answer. I think I have given the drift of it. It raises very basic constitutional principles as to what the minister is up to. It goes to the heart of our constitution.

It said in the order-in-council which was passed by the cabinet on December 21, three days before the MEL settlement, that "It is recommended that a retiring allowance" - I think the amount was $8,164.80 - "equivalent to that provided under section 49 of the Public Service Act" - namely, that's the amount - "be paid to Mr. Broadbent as a charge to vote 209, transport research and planning." Of course that charge to that vote was just a blind, because the vote has nothing to do....

MR. GIBSON: What was the research?

MR. MACDONALD: What was the research and what was the planning? I have the vote here and it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything that Mr. Broadbent did. This is in the previous estimates, so you won't find it in your current book.

This vote 209 evaluates major projects and expenditures in the transportation field for their social, economic and financial viability. It's an ongoing salary and research vote for that particular purpose, including projects like Westac, which was an investigation of rail and shipping facilities in Vancouver. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Mr. Broadbent and, for that matter, with the settlement of the case. It was an illegal payment and clearly unlawful, offending against the basic principles of our constitution. It was made by the government at the 11th hour, before the settlement of the MEL paving case. Although the report to this House of January 17 said that the government evaluated it after the evidence of the railway he was in, and although Mr. Broadbent was an important witness in the case, and is acknowledged to be so, he had never given his evidence. On the eve of the settlement he was given $8,164 which had not been voted by this Legislature. The answer of the hon. minister offends against the basic principle, the same principle upon which Charles 1, after governing for I I years without the benefit of Parliament, lost his head. It's the principle mainly that money cannot be. .. . The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) may laugh about it, but it is arrogance of power to presume that this government can spend money that has not been voted by the Legislature. It is contempt of parliament. All the books outline what that basic constitutional principle is. In the well-known book by Berrisdale Keith, The King and the Imperial Crown, we read on page 329:

"All contracts by the Crown involving the expenditure of public money are subject to the constitutional rule that Parliament must first find the money, if it is to be possible to make the payment stipulated."

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you tell Bob Williams that ?

MR.MACDONALD:

"Otherwise, it would be possible for the Crown to evade parliamentary contracts by

[ Page 1762 ]

stipulating for payment, and so compelling Parliament to find the funds."

Parliament has never authorized or found this $8,164. It has nothing whatsoever to do with vote 209 of the Transport estimates, yet vote 209 is on the face of the order-in-council. It should have been obvious - it must have been obvious - to the members of cabinet who passed the order-in-council on December 21, that vote 209 was being used as a blind to find money to make this payment.

In May's, I 8th edition, beginning at page 683:

"The rule that legislation is necessary to sanction grants of supply and ways and means is based on ancient constitutional usage.... By constitutional practice which has been perfected in the course of two and a half centuries, the application of the grants of supply of the House of Commons to the services for which they are voted is secured annually by legislation ......

Even before the estimates are passed, of course, there is legislation. There are exceptions to the rule when you have a financial resolution attached to a bill. There are exceptional grants provided for in British parliamentary practice for the service of the royal house, princes and princesses, distinguished military commanders, but they are always first, before the payment is made, approved by the Parliament of Great Britain after a message coming from the sovereign. There are no exceptions to the illegal payment of moneys that have not been voted by this House, and that is what we have seen in this case.

As for the Public Service Act, there was expressed the will of the Legislature. You may disagree with it and say that in addition to the ordinary annuity provided for public servants and the addition to that of severance pay or retirement allowance, which is what Mr. Broadbent got, that Act should have been extended to cover people like Mr. Broadbent who are not in the public service. I'm not debating the merits of that; what I am saying is that the Act, in section 2 and section 49, clearly could not and did not apply to the payment to Mr. Broadbent. The will of the Legislature was expressly and clearly laid out in the Public Service Act that those payments were for people in the public service only. Mr. Broadbent did not qualify.

When the late Chief Justice Sloan - we used to pass this bill and some members will remember this -left behind a widow, we felt as a legislature that an annual allowance should be made to Mrs. Sloan. That allowance was made year after year under then Premier W.A.C. Bennett by a special bill brought into this Legislature, because to make the payment otherwise, even though we all agreed with it, would offend well-established constitutional practice dating back to the reign of Charles I.

Here we have a witness who was never called, in a case which cost the province of British Columbia, for the trial expenses alone, well over $1.5 million, and which cost money in the settlement. The letter to this House said that he was an important ingredient in terms of evaluating his evidence and in terms of evaluating whether or not the case should be settled. He was never called - and the letter was incorrect in that respect - and on the court house steps, at the 11th hour before the settlement, this important witness was given, illegally and unlawfully, the sum of $8,164. The minister says: "Oh, we just gave it; it was the equivalent." They charged it up to a vote which had nothing whatsoever to do with the case in point.

MR. GIBSON: Why do you think they did that?

MR. MACDONALD: Do you know what King Lear said on the blasted heath? He said: "Take this off me, my friend, who has the power to seal the accuser's lips!"

We cannot help but wonder if it was to silence a witness. The payment was made I I months late but three days before the settlement - 11 months after he had retired, three days before the settlement of the MEL Paving case - and made unlawfully. That is the point that I'm making today: the minister has sanctioned the unlawful expenditure of public money.

There isn't a lawyer in this House who can advance an argument - perhaps the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is preparing his papers - that money need not be sanctioned, before it can be spent, by this Legislature by a money resolution, by the estimates which are approved by statute, or by a separate statute. There are no exceptions. This was an unlawful payment which violates, as I say, every principle of our constitution, and it raises questions about the settlement of the MEL Paving case which this government has not answered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I hope the member who has the floor is not imputing any improper motive to the minister.

MR. MACDONALD: I am saying very plainly, Mr. Chairman, that an unlawful expenditure was made by the government on the eve of the settlement of the MEL Paving case, and that's something that demands an explanation. It is not just another question. It demands an explanation, and in the absence of satisfactory explanation it provides its own inference. The inference is that that payment should never have been made and that the timing was entirely inappropriate in terms of that settlement that was about to take place. It was an unlawful expenditure of money by this government which is in contempt of the Legislature and an arrogance of power which

[ Page 1763 ]

should not be permitted.

I think the Attorney-General shakes his head, but I think the Attorney-General ought to speak on this point that I have raised: was this or was it not a lawful expenditure? I think that we should hear from the Attorney-General and hear from the Provincial Secretary.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, if the minister would like to take a moment to answer the comments of the hon. member for Burnaby North and the questions of the first member for Vancouver East, I'd be very glad to defer.

I'll just take a moment to say that I think the hon. member for Vancouver East had some important things to say in this debate. I think that in general it is another example of the reason why we need in this House a committee on statutory instruments - a committee such as they have in other precincts -which has the right and power to examine all regulations and orders-in-council passed to ensure that they are passed lawfully, pursuant to the authority granted by the Legislature.

Exactly such a regulation as the hon. member intentions would have been caught up in that net and we would have had a proper report to the House as to the lawfulness of the payment made.

MR. MACDONALD: The Attorney-General should do that.

MR. GIBSON: Perhaps, as the member said, the Attorney-General should start another inquiry into that one because it's most important that no orders-in-council be passed other than those that are lawfully authorized by this House.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that isn't really what I was going to talk about. It's nice to have the minister's estimates with us again because it covers such a broad area. It's nice at this time to extend, as always, my regards to the affable, helpful, loyal, durable deputy minister without whom any government of British Columbia would be much the poorer. He's always very helpful, Mr. Chairman, in attempting to help members solve problems.

I want to talk at this time about one subject only, and that is the responsibility of the minister for the Status of Women, for women's concerns in the province of British Columbia, which, with all her important duties, Mr. Chairman, I believe to be of first importance. The hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) had some things to say about the Vancouver Status of Women, and I agree with her. I think the tribute ought to be paid to the activity not only of that group but of numerous women's groups within the province of British Columbia over the past few years.

This is not just an intuition; it's something on which we have a measurement. I have before me a document which was released by the office of the co-ordinator ' Status of Women, in Ottawa. It's an attitude survey that was taken across the country as to the changes in people's thinking during International Women's Year. Mr. Chairman, there were some distinct differences in British Columbia and the other provinces. There were distinct improvements in attitude in British Columbia compared to the other provinces, which I can only attribute to the unusually effective activity of the Status of Women's groups in this province.

I just want to cite three particular questions. The percent of each group which agree that work of equal value should get equal pay regardless of sex British Columbia was the only province to improve in that particular perception over International Women's Year. As to regions we were tied with the Atlantic provinces for the highest in that regard, with 89 per cent.

Then as to the question of percentage of each group which disagrees that women should receive less pay due to high risk, here again British Columbia was the highest by some measure of any of the regions. There was an enormous improvement of some 13 percentage points over that year - from 61 to 74 per cent. British Columbia was the only region to improve, and I think that too was directly related to the activities of women's groups.

Finally, another question: the percentage of each group which disagrees that women should receive less pay due to less need. Once again, British Columbia was the only province to improve significantly, ending up with the highest positive percentage - an increase of 10 percentage points, from 78 per cent to 88 per cent over that year.

These measurements, taken by a group called Decision Marketing Research Ltd., I think are good testimony to some of the useful things that women's groups in British Columbia have had to do with raising the consciousness of British Columbians, if you like, of changing attitudes in this most important current in human affairs.

So I want to pay that tribute and, in the same breath, I want to support the application which the Vancouver Status of Women organization has before the minister right now. I think probably all members of this House have been given a copy of that grant application and will be familiar with it, so I will not go into it in great detail except to say that in my view it gives a good justification of the activities of the Vancouver Status of Women, particularly in this year now that it is down to being one of the very few active groups left because of cuts in funding. It's one of the few active groups that are still funded, if I may put it that way.

During International Women's Year there was a budget of $200,000, which I think included the

[ Page 1764 ]

Errington office at that time, since disbanded. There were over 200 active groups during International Women's Year. Some have died, some have been getting funding through perhaps the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Human Resources. This one is active and strong and growing and working throughout the province, and I think it deserves the kind of support they have asked for from the Provincial Secretary's department. I am happy to give my support in this House.

Now I want to go a little beyond that on the general question of the status of women in British Columbia. I'm talking now about the question rather than the organization. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this question is of such a pervasive nature and of such importance that it is entitled to a rather special place in the governmental organization.

We have another such concern in terms of intergovernmental affairs, which relate to the activities of every department of government. That has properly been accorded its due importance and put under the Premier in a special bureau. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that there should be a special office of women's concerns. Again, to indicate its importance, I think it would be well to put it under the office of the Premier, but if the Provincial Secretary thought it should be retained within her ambit I would be glad to see it set up anywhere. Because to me, such an office with the duty of being interested in, and represented. on, the activities of every department of government as they relate to women's concerns would be the kind of activist advocate which would ensure that women's concerns would be added to the checklist. As every government department goes about its business there's a certain checklist. The Department of Labour says, "Well, what will the unions think about this? What about productivity?" and this and that. I just want one more item added to the checklist that every department goes down, and that is women's concerns. What about women's concerns on this particular action? Are we doing enough?

An office, not with a large staff, that had that kind of mandate, could have a continuing concern about things like sex discrimination in our educational system. There was a committee on this - it was disbanded by this government. Just now, I believe, there's a single departmental employee in that department to work on it. An office of women's concerns would have some time ago said that this isn't good enough. We have to have more action than this in the Ministry of Education.

There are questions of things like transition houses. I have before me a letter to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) from the Vernon Women's Centre Society asking for the establishment of a transition house in the North Okanagan. These are important things, Mr. Chairman.

