[ Page 1789 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

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

On vote 19.

Mr. Levi –– 1789

Mr. Macdonald –– 1790

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1792

Mr. Macdonald –– 1794

Mr. Cocke –– 1795

Mr. Lea –– 1796

Mr. Barber –– 1797

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1797

Mr. Barrett –– 1798

Mr. Barber –– 1798

Mrs. Dailly –– 1800

Ms. Sanford –– 1802

Mr. Nicolson –– 1804

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1805

Ms. Sanford –– 1806

Mrs. Wallace –– 1807

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1809

Mr. Levi –– 1810

Mr. Barrett –– 1812

Mr. Barber –– 1812

Hon. Mrs.McCarthy –– 1814

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

THE PROVINCIAL SECRETARY AND

TRAVEL INDUSTRY

(continued)

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

continued.

. MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver Burrard): I'd like to, first of all, make some remarks about pre-retirement counselling - when civil servants are retiring - and to ask just what plans the government might have in respect to this. I'd like to make some comments on what exists in British Columbia at the moment and what plans the government has for doing this kind of thing.

It's now becoming a very general topic - certainly in the social service area - to discuss pre-retirement counselling and the proper integration of people from the work force into the whole retirement area. In perusing the estimates in the minister's department, I noticed that there is nothing related to retirement although there are some general votes in relation to the Public Service Commission. With an employee body of about 36,000 people, I think something like 1', 500 - maybe 2,000 sometimes - people are retiring each year. It is important for the government to take some leadership in the whole area of pre-retirement planning.

At the moment, there are two Crown corporations that are doing quite a bit of work in this area. B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail have got into the business of doing counselling with the people who are going to retire.

There are a number of very serious ideas about how this might be accomplished. One of the processes used - probably the best programme known in North America, really - is the United Auto Workers in the United States. They introduced a programme called "decelerating the worker." Now that's a programme whereby a year before the worker is due to retire, the worker is put on an ever-decreasing work week. Starting at four days a week, they go to three, and then eventually go down to one in the last couple of months. This is coupled with a whole counselling process that takes place partly when the worker goes on the shorter time, and also, of course, it can go into the whole business of counselling after the worker is actually retired. There are a number of problems, as I think many of the members of the House know, in terms of retirement. It's been found and generally accepted that when people who have had an active work life of 40 to 50 years suddenly go into retirement, far too many of them have really no idea how to deal with the whole question of retirement. There is, for instance, the very major area how to deal with a reduced income. What kind of advice can we give to people before they retire on how they're going to make an adjustment to the reduced income? How are they going to make an adjustment to the health factors? After all, when you work and you're getting into your 60s, you start gearing down because of your health, because in many cases people have problems. In some cases they should not be working but they have to work because they have to be sure that they have future security. Well, it's happening in Canada now, I think, that people are making reasonable arrangements for their future security. So that particular problem, hopefully, will be taken care of within 5 or 10 years in terms of the Canada Pension, the old-age security and any other third-decking pensions - private pension plans - that people have.

There's also the question - and it's something that does come up very often in industry - of those people who should not be working because they are not physically fit to work. So we're talking about the possibility of people retiring

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): You make me nervous.

MR. LEVI: I'm not talking about the first member for Vancouver East right now. But there are people who need to get out of employment. I know that there are such arrangements existing in the public service for people to take an earlier retirement, albeit the pension is somewhat reduced.

I want, basically, to concentrate for a moment on the whole business of the counselling. The counselling is important. First of all, the problem within British Columbia is that we don't really have the kind of people who are trained to give this kind of counselling. There's a great shortage of people who know anything about pre-retirement counselling.

It's something that, as I understand it, the University of British Columbia's continuing education apartment is now starting to look into. There are a couple of committees operating and if the government is not already participating in one of these committees - this is a task force on retirement which is being operated through the United Way in Vancouver - they'd be well advised to participate in that.

I want to point out this is obviously not something that can take place overnight. It's a several-year process. But the first thing we have to do - and

[ Page 1790 ]

certainly the government could give a lot of leadership; the industry is starting to give quite a bit of leadership - is to make it possible to have these trained people who can give that kind of advice. They can then become trainers of other people.

It's very important, because we are going to have a situation - certainly by the year 2000 in British Columbia, which is only about 23 years away now -where we're going to have pretty close to 400,000 people who will be retired. By then, we will very likely have more people who are categorized as retired because, presumably, the retirement age of 65 will have dropped by then. It will probably become acceptable that 60 is an acceptable retirement age. Who knows? It might be down to 55. So we're going to have large numbers of people who are in retirement.

Now we all realize that retirement simply doesn't mean that you become sedentary and you just wait to die. Nevertheless, there does need to be a great deal of planning in this area.

There are certain cost factors, of course. If you are going, for instance, to go into the decelerating of workers - if you were to do that in the public service - you would obviously have some cost factors. Because people might be working four or three days a week, you would have to have people fill in.

Nevertheless, in terms of the future of these people, what we are looking to do is to give people the benefit of the maximization of their lifespan. Life spans today are 85 and 90 years of age and that's where we're heading in terms of longevity. There has to be, in the whole area of retirement, coupled with the whole question of recreation and leisure time, a great deal of leadership. The leadership, I think, can come in part from the government. There can be an alliance of people and, as I said just before, the industry has started to look into this. Some of the social agencies are looking into it, and the government should participate in this as well. I understand, for instance, that on the Island here, MacMillan Bloedel has a very excellent programme which they've got off the ground.

In terms of the trainers - the people who should be instructing the various staff members of either the Public Service Commission or the various corporation staffs - we're not looking for people who have graduate degrees or Ph.D.s. We're looking for people who can adapt to courses that really basically rely on a great deal of common sense and where they rely to a large extent, on the kinds of things that they can discuss with people who are getting into retirement. They can talk about the kinds of concerns that people have. I pointed out earlier that finance is one of them. Recreation is another one. There is the whole idea of how to get into the whole voluntary sector so that they can live useful lives. What kind of links can they make, for instance, with, the Canadian

Executive Services Overseas? It makes use of many retired specialists and civil servants, some of them at the deputy minister level. Some of them at lower levels have expertise....

AN HON. MEMBER: Some go into politics.

MR. LEVI: Some go into politics at 36 and usually wind up being 65 before they are 40.

1 think a good example of the kind of use that people make of their expertise, I suppose, is President Carter's mother, who, at the age of 65, took her expertise, went to India and spent a couple of years there. She has just recently made a trip back.

One of the things that we have to do in terms of pre-retirement counselling is to launch people on another kind of career, one which gives them some kind of optimism about what life is going to look like 10 or 15 years after they're retired. That kind of optimism is not there because, basically, people have not spent a great deal of time thinking about what it's going to be like when they're retired.

That's the kind of involvement that we need to have from the government. I would hope that the minister would give some indication as to what plans the department has in terms of this. I would hope that next year, when we come to dealing with the minister's estimates, there will be a section under the Public Service Commission votes that will deal with pre-retirement planning and show some concern about people who are going into retirement. The government is obviously in a leadership position and it can very well give a great deal of focus to the general problem in the whole province. I don't think that it should be without the realms of possibility that in the future - hopefully within the next year -the government might consider having a conference, bringing together a number of people from North America or across Canada who have some ideas about this particular problem. There can be some major focus on the area of pre-retirement because it's something that all of us inevitably face and certainly one of the most under serviced areas is the whole question of retirement. So perhaps the minister would care to make some observations about this kind of programme.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister will say something about pre-retirement counselling, because I'll be listening very attentively to your answer, as I listened very attentively to his question. I don't think he included politics in the necessity for the pre-retirement counselling, but I wasn't sure.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: That brings up the MEL

[ Page 1791 ]

Paving case, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): That was early retirement.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I remember a couple of years ago I got into a heck of a jam because I was accused of breaking a contract which we had given to Jack Diamond at the PNE until about 1985.

The papers said: "You've broken a contract."

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. MACDONALD: Of course we wouldn't do a thing like that - everybody knows that - but I'm not too sure about the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to discuss this with you for couple of minutes because it seems that at the PNE, for which this minister is responsible.... They've had bronco-busting out there and now it seems to be contract-busting. You get that great contract buster, Erwin Swangard, you fire the existing board of the PNE, you send him in there and he says: "Oh, we can't even pay $1-a-year rent to the city of Vancouver. The heck with the 1975 agreement - we're not going to pay it." Contract busting!