There's a transition house in my constituency, and it serves a very valuable purpose. Without getting into the transition house debate right now, we need the kind of office in government with the general kind of mandate that would say: "Now that's a concern, too. As the Department of Human Resources goes down its checklist, where is this item?" There should be things like affirmative action programmes with respect to employment, not only in the public service where there is some activity but in Crown corporations as well.

I recall last year in the public accounts committee when we heard the testimony of the president of the BCR. I asked him at that time: "What about employment of women in the BCR system?" He was pretty vague in his answers; he didn't really have the data. He thought maybe that there were three; or four women - I think that was the figure he used -employed in the Railwest plant, and maybe one or two in the yards, but he wasn't at all sure. It was clear that there was no programme in that corporation that said: are the abilities of women, in this particular industrial sector, being utilized as well as they might? And that's just one Crown corporation. Of course, Crown corporations are enormous employers throughout British Columbia when you think of B.C. Hydro and others.

So, Mr. Chairman, I'm making no criticisms. I'm just trying to make a suggestion to the minister, and to the government, really, because in the end it's the Premier who has to decide on these things. Can we have the setup - particularly in the office of the Premier is what I would like to see - of an office of women's concerns that would have a small staff and a mandate to be concerned with the status of women throughout the whole range and panoply of government activities in this province?

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a few questions about the director of conventions, John Plul, because what it seems to be and what it appears to be are two different things. We know that the person who's been appointed to fill this role is an ardent Social Credit supporter. The last time I saw him he was working in Vancouver East for Ralph Long, the Social Credit candidate there.

Be that as it may, it's not unheard of that people who advance the good fortunes of a political party get appointed by government to do certain tasks. I don't even think that it's necessarily wrong for that to happen. I think that oftentimes people who share the same philosophy as government are needed to bring in programmes that have been promised by political parties. Obviously you're not going to hire or appoint people who are opposed to you and your philosophy and your programmes. But I suspect that the director of conventions has been appointed for no reason whatsoever but to give a person who

[ Page 1765 ]

supported the Social Credit a job.

What are the duties of Mr. Plul? Has he had any success? We know he's gone to Monte Carlo. He may have won a few bucks playing blackjack - I don't know. But what did he do? What's he doing now? I'd like to just read you a letter, Mr. Chairman, from Mr. Plul to me, dated October 1,1976:

"Mr. Graham Lea, MLA, Prince Rupert,
Parliament Buildings,
Victoria, B.C.

"Dear Mr. Lea:

It has been five weeks since my appointment as director of conventions has been announced, and - they have been five very busy and productive weeks. I am extremely excited about the potential for convention business in our province. In particular, the whole international convention field is completely untapped.

"I wanted to Jake the opportunity of introducing myself to you and ask if you would be so kind as to acquaint me with any contacts you may have with business associates or friends who could consider British Columbia as a meeting location. I am now established at the Department of Travel, 652 Burrard Street, Vancouver, B.C., 681-5177.

"I eagerly look forward to hearing from you. Perhaps you have some ideas for me that relate to the convention field. Let me know, as I can be in your office an hour later.

"Kindest regards, John."

John! But where is John, Mr. Chairman? I haven't heard of John since. John hasn't been to see me. That was October 1,1976, and so far I haven't seen John. John just hasn't been around to my office to see me.

MR. MACDONALD: You missed the deadline.

MR. LEA: Did I miss the deadline, Mr. Member?

MR. MACDONALD: He gave you an hour.

MR. LEA: He gave me an hour. I guess I missed the deadline.

But I'd like to ask the minister: was this just so much political gibberish? Did he mean it? I mean, he wrote to me and asked me for my ideas and then didn't come to see me. I mean, what kind of political gibberish is that?

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Did you send him your ideas?

MR. LEA: It's obvious to me that it's nothing but a political appointment for a faithful party worker, and his duties are to do nothing except travel around the world having a good time and to prepare himself to have a good rest so he can work hard in the next Social Credit convention and the next Social Credit campaign for election. That's all it is, Mr. Chairman -a political appointment to do nothing. If it weren't, then why hasn't John been to see me?

That's all I'm asking the minister. It should be a simple question for the minister to answer: Where's John? Why didn't he come to see me? Maybe the minister could answer that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote... ?

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'm just afraid that if the minister is going to sit there through about 9 or 10 MLAs, she's bound to forget the odd thing. John forgot where I am. Maybe the minister will forget to answer these questions. Just so we could keep some kind of continuity in the House, Mr. Chairman, maybe the minister could stand up every hour or so, or every two or three speakers, and give us a rundown on what she thinks so far.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I wouldn't forget you for the world.

MR. LEA: Oh, come on. You could stand up and answer a few questions like: Who is John? What is John doing?

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

MR. LEA: Let's get to that, Mr. Chairman. Why not answer questions of this hon. member, that hon. member and that hon. member? If you'd just get up and do that, then we could carry on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'd like to remind all hon. members that in the tradition of the House it is the option of the minister whose estimates are being debated whether or not he or she wishes to answer the questions all at one time or one at a time.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): I'd like to deal with one or two items. The first, I think, has a high priority and I would like to take exactly the same tack, or certainly a very similar tack, to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . The Status of Women has been asking not only this year but last year for support for probably some of the most worthy programmes that have taken place in British Columbia's history. Not only do they support some of the areas that they have outlined, but they also give a tremendous amount of moral support to all women in this province who are discriminated against, and discriminated against in law. When we were government we started cleaning up the statute books. I don't see that going on any longer.

We had people in government service. Gene

[ Page 1766 ]

Errington, Mr. Premier, was a good example of people who were looking into the whole question of women in law and women's rights in the province. Mr. Chairman, that kind of situation seems to have gone by the way. We have a very successful....

Mr. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) , just stop gibbering. You can get up and make any kind of recommendations you like when your turn comes up.

Mr. Chairman, this very successful businesswoman, this great organizer of the Social Credit Party, now called the coalition, did a good job and feels that all women are equal and have equal opportunities. Let me tell the minister that if she comes to my constituency she's not going to find that's the case. Nor will she find it the case in her own constituency, or in any other constituency in the province.

The first major discrimination is discrimination in law. What we need more than anything else, Mr. Chairman, is for that minister to make the kind of approval that's necessary to keep the women's organization moving.

Mr. Chairman, I don't like to get nasty, but I remember last year that minister approved a cancer research project which she hasn't reported on. This was supposed to be a great boon to all women. We've heard nothing. The only thing we know is that $17,000 was spent despite the best advice that she could have got from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) , who at that time indicated, I'm quite sure, the concerns of his own department. If he didn't, then he was keeping secrets from the Provincial Secretary.

Mr. Chairman, there is a very grave need for an ongoing service to the needs of women in our province. No one is better prepared to provide for many of those basic needs than the people who are now asking the minister. We know that there have been severe cuts in grants particularly. The government who said that they believe in people doing things on a volunteer basis are denying that very principle. Let me give you an example right outside of this area: a street programme in New Westminster, endorsed by the police, endorsed by the city council, endorsed by any and every responsible civic group that knows anything about that programme, took 100 ...

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, there he comes - the man from the boondocks.

Mr. Chairman, it was a programme that did so much for keeping the drug cult under control in New Westminster. It got the endorsation of all these responsible groups, and yet they've been cut off. There's been far too much of this cutting off of volunteer groups, people who appeal to volunteers. When we talk about groups which require one to five, six or seven paid personnel, we're talking about groups which, on the other hand, have many times that number of people actively engaged in volunteer activities around the group. So their response to the needs of the people in the province is, as I've said, many times that which would be indicated just by the number of people who are funded.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the minister will acquiesce immediately to the requests that have been made in this particular area. She should acquiesce immediately, because they must know. Certainly I would hope that it has to be a positive position taken by the minister, and as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I'm waiting for answers. I've got a number of other subjects that I'd like to talk about but I'll wait for answers.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, I thank the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) because I do think that.... In all fairness, Mr. Chairman, I know you can't demand answers, but it would help the members now if the minister could possibly answer some of our questions. So I would like to repeat one of my questions again. Could you comment on when you can announce your policy on the grant for the Vancouver Status of Women? Could we have an answer now?

MR. COCKE: It's incredible - absolutely incredible!

MR. WALLACE: I think it would be appropriate, perhaps, if I just put the position of the party I represent squarely on the record regarding women's rights and, in particular, some of the points that other members have mentioned this afternoon.

Regardless of the government of the day, I think that there's a tremendous scope for initiatives in trying to deal with many of the problems which women face in British Columbia in regard to discrimination of various kinds. Since I've had some particular number of cases recently that have finished up under the jurisdiction of the human rights branch, I've become a great deal more aware of the kind of discrimination that does go on. I know that we'll be debating that under the vote of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) . But I wonder if the degree to which both the Victoria’s and Vancouver Status of Women organizations are, in fact, providing a service which, were they not present, would certainly fall on the staff of the various ministries of Human Resources, Health and Education, is well known publicly.- So I feel a little bit towards this issue as I do towards the issue of the conference on the family about which I want to talk a little later in this minister's estimates.

[ Page 1767 ]

It seems, Mr. Chairman, that we have had from the government a statement of certain philosophies, not the least of which is the very basic idea that people should try to help themselves as much as they can and not always be depending on government or arms of government to do things for them. I notice the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) strongly supports that idea and so do 1. But government has to be some kind of catalyst that makes it possible for people to help themselves.

I think as far as the Vancouver Status of Women is concerned, they've got an organization which, just to quote a few statistics about what they do.... The most recent report was sent to MLAs or given to MLAs the other day. In the counselling field, they handle approximately 120 cases a month which deal with a wide variety of women's problems to do with marital problems, divorce, alimony, maintenance, child care, employment and a whole range of areas. I would just have to suggest that if this service didn't exist, these 120 people would be utilizing the time and the resources of government departments, and the next thing we would be hearing would be appeals, probably from both sides of the House, to enlarge these government departments to deal with this kind of workload.

The ombudservice in Vancouver, I understand, has an average of 195 referrals per month and I think that's another indication of the cross-section of human problems that they're trying to deal with. Not all of these are referred necessarily to government agencies, but they're referred to the places where they can receive the help they need.

It seems very clear, Mr. Chairman, that this organization of women who are trying to improve their overall position in society are in fact.... Although the staff are paid, I think, $700 or $800 a month, it is at a level well below the salary they would receive for a similar kind of skill, let us say, in private industry. So in effect, a great deal of the work is being done on a volunteer basis. They're being paid less than the acceptable rate for the quality of service they're providing. I understand that many of these women are very well trained and have a great deal of expertise in some of these fields that I've mentioned - this is so important to solid and enlightened counselling - and that if they were employed elsewhere, they would in fact be earning a great deal more. If they were employed by a government agency to do that same job, they would be earning a great deal more.

That seems to indicate not only the value that many women place on the service by going to that service by choice but the fact that this government, through the statements of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , for example, that we believe in encouraging volunteer efforts in community service.... This seems to be just a prime example of how that can be done. But of course, this can only be done with some funding.

I understand from the information I was given yesterday that applications are made in other jurisdictions to try and acquire funding, but undoubtedly the main, if not the only, source of funding for the Vancouver Status of Women is the provincial government. The reason that I think it's so important to try and get a decision during this debate regarding funding is that present funds run out on the 31st of this month. My information is that last year the application was made for $102,000 and $75,000 was granted. We know that in the past year inflation and rising costs would suggest that the same amount of work - at least the same amount of work - would require 10 to 12 per cent more funding. Of course, as the service proves its own worth, it's quite likely that they're going to be asked to do more and more in the public area in meeting the needs of these women in some of the problem areas that I've mentioned.

Regardless of political stripe and whether we're in government or the opposition, it seems to me that this is an area of human need which is being met by a very dedicated bunch of women who are not government employees and are not just looking for the government to provide all the help that's needed. They are, in fact, making a very substantial personal contribution themselves over and above the financial return to the employees involved.

There's a whole area, Mr. Chairman, of other aspects of the same problem that I could mention but I know the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) have touched on them, and I don't want to be repetitive. But I think most members on the government side also would see the merit of the points we've tried to make. I would hope that even if the minister can't announce the exact amount of money today, it would certainly be of great help to this debate.... I notice that representatives of the Status of Women are in the gallery today, and perhaps it wouldn't be inappropriate to ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First of all, I'd like to add my welcome to the representatives from the Vancouver Status of Women. They have as of yesterday, I think, contacted my office for a meeting, and I have a note today that they would like to meet with me today. The hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) was mentioning that she hoped that I would be able to visit with them sometime today or tomorrow, and I am hoping the same, Madam Member.

Hon. members, because the theme was consistent with the four parties represented in the House, I would first of all address my remarks regarding the Vancouver Status of Women just in a general way. I

[ Page 1768 ]

am not going to make an announcement today, and the reason that I am not is that I have had my department for some time asking for reports on this particular group - as we do on all groups. I think the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) highlighted today, and rightfully so, that we should be very careful as to the funding of all groups - not the least of which was the Keep Women Alive group, which we funded last year.

I am pleased to tell you that I have had reports from this organization since we put the funding forward last year, and we have received applications in all areas of the government - not just in my particular ministry but in some others - so there has to be some comparison made and there has to be some report made. That is still forthcoming from my own ministry as well as others, so I will not be able to make any announcement at this time.

I would like to, though, just say that since our government has taken office, we have followed what was, I can honestly say, a policy of the former administration in appointing women to different boards and commissions, and I think it is noteworthy in several Crown corporations.

Agriculture: B.C. Food Advisory Council, B.C. Marketing Board, the 4-H council.

Attorney-General: the office of the Attorney General, the Board of Parole, the Justice Council and Legal Services Commission.

Education: the Universities Council, the joint board of teacher education, the boards of governors of the universities of Victoria, Simon Fraser and British Columbia and the Institute of Technology.

Finance: Treasury Board has a woman representative.

Health: Alcohol and Drug Commission, the British Columbia Medical Centre, the Laboratory Advisory Council, the Medical Appeal Board, the Adult Care Facilities Licensing Board, the Child Care Facilities Licensing Board, the Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission.

Human Resources: Granisle Community Human Resources and Health Centre, Houston Community Resource Centre, James Bay Community Resources Board, Queen Charlotte Islands, Vancouver Resources Board. There are several women on all of those boards. B.C. Human Rights Commission, the Board of Industrial Relations, boards of inquiry.

Municipal Affairs: B.C. Housing Management Commission.

My own ministry: under the Public Service Commission, and under technical, vocational and trade training in British Columbia.

Recreation and Conservation: several organizations including the Library Development Commission, Historic Sites, Community Recreational Facilities Fund, B.C. Arts Board, Nancy Greene Premier's Athletic Awards Committee, the Physical Fitness and

Amateur Sports Grants Advisory Committee, the First Citizens' Fund Advisory Committee.

All of these have good representation from women and, may I say, outstanding representation. I would like the House to recognize that fact - not because it's unusual, not because they are women, but because they're doing a darn good job.

MR. COCKE: She's booted more of them off than she's put only

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That is not true, Mr. Member. You are making statements across the floor that are untrue, and I'll thank you to correct the statements when you next get up to speak.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could I encourage perhaps more temperate language on both sides of the House in the interest of order in the House?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: If I may, I'd like to refer first of all, in order to those who spoke, in other areas of interest. The hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) made the statement: "Could the office of the Provincial Secretary be used politically?" I'd like to ask: whatever would be political about some subjects that I have under my responsibility, Madam Member?

The hon. member mentioned many, many areas of interest in my ministry, and I ask the House: whatever could be political about B.C. House, for instance? Whatever could be possibly political in B.C. House, where Mr. Strachan is our fine agent-general in London? That wouldn't be political, would it?

I would also just like to address my remarks in response to her comment on tourism. Hon. member, I'm sure of your sincerity. Tourism is one of the great industries of this province. It is the third largest industry in the province. It gives more revenue to this province than fishing and agriculture combined.

I guess the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is going to be concerned about that and is working, of course, to make that larger. But let me say that the tourism portfolio and the Ministry of Travel Industry is pleased in that it is the third largest.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, I'm trying to make it first, Mr. Member. That is the goal of this ministry.

The hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) has said that it is not important - in fact, it's almost frivolous, she tried to make out - that we should even be concerned about the treatment of our visitors, that we should not really dwell or be preoccupied with the smile, with good service, with

[ Page 1769 ]

the kinds of things that I've been saying to the hospitality industry. I'm going to say this to you, Madam Member: it is not only important, and it is not only absolutely a must in this province today, but it's enlightened self-interest, not only for those who are in the industry but for all British Columbians because of the worth of the tourist industry to this province. It is tremendously important.

I'd say this to you, hon. member for Burnaby North: if people would go to the areas that I have and would read some of the literature we get.... It is time that we were saying to ourselves: "If we're going to have expensive restaurants, food service and hotels. . . ." The hon. member has blamed this on this administration. I can't imagine why she would place all the blame on our administration for that. There are other factors involved there and I'm sure she'd recognize that. But if we're going to have that, we're going to have attendant with that the best service in North America. That is what I am hoping will come out of the kinds of communication that I've had with the hospitality industry thus far. I would just like to say this too: if that is permeated and if that is furthered by all members of this House, I think that we will see in British Columbia a positive attitude once again, not the negativism that we have seen in these past few years.

The member also made some mention as to the kinds of statements that are being made in comparison with statistics. Let me just say in response to that that we can look at statistics for tourism in terms of dollars. I have said that tourism decreased also last year in 1976 and I still maintain that it has. When you were quoting those figures to me, hon. member for Burnaby North, you were quoting dollar figures. I guess it is obvious to those who are in this House that dollar figures are not reflective of visitors and tourists to the province. The dollar figure is inflated because of the very fact that we have higher prices and inflation.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Let me just give you the statistics, then, if you will, from 1974 where there were 11.9 million visitors to the province, which was a decrease of 5 per cent over 1973; in 1975 there were 11.24 million visitors to the province, which was a decrease of 5 per cent over the year before; last year, in 1976, there were 10.97 million visitors to the province of British Columbia, which represents a decrease of 6 per cent over the year before.

If we took the dollar figure, as the hon. member would like to, it is true that from one year before the other.... In 1974 the dollar figure increased 10 per cent over 1973; 1975 increased 11 per cent over 1974; and for 1976 the dollar figure increased 3 per cent over the year before, making it the first time that we broke the $1 billion figure in British Columbia. When you're quoting you really have to quote in terms of visits, not dollars, because otherwise it's very much distorted.

I would like to also address my remarks in regard to the new people in our department. I think that we do have a whole new approach to the travel industry this year. I'm pleased about that because I'm getting a great deal of enthusiasm from the people in my department and, I'm pleased to say, from members in the House as well as people within the service and citizens of British Columbia.

Could I just say that today on the floor of the House - I think it's about his 10th day on the job -is our new Deputy Minister of Travel Industry, Mr. Wayne Currie. I know that you will give him the same co-operation that you have given me as minister. I hope you will welcome him.

1 1 would say the challenge that Mr. Currie and this government have taken on is one which will, I hope, see the tourist business improve dramatically. I think that the kinds of statements that have been made in the past year have had one positive effect on the tourist industry. At least the citizens of British Columbia are talking about it and are concerned about it. The hospitality industry is very, very concerned in getting together on it. There is a great dialogue and communication. I suggest to you that that's probably the first time in a very long time that that communication has gone on, and I'm pleased that I've been a part of that.

In response to the member for North Burnaby, (Mrs. Dailly) and because the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) devoted most of his questioning to the new member of our department who was taken on in, I believe, September of last year: it is true that Mr. John Plul was a very active member of my campaign, and I make no bones about that, Mr. Member. I want to say at the same time that he comes from a very, very good background; he is one of the most highly regarded people in his field of communications - in CKNW in New Westminster -and his reputation will stand up on that ground alone.

I want to say it's really strange and surprising - in fact it almost becomes amusing - that the member for Prince Rupert should be preoccupied about tourism and should get up on the floor of this House to question this government on tourism. It was that member who told the Americans to please stay home, that we didn't want them on the roads. It's very interesting that you should be so preoccupied today about tourism.

But let me tell you about the man who you made some comment about, Mr. John Plul. The question I believe on the order paper is about what he is doing in Monte Carlo; I will address the answer to that to the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) . Mr. Plul accomplished the following things in Monte

[ Page 1770 ]

Carlo: he has been able to confirm three international conventions on that trip. Let me just explain to you what they are. There is the international pharmaceutical conference of approximately 1,500 delegates, which was obtained for our province at that conference; there is the international soil mechanics convention of approximately 1,200 delegates which was obtained for British Columbia for 1980; and - I think this one will interest you, Madam Member - the international socialist convention is to be held in the Hotel Vancouver in 1978. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: In the Hotel Vancouver?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Registration was increased by approximately 200 delegates as a result of the contact in Monte Carlo.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: So I just thought that you would like to have that information, particularly in view of the fact - to the hon. member for Burnaby North and through you, Mr. Chairman - that this office could be used politically. When we get conventions in Vancouver, B.C. at the Hotel Vancouver in 1978 for the international socialist convention, I suggest that that's being pretty non-political.

In response to your query about Mr. Plul, I would like the record to be very clear. I think that in the time that he has been on board, he has probably paid for his salary over and over again in terms of the kinds of conventions that he has brought to us, besides those which I have just mentioned in regard to the ones that emanated from the conference in Monte Carlo.

As you know, conventions brought $15 million to the Province of British Columbia last year. This is the first time that there has been a convention co-ordinator in the province of British Columbia. I'd like to say this to both the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) and also the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea): had we had a convention co-ordinator on the job in this province these past four years, in British Columbia today we would be enjoying an economic uplift from the conventions that they would have signed up at that time. In 1972,1973,1974 and 1975 we would have had conventions - today and next year and the year after - that all leave a significant amount of money in this province. It is a significant contribution to the province's economy and I can say to you that it's tremendously important to this province that we have someone on the job co-ordinating.

Mr. Plud has already worked on and has absolutely confirmed 33 conventions with 16,200 delegates confirmed, all leaving dollars in the province of 'British Columbia. Of those 33, 1 should say that 16,200 delegates are confirmed and 6,975 are so far non-confirmed. There are 23 additional bids now pending and which are on his desk. Hopefully, we're going to have a reply which is positive and definite.

MR. LEA: Why didn't he come to see me?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Now let me just address myself to the facetious remarks that the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) is now making: "Why didn't he come to see me?" You obviously don't understand, Mr. Member, how a convention gets to the province of British Columbia, to the city of Prince Rupert and to the cities around this province. You just don't have any idea. I guess that really is what was wrong with your administration when you had the reins in this province and had the possibility of bringing conventions to this province.

I'd like everyone in this House to now confirm what I'm saying, because all conventions, and frankly all tourist business, is a question of contacts. It's a question of one to one. It's a question of people going out and saying: "This is the greatest place in North America to visit." Now we know it is. Nobody in this province will say there's any other place in North America that's better either to hold a convention or to visit or to fish or just to relax. But it has to take your invitation, Mr. Member, to all of the world to come to British Columbia. That's what this organization called Tourism British Columbia is all about.