Reneging on contracts! The sanctity of contract means nothing to the Social Credit coalition. I'm serious about this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. MACDONALD: Let's just take it in sequence. There's a meeting between the city, the PNE and the provincial government in the beginning of the fall of 1975. After long negotiations, they make an agreement whereby the PNE will pay $500,000 a year for a period of 10 years - everything was definite, and the minister knows what I am talking about - to the city of Vancouver. The provincial government will pay half of that a year - $250,000. The $500,000 will be spent by the city of Vancouver on recreational and community projects in East Vancouver, which sadly needs them, partly because of the presence of PNE there, with all its cluster of traffic, football games and the load that the residential community bears as a result of the presence of the PNE. So the $500,000 to be spent on the eastern half of Vancouver for 10 years makes sense.

Now each of the bodies goes back to that agreement that was made. The city of Vancouver passes a formal motion endorsing the agreement. The PNE board meets and they endorse the agreement a ratify it. The provincial government ratifies it and authorizes the first payment of rent to be made for the portion of the year. As I recall, the amount of the cheque was $178,000. Mr. Chairman, any way you cut it, that was a contract, an agreement. You know, f the socialist hordes ever broke an agreement like hat you'd see the editorials and the screaming headlines. The bottom line would be crying that we have no respect for the sanctity of contract, but when t doesn't suit the political purposes of Social Credit, or when they think that something's too good for the fast end of Vancouver, or when they think that that's too much money for the city of Vancouver, they just break it. How do they break it? Wrist-twisting, that's how they break it. The Provincial Secretary, to begin with, took back the cheque. She went to Mr. Rennie right after the election: "Give me back the $178,000." That was step one.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): You're spending it on he secret police.

MR. MACDONALD: Step two: they refuse to make any further payments. Step three: they said, oh, they didn't think there was an agreement; practically repudiated it, but not quite. Step four: they get a hired gun - Mr. Erwin Swangard.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, they do. He goes in and asks the chairman of the PNE board. Here's a man who is doing the will of the government. He was appointed by them - a Social Credit Party supporter.

AN HON. MEMBER: A hack.

MR. MACDONALD: A hack.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): What happened to Pat Brennan?

MR. MACDONALD: Pat Brennan was an excellent chairman of the PNE board but he was fired out of there, and it was for this purpose. Here's what Swangard said as he came with his contract-busting on January 18,1977, in the Province. "Swangard was commenting on demands from Mayor Jack Volrich that the city be paid. . . ." Now the back rent by this time was $846,936.22. The provincial government had committed itself to pay half of it, as they should, not just for the city of Vancouver, but for the PNE. They should support it. It is a provincial national exhibition and it serves the whole province. But Swangard came in and he said: "Asked why the PNE is faced with borrowing money to pay rent that was the subject of a 1975 agreement" - agreement! -"Swangard blamed the high costs to modernize and so forth. He said: '$1 is enough.' " And that was the contract-buster that the provincial government appointed.

[ Page 1792 ]

MR. GIBSON: Is he a $ 1 -a-year man himself?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, he was committed to paying $1 a year to the city of Vancouver, and he was worth almost the same amount himself.

Anyway, Mayor Jack Volrich comes in then like a tiger, and he says: 'We have an agreement. We are asking for $850,000 for the arrears of rent. If we don't get that we're going to send in the sheriff and repossess our own property, " which was the PNE. The tenant thought about that for a while and said: "You can't repossess us; you already own us." The sheriff's threat wasn't too effective.

Before it was all over, as a result of the provincial reneging, refusing to pay, and throwing in their contract-buster, Mayor Jack Volrich after a while was purring like a pussycat. He was forced back to the bargaining table and he dropped his $850,000 that was due the city of Vancouver and said: "I'll take anything I can get from the Socred coalition." I don't know yet how much he has actually got, and I'd like to ask the Provincial Secretary. I understand $500,000 is to be paid now, as of April 1, to the PNE and the provincial government, I understand, is going to pay half of that. But what about the arrears of rent and what about the. future? This was a 1 0-year agreement.

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Provincial Secretary the following: first, does she agree with me that you are not living up to the 1975 agreement? That's point one. Point two: what are you living up to after this contract-busting? Point three: for how long? What are you going to do for the PNE?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry): First of all, I wonder if I could address my remarks to the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) , who spoke prior to the last speaker regarding pre-retirement counselling. I'd like to say, through you, Mr. Chairman, that there is a report being prepared by a joint union-management committee of the Public Service Commission, and that report addresses itself to the concerns which the r member for Vancouver-Burrard has kindly put before the House. As he has explained, and as we understand it, the pre-retirement counselling is something that has come under scrutiny of late because of the social consequences which the member has adequately portrayed. We have that report now, just recently, and I can assure the member that it will be given good consideration by this government. I also thought that t it might be of interest to you to know that there are only about 300 employees annually who retire from the public service, and although that is not a large number in comparison to your guesstimate it is a' significant amount of people whom we should be concerned about who are going into the community t and, hopefully, will have a meaningful life after their A first career.

Also, following what some members said just before the supper break, I would like to correct a misstatement that was made on the floor of the House in regard to statistics. The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) found it difficult to understand why we would be quoting statistics, and I'm sorry to correct the member but I have to tell you that the statistics that I quoted were correct and the statistics that the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) quoted were also correct.

Now let me tell you, though, that when you are comparing the statistics and either the decline or the increase of tourism, you cannot compare it on the dollar volume. The reason for that is the inflationary period in which we live. If you want to put it in simpler terms, for every dollar that is spent in British Columbia by a visitor, it took two visitors to spend before, and so I'm saying that you can't make the comparison.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Are those real dollars or golden dollars?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm telling you again, if I may just reiterate, that in 1974 there was a decrease in visitors, in actual people coming into British Columbia, which was 5 per cent less than 1973, and once again, 1975 was 5 per cent less than the year before. In 1976, it was 6 per cent less than the year before. On the dollar revenue, however, there is an increase in each of those three years, and I indicated they were 10 per cent, I I per cent and 3 per cent. So I didn't want that erroneous attitude to be left with the House because I don't want you to think that there is an increase if there is not - and there is not.

I also want to address myself to one other comment that was made - I think it was by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) -regarding Mr. Lillico of British Columbia House in Britain. Mr. Lillico is public information officer and reports to Mr. Strachan, the agent-general.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was making some suggestions about comments that I had made at a prior time - prior to my being in the House and in between the time of the 1972 election and 1975. Anything I said at that time about the NDP government, I believed, I still believe, and to this ay I believe what I said were your motivations at hat time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: And now, Mr. Chairman, let me just address my remarks o the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) , who tonight has brought to the floor of

[ Page 1793 ]

the House a charge against the Pacific National Exhibition board president, who was elected by a board at a democratically operated election. He was chosen by people....

MR. MACDONALD: You appointed the members.

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I appointed the members but the board president is elected by that board, and that board chose Mr. Swangard, whom you have this evening named as the hired gun. I suggest to you that is a shocking and shoddy description of a gentleman who is known to have worked very hard in the community for Vancouver and for British Columbia, as people in this House will know. The member for Burnaby will attest to the fact that in his constituency is the Swangard Stadium. During the past year and a half or two years, he has initiated a programme of safety for the people in Burnaby, and he has had many, many contributions of a very fine nature. I think that your attack on him tonight is something that you should apologize for, not only to him but to those people in the House who know that man to be a good citizen of this province.

MR. MACDONALD: There was an agreement, and you know it. He broke it, and you helped him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Now let's talk about the agreement. Let's just talk about the agreement. I am always amused by the first member for Vancouver East because here is the learned member, a learned gentleman. He was the Attorney-General of this province, and all of that responsibility, all that it entailed...

MR. MACDONALD: And I had a secret police force, did I?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ... was in the hands of that gentleman. Yet time and time again on the floor of this House in opposition, he will tell us things which you would not really attribute to a gentleman who has the legal training that he has. I am just amazed, for instance, that this evening he has said to us ...

MR. LEA: Amazing, Grace.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: and we have listened to him tell us that we, the Social Credit administration, have broken a contract.

MR. MACDONALD: Right. Exactly.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That's exactly wrong, Mr. Member. Exactly wrong.

In 1975 that government of the NDP, that socialist government, did send a letter to the PNE which outlined a letter of intent. That letter was signed by a minister who was in the House at that time, Mr. Robert Williams, who was a colleague of yours at one time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair, hon. member.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The intent of the contract was as stated by the hon. member a few minutes ago; in the terms it had an amount to be paid to the City of Vancouver. It was for rent and there were other agreements that went with it. There was a termination date on it and so on. There's no question that there was an agreement drafted, Mr. Chairman, which is a lot different than a bona fide agreement that has the signatures of the government and the Pacific National Exhibition and the City of Vancouver.