MR. LEA: Why didn't he come to see me?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm not too happy, mind you, to think that he used the informal expression of his first name. I think that was a little informal, and I'm sorry because I would think that the member has felt offended by having a first name signed on the letter. I will take that criticism from him.

I would certainly say this to you: it is incumbent upon each of our members who have received that letter.... I would think you would feel very hurt if you hadn't received the letter. If it had only gone to one side of this House I think you would have a criticism. It was sent to each member in this House because these members are the 55 people out of two and a half million people in this province who have been elected to serve the whole province. It's a unique position and it's an honoured position. Each of us in this House, I think, feels the weight and the responsibility, and I think we're grateful for that

[ Page 1771 ]

position. We have a responsibility then, Mr. Chairman, to make sure that that service is not all one of condemnation if we are in the opposition, but certainly of assistance to the government of the day because the government of the day represents, as does the opposition, all the people of the province.

Mr. Member, you were not asked to have an audience unless you had something to say. These 55 members of this House have contacts throughout the world. If you're a doctor in this House, you have contacts with the medical associations throughout the world and you can bring conventions to this province. If you're an antique dealer in this House and you have some connections with antique dealers throughout North America or throughout the world, you can invite them here. You know, every time you do that you're leaving dollars - not dollar bills, not just silver and dollars that are going to make a frivolous party for somebody, Mr. Member, but the golden dollars that are left here. When those conventioneers go back to Philadelphia, or California, or Alberta, they go back there and ask for social services, for hospital services, for educational services, and they leave those golden dollars behind for us to spend on our people for the social services that will make a better life for those who aren't as fortunate as those 55 members in the House. We're calling on all British Columbians to invite British Columbians, and other British Columbians who visit each other and the rest of the world, to visit British Columbia.

I suggest to you that rather than be critical about a letter you received from the director of conventions, you get your thinking cap on and help all of us to make a better economy in this province, because that's what the invitation was. If you have misconstrued it, I'd be glad to explain to you what convention business is all about.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to address my remarks to the other members of the House who had asked questions. I would just like to say that the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) -and I'm pleased to see he's back....

MR. MACDONALD: I never left. I just had a smoke in the hall.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Okay, I would just like to say that I think some of the accusations you have made regarding Mr. Broadbent are unfortunate. You have implied that Mr. Broadbent has in some way, because of the fact that he was given an amount of money through order-in-council.... I will just repeat the amount.

In the month of December there was, in accordance to policy that had been followed prior to this.... The basis for the gratuity was based on the fact that that person has given 29 years of service to the public. Mr. Broadbent had certainly done that, both in the public service and in a Crown corporation. He would have received the gratuity just automatically had he been in the service without taking an order-in-council appointment. He's not getting anything different than a public servant would have done. The amount of money was for two and four-fifths months, based on his salary, which was $8,164.80.

You ask: "Why the 1 1-month delay?" That was in the question raised on the order paper. The question was answered. It was under consideration and being processed from the time that it was put before us. There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between this retirement and the MEL Paving case, as was intimated by the member, and I don't think the member will say that outside this House.

As a matter of interest, I think you should know that while the order authorizes the payment, a cheque has not been drawn as of this date. I understand that Mr. Broadbent is out of the country at this time. But I would like to draw to your attention that there is a parallel. This is not the first time that this has been done, and I just think that the House should know because it's of interest, considering that the point was raised by a former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) of this House who, I'm sure, is quite cognizant of the material that I will present to the House at this time. It's in regards to an appointment that was made earlier in the administration of the former government.

I would like to - if I can find the paper that goes with it here - reiterate the two cases of Dr. Foulkes and Mr. F.D. Keeling, who were in the service of the former government and were hired by order-in-council. I'd like to get the times of the orders-in-council. They are as follows: on October 1,1972, Dr. Richard Foulkes was appointed by order-in-council at $40,000 annually. He was paid on this basis until March 31,1975. An order-in-council of October 1,1972, was not rescinded at that time by this former NDP government. Effective April 1,1975, Dr. Foulkes was hired as a private consultant at $48,000 a year. The contract was in the form of a letter, but it has no legality, according to the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Gardom's) department, no legality at all. I'm surprised that when you brought the service of a gentleman who served this House, this Legislature and the people of British Columbia for 29 years, you did not bring up this particular case of Dr. Foulkes, who did not have any basis to be paid on April 1,1975, when he was hired as a private consultant at $48,000. Because his order-in-council at $40,000 a year was not rescinded - it was just by a letter.

This also happened in another case, and I should draw this to the member's attention. That was the case of Mr. F. Keeling, who was appointed by order-in-council on January 16,1973, at $1,500 per

[ Page 1772 ]

month. Further orders increased his salary to $2,083 per month, paid on this basis until March 31,1975. Then the order-in-council was not rescinded, but effective April 1,1975, he was hired as a private consultant at $32,000 a year. The contract, again -which is very surprising, Mr. Member - goes back to the principle, doesn't it?

MR. MACDONALD: No, it's a different principle entirely!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's always a different principle when it was done by the socialists, Mr. Chairman. Isn't it funny it's different when it's done under the Social Credit administration?

At any rate....

MR. MACDONALD: It was money voted by the Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think you should know that the letter, which is dated April 4,1975 ' reads: "Dear Mr. Foulkes. . . ." I could read it word for word, but it is interesting to note that although he was hired by order-in-council under the Ministry of Health, I believe, the letter is to confirm the appointment:

". . . as a consultant to the government of the province of British Columbia in the field of health services and human resources and such other areas as may be requested, effective April 1,1975. You will be responsible to the Premier through the office of the planning adviser to the cabinet. You will be paid the agreed salary of $48,000 per year plus travelling expenses incurred in the course of your duties."

MR. MACDONALD: What's wrong with that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, your time has expired. Does the hon. minister have leave to continue?

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This letter was signed by the planning adviser to the cabinet, Mr. Marc Eliesen.

AN HON. MEMBER: You mean Eliesen gave him an $8,000-a-year increase without government approval?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Without government approval. It seems as though Mr. Eliesen had the power of offering amounts of money above and beyond the order-in-council appointed by $8,000.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if I could just complete the answers to the questions, I believe I've answered all of the questions that have so far been put to me. I hope I haven't missed any. I've written them all down.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, I'm sorry. I had that down from the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano. I appreciate the suggestion and I'll take it under advisement.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I'm not satisfied with the majority of answers given. So therefore I intend to pursue them, hoping that we can get further answers from the Provincial Secretary.

First of all, may I say there's one area of answers, I think, that does please us, and that is a commitment given by her on the floor that she will meet with the Status of Women group today or tomorrow. I think they'll be most appreciative of that.

But there was an area that was not answered. I know you're going to be meeting with them and they'll be pleased. But could you tell us if you will be able to make the announcement - which you have said you cannot make now until a full report comes in from your department - before the end of March? I think that is the important question to which we would all be pleased to hear an answer.

In reference to your remarks on women, I also would like to make the point that when you ran through the list of all the appointments made under the Social Credit government, there were certainly a number of erroneous ones....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, it would help with the orderly business of this House if you would kindly address the Chair.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. The hon. minister, Mr. Chairman, did refer to the attitude of the Social Credit to women in the province and appointments on boards and their positions. I really must take issue with her statements. I have particularly gone through the appointments to the college boards in this province very carefully. I'll be having copies of them brought in here shortly if it would help the hon. minister. There are certainly some token women appointments in many cases.

Why I'm mentioning this to the hon. Provincial Secretary is that she is a cabinet member. I understand that she has a considerable amount of influence over the appointments of people to boards. I think the other cabinet members are very much aware of this. Therefore I cannot but hold the hon. Provincial Secretary responsible for many of these appointments.

As you run through particularly the college boards

[ Page 1773 ]

of British Columbia and you compare the number of male appointments with the number of female appointments, you can see that they're mainly token. That is no reflection on the calibre of the women who have been appointed. But in relationship to the proportion of male to female, I consider it tokenism. That's no reflection on the ability of the odd, say, one or two women who have been appointed on those boards, but you are far from bringing about any sense of equality in appointments. I think that if you check the make-up of the college boards under the New Democratic Party, you will find that we were certainly reaching equality. In some cases we were, I think, on the other side. I'm not necessarily asking for that. But I'm certainly not at all happy - and I don't think the women of the province are - with the appointments which have been made, particularly in the area which I may be more conversant with than others, and that's the college boards.

You did refer to other groups which are elected and which, of course, have nothing to do with the government policy. So I cannot accept that this government has taken great leadership in that role, because the facts do not show it.

I also feel that the minister who is responsible for the public service - I recall pointing this out to her last year - has, as Provincial Secretary, a marvellous opportunity to give leadership in the Public Service Commission. We've heard that it is sometimes difficult, perhaps, to get applicants. But my understanding is that more and more women are interested in entering the public service. The federal public service report recently noted that, despite an equality opportunity office in Ottawa, the status of women in the Ottawa public service has actually become worse. So really, what I'm asking the hon. Provincial Secretary is: is it your intention to see that women do, indeed, have equal opportunity in the provincial public service and not just tokenism? Could you perhaps give us some guideline and policy which you are moving on now?

I asked you this question a year ago to try to encourage more women into the public service. At that time, I think you said you agreed. I'd like to ask you what you've done about it during the last year. Perhaps you could tell us what the relationship is of appointments - male versus female - during the last 14 or 15 months since you have been Provincial Secretary.

There was one area that I wanted to just touch briefly on. 1, know other members want to respond and I appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) deferred his position, so I will move on quickly and come up at another time. I was rather concerned when the minister replied on the matter of her convention appointment, Mr. John Plul, and suggested that we should all be delighted that there is now someone who is handling and promoting conventions for the British Columbia government. Is the minister suggesting that there was no one in the Ministry of Travel Industry prior to his appointment who had the responsibility of promoting conventions? That is the interpretation one would have to place on her answer. My understanding is that there were people who were working very hard and were appointed to bring more conventions to British Columbia.

I also would like to point out the mention - and I know we had a bit of fun over it - of the international socialists convention coming. I would like to point out that the invitation to the international socialists convention was made through a member of the New Democratic Party originally, to ask them if they would be willing to come to British Columbia. However, that's nitpicking. We're delighted that they are coming here.

That is the point I am trying to make. There was the impression left that this new appointment was the one who brought this convention. Therefore it sort of discredits the former statements. Does this mean we really have to ask again if these other conventions he brought were brought in by this particular person, when we know that the international socialists convention did not come through that route?

MR. MACDONALD: There are no socialists in Monte Carlo.

MRS. DAILLY: However, I do think that has left some area of doubt in our minds. We are still not clear, finally, on the actual terms of reference and the present work of Mr. Plul. Is he working full time on conventions right now, or are there other members of the tourist bureau who are doing that job primarily?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I will just reply to the hon. member. First of all, she makes the point about women appointees. I want to just say that I didn't say, in reading the few that I did read, that those were all appointees that were of our government but that there were women in the service of government and that we were encouraging women in the service of government.

I think it would be important to the House to know that what I said in June of last year when we had the estimates before on this particular ministry stands the same today. Unfortunately, the women of the Province who have the capabilities of taking positions of responsibility do not apply for the jobs which are available in that area. It is interesting to note that of the 91 applicants for my Deputy Minister of Travel Industry, there were only three women who applied.

I would like to say that it is really a reflection on some of those women about whom I did read, if you suggest that they are token appointments. I know

[ Page 1774 ]

that you didn't really mean that. I would like to just say that we don't consider them token and that we are constantly looking for women who can fulfil those roles. I think we have been aggressive in that regard, and I can tell you that I have been in my particular responsibility.