And can I say this to you? When we took office, Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that we did find an agreement which that government, that NDP government, had been so busy getting organized that somehow they were so busy that they forgot to sign it. They didn't even put their initials on it. They didn't even put their name on it. They didn't even get the City of Vancouver's initials on it.

MR. MACDONALD: Council resolution. Come on!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, since when did the City of Vancouver make policy for the government of British Columbia? And why is a resolution so necessary for the City of Vancouver?

MR. MACDONALD: Shame!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: What a silly, silly kind of justification for the sloppiness of a government that was so busy spending the people's money and spilling the people's money, they couldn't sign a contract.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): They shovelled it out of the back of a truck.

Interjections.

[ Page 1794 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The Provincial Secretary is trying to answer questions.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) is out of his chair.

The comment is that now we're going to give it to the millionaires. Let me say this: this government has done more for the little people of the province than you ever had an opportunity to do or ever wanted to do. Let me just say that at the time we had a new board appointed, we asked them to address themselves to the concerns of the agreement and the proposal that was left in their hands and left with us. At that time, the new board did not see fit to sign the agreement, and the agreement itself to this day has not been signed. There is no agreement, Mr. Chairman, through you. There is no agreement between the Pacific National Exhibition and the province of British Columbia for a rental agreement or any of the attendant agreements or commitments that might have been therein.

Again I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that you would think someone who has the legal training and the benefit of an education in legal training, as does the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) , would understand that to have an agreement that isn't signed and is no commitment between two parties, is no agreement at all. We have no agreement.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It is not ridiculous. But I'll tell you what you did break. You broke an agreement that was signed. During the time that that government was in office and they were accused editorially and by the citizens of this province of breaking an agreement.... That was a signed agreement, Mr. Chairman. That was not an agreement that was just written on paper and that perhaps could have been changed by anybody and perhaps negotiated by anybody. That was a signed agreement, and that's far different. Even anyone who is not in the legal profession, just someone who is as uninformed . ..

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: . . . and as uneducated as I am, Mr. Chairman, can tell you that an agreement that isn't signed between parties is no agreement at all.

Mr. Chairman, I will, though, inform the House that the Pacific National Exhibition has arranged with the city of Vancouver and has negotiated an operational grant or a rental agreement to the city of Vancouver, which owns the land. That is for $500,000 a year for 1976. We stand by the commitment that was made by this government that in 1976 they would pay $250,000 towards that operational cost of the PNE, which, I believe, they are going to put towards that rental negotiation they have just completed. In addition, they have gone to arbitration and the matter is left between the city of Vancouver and the Pacific National Exhibition board, which is entrusted with the operation of the Pacific National Exhibition.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, I'm not, but it seems to me that there are moral commitments and there are legal commitments. When three levels of government ratify an accord - and all three did in this case - by formal council resolution, that is both a moral and a legal commitment. I think you've just broken it. You're doing a little bit of it now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, a bit of it is coming back in terms of.... I'm not sure whether the Provincial Secretary said the $500,000 started as of January 1,1976, for that year or the fiscal year. I'm glad that at least $250,000 is being paid by the provincial government. I'm not sure of the period for which it is being paid.

Mr. Chairman, I maintain that agreements between governments within Canada should be honoured. All three levels of government recorded ratification of this letter of intent; in the case of the provincial government, they made the first payment. Not to honour that agreement, which the Provincial Secretary still says is an agreement in every second word, I think is reneging on the sanctity of contract. It is in writing once it is recorded by the city, recorded by the PNE, recorded by the province as an accord.

But I don't know what else I can say. I'm very disappointed that the provincial government would not honour the agreement itself. We're getting a few crumbs now as a result of the fight that Mayor Volrich and the rest of us have put up. But it's not the agreement, and the principle involved is that you should stay with agreements.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the secret police I had.... I'm going to let other members speak on that, but I'm kind of shocked that the Provincial Secretary would say she believed it then with no evidence. All those rounds 'of ammunition!

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

[ Page 1795 ]

MR. MACDONALD: She believes it now. If she believes it now, I suppose we can go around the province saying that the Socreds have got a secret police. I don't know. But if that's the standard of the public statements of the Provincial Secretary, it's not a very high standard in terms of veracity. It's not a very high standard, but other members have brought that up and I'll just have to.... As long as the words serve the purpose - never mind whether they're true, if there's evidence or what - say them. Are those the rules of the game in British Columbia?

MR. BARRETT: Say anything.

MR. MACDONALD: They seem to be the Social Credit rules. We've heard it from the minister's mouth tonight.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, just to refresh the minister's mind, before the dinner break I suggested that she could stand up in the House and apologize for a good deal of wrongdoing as a president of the party and as a research director for the Social Credit Party. I suggest to the minister now that she can either apologize - if she believed then and doesn't now and naturally she can't now - or she should resign.

I say that it's the most cynical kind of statement. There's nothing to laugh at, Mr. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) . Fortunately, you weren't part of it. At least, I don't recall you being part of it. But let's just review; let's remember who was part of it. The other minister who we asked to resign, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , mentioned that every time he got a chance. He stood on his feet and accused us of having secret police, which is a maneuver that's used oftentimes by the very right-wing. Now I'm not suggesting that that party over there isn't pretty right-wing; but when I'm talking in terms of right-wing, I mean even more right than you people stand for, or at least most of you.

That minister made the following remark, and I'm just going to refresh her memory:

"The Social Credit researcher and former minister without portfolio, Grace McCarthy, warned Thursday the provincial government is forming a secret police under terms of the new provincial emergency Act."

Imagine!

"Mrs. McCarthy told 500 party supporters attending a dinner for former Premier W.A.C. Bennett that the police force is to be used. . .

And listen to this carefully.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: You think it's funny, huh?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: You think it's funny, you former Liberal. You should have been reading or you should have been thinking about this when you joined that mob.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Perhaps we could use more temperate language ...

MR. COCKE: Sure we could, but I don't feel like using any more temperate language than I'm using, Mr. Chairman ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must....

MR. COCKE: ... because none of my language is unparliamentary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. BARRETT: What has he said that's wrong?

MR. COCKE: What type of language did that member use?

MR, CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I think that the hon. member for New Westminster is interested in order in the House.

MR. COCKE: Of course I am.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is trying to encourage this.

MR. COCKE: Of course I am.

MR. BARRETT: What has he said that's wrong?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to continue on here.

"Mrs. McCarthy told 500 party supporters attending a dinner here for former Premier W.A.C. Bennett that the police force is to be used. . . "

Now listen to this:

. . . to enforce the government's socialist, monopolistic legislation."

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: It makes me sick, Mr. Chairman, absolutely sick,

MR. BARRETT: Say anything. Do anything.

MR. COCKE: Say anything, do anything to get elected. The end justifies the means, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 1796 ]

It's like Phil Gaglardi of old. She stands up: "If I tell a lie, and I don't know it . . . "

AN HON. MEMBER: It's only because I believe it.

MR. COCKE: ". . . it's only because I don't know and I think I'm telling the truth."

MR. LEVI: No - "I believe I'm telling the truth."

MR. COCKE: But then she went on to say she still feels that way. She has found since they became government on December 11,1975, that every word she uttered . . .

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: There goes old right-wing Chips again. . . . and probably many of the words you uttered up there in Merritt were totally wrong. You know it! Stand up and say that I'm standing here lying in my teeth. You know I'm not.

Mr. Chairman, another headline: "McCarthy Fears NDP Takeover of Policing."

"Addressing the Vancouver Board of Trade . . .

- that group of entrepreneurs in Vancouver. They had to listen to the following. She's talking about her assumption of cats and meows: .

" 'I have always gone on the assumption that when someone purrs like a cat, acts like a cat, meows like a cat, you almost have to accept the fact that they are cats.' She said the new officers are only for clerical duty. 'Why is it there needs to be a half million rounds of ammunition already purchased " High-powered cars, high-powered police-calibre pistols.

This is what she was commenting on - earlier headline, where the president of the British Columbia Social Credit Party says:

" T he provincial government is hoarding..." Listen to this. "...about 500,000 rounds of ammunition, guns and cars for a provincial police force. 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 committee . . . "

Any of you that are proud of that? Before dinner, some of you said you were.

MR. BARRETT: It's evil.

MR. COCKE: It is evil. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) stood up and said: "Who supports her?" There wasn't very much or a hand, but I'll tell you there we're, "I do! I do! I do!" right down the ranks. And the loudest voice of all came from Omineca (Mr. Kempf) .

MR. BARRETT: They better, or else.

MR. COCKE: That's right.

Mr. Chairman, I had great admiration for that minister. She was quite an organizer. She still is. She did a real job of organizing, and I have nothing against that. That's good. You can organize all you like. But this kind of material, thrown away and thrown around the province - total distortion - is not acceptable. She would do her party and she would do the government a great service if she would stand up now and apologize for what she said and for what she intimated.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Bill 61?