In the Public Service Commission applications for positions are open to both sexes; there is no discrimination. The Public Service Commission, as I reported to you in June of last year, has maintained and retained the same policy: there will be no discrimination within the public service, and there is not.

Again I suggest, as I did last year, there are positions that women could fill, but they do not apply. That could well be because there are restrictions in some other ways. Those are personal restrictions of their own which I would not reflect on, but they have not applied in many, many cases.

I would like to say regarding the terms of reference in regard to the convention co-ordinator that there has not been an office of a convention co-ordinator in the Ministry of Travel Industry for the past three and a half years. In fact, it goes back before that time to the former Social Credit administration. That position was vacant and remained vacant during the three and a half years of the NDP administration and it was not filled until late last year - probably about August or September, if I recall.

Now the hon. member asked if somebody in the department doesn't take that responsibility. I say that every single person in that ministry takes responsibility, as I am asking each person in this House to take responsibility.

You mentioned, for instance, the international socialists convention. I think maybe in the frivolity of the House you didn't hear what I did say. The international socialists convention is to be held in Hotel Vancouver in 1978. Registration was increased by approximately 200 delegates as a result of the contact at Monte Carlo. That could be because of more available space or a selling job that was done at that point in time.

Again, I go back to what I said to the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea): all conventions and all contacts, whether they are tied down or confirmed by the convention co-ordinator or not, are those that are really the first invitation, which we are doing daily out of Mr. Plul's office. They really go through people such as yourself who would probably know of somebody in the international socialist movement to whom you would like to say: "Why don't you make the next convention Vancouver or Victoria, or whatever?" Or you may say to somebody in the United States: "Please come to some area of British Columbia."

So we cannot, at any time, credit any one person, but the effect that we can give, and the effectiveness to you or your organization through the convention co-ordinator, is very great. He works with the private sector in many ways, and the private sector, through his co-ordination, is working very, very well together. Even hotels and airlines which are in competition with each other are working together to get a single convention to the province of British Columbia because they know that no matter what hotel they stay at, or what airline they take, or what restaurant they eat in, all of the good that will accrue to the economy will eventually accrue to them personally.

I think I've answered all of those questions. If there are any others in that regard, I'd be glad to continue.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief at this point, although I have another subject to raise later on.

Coming back to the payment to Mr. Broadbent, I don't want to go into these other cases. The Provincial Secretary appointed a consultant by letter - Mr. Higgins - last week, eh? What's the date of it? January 20. What's wrong with that?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Is this the legal point that you're making? Well, you're making a different point from the Provincial Secretary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Provincial Secretary's point was that there was an existing order-in-council that hadn't been rescinded and therefore the appointment by letter, which was perfectly proper, and the funds which had been voted by the Legislature under a vote, made it a....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, that's a very nice legal point with which I respectfully have to disagree. I would think that the perfectly regular appointment of the consultant would supplant the order-in-council - although to clear away old lumber is always a good idea, isn't it, Mr. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) ? But the minister appointed a consultant January 20, Mr. Higgins, who's a very good man. Is that Bill Higgins?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Of course, it is. There's nothing wrong with that. The principle I brought up was entirely different, and the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Chairman, knows it quite well. She knows that

[ Page 1775 ]

this is an unlawful payment because the funds were never voted by the Legislature. It was plain on the face of the order-in-council that it was being ascribed to a vote that had nothing whatsoever to do with Mr. Broadbent, however deserving he may be. There are others who are order-in-council too, who perhaps should have a retirement allowance. That isn't the point. You just can't be arbitrary and pick here and there when it hasn't been authorized by the Legislature. That's the basic point.

Now the minister says that the cheque had never been issued. Well, I say this, Mr. Chairman: it can't be issued. It should be held back, just as this minister.... I don't want to get into the PNE now -I'll do that later - but she went and retrieved a cheque on the PNE. She took it out of the hands of poor Mr. Rennie and broke a contract in so doing. Well, this one has not been issued and it should not be issued.

There's nothing wrong, Mr. Chairman, with the matter being brought back to the Legislature and authorized.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: Then we could discuss the matter and, in terms of the long service, perhaps it should be paid. It may be that there are some others who are order-in-council or outside of the public service who have given long service to this government who should also have a retirement allowance. That isn't the point. The point is that on December 21 it was unlawful. It was obviously unlawful, I think, when you ascribed it to that crazy vote 209. So I don't go back at all on the remarks I made, but I say that, just like Chief Justice Sloan's widow, that has to be authorized by the Legislature. It hasn't been authorized and the cheque should not be issued.

I think that completes what I have to say. The appointments of consultants by letter are something entirely different, not dealing with the principle that I advanced at all.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we should make the record clear. I don't in any way accept that a man who has been in the service of the province of British Columbia was illegally treated, or that giving him two and four-fifths months' allowance was an illegal act. I'm sorry, the authority was clearly spelled out in the order-in-council as to which vote it was taken from. But that's far different, Mr. Chairman, from the case in which Dr. Foulkes and Mr. Keeling, who the member sanctimoniously says is quite all right to go ahead with - that's quite legal.

I'm going to tell you something: it is not legal. This is an opinion that comes from Mr. Gerald Cross, the director of civil law from the Ministry of the Attorney-General, who has written an opinion on this. Let me just read it. I think the House will be clear. Let the House make the decision on that. This is referring, of course, to the letters written by Mr. Marc Eliesen and dated April 4,1975.

"We have not been able to find, as yet, any authority for the writing of those letters or for the agreement regarding salary that is purportedly contained in them. I have checked with Mr. Richardson, the chairman of the Public Service Commission, and he informs me that the file on each person there contains only copies of the orders-in-council by which they were employed prior to the writing of these letters.

"I then checked with Mr. Minty, the comptroller-general, and a member of his staff to whom I was referred. There is apparently nothing in the file that was available to her at that time to indicate what, if any, authority there has been for the making of payments at the rate shown in the letters to Dr. Foulkes and Mr. Keeling.

"I have also talked to a Mr. Vickner in the Public Service Commission office who informs me that there are two ways in which authority is given normally for the payment of salaries or other remuneration: the first being the sending of an appointment form by the Public Service Commission to the comptroller-general; and the second being the sending of a similar form by the department concerned directly to the comptroller-general without intervention by the Public Service Commission.

"Neither of these routes is evidenced in this case so far, although there may be documents or files that have not yet been available."

And the House, of course, knows about documents that have not been available to our government since taking office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. McCARTHY: This letter was dated January 8,1976.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think that the member who has brought up the service of a long-term employee -29 years in the public service of this province.... It certainly does not in any way compare with the two examples that I have shown you in these two cases. There is no comparison with the length of service. For the length of service that Mr. Broadbent gave -and may I say dedicated service to this government, to this province and to the people of the province - I think it was little enough to treat him the same as a public service employee.

We have no other examples of people who have

[ Page 1776 ]

served over 20 years who have not had that kind of allowance paid to them. We have no other examples, and I'm sure the member doesn't have any. t

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the point is that the Provincial Secretary is not accepting the fact that moneys can only be spent by the government that have been authorized by the Legislature. She's still making a case for Mr. Broadbent, which, you i know, may be justified in terms of the $8,000. But the point is, it was not authorized by the Legislature - employment of consultants is. There might be some technical difficulty with one of those, I don't know. I presumed the Premier authorized it if Mr. Eliesen signed the letter, but you could check into that. That's a separate and an entirely different thing. The money was authorized by the Legislature.

The principle is that you can't send that $8,000 cheque out unless you can show that it applies to a vote. You can't put it under that phony vote 209.

Interjections.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: Consultants - yes, certainly. The employment of consultants is authorized by the Legislature. The point, Mr. Chairman, is that this government doesn't understand or respect the principle that you've got to have legislative authority before you can pay public money. It doesn't matter whether Mr. Broadbent is deserving or why the payment was made. It's got to be authorized by this Legislature.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It was authorized under a vote.

MR. MACDONALD: That vote was just ridiculous. That was an entirely different subject matter. The things I quoted made it very clear that you can't take an estimate ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: ... that has to do with transportation planning and give it as a retirement allowance to somebody else. If this government thinks, as it does, Mr. Chairman, it can do that, it has become, in a little more than the space of a year, drunk with power. You can't do that!

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): It takes one to know one.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, that's the point I'm making. There is no sense of contrition on he part.... I ask the Provincial Secretary: is she going to send that cheque out that fortunately has been held up because Mr. Broadbent is travelling? Are you going to do it without the authorization of this Legislature or will at least you consider the matter, because there's a very important constitutional point involved?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I began to wonder if I'd ever make it.

I just want briefly to return to two points in regard to the government's commitment to the Status of Women and trying to create equality. There is a tremendous desire by the Status of Women to persuade the federal government that the value of a woman in the home should be recognized. One way in which that can be done would be to persuade the federal government to permit them to be part of the Canada Pension Plan.

I wonder if the minister herself or through appropriate committees of. cabinet has made any approach to the federal government to discuss this particular point. I realize that the jurisdiction is, in the ultimate analysis, federal, but this happens to be one of the most important ways in which the Status of Women is trying to emphasize that the role of the homemaker and the mother is one which should not prejudice that woman's rights later on if her husband deserts her or dies or whatever.

The inclusion of homemakers in the Canada Pension Plan would be an enormous step forward toward recognizing the contribution made by the woman in the home. I just wonder if the minister has made any specific approach or had any particular communications or meetings with the federal government in that regard. We always think about federal-provincial meetings as dealing only with cost-sharing and health and education and the like, but I think this is an area where a big breakthrough could be made.

One of the other points that has come out through the words of the lady who is the vice-chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, June Menzies, was the fact that one of the beneficial effects of the anti-inflation measures has been not only to recognize the inequality of payment that women often receive for doing the same or similar work to men, but to show that in cases where pay awards were being scrutinized by the Anti-Inflation Board, if sex discrimination could be demonstrated then the restrictions of the Anti-Inflation Board would not apply.

This seems very reasonable but it seems rather ironic on the other hand, Mr. Chairman, that it required some legislative measures which had really a different purpose: first of all, to have the result of demonstrating the inequality of payment to many

[ Page 1777 ]

women doing similar work to men; and that it was through this legislation with a completely different motive that demonstrated the need for scrutiny of women's wages.

It did something more than just demonstrate the problem. It did something about it by saying that in those cases where the wage increases might appear to exceed anti-inflation guidelines but, in fact, also demonstrated discrimination, the guidelines would not be enforced. I just wonder if the minister would care to comment on that part of the negotiations which are now going on with the Anti-Inflation Board personnel that we've heard about and discussed in question period. It would seem that one of the first groups to suffer if anti-inflation measures are lifted abruptly would be the women employed in our society. In fact, June Menzies, the vice-chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, as recently as last month said that the phasing out of controls, if done improperly, could result in an explosion of wage and price increases, and the groups who would be most rapidly and seriously affected would be women, the weak, the unorganized and the elderly. It's just something that I think has been one of the few less than obvious effects of the anti- inflation measures.

The third point on the question of women in government employment is that.... Last year I quoted the fact that in government we have no female deputy ministers or female associate deputy ministers and we have only eight female employees at the programme manager level. I wonder if the minister has figures at the moment which might demonstrate an improvement in the situation. Have we got some - I'm not aware of any - female associate deputy ministers? I would hope that perhaps in the level just below associate deputy there may be some good news that women are obtaining these appointments.

I would like to ask in this regard, since she mentioned that there were only three female applicants for the Deputy Minister of Travel Industry out of 91 total applicants, if this represents the general experience where senior positions become vacant in the public service. Is it, first of all, that there are relatively few female applicants? Of the female applicants, what percentage would appear to have the equivalent training and experience as the men competing for the same job?

I find it very interesting on the committee selecting the auditor-general, for example, that we've had very few women applicants for the position. I have to keep asking if it is lack of interest by the women in that particular profession or if they are simply numerically so few that one would expect a limited number of female applicants.

I think it's important that we have some solid statistics so that we don't go off in a direction either criticizing this government or criticizing any department for not employing women. I don't mean that to disparage the efforts of the Status of Women, but I think we have to get our facts and our figures as accurate as possible. I would be most interested to know to what degree the minister finds that in these senior positions there are relatively few women applying for the job in the manner that she mentioned with the Deputy Minister of Travel Industry.

I just want to finish for the moment on this other issue of the appointment which the minister gave to Mr. Higgins. I mention the name not because of any personal criticism of Mr. Higgins, whom I don't even know, but I have taken the trouble to find out he is highly capable and respected.

Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, I might say I also received anonymous mail. I wish the anonymous writer would identify himself or herself. And I wish the anonymous writer would read the newspapers, too, since this anonymous writer brought this matter to my attention and suggested that I bring it up in the House, which I did. I've subsequently received a second anonymous letter giving me hell for not raising it in the House, and for being a DP from Scotland who should go back and look after Scotland. (Laughter.)

Abuse I can take from the other side of the House, but abuse from an anonymous writer in the mail I find a little harder to take.

Critical friends like the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) I think I can deal with, but I'm not sure I can understand him. I like to be faced by my critics, and that's what this House is all about.

Seriously, Mr. Chairman, I did receive this letter and although I completely reject the anonymous approach, I nevertheless checked out the material in the letter and I raised it in the question period. I just want to pursue it just a little further, because Mr. Higgins has been given an appointment.

Could I ask the minister: would it not be more in the normal tradition to give that kind of appointment by order-in-council, whether it is essential or maybe even mandatory? We do believe in open government, and this Social Credit government has said they wish to be open. One of the ways in which we can scrutinize the activities of government in relation to various appointments is by following the orders-in-council as they are issued. If someone is appointed by letter through the minister's office, it leaves the suspicion when it is finally public knowledge that there was some attempt to carry out this appointment, not in a secret manner perhaps, with no attempt to inform the public and the members of the opposition.

The second point is the fact that the minister - I think with some justification - had written a memo to cabinet ministers suggesting that if consultants

[ Page 1778 ]

outside of government were to be appointed, the government should be advised, and if it happened that these consultants held university positions, it would make some sense to make the additional payment to the university and not to the consultant. I can see some justification for that, although I would like to say more about that later in this debate.

Even with Mr. Higgins' expertise and his knowledge of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, I'm just wondering if this was not a contradiction of the policy that people shouldn't be paid twice for doing the same job.

I would like to take this chance to correct my anonymous writer, too. He got one of his figures wrong. He claimed that Mr. Higgins was getting.... I think it was....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh no, I'm not suggesting for a moment that he's in the chamber.

Anyway, he suggested that Mr. Higgins was paid $300 a day, and I confirmed in question period from the minister that he's being paid $50 a day. And I'm really not....

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Fifty dollars an hour.

MR. WALLACE: Oh. Fifty dollars an hour. Let's have the record correct and that it was my mistake.

At any rate, I'm not even sure that I'm concerned with the exact rate so much as with a consistent policy. I'm worried that if we're to take a different attitude to the universities, the image could be created very quickly that somehow or other we're embarked on some kind of witch hunt in the academic sphere. We've always tried to keep politics as far as is reasonably possible away from decisions regarding our post-secondary educational facilities. So if there is to be a much more strenuous control in paying consultant fees to university professors, I would hope that some consistent policy would be applied right down the line.

That doesn't appear to be the case with regard to Mr. Higgins. He is on pre-retirement leave which is the equivalent of full salary. On top of that, he has been given a job which will bring him in some more income. I repeat: it isn't the personality of Mr. Higgins that's involved; it is the principle which the minister does seem concerned about and which seems to be applied slightly differently to the university situation than to senior public servants.

In that regard, the last thing I would like to make is to what degree the minister has discussed with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) the method by which this grey area should be reviewed. The grey area which I'm referring to is the requests for university personnel to provide various types of consultant advice. I understand the Minister of Education has made his own direct approach to the universities, and it would seem to me that, in the interests of consistency, maybe we should have one minister speaking for the government and one minister making the statements, so that those in the opposition and the public in British Columbia can get a better and clearer picture of the way this whole issue is developing.

I can foresee the real danger of the government trying, with some reason, to produce a uniform standard of practice to all the universities and to all consultants but finishing up looking as though really the ones they're after and wish to control are the university professors.

It would seem to me that some of the examples that have been quoted could well do with some inquiry and correction. As I said in an earlier debate, the universities are an enormous source of expertise and experience in the widest variety of issues, and I would hope that in trying to correct the situation affecting a relatively small percentage of university professors we don't embark on some rather restrictive, if not punitive, policy which would just simply end up by the government being the loser and the people of British Columbia being the loser, because they deny themselves that kind of expert advice and guidance.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I'd like to respond to the request from the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) , who is not in his seat at the present time, but who left the chamber with the request that we would withhold the cheque to Mr. Broadbent, if indeed he has not had it up to this point in time. At the time the question was answered in the House, it was not sent to Mr. Broadbent because he was out of town and he had not claimed it; he was out of the country, I understand.

Let me just reiterate that there is no reason whatsoever for withholding a cheque to Mr. Broadbent, who served this province for 29 years. Under the recommendation provided under section 49 of the Public Service Act, there was the amount of money paid to Mr. Broadbent by order-in-council on December 22,1976. Mr. Chairman, to the first member for Vancouver East, who has now returned, the authority for payment was under a vote in this House, vote 209, for a research person. Under the former administration, he was a research officer.

So there is an authority there. There is no comparison between the case of the Broadbent case and the Keeler and the Foulkes case where the comptroller-general, the head of the Public Service Commission, the people in the Attorney-General's department could not even find anything but a piece of paper that was floating around the chambers and

[ Page 1779 ]

the halls of the parliament buildings from the planning adviser, Mr. Marc Eliesen, with no authority from this Legislature - the very thing that the member for Vancouver East has brought to the floor of the House this afternoon. He is attributing it to a fine, outstanding member of this community of British Columbia, and I say that is a dastardly attack on that man's reputation and it is uncalled for.

I would like now to address my remarks to the calm and studied and, I think, extremely sensible questions that have come from the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) . I'm pleased to respond to them because I have noticed in this House and want to say to the member for Oak Bay that he is always constructive in terms of his requests of my department. I want to thank him for that through this year.

I would like to just first of all refer to his remarks regarding our communications with the federal administration. I believe that the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) has on many occasions made statements, both publicly and to members of parliament, regarding the very things that have been brought up very recently. The member for North Okanagan, I think, has represented us well in that regard. We have also had discussions within the committee of the Anti-Inflation Board on the very things that had been brought to the public's attention in recent months or weeks because of the Anti-Inflation Board comments. I do agree; there is a lot that can be done in that regard and there is a lot that the government can do. I take it as an excellent suggestion and one which I would be pleased to pursue in the future.

I would like to just give you the figures which refer to your statements as to how many women are really applying for positions. I think all members of the House will be interested to know that in 1974 only seven women applied for the executive development training plan within our own public service. In 1976, 24 applied. And in the correspondence course only 18 women applied in 1974 as compared with 81 in this past year. So at least we're getting somewhere, but it isn't very good when you think of all the women that could be employed in the positions that would require that kind of training. It really isn't very encouraging; however, it is becoming better.

You also asked the question on those who are in positions of trust and responsibility in management. We have reviewed the number of appointments for administrative officer and programme manager positions during the last six months. In the administrative officers, the number of appointments has been 33. Of these, nine were female and 24 were male. But this is interesting. The number of applications received for those same positions was 1,042. Of the 1,042, only 184 were female. So if you see that relationship, out of 33 appointments made and 1,042 applying for those positions, nine of the 184 females received positions. In programme managers, the number of applications was 234. Of these, four were female. Out of those 234, there were no females appointed in the programme manager positions. That has reference, I think, to the amount that have. . . .

Then there's yet another figure, which really confirms this. I can give you one case.... I won't give you all the competition numbers because it's tedious and they're seven-digit numbers. The number of applications was 30 - female applicants, none; 23 applications in yet another, and again, no female applications; 28 applicants - 3 female applications; 4 applicants - none female; 37 applicants - none female; 76 applicants - 1 female; 30 applicants -none female; 6 applicants - none female.

Finally, in reference to your question on Mr. Dick Higgins, who was and still is a very respected servant of the public service of this province. May I just make a statement regarding Mr. Higgins, who was responsible for the Higgins commission report in 1974. He served the public service of the province for 37 years. When he retired last year, he was put on retirement pay. I think that's what the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is wondering - if it is not a conflict in regard to the statements of this government regarding double funding. May I say that in the statements of this government on double funding, that really excluded - and I hope it would imply that it would exclude - anyone who has the expertise that we cannot find somewhere else. That certainly is embodied in both the expertise and the reputation of Mr. Higgins. Mr. Higgins' ability in matters of the public service are well documented and were used in service to the province for many years. So I do think that it's a unique situation, Mr. Chairman, and one in which we could not really argue.

I would like to still refer to Mr. Higgins' appointment before I answer on the university professor question. When Mr. Higgins was appointed on January 20, the job was only to take a few days -a very few days, as a matter of fact. It wasn't a lengthy sort of appointment. It is quite like an appointment that we would make in many cases throughout the service of government. I agree with you that those things which are of major importance - commissions or boards - should go through order-in-council. It was a routine type of thing to use his expertise to study the legislation which, as you know, was changed last year to see if in the newness of that legislation.... You have to realize that that was a departure. It was something brand new that was brought in by our government in the very first few weeks of our government, and we felt it needed an assessment for this year. That assessment is being made at the present time. I have a note from Mr.

[ Page 1780 ]

Higgins which says that it is taking longer than he had hoped, and he hopes it will be shortly finished.

Finally, if I may just report on my comments which have been made with regard to the double funding of those people in the service of the people of the province, whose salaries are given to them by virtue of the taxpayer of this province. I can only say that I still believe and I would still adhere to the principle - and this government has made it very clear - that those people who are in the employ of the province of British Columbia and the taxpayers of British Columbia should totally devote their time and efforts to earning the salary under that particular jurisdiction or responsibility.

If there are people - and there are many - who have a specific expertise, and there are university professors who have.... We are not, in any way, suggesting that there are not some who could be excused from their duties at the university and give of their expertise. They have been called on and they will be called on again. But the question, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you, is not whether they should be called on. The question is: should the taxpayers be paying them twice? I suggest that they should not. I would suggest that the government of the province of British Columbia speaks for the taxpayers in that regard. I do not think they should be double funded.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to share with you one of the letters I've received on this specific question because I think it reflects the attitude of the private sector. I'm just going to refer to one paragraph - it is a short letter:

"On behalf of our small group of consulting engineers and planners, I would like to express our appreciation at the recent policy statement issued from your office which encouraged various governmental agencies to use independent consulting firms, where possible, in preference to university staff. This use of university professors, and often student staff, has often in the past made it difficult, if not impossible, for private companies to compete on an equitable basis."