MR. LEA: It's not a matter of getting your own material, Mr. Member.

What I think disturbs me the most over this is the media. You know, when the president of the Social Credit Party was running around the province making these statements, the media printed them, as they should have. But did they check? Did they check with anybody?

MR. BARRETT: Did they write editorials attacking her?

MR. LEA: No, they didn't write any editorials attacking her. I'll tell you that this matter has been brought up in this House a number of times since the Social Credit has formed the government. But I've yet to see any coverage or any criticism of the fact that the president of a political party would go out and deliberately lie to the people of this province. Was there any criticism at all? There was none from the media. Yet the president of the Social Credit Party went out week after week in this province and deliberately lied to the people of this province about a secret police force and guns and what they were intended to be used for.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Order!

MR. LEA: She lied, over and over and over again, to the people of this province. There was not one word from the media; not one word of criticism.

MR. KEMPF: Vicious attack.

MR. LEA: Talk about a vicious attack. You know, another disturbing thing, Mr. Chairman....

MR. KEMPF: So degrading.

MR. LEA: ... is that those Social Credit members

[ Page 1797 ]

over there can sit there and snicker and giggle and laugh about a president of their party who went out and lied from one end of this province to the other. They have the nerve to sit over there and giggle and laugh and smirk. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is snickering and laughing because of a lie being told in this province.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Don't point.

MR. LEA: The member for Omineca ...

MR. KEMPF: Order! We know who lied in this province.

MR. LEA: thinks lying is all right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Don't tell us about lying. We saw lie after lie after lie come out of the president of the Social Credit party.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LEA: Lie after lie.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member just take his chair for half a moment?

I think that we have to interrupt the proceedings of the House to encourage members on both sides of the House to use more temperate language. Let me just take a minute and read from page 419 of May, which lays very heavily the responsibility upon the Chair for interrupting the House in just such a time as this. Al'ay says:

"It will be useful to give examples here of expressions which are unparliamentary and call for prompt interference. These may be classified as follows: 1, 2, 3, 4 '.

and perhaps I can go down to:

"4. Abusive and insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder."

In the humble opinion of the Chair, the kind of language that is being used in debate just now is prone to do exactly what May speaks against.

Page 419 is the citation.

MR. LEA: I would like to quote from The Vancouver Sun, May 11,1973. It says: "Secret Police Set, Claim Socreds."

- Social Credit researcher and former minister without portfolio Grace McCarthy 'warned Thursday the provincial government is forming a secret police force under the terms of the new Provincial Energy Act."

Mr. Chairman, what is worse, the lie or calling attention to it? What is worse? Is it unparliamentary to tell the truth? And the truth of the matter is that that was a lie.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened to the Energy Act?

MR. LEA: It was a lie and it was deliberately told. What is worse? Calling attention to it, or actually doing the lying? And I'll tell you, if that is what this House is about - that you cannot tell the truth about a lie that was told - then I don't know where we're at as a legislature. Maybe we'd better go look at the rules.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I believe that every person in this House and every person in this province should hang their heads in shame that a Crown minister would take her place in this House and say: "Yes, I said it, and I'm glad I said it." Those weren't her exact words, but that's what she meant - that she went out and told these things to the people of this province. How can you have any self-respect as a British Columbian? How can you, when you're not allowed to tell the truth in this House? And the truth of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that the president of the Social Credit Party went out and lied to the people of this province. That's the truth of it, and there's nothing more can be said.

MR. BARBER: Like my colleagues, I'm waiting to hear the Provincial Secretary clear the record, clear her name, and apologize for what she told the people of British Columbia and knew to be false. There is no secret police. There was no secret police. It was a hoax from beginning to end, to serve the most disgusting political purposes.

MR. KEMPF: What did you do with Bill 61?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think this matter has been drawn to the attention of the Provincial Secretary. I think that with several previous speakers having drawn it to her attention, the material has been sufficiently covered.

MR. BARBER: The minister may well wish to apologize. If she would give the conventional signal, I would be happy to take my place. If not, I wish to raise the matter in her capacity as minister responsible for tourism because she has a problem with credibility in dealing with the tourist industry. She. is rising.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, in response to the claims from the members of the

[ Page 1798 ]

opposition in regard to statements that I made at the time that they were government and I was the president of the Social Credit Party, I didn't know then in my estimates that I would have to be responsible for the last four years. I think that responsibility fees heavily on the shoulders of that administration. It was because of that anxiety that I was active during those four years that you were the government of British Columbia. Once again, Mr. Chairman, just let me make it clear to the House that the administration, the NDP socialist administration, between 1972 and 1975 brought legislation before the people of British Columbia that put fear in the people of British Columbia because of the wide powers that it conferred upon that party and that government. I'll say this to you, Mr. Chairman: when I say that I believed it then, I did. I did not trust that government ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ... with the powers that they conferred upon themselves. I did not trust them then; I do not trust them now. Mr. Chairman, the people of the province made the decision in 1975; the people of the province didn't trust them either.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, there are occasions in this House when tempers do fray and feelings are aroused. I want to thank you for quoting from May, because I think you have aptly sensed the situation.

The former government is responsible for all of its action. It'll be judged in the future as it has been judged. Each one of us is responsible for his actions. We'll be judged in the future as we've been judged in the past, and you, Madam Minister, are responsible for your actions.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You, Madam Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, are responsible for your actions. You said to the people of this province, in a method that in my opinion denigrated the whole nature of our democratic parliamentary system, that you believed - and I believe you if you feel that way - at that time that we were setting up a secret police force.

You've been in office 15 months. It's a very grave and serious charge bordering on an accusation that a political party was prepared to subvert all democratic process to Her Majesty, to the constitution of this province and our role in law and the parliamentary system of this country. If you believed that then, that is your responsibility, but what my colleagues are charging you with now tonight is to stand up and present one shred of evidence since you've been in office for 15 months that justifies that belief. Because that kind of broadcast, that kind of statement, while it may have been necessary in your opinion at that time....

It may have been interpreted perhaps unjustly that you were using it for political purposes. I'm willing to suggest that perhaps you were not, but having suggested that you were, having suggested how grave the charge was - and really, it struck me not just to the party that I represent but to the system - I humbly suggest that it would be worthwhile if you stood up and said: "I believed it then but since having been in office I find no evidence to substantiate my belief at that time." It would go a long way in my opinion to raise the level of some commitment that every single person in this House has to the system, regardless of philosophy.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, to my knowledge no one has less commitment to the system whether they're socialist or free enterprise - none. There is no history or record of any democratic socialist in this country being a less committed citizen to the parliamentary system - not one. When you downgrade a party and you downgrade individuals and you find out later that you were incorrect, it would raise the level of all our esteem, regardless of party, if a frank admission of: "I was incorrect. . .

It would go a long way to raising your status too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Victoria. Just before you begin, hon. member, let me remind all hon. members that in the interest of trying to assist the Chair to maintain order, if you address your debate through the Chair that doesn't mean to say "through you, Mr. Chairman"; that means to address the Chair, direct your debate to the Chair. It will assist me greatly.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Speaking to yourself, but hoping the Provincial Secretary is overhearing, I wonder if she might care to reply at this moment to the request from the Leader of the Opposition; If she'll give the signal, I'll give her the floor again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. BARBER: Would you care to reply at this moment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: I'm trying to extend a courtesy, to ask if she wishes to reply now.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, sit down!

MR. BARBER: I was sitting. She didn't rise. I

[ Page 1799 ]

wanted to make sure I didn't misinterpret....

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Sit down!

Interjections.

MR, CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BARBER: She says no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the second member for Victoria please proceed?

MR. BARBER: Thank you very much.

This present minister, Mr. Chairman, as the minister responsible for tourism, has a credibility problem with the industry. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, I've spent a very great deal of time in the capital city since my own election in becoming acquainted with the problems, the leadership and the ambitions of the tourist industry in British Columbia. I've also become well aware that, in particular regard to the notoriety of seditious statements about a secret police force, that tourist industry has had to assess and reassess repeatedly its understanding of statements that may be made by government. That tourist industry has got to wonder, and in fact has been asking, whether or not it can believe what it is told about the present condition and the future conditions of its own industry in the province when the person who is telling them is the present minister of tourism.

This minister has a problem with credibility because this minister refuses to admit that she was wrong. This minister refuses - if I may say it - to have the good grace to apologize for having been so dramatically wrong and, precisely because of the notoriety of the false statements about a secret police force, has problems in maintaining credibility with the tourist industry itself. I am very disappointed that the minister refuses to apologize and refuses to admit she was wrong, and the people in the tourist industry, who would prefer, if they could, to rely on her 100 per cent for accurate information and accurate statements, no doubt regret as well her failure to apologize and admit that she was wrong, if not deliberately, certainly dramatically, when she made her statements about the so-called secret police force.

What sort of mind would make those statements, Mr. Chairman? What sort of person would tell those stories? What sort of individual would talk about 500,000 rounds of ammunition, high-powered cars, high-powered pistols, rifles and guns? What sort of person would say those things, Mr. Chairman? The tourist industry has been asking those questions, as well, of this particular minister. What sort of person would run around the province telling the people of British Columbia that there was not five or 50, but 500,000 rounds of ammunition stored somewhere or another?

Mr. Chairman, it is vital for the credibility of this minister, when dealing with that industry, for once and for all to tell the truth about the so-called secret police.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, May I interrupt you? I have cautioned the previous speaker that this material had been covered on at least three other occasions, this being the fourth time now. Perhaps the member could move to another area that hasn't been as well canvassed.

MR. BARBER: What I'm hoping to canvass, with respect, concerns the relationship of this present minister to the travel industry in the province of British Columbia. What I'm trying to demonstrate, Mr. Chairman, as revealed again in tonight's debate, is that the failure of this minister to clear her own record regarding these absurd stories about a secret police force continues to result in the failure of this minister to communicate effectively with the tourism industry. They don't know whether or not they can believe her, because the same person, the same sort of mind. that would talk about high-powered cars and high-powered rifles is now talking about high-powered tourist promotion. One wonders if it is all that much to be believed, Mr. Chairman. One wonders if it's all that credible.

It is a very real and present problem. We're not just talking about the past. We're not just talking about unbelievable statements made in 1973 and 1974 about a so-called secret police. We're not talking about the kind of disgusting political campaign that would centre around those stories. We're talking about a present problem faced tonight by that minister in her dealings with the travel industry, because they know her record, because they wonder whether or not she can be believed, and because she has yet to apologize, to clear her name and to clear the record.

A minister who talks about high-powered cars, high-powered pistols and high-powered rifles, and then talks this year about high-powered tourist promotion campaigns raises in the minds of that industry the question: can this particular minister be believed? This opposition, because she refuses to apologize and refuses to make the record straight, has got to ask the very same question, and I think it is a very responsible question, Mr. Chairman.

We had this before, and I put in a personal note to a member of this House - a very personal statement. I remain deeply angry that any politician in this province could run around telling lies about secret police, and I remain deeply angry that the climate of fear and suspicion, of hostility and poison that we saw in this province could have come to exist at all.

[ Page 1800 ]

That climate did not derive from the legislation of the former government. That climate did not come out of the cabinet rooms of that administration. That climate did not originate in the mind of Dave Barrett, or any of the leaders of that government. That climate was created deliberately and politically by people who would run around and tell lies, and tell them again, about a secret police force when it turns out....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): My point of order is under standing order 43: repetition. That's five in a row that have got up. We're fighting the last election. We've gone through it on the Premier's estimates; we're going through it on every estimate. They're running down the character of people in the House. It's adding nothing whatsoever to the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LLOYD: He hasn't got any new material.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. He has a point of order, and I must commend the member for at least stating the number of his point of order, which is unusual in this House.

Your point is well taken, and the Chair has cautioned the hon. members to refrain from repetition. I must caution the member again. The second member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BARBER: Well, I do not intend to go on at much greater length except to say, again, that before I was elected to this Legislature, I saw people running around this province creating the fear and the poison and the bitterness that crippled politics in British Columbia.

I see tonight, with the tourism industry in British Columbia that one of the people who helped do that is in trouble with that industry because they don't know whether or not they can believe her. Her track record isn't all that convincing. It's not all that good and I think that's very disappointing. That's a very contemporary problem.

MR. KEMPF: Horse feathers!

MR. BARBER: You talk to them about the record of the sort of person who would tell those stories. You talk to them about that.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the Provincial Secretary might care to call probe No. 13 into the existence of a secret police force. This is most certainly, I'm sure, new material, although I must admit that when talking about probes it has a vaguely familiar ring.

Because we are told by a woman whose honour this House must respect that she believed then and now that we had set up a secret police force, because they have made no announcements about the finding of the cars, the pistols, the rifles, the guns and the 500,000 rounds of ammunition, we can only presume that those still exist somewhere. An honorable person would admit they were wrong if it turned out that they didn't exist at all.

I wonder if the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Chairman, might be inclined as a member of the cabinet and as Deputy Premier to call yet another inquiry, a royal commission, a probe, an examination into the undoubted existence of the guns, the rifles, the cars, the pistols and the 500,000 rounds of ammunition. She said they were there before and she said she believed what she said. She said, Mr. Chairman, that she believes tonight what she said. One could only presume that she was then and is now telling the truth. Let's have another royal commission and let's find out who was telling the truth all along, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Well, we've had a long discussion on what the Provincial Secretary believed. She stood up with great favour and said, "I believe this was true" about the secret police force. Whether she could prove it or not, she believed it. So I will leave that and let the public judge that statement.

MR, E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): They've judged that one.

MRS. DAILLY: I think they have.

As the Provincial Secretary talked about what she believed about the NDP, I now would like to discuss what the Social Credit beliefs are in office. I want to start off by discussing the manner of appointments made by the Social Credit government, many of them signed by the Provincial Secretary, even though they may be in other areas such as Education. I think perhaps it will give us some idea of what the Provincial Secretary believes her party stands for.

I'm going to use facts, unlike the Provincial Secretary. I am not just going to go by a fervent dislike for the Social Credit. I'm going to base my following statements on facts, which, as the former Premier and our present leader (Mr. Barrett) stated, is what should be done. Even in the political arena, surely we should be dealing out there - albeit that we all exaggerate to some extent - not with complete distortion and lies. So therefore I want to start with some facts.

Mr. Chairman, although I'm dealing with college appointments to make a point, I'd mention that I

[ Page 1801 ]

believe this has a direct relationship with the Provincial Secretary. The Provincial Secretary is the only female member in the cabinet, and last year when we discussed her stand on women and their position in government and in positions throughout this province, she assured us that she was concerned. Now earlier this afternoon she did state that they do have problems getting women into the public service because of lack of applicants. Well, we will let that stand. Perhaps I can accept some of that, but I would also like to know what encouragement has been given. But I don't want to repeat myself; I asked that question earlier today.

What I really want to point out, Mr. Chairman, to you and the House tonight, is an example of what this Provincial Secretary and her cabinet colleagues obviously believe is a criterion for appointments to college boards in this province. Now college boards are charged with policy-making, for education for our community colleges. Surely we do not expect to see those appointments made, on a purely partisan, almost completely male-oriented basis. Yet that's what we have found. I think it's a disgrace, and it is not servicing education well in this province.

I want to give you some examples. On February 4, there was a newsletter issued from the Ministry of Education. I want to reiterate that I hold the Provincial Secretary responsible for not standing up on this matter in the cabinet. Perhaps I have to hold her responsible for what we have in front of us here; perhaps she can explain.

At Camosun College, out of five appointments made by this government, one was a woman - one out of five - and that is.... The Provincial Secretary stated earlier that we're looking for people of capability. Surely she's not saying that there's only one woman in the whole Camosun College area that is eligible to sit on the Camosun College board.

Now I do not intend to run through the names of these people and point out how many are Social Credit sympathizers or members. But I can assure you that our research has already pointed out that a great number of them have adherence to the Social Credit Party. What we want is a commitment to education. If you can have both, fine. But surely it's not only a Social Credit follower who has a right to sit on a community college board. I'm not suggesting that every appointment was Social Credit, but as we run through the list it's most interesting to see the preponderance of either Social Credit followers, members or workers.

At Capilano College, there were six appointments by this government announced on February 4. Two out of the whole six were women; only two appointments were women. At Cariboo College, three incumbents and three new appointees - six members - were appointed by the Socred cabinet. Mr. Chairman, they were all men. There was not one woman appointed in the Cariboo. What an insult to the women of the Cariboo area that not one woman can be found, according to the standards of this cabinet, to sit on that college board.

At Douglas College in the lower mainland, servicing Burnaby, New Westminster, Surrey and Richmond, six people were appointed on February 4. They were all men. Six men were appointed from the lower mainland in Vancouver.

At East Kootenay College - the same date, the same appointment list - there were three appointments. All three were male. Are there no capable women in the Kootenay area? According to Social Credit, only men are capable of sitting on that board.

At Fraser Valley College there were four appointments.

MR. KEMPF: What about New Caledonia?

MRS. DAILLY: I'm coming to that.