MR. WALLACE: I have just a very brief point in response to the minister's statement on the university consultant problem. The minister mentioned, Mr. Chairman, that where the expertise is not otherwise available there should not be the same concern about appointing a person who may be, at that time, involved in another job. I understand very well what she means by funding from the taxpayer as compared to funding in a private consultant firm, but I know of two examples - one at UVic and one at UBC -

where that is exactly the point. The two particular professors, each in turn, were asked because apparently there is no one who can provide the same level of expertise and experience. One has been publicized. The Dean of Engineering and Applied Science, Liam Finn, I gather is a world authority on the particular subjects about which he's asked to give consultant advice. Can I just be sure that I understand the minister correctly that where the kind of expertise that is required is available in the private sector it will always be the private sector that will be asked to give that advice, but if there is a university authority who happens to be the only - or is recognized as the best - source of advice, these will be the only occasions on which university professors will be consulted?

Secondly, I think the minister just overlooked the last question I asked. I'm wondering what co-ordination of effort is going into this whole area between the minister and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and, for that matter, other ministers in cabinet. I would like to try and bring this issue to some statement of government policy to clarify it unmistakably for the benefit of everyone in the community, including the university world.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In response, Mr. Chairman, it should be clear that those persons who are in the service of a university - and let's zero in on that specific point - are in the service of a university and are called on because of their specialized work. It should really just be, I would think, a question of ethics that they would not receive two salaries from the same taxpayer at the same time. I would think that our policy is clear in that regard. If it isn't clear, then I suggest if there is someone who is working full time on work that takes them away from their duties and away from their responsibilities to the students in that area, then there should be a question asked of them - and certainly they should ask it of themselves: would they better serve the students if hey worked full time consulting and let somebody else get on with the job of teaching?

Frankly, I think that question has been raised by The fact that my so-called secret memo has been distributed and the fact that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has called on the universities and is working with the universities on a clear statement which will include their concerns. It will, at the time the minister makes his statement as far as the Department of Education is concerned, I think be very clear to the universities.

My concern was on the other end where we, as government, are hiring university professors and perhaps denying a position to the private sector, and I so denying the time of teaching to the students which the taxpayer is also paying for at a simultaneous moment.

MR. LEA: Earlier today I received a letter from

John Plul to myself, dated October 1, and I would

[ Page 1781 ]

just like to go over this letter again to make sure that everyone understands what the letter says. It says: "Dear Mr. Lea:

"It's been five weeks since my appointment as director of conventions has been announced, and they have been a very busy and productive five weeks. I'm extremely excited about the potential for convention business in -our province. In particular, the whole international convention field is completely untapped.

"I want to take the opportunity of introducing myself to you and to ask if you could be so kind as to acquaint me with any contacts you may have, with business associates or friends, who could consider British Columbia as a meeting location.

"I am now established at the Department of Travel, 652 Burrard Street, Vancouver, B.C. 681-5177."

"Kindest regards,

"John"

I take no offence on the "John." I think it's a nice touch - no offence at all. Now when I received this letter, being a bit of a cynic, I thought: what is this? Is this a letter from the Social Credit government saying: "Well, if they questioned our appointing Mr. Plul, we'll say we asked the opposition for their views and we didn't get any." I thought no, it couldn't be that. Come on now, Graham, take things at face value. So I did. I wrote back, which I suppose I wasn't supposed to. But I did. I wrote back on November 5:

"Dear John:

"Thank you very much for your letter of December 1,1976, asking for any help in regard to attracting conventions to the province of British Columbia. I must confess that your terms of reference as the director of conventions are rather vague to me. 1, of course, am interested in bringing dollars into British Columbia, and I think it would be to our mutual benefit that if the next time you are in Victoria we could have lunch together so I can be better informed as to what your terms of reference are. It would put me in a much better position to assist you.

"Next time you're over, give my secretary a call at 387-6065.

"Yours truly. . .

Interjections.

MR. LEA: "Praying." (Laughter.) But anyway, I thought: why should I be a cynic, Mr. Chairman? Maybe it's an honest attempt on the part of government and this person appointed by government to really do something, and they really do want the ideas of the opposition, that it isn't just a political ploy so that if we were ever to raise the fact that he was appointed in the first place, the Provincial Secretary couldn't get up and say exactly what she did say tonight.

I thought: she wouldn't do that, Mr. Chairman. But she did, she did. Members of the back bench were yelling at me: "Why didn't you answer him? Why didn't you answer him? You can't say anything if you didn't answer him." I did answer him. Let's remember that he said in the last line of his letter: "Let me know, because I can be in your office an hour later."

What about John? Is his watch calendar all shot, Mr. Chairman? An hour from November 5,1976! What is he doing? There was no answer, no visit, no lunch, nothing! I suspect now that my first cynicism was maybe correct - that I was sent that letter so that the minister could get up in the House today, Mr. Chairman, and say exactly what she did say. I wonder. What does she say now?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, just to get the "Dear John-Dear Graham" fiasco out of the way, I'd like to just say that I was not aware that you responded to the letter.

MR. LEA: I didn't think you were.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: You didn't make that comment when you made the attack on Mr. Plul earlier in the day ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ... when you suggested that it was frivolous for him to write letters to all members of the House to ask their support for getting conventions to the province of British Columbia. You left that little thing out. However, I'm pleased to know that you responded, and no doubt.... I'm sorry to hear that he hasn't responded to you, but I'm surprised that he hasn't. If he hasn't, it could be that he hasn't received the letter, because he's excellent at responding to correspondence and to phone calls. So I'm sure that that could be the oversight. I think you will give him the benefit of the doubt, being the fair member that you are in this House.

The conversation between Graham and John today will certainly be brought before the convention co-ordinator ' and I'm sure that he will be in touch with you post haste.

MR. LEA: I'd like to correct a statement made by the minister. I didn't say that it was a frivolous letter from Mr. Plul.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: You inferred.

[ Page 1782 ]

MR. LEA: I did not infer anything. You read it that way. You understood it that way because that's the way you wanted to, Madam Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. LEA: That's pure and simple. The fact of the matter is that what I suspected is true - that the letters didn't mean a darn thing when they went to the opposition. They didn't mean a darn thing, and that's the way it stands. You can say whatever you want, through you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Don't cry.

MR. LEA: "Don't cry, " somebody said.

Now the fact of the matter is that there were two letters. Are you giving, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, any benefit of doubt to anybody in this House? I gave the benefit of doubt. I wrote and I got the answer - none.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I just want to briefly ask the minister for a clarification of this question of the double payment of people hired as consultants by the government who are at universities or other such places. The minister said - I think I heard her quite clearly; I just want to check my hearing - that she does not think that there should be any kind of double payment, and when anybody is doing work for the government that comes from a university, they should go off salary from the university at that time.

What I want to know is if there is going to be any enforcement of this concept. Is the government, when they are hiring consultants from a university or some other area, going to put in a clause to the effect that anyone they are hiring is not receiving any other funds from the public purse? Is that the concept? Is that what the minister is telling us? Or is this just a wishy-washy idea?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, you realize that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has referred the matter to the Universities Council. So those matters will be worked out. It has happened in the past that university professors - and it should be stated here - who have worked for the government have left their money within the university. They have not accepted it personally. That has been done in the past but the whole matter -because the question has been raised and has been brought to public attention and because the government has made a statement of policy - has been referred to the Universities Council by the Minister of Education. Those questions that you have raised will be answered and negotiated between the Minister of Education and the Universities Council.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I thought it was something like that. I just wanted to point out that what the minister represents as being an item of government policy is, in fact, not. There is no government policy as yet on this. There is no enforcement on it and it's a statement of something that doesn't exist.

The minister can't have it both ways. Either there is a government policy, in which case that government policy is implemented, or else there is no government policy. Which is it?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the member knows full well that when a university professor is hired it is by order-in-council, as Dr. Pearse was hired for the Pearse commission report, et cetera. It should be noted that Dr. Pearse returned his fee to the university. Again, that goes back to what I stated. It should be noted that there are university professors who have done that.

If any applications come before the cabinet by orders-in-council, it is a government policy that there will not be double funding of university professors. That clause will be contained in the order-in-council. It is government policy at this time. As to what is happening at the university, that research will be done by the Minister of Education and he's called on the Universities Council to give him that knowledge.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, then, if there is going to be this kind of clause, how does the minister propose to look after the eventuality which can sometimes happen whereby the person who is, say, a university professor who is doing work for the government continues to perform all of the university duties but does the work for the government on what otherwise would be their own time, be it on the weekend or evenings? Wouldn't it only be right that persons who are still performing all of their other duties and are doing something extra and above and beyond because they have some expertise should be paid extra for that?

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Chairman, I guess the minister doesn't want to reply to that question at this moment.

Mr. Chairman, earlier this afternoon the minister was asking for suggestions as to how we might help the tourist industry in the province and how we might attract conventions here to British Columbia.

I've been very concerned since this government took office about what's been happening to the tourist industry, particularly within my riding here on Vancouver Island. I think the minister is well aware of the nearly disastrous results that the lack of tourists on Vancouver Island have had to some of the particularly very small resort, motel and hotel owners on Vancouver Island.

[ Page 1783 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: And the Sunshine Coast.

MS. SANFORD: And the Sunshine Coast. I would like to recommend to the minister - and this is a serious recommendation on my behalf in an attempt to assist her - that rather than spending her time handing out daffodils in Seattle or speaking to groups within the hospitality industry, telling them that they should be putting on a bigger smile than they now have, the best thing that she could do is to fight in cabinet to have those ferry rates reduced. The 100 per cent increase in ferry rates is the single greatest factor in the reduction of tourists to Vancouver Island. This has had very harmful effects on so many of the small motel-hotel operators on Vancouver Island particularly and, as my colleague points out, on the Sunshine Coast as well.

If she would go in and fight for the reduction of those ferry rates, she would be doing the tourist industry on Vancouver Island a great service. I hope that the minister will consider that approach in cabinet. We on this side of the House have repeatedly called for reduction of those ferry rates in an attempt to save the tourist industry on Vancouver Island, We are not the only ones; people like Stan Purdy of Manpower here in Victoria have made the same point. I hope the minister will use that approach in order to assist us here on Vancouver Island in promoting tourism.

The other thing that I would like to mention, Mr. Chairman, is in reference to the application by the Status of Women for funding for this coming year. I would like to add my voice to those who have already spoken on this in support of their application, because it is very difficult for women to wage the kind of fight they need to have their voices heard in order to receive consideration for funding, as other groups are able to do. Many women, as the minister is undoubtedly aware, live on the poverty line. They are often responsible for raising children on their own; they are house-bound; they lack self-confidence; they don't have the resources with which to get out and fight for some funding, to attempt to reach some type of equal status in our society.

It's not only that. There are a lot of people out in society who are still snickering at the attempts of women who do get together and who do organize in order to improve the status of women.

Women's salaries, as has already been pointed out, are generally lower. They don't have the financial resources to promote the activities that they're doing. They have done an excellent job in providing services, not only in the Vancouver area but in other parts of the province.

What I would like to point out to the minister is that there are many women's groups who give up hope very easily because of the reasons that I have cited.

1 would like to bring to the attention of the minister a group in Campbell River that was funded under the community resources board - before it was disbanded by this government - to the tune of $5,000, to provide the kind of service in Campbell River that the Status of Women group has been attempting to provide particularly in Vancouver.

They had $5,000, and for that they were grateful. For that they were providing a fine service in Campbell River. Last year they applied again for $5,000 grant - which is not a very big grant, Mr. Chairman - for the women's place in Campbell River. They were turned down. They looked at the fact that this government had disbanded Gene Errington's office and her staff. They looked at the fact that services were being cut to so many organizations throughout the province. They know that the government that is now in power does not have the interest of women at heart. They base this on the fact that Gene Errington's office was dismantled. They base it on the fact that there was a tremendous battle put up by the opposition here last year to ensure that funding was made available for the rape relief centres. They see very little emphasis being put on day-cafe by this government.