There was one woman out of four appointments, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm moving as fast as I can.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One out of five.

MRS. DAILLY: One out of five. Mr. Chairman has corrected me and I'll accept it, because I know he's knowledgeable of that area. But that to date is the only correction, for the record, that has been made. Mr. Chairman has said that there is one woman out of five. Whether that should really go in the record to your advantage, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure. But I appreciate your sincerity in correcting it.

At Malaspina College there were five members appointed - one woman out of the whole five.

This Provincial Secretary is the only woman member in the cabinet. Now does it mean that all the male members have this strong influence over her or is the Provincial Secretary suggesting these appointments?

At the College of New Caledonia.... Ah, yes, it is slightly better. You're right, Mr. Member. Out of five, there were two women. We're really moving up - two women out of five!

MR. KEMPF: Who's the chairman?

MRS. DAILLY: At Northern Lights College, there was one woman out of four - four appointments, one woman.

At North Island College there were four new appointments by the Social Credit cabinet - one woman out of four.

[ Page 1802 ]

At Northwest College there were six appointments - two women out of six members.

At Okanagan College, out of six appointments by this cabinet, all six were men.

MR. GIBSON: That's the Premier's riding, isn't it?

MRS. DAILLY: That's the Premier's riding.

At Selkirk College there were seven appointments - all seven were men.

At Vancouver Community College there were four appointments - one woman out of the four.

Mr. Chairman, that is the record and the attitude of this provincial cabinet towards the ability of women in this province to serve in positions on educational boards.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with excuses that women are not applying. This is completely apart from the appointment of public service and I think we deserve an explanation from the Provincial Secretary. I can assure you that when the educational estimates come up I will repeat the same question to the Education minister (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , but I understand that the Minister of Education does not have the complete say in these appointments. They go before cabinet so I have to hold the whole cabinet responsible and, in this particular instance, the one women member who sits on the cabinet and allows such a situation to happen. It is disgraceful in the province of British Columbia in 1977.

We have gone backwards and I ask you to simply look at the records of the appointments made by the New Democratic Party. You will find that I know personally, as the former Minister of Education. I even appointed Social Credit members. I can assure you that was not too well taken by some of the members of my own party but if I felt that they had served.... I'll tell you why. Just as in your own party, everyone has a slight partisanship. Everyone has. I think I am being honest in saying that. Despite that, most of them accepted my reasons. If there were any complaints such as "Aren't there some other good members?", I said, "Look, if this Social Credit member who was on before happened to perform capably and well, we will let them stay on. I am not here to play partisanship with education." You will also find that the record of women to men far exceeds this very sad record of the Social Credit government. I hope we can have some comments from the minister on this.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Earlier today, I asked some questions of the Provincial Secretary which I think she may have overlooked in going through her list of answers tonight. They related to Campbell River and the Women's Centre in Campbell River, and they also related to some suggestions that I made with respect to the state of the tourist industry on Vancouver Island. Earlier, Mr. Chairman, when the minister was on her feet she mentioned the member for Comox but she apparently.... Yes, I think you got it mixed up there and then somehow overlooked my questions. So I am hoping that the minister will be able to give us some answers on that.

But I would like to make a few comments at this time in addition to those that I made earlier this afternoon. They relate to what I consider the very frightening statement made by the minister tonight about the comments that she made running around the province between 1972 and 1975 about the so-called secret police force. Mr. Chairman, I think that the statements that she made tonight indicate an irrational hatred based on an irrational fear. I know, Mr. Chairman, you are going to say this has been covered. But I would like to point out that it is not just the minister and her evil, sinister approach to politics as revealed by her comments in the House tonight; it is that whole coalition group over there which indicates the lengths to which they would go in order to attain power in this province. In addition to the kind of statement that minister was making when she was travelling around as president of the Social Credit Party, we saw the tactics that were used during the election by the Social Credit Party.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, may I interrupt you? I must caution you. Perhaps this member was out of the House at my prior caution - that a bit more temperate language is desirable in this chamber. Let me give you a further citation from Bourinot which, perhaps, would cast some light upon our selection of language.

"The large number of rulings on the subject of parliamentary language, as applied to a member in debate, clearly indicate that any expression derogatory to his character as an hon. member in private life or to his honour and personal character as a representative of the people is out of order."

Therefore it would be clear from this citation that to impugn the character of an hon. member in this House is out of order, whether or not that imputation comes while he is a member or when he was in private life. Therefore I must encourage the member to be a little more selective in her parliamentary speech.

MS. SANFORD: Well, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: I would appreciate the citation, if the desk would forward it to me.

[ Page 1803 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's Bourinot, 4th edition, at page 361, and it is in the middle of the paragraph.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you.

MS. SANFORD: I'm just concerned about the credibility of that minister at the moment. I feel that an apology is due to the House, because she has found no evidence - or at least she has never been able to tell the House that she has found one shred of evidence - to back up the statements that she made at that time.

If the minister is going to have credibility in this province, Mr. Chairman, I think the minister should rise at the earliest opportunity in order to clarify for the House that she, in fact, was erroneous and that an apology is forthcoming. But she talked about her fear of what the NDP might do in power. She was worried about the powers the NDP had under certain statutes that they had introduced.

MR. KEMPF: Bill 6 1.

MS. SANFORD: But, Mr. Chairman, there is no statue in this province that gives as wide-ranging powers as those under the B.C. Hydro bill which was introduced by the previous Socred government -which, even now, the Premier is concerned about.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair. ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're speaking about the responsibilities of the Provincial Secretary and the Minister of Travel Industry. This is vote 19, not British Columbia Hydro. -

MS. SANFORD: Right, Mr. Chairman, and I'm only responding to the comments made by the Provincial Secretary herself during these estimates., She was worried. She said she was afraid of what might happen. But that fear, as the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) quite correctly pointed out, was whipped up in this province by members of the Social Credit Party. How do you think, Mr. Chairman, that all of those people arrived on the lawns out here when we were discussing the Land Commission Act?

That was a fear and an hysteria that was whipped up outside of this Legislature, and the fear that the Provincial Secretary was referring to was created by that party. Look at the tactics that they used when the Conservative candidate in Cranbrook indicated he was going to run. What happened to him? The fear tactics were again applied by the Social Credit Party - the fear tactics referred to by the Provincial Secretary just a few moments ago, Mr. Chairman.

That Conservative candidate had to back out of the race because of the threatening attacks that were made on him with respect to him losing all of the business in town if in fact he dared run as a Conservative candidate in that last election. Look at the tactics that were used by the Social Credit Party in tampering with ballot boxes in the Coquitlam area. Those are the same type of fear tactics, Mr. Chairman, that the Provincial Secretary was just referring to.

But let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I have some fears right now myself. I fear for the handicapped people in this province. I fear for the old-age pensioners in the province. I fear for those young children who have emotional problems in this province. But I am not about, as a result of that fear, Mr. Chairman, to go out and talk about guns ' and ammunition and rifles. I fear, but I'm not about to use those tactics.

But, Mr. Chairman, the most frightening thing.of all is that there are other members who are using the same tactics today. Within the last few weeks in my own constituency, one of the backbenchers of that government was up in my riding giving the same kind of misinformation as the Provincial Secretary did when she was running around the province as president of the party.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I believe the Chair has warned speakers, time after time, about repetition in debate. You are continuing in the same vein and I must call your attention to standing order 43, of which you are quite aware. Please proceed on another vein.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to point out to the Provincial Secretary, as a member of that cabinet, that I feel she, as well as the other members of cabinet, have a responsibility to ensure that backbenchers within that government do not go around in the various constituencies. . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you and I are both aware that the backbenchers act of their own volition. The minister is responsible for the office of the Provincial Secretary and Travel Industry under vote 19, and I would ask that you would conduct yourself accordingly.

MS. SANFORD: You're quite right, Mr. Chairman, that backbenchers do go off on their own, and certainly they can't be expected to speak for government - at least, I dismiss their statements -but I do feel that cabinet members have a responsibility, in my view, to ensure that they have correct information. Wouldn't you agree, Mr., Chairman? They should have that information so they don't go around saying that there was a half a billion dollars in the treasury in 1972 when the NDP took office. All right, Mr. Chairman, I'll leave that.

[ Page 1804 ]

The women in the Campbell River area, I'm afraid, became so discouraged by losing their funding, by having the community resources board disbanded, by the elimination of the programme and the approach taken by Gene Errington under the previous government, that they lost confidence. They lost hope of receiving any sort of financial assistance for the excellent work that they're doing in assisting women in the Campbell River area.