As a result, Mr. Chairman, I have to regretfully report today that that group gave up hope in Campbell River. They did not apply for funding this year. But the service up there was so needed and so valuable to the women who had benefited from it, that at this moment they are continuing to operate the women's place on a strictly volunteer basis. They are funding it by raising nickels and dimes every which way that they know how in order to keep the place operational.

I would like to be able to phone the group in Campbell River today to say that it is not too late to get in an application for a grant - a small grant of $5,000 - so that they can continue providing the service in Campbell River, and that they don't have to spend so much of the efforts that they're now spending in trying to raise nickels and dimes. I'm sorry that they gave up hope. I would like the minister this afternoon to inform me that it is not too late for them to get in an application to be considered before the end of March of this year. Would the minister give us that assurance?

MRS. WALLACE: I want to just comment briefly on the remarks the hon. minister made about the tourist industry earlier in her comments. She quoted figures and indicated that, in her opinion, the tourist industry should be judged not on the dollar figure but on the number of tourists who came in to British Columbia. I just can't really follow her line of reasoning, Mr. Chairman, when, in the next breath, she talks about the golden dollars that are dropped by that tourist industry. We don't judge the agricultural

[ Page 1784 ]

industry by the number of farmers in the province, Mr. Chairman, or the number of people buying farm produce. Neither do we judge the forest industry by the number of loggers or mill workers, or the number of people buying our produce. We judge it instead, and in fact, by dollars and cents. And I cannot see the line of reasoning that is indicated by the minister; that we should suddenly judge the tourist industry by the number of people that are running around in our province rather by the number of dollars that they are contributing to the economy of this province.

I can tell you that those golden dollars were sadly missed here on Vancouver Island last summer - and not just on Vancouver Island but in other areas, as has been pointed out. I would ask the minister when she speaks again to try to justify her position in quoting the number of tourists as an indication of her comment that tourism had started to drop off in the year 1972. It just doesn't make mathematical sense to me, Mr. Chairman.

The minister also spoke of B.C. House, and her comments there led to the indication of the very non-partisan attitude of this government. I would like to ask the minister about one Mr. Lillico. Mr. Lillico, as of course we are all aware, has been appointed to a position there in B.C. House. I am wondering what his terms of reference are, to whom he reports and why. I would like to know to whom Mr. Lillico reports, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to know why.

I'm wondering, too - and, again, I can't quite grasp the minister's line of reasoning.... During the recent hearings in the judicial inquiry in Vancouver, Mr. Lillico was named as having dealt in stocks named by Mr. Weeks. Mr. Weeks, as we're all aware, was asked to vacate his position, or he was depointed, as the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) would so uniquely put it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Debeaked.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, debeaked. But this minister had indicated that she has no intention of depointing Mr. Lillico, or even suspending him. For some reason she has said that this matter is up to the judicial inquiry, that he will send an affidavit from London, and the decision is up to the judicial inquiry. Well, really, Mr. Chairman, the employment of a civil servant is not up to a judicial inquiry. It is up to that minister who appointed him, and I just cannot grasp her line of reasoning on that question.

I want to talk a little bit about the women's position in this province too. I want to refer to a couple of very similar instances to those raised by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) . In Burns Lake there is a women's centre and it's operating on a LIP grant. Now I don't want to get into the pros and cons of LIP grants, Mr. Chairman, but I think we can all agree that LIP grants are always of a short duration. There is no security of tenure at all by a LIP grant.

This particular centre at Burns Lake received a LIP grant, and it has some very interesting projects underway.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members -a little less noise in the room, please.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, -Mr. Chairman.

It's a joint Indian and non-Indian group working together there. One of the main objectives of this project is to open the lines of communication between the natives and the white women. They are doing an excellent job; they are working towards trying to become self-sufficient. They have craft shops. They are really trying, but there is no assurance from this government that there will be any assistance to make sure that if and when that LIP grant is completed there will be some way, if their craft shop is not successful, that they will be able to continue with their work.

There's another women's centre in Fraser Lake. This, again, started with a LIP grant. The mayor of Fraser Lake has spoken out very strongly in favour of giving financial aid to this centre. That was last year. Very interestingly, Mr. Chairman, last fall the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) has suggested that the village give a grant. He has also presented a proposal to the Provincial Secretary for a $5,000 grant for the operation of that centre. But what is happening now to that centre, Mr. Chairman? Is it going to be able to continue? Is there any assurance that this government is going to make any financial contribution to see that those two worthwhile projects stay alive and are able to continue their operations?

I think everyone who has spoken has mentioned the Vancouver Status of Women and the funding for that group. I think we are agreed that it is a worthwhile cause. Certainly on this side of the House we are agreed. In her remarks the hon. minister indicated that she could not give a commitment towards funding that group until the committee or the people in her department have finished reviewing the whole question and looking at certain - I think she called them reports.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there is one lot of reports that she should certainly refer to the people who are discussing this particular matter and who are coming up with the decision. I am sure the minister has them. It's a sheaf of testimonials, if you will, from many, many organizations, many, many groups and many, many people throughout this province supporting the Status of Women committee in Vancouver. I certainly don't intend to read all of

[ Page 1785 ]

them into the record, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is a lot of noise emanating from the government side.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to read some excerpts from and to indicate the source. For example, the Abbotsford Community Legal Services say in part:

"During the past few years, Vancouver Status of Women has provided a much-needed service in the area of legal counselling to women and public education."

The Advisory Council on the Status of Women says:

"Through our work at the national level" -and this is a federal organization, Mr. Chairman - "we have learned that the Vancouver Status of Women has not only done an outstanding job in B.C. but has served as a model for women's organizations in other provinces."

The Justice Council, Mr. Chairman:

"The ongoing need for services to women is amply demonstrated by the large number of women who receive help through the Vancouver Status of Women."

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association:

"We find them a viable organization with clear and valuable goals expeditiously carried through."

One that I must read in total, Mr. Chairman, because it comes from an organization with which I have a very long Association, is the letter from the British Columbia Women's Institute:

"In replying to your letter of January 6,1977, you may be assured that you do have the backing of the British Columbia Women's Institutes in your request for a grant to carry on with the work of helping women. Our own aims are much the same as yours in the need for upgrading women's rights. Between all such groups interested in this goal, we should do all in our power to help each other attain these goals."

That's from the British Columbia Women's Institutes, Mr. Chairman. It's not a particularly radical organization. It's not a new organization. It's a group of women that has been dedicated, for the past 60 or 70 years, to working for the benefits of women. They are giving an unqualified endorsation to the Vancouver Status of Women.

The British Columbia Teachers' Federation: "Specific requests from teachers for information about child care, legal rights, women's conferences, et cetera, are channeled to the Vancouver Status of Women." It goes on and on, one organization after another.

1 would suggest to that minister that with that kind of documentation and with that kind of testimonial she should not have to look too hard nor too long before she can come up with a decision on a grant to the Status of Women. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot even wait until the end of March. There are payrolls to meet. There are deadlines. You have to have some kind of advance notice to your staff. People are very dedicated, but you cannot expect them to keep right on working until March 31 when they don't know whether or not there's going to be a job there on April 1. The morale will deteriorate. It will be impossible to keep that operation going. In spite of their very best intent, you will find a falling off and a deterioration of the kind of service that they are able to give if they don't have some assurance now, Mr. Chairman, that that grant is going to continue.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, I think at this late hour in the afternoon we should discuss another question. The question that I'd like to discuss for a moment about this very important office and this very important minister is the question of her credibility.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's important that we understand that minister when she made remarks about the politics of her office. I'm hoping now, Mr. Chairman, that she doesn't use her office as she used her past office, when she was employed by the opposition as a researcher.

Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, how she used that office.

"When she was in Prince George, Social Credit researcher and former minister without portfolio, Grace McCarthy, warned Thursday that the provincial government is"

-note I said "is, " a very strong term -

"forming a secret police force under terms of the new provincial Energy Act."

For heaven's sake. Really, this is the kind of statement and I'll allude to a few more shortly, that she made and that in my view concerns me greatly, concerns me deeply with respect to her credibility to hold this very important office in this province.

She went on.

"She told 500 party supporters attending a dinner for former Premier W.A.C. Bennett that the police force is to be used to enforce the government's socialist, monopolistic legislation."

Mr. Chairman, we now have in this House and in this government a minister who, under her former position, took this kind of message out to the people of this province. Mr. Chairman, that's playing politics of the worst sort.

Mr. Chairman, in Vancouver some time later that same minister, then president of a political party -

[ Page 1786 ]

they called it the Social Credit Party; now they're changing the name, probably to the Coalition.... Whatever they call it -

"The president of the British Columbia Social Credit Party says the provincial government is hoarding about 500,000 rounds of ammunition, guns and cars for a provincial police force."

Oh, that sinister Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) that we had in those days!

"Grace McCarthy, in a speech Friday to the board of trade, linked the stockpile to the new training scheme for the sheriff's officers and clerical staffs in the justice and communication department."

Mr. Chairman, I ask you about the credibility of that minister.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm ready to answer!

MR. COCKE: You're ready to answer, but I'm not going to let you answer yet because I'm not yielding the floor even to you, Mr. Member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: I want to answer your question.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, she would not specify where she thinks the ammunition is being stored, but she said she's concerned the training scheme is due to continue until 1976, when the RCMP contract with B.C. comes up for review.

Mr. Chairman, in this House, we asked the now Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom): "Did you find the police force?"

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: The Attorney-General stood up and said no; his understanding was that there were two police forces in British Columbia - the municipal and the RCMP. He couldn't find any other police force. I ask the Provincial Secretary: have you found that police force that you were so strong in indicating when you were a researcher? You were so completely affirmative about it when you were president of the Social Credit Party, so we're asking, Mr. Chairman, a very simple question.

MR. LEA: Resign!

MR. COCKE: Can we trust her with the important business of this province?

HON. MR. GARDOM: The answer is yes.

MR. COCKE: The Attorney-General says the answer is yes.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Ask anyone over there!

MR. COCKE: Ask anyone over there! We're going to see them vote for her vote.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes!

MR. COCKE: They're all behind her, and I suggest to them that they should review their own conscience before doing so.

What evidence did the minister have at that time? What shred of evidence did the minister have at that time? She had not one shred of evidence whatsoever. The minister should stand up in the House today and withdraw and apologize for making that statement -that irrational statement - all over this province at the time she was opposition. She was grasping for power, Mr. Chairman, scratching for power, doing anything, saying anything. And they all would, because they've all admitted it. They back her 100 per cent. They were all part of that conspiracy, Mr. Chairman, to do that kind of unpleasant thing.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Probably the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) , the one person whom I could trust to be on her side completely, spoke up then. I knew that he would.

MR. LEA: He's their secret weapon.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the minister did not tell the truth at that time. I ask that minister to stand up in the House today and apologize to everybody in the province for having misled them at the time when she was president of the Social Credit Party and at the time when she was researcher for the official opposition.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I just phoned her to find out if it was okay if I made this speech, and she said: "Go right ahead. Just go right ahead!" (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: She's not in Victoria!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to go on and give you another quote. This was giving a speech to the board of trade in Vancouver. Addressing the

[ Page 1787 ]

Vancouver Board of Trade, Mrs. McCarthy said: "I have always gone on the assumption that when someone purrs like a cat, acts like a cat, meows like a cat . . ." and blah, blah, blah.... Anyway, she goes on ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hey! Great speech, Grace!

MR. COCKE: She makes this statement after saying that the B.C. government is hoarding 500,000 rounds of ammunition, guns, cars for possible police use. Mr. Chairman, I ask you, to that body: did they believe her then? But it's a terrible distortion of the facts of the day, of the facts of the time, and I'd like the minister to stand now, regain some credibility by apologizing for making those statements when she did.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.