All they asked for was $5,000 last year, Mr. Chairman. They were turned down by the Provincial Secretary and, as I pointed out this afternoon, they became so discouraged by this that they didn't even apply this year. I do hope that the minister would stand now and respond to my questions that I raised to her this afternoon.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): I hope you won't rule me out of order if I indulge in some comments on the tourist industry in the Kootenays. It's that southeastern comer of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman.

One of the things that I would like to bring to the minister's attention is the very important role played by non-profit ski hills as a magnet in the winter tourist industry. The minister has discontinued the programme which was known as the "winter festival of sports, " and I guess this spring there was a festival of sports which was largely a promotional vehicle. It didn't promote athletics insomuch as it prompted some travel and some events around the province. I think it was actually intended to stimulate the accommodation industry during what are known as the shoulder months.

I do know there are brochures put out by her department to publicize to some extent the availability of ski hills. They include all ski hills in the province. I would like to bring to the minister's attention the need for the updating and the checking of the accuracy of some of these brochures. There are changes taking place constantly every year and it's sometimes annoying. I think it's up to the mountain to go to Mohammed or something in this case. It is annoying to people to find that their hill has been listed as having just a T-bar when in fact they've installed a chairlift. They aren't thinking about skiing maybe at the time that your department is thinking about putting together information, but I do know that this type of thing has happened. I would suggest that an effort should be made by the minister's department to check on the accuracy of the information and to update the information so that the most current information may be given.

I'd like to bring to the minister's attention that the non-profit ski hills, certainly in total, are probably just as important as the Whistler Mountains and Grouse Mountains and various purely commercial enterprises. In the interior, some of the facilities, such as Kimberley ski hill, are advertised and included in the promotion of Pacific Western Airlines, and yet it is a non-profit ski hill.

I know that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has undertaken an inventory or a study, as I recommended some time ago, of all ski hills and their current financial status. I would like the minister to bear in mind that if and when submissions come to cabinet for assistance -and it would appear that I might not have to ask for as great an assistance in the Nelson area because we've been rather fortunate in terms of snow in this rather difficult winter - that attention be given just not to the commercial operations but also to the non-profit operations, because they are an integral part of the winter tourist industry.

It was very gratifying for me to hear that a couple of weeks ago the parking lot of the Whitewater ski hill was almost filled with trailers from Washington. That's an exaggeration but there is a tremendous number of campers and trailers and so on - a whole group of ski patrol people had travelled all the way from Seattle up to Whitewater in search of snow -and there will be some word-of-mouth advertising going on.

But I would point out to the minister that one of the best ways in which we can promote tourism is to also look at the winter season, which really does help make life a lot better for the motels, the restaurants and various other operations. I would also point out that I know it is the experience in the Nelson area that a lot of the financial backers of the community ski hill there were not just merely skiers. A lot of the people in the tourist industry gave it financial support - donations, buying debentures and various other things - certainly not as a very solid investment as a debenture, but perhaps as a solid investment in terms of the long-term spin off.

The minister was also present at the November 25,1976, cabinet meeting. I believe the Kootenay-Boundary Chamber of Commerce made a presentation at that time. I would like to bring up the point that they made in terms of the effect of gasoline costs on the tourist industry. They did emphasize that a lot of the tourist industry is on wheels as it comes into this province and gasoline costs of up to $1 a gallon are prohibitive. To quote them:

. Because of the negative effect that the high price of gasoline is having on commerce in general and tourism in particular, we request that every effort be made to bring about the necessary levelling in the price of gasoline."

This minister should, in the interest of tourism, look at, postage stamp rates or look at one price of gasoline throughout the province. I think it would be even more significant in the northern areas.

Also, I would like to question the minister and ask

[ Page 1805 ]

her a specific question about financial support to the tourist information centres which are normally operated by chambers of Commerce. I've seen where the Nelson Chamber of Commerce, there were some requirements.... I believe the minister has increased financial assistance this year. But has there been any change in terms of requirements that the operator must take a course every year or so? I'd like the minister to outline some of these things because I know that our centre has lost funding in some years because of the neglect to comply with some of the regulations. I do feel that it might be better to give a stern warning if there is a failure to comply with regulations because the purpose is really to serve the tourist public and to encourage and to put our very best foot forward.

The Kootenay-Boundary Chamber of Commerce also recommended that a B.C. House be established in Ontario. They feel that there would be much to be gained and that we should be encouraging it, as we do in California. I believe they also suggested the opening of another B.C. House in California to promote tourism to British Columbia. I would like to know if the minister has reacted or responded to that type of request and what her interest might be in that area. Perhaps the minister, who's been very attentive, might respond to those items.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First of all, may I just respond - and belatedly, I'm sorry - to the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) . The member for Comox, I think, should be able to read this. I did neglect to answer her question regarding the Campbell River Status of Women. According to her estimation that office has closed, but the service is still going on, as I understood it, in a voluntary effort. I felt that that was an excellent effort and I would like to congratulate them in continuing.

As the member for Comox has said, these organizations usually started under the aegis of the LIP grants, Mr. Chairman, and in this case this was certainly so. I understand the funding either came to an end or was going to come to an end. I would like to just pass on to the hon. member that, because this particular organization seemed to deal quite considerably with the problems of native women, perhaps they should make application to the First Citizens' Fund, which also comes under my jurisdiction. I would hope that the hon. member would pass that information along.

I think just before the dinner hour, the member this afternoon made some comment about the LIP grants. I would just like to say that I think that any programme that is begun by the federal administration, even though it would be an incentive programme.... I think many of those programmes, such as the LIP programme and so on, raised expectations within the society and within our province which, quite frankly, the federal government wasn't either willing or able to continue. When a programme is started and left for two or three years, the expectations within the community are high. I think it's really sad to see that expectation raised and then the programme - for lack of a better terminology - dumped on a provincial administration or on a civic body to pick up when they cannot afford to do so all in one year. This is what has happened to this government in the past year. We've picked up very many through the Ministry of Human Resources and other departments of government including my own. I think it's too bad that that is done.

I would like to just also answer the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) , who recited some appointments of the college councils. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind you that that really does come under the Ministry of Education, but I will just make passing reference to it in this regard. The hon. member made comments that there were only two women in six, or one in four, or two women in five, or two women in six, and one woman in five in these college councils. I believe those are some of the ratios, and that's certainly quoting most of them. The hon. member seems to agree to that, Mr. Chairman. I suggest that that was very much in tune with the record of the past administration, but it's certainly better than the past administration's treatment of women in their Legislature. There were four women in their Legislature: Daisy Webster, Karen Sanford, Rosemary Brown; and Mrs. Eileen Dailly. One got to the cabinet, Mr. Chairman; that's only one in -four.

MR. LEVI: Two got to cabinet.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Two in five, rather. Pardon me, I've left out Mrs. Young. Two in five is quite low compared to the attack that Mrs. Dailly made on the council appointments. I would suggest that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has always, since being Minister of Education, brought women appointments to the cabinet, and I'm always pleased to concur with those recommendations. As the member knows, Mr. Chairman, even though my signature might be on the order-in-council, it is the ministry itself which brings it to cabinet. I can say this for this cabinet, because there's been a lot of discussion and so on in the cabinet in terms of appointments to boards: this cabinet is very cognizant of the role that women can play in this government and has so demonstrated by actions, not words.

I will now address my remarks and answers to the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) . The ski hill which you brought to our attention, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, I think probably has

[ Page 1806 ]

in.... Its co-ordinated effort with Pacific Western Airlines was probably initiated through our department in terms of co-ordinating the private sector. We have done that in the past. There is quite a good partnership with the private sector. When airlines are advertising, there is an agreement that they do make which has been beneficial to the private sector. Non-profit ski hills have been part of that and have benefited greatly because of that.

In regard to the updating of literature, I couldn't agree more. There has been an aggressive effort to make a better programme in terms of our regional co-ordinator's role within the community. There are eight tourist regions in the province of British Columbia. In each we have a regional co-ordinator whose funding is 60 per cent shared by the provincial government and 40 per cent by the tourist organization of the region, which is usually formed by the amalgamated chambers of commerce and tourist organizations. In your particular region, the regional co-ordinator is Dave Williamson. His role would then be to work with the accommodation counsellor, who is funded full time through the provincial government to be of any assistance he can.

In terms of those brochures of which you're speaking, which are the responsibility of the co-ordinator to get a consensus within the region, he always vets those through the tourist organization. If there are any errors we are going to draw your statements this evening to his attention, and I am sure that he'll be particularly conscious of getting those updated. I wouldn't want you to confuse some that are done privately which are not our responsibility. We can't take responsibility for those.

You did mention the winter festival of sports, and although that no longer comes under my responsibility - remember that last year I was carrying the Recreation portfolio - I did cancel it because I felt that there was more money going into newspaper advertising which really was not of benefit to the private sector at all nor to any of the citizens. Remarkably enough, that was a $600,000 expenditure which I felt couldn't be justified. I know that our Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) is addressing himself to that particular role of what a festival of sports could be or what it could mean in the province, and I am sure we will be hearing more from him in that regard.

In the Kootenay chamber's brief, they did ask for financial support, and so did all other regions as we went around the province during the fall. That has been a long-standing commitment since early spring when, after getting the budget in place, I found that information centres were denied quite considerably. Yes, there is a change. It is an upgrading, as well, I hope. What the new formula really does is, I hope, take away some of the mediocre information centres that are not open enough hours to justify a government grant and are not doing a service.

The training is a very, very difficult situation to me. The criteria that were established for the increasing of the grants were really the culmination of three or four regional co-ordinators meeting - those people who work with the private sector. These eight regional co-ordinators and accommodation counsellors, along with myself, decided at a meeting a week ago Saturday in Kamloops on some goals which still have to be refined. But the goals do include an upgrading in the training. How that can be accomplished - and it has to be done in a very short time - is going to be something that our department is going to have to work on with the private sector. As you know, 40 per cent of that is funded by the private sector and 60 per cent is funded by us. In this respect we do fund the co-ordinators and they in turn help to organize the information centres. We pay for the brochures and so on. Then we pay an outright grant to the information centre itself.

B.C. House in Ontario was the suggestion of the Kootenay chamber. I can say that I agree, and when money allows I would like to have that kind of promotion, particularly in face of the fact that for the first time Canada has two major airlines that are promoting low-class fares where one can travel across the country for one fare plus $31. The response to that will result in a great deal of eastern traffic, and an office in Toronto would be an effective thing to have. However, we are going to be doing promotions and we have already started promotions and advertising in eastern Canada to go along with that promotion.

I think I have covered everything. Did I miss something?

MS. SANFORD: I want to thank the Provincial Secretary for her answers to my question which I heard on the speaker downstairs.

I would like to point out to the minister that she has us all mixed up again. She was replying, I think, to the questions that were raised by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) . The programme that I was referring to in Campbell River was not initiated by a LIP grant. It. did not involve the native women and therefore I don't think an application by this particular group....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Right, except I don't have my answers yet for the group in Campbell River. I would like to reiterate my questions, Mr. Chairman, because I know the minister has had us all mixed up on a couple of occasions tonight.

This group was funded initially through the community resources board for $5,000. The community resources board was disbanded by the

[ Page 1807 ]

government.

AN HON. MEMBER: By him.

MS. SANFORD: By him. Right. Therefore the group applied instead directly to the Provincial Secretary. This group was in ever funded through a federal programme; it was funded through provincial government funds. When their source of funding was cut off by doing away with the community resources board, they applied directly to the Provincial Secretary.

So this group was never funded through a federal programme; it was funded through provincial government funds. When their source of funding was cut off by doing away with the community resource board, they applied directly to the Provincial Secretary.

Now because they were turned down last year, they did not apply this year - they became so discouraged. My question is: may I tell that group that it is not too late to apply this year, through your department, for funding for Women's Place in Campbell River? Right now they are still operating, as you pointed out, but most of their time is spent in trying to raise enough pennies and nickels and dimes to keep operating.

Is it too late for them to apply for the small sum of $5,000, to be considered before March 31, for operating funds for this coming year?

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I want to turn to some different facets of the Provincial Secretary's responsibilities that have not been considered previously. As a starter, so I can get some of these books off my desk, I notice in your estimates, Madam Minister, that there are three new areas: the legislative tour guides, the Queen Elizabeth Centennial Scholarship Act, and the Flood Relief Act. Now it would appear this was something new.

I know we had legislative tour guides around these buildings before this year, and I'm wondering where I can find a spot where I can compare what happened last year with what's happening this year. I'm wondering what the rationale is in changing this responsibility over to your ministry.

It is very helpful to the opposition when this happens if - as in most instances - there is, in the explanation for the specific vote, a detail which indicates where those specific things have come from or where they have gone so there is a chance to make a comparison.

The Queen Elizabeth Centennial Scholarship Act, I notice, seems to be the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. While it does indicate in the Act, under section 2, that the Minister of Finance may appoint a person or persons to advise him with respect to this scholarship, I am a bit curious as to how, all of a sudden, this is now appearing in the Provincial Secretary's estimates. Is this as a result of the Government Reorganization Act - that now we're switching these things around and we are left to discover these changes during the course of estimates? How does this happen to be here, and how do I find a spot where I can check to see what happened last year, where it was funded, what the amount was, and by what authority it is now under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Secretary? How does it happen that, inasmuch as this was the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, who could appoint people to advise him in regard to this, it's now suddenly appearing under the administration of the Provincial Secretary?

Then there's something here called the Flood Relief Act. I have gone through the statutes of B.C., and we seem to go from fish inspection to floral emblems with no sign of a Flood Relief Act. I'm wondering where this Act has come from. Is it something that's been made up since the last session and hasn't gotten into the book? What is the Flood Relief Act? Where did it come from? Was it there previously? How much money was spent last year, Mr. Chairman?

You know, it's a bit difficult for the opposition to offer any constructive or reasonable kind of criticism when we have these kinds of things included in estimates with no explanation as to where they came from, what they are, or how much was spent last year, and when we can't even find the Act that's referred to in the statutes. This is the Revised Statutes of British Columbia - up to date, supposedly. My seatmate tells me this is a very old copy but, as far as I know, this is the most up-to-date copy there is. It's certainly supposed to have everything in it. It's the loose leaf copy, and there are lots of things in there that are last year's legislation, but there is no Flood Control Act.

Moving on from that, I want to talk just a bit about Government House. I would hope that I am never faced again with the kind of fiasco that we were faced with at the time of the reception at the opening of this Legislature. I hope that the Provincial Secretary has learned that 6,000 people do not go into Government House.

My own experience on that day was rather a trying experience. It was cold and wet, as everyone knows, but it was most particularly trying for me because I had two elderly relatives with me who had come all the way from Alberta in order to attend the opening and to attend that reception. One of them suffers from arthritis and the other has a heart condition. In spite of my attempts to get them out of the lineup, they were very anxious to see Government House, to attend the reception. We finally did get in, but turned around and left because of the delay that would have been necessitated in getting a cup of tea. I was just thankful that neither one of those relatives wound up

[ Page 1808 ]

in hospital as a result of that venture. I certainly hope that the Provincial Secretary has learned that there are better ways of having a reception for the various friends and supporters of this government than to try and do it in connection with an official reception held by the Lieutenant-Governor. I hope that that occurrence will not face us again.

Moving on, I want to go back to B.C. House in London. I'm a bit curious about just what the relationship is between vote 45, which includes the London offices as well as California, and B.C. House. What is the overlap there? What is the differentiation between the duties of these two places? Why do we have two spots in London? What is the job description of each place? What does each cover? Is there any overlap? Why is it necessary to have two such areas in London to cover these? It seems to me that B.C. House, from my knowledge of this place, would cover anything that could be covered in a travel office as a London office. I'm a bit curious about why we have these two things here.

While I'm speaking about B.C. House I did ask the minister about Dick Lillico. I want to be very sure that I understood her correctly. I believe she advised the House that Mr. Lillico reports to the agent-general in London. I would like to be very clear on that point. Also, the one question she didn't answer - and may I just remind her - has to do with the status of Mr. Lillico at the moment and how she feels a judicial inquiry can decide the tenure of his employment in her department - or in her ministry. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I still keep calling them departments.

To me, there's a very clear responsibility on the doorstep of this minister, and that is to make a decision as to whether or not an employee who is being faced with an appearance, even be it an affidavit, which seems a bit strange too because there's no chance for cross-examination.... It seems a bit strange to me, the affidavit in itself, but it also seems strange to me that that man is allowed to continue his tenure in London when a fellow employee in a very similar situation was removed from service by a member of cabinet in another ministry.

The minister has told the House that she is not interested in finding out if any other public servants were involved in share buying. If they came forward or if they were found out, okay, but if not, then no one will ever know. To me that seems a bit of an offhand way of approaching this thing and I am concerned about some statement from her in relation to Mr. Lillico.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair. ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Tell her that's what the inquiry is all about.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, the inquiry, Mr. Chairman, is not going to decide whether or not an employee is to continue in his position. If it's good enough for one employee, then it should be good enough for the other. It seems a strange mix.

I'd like to commend the minister on Beautiful British Columbia. It's continuing to be just as beautiful as ever, but I would like to suggest to her a repetition of the annual that was put out - I think it was probably '74 or '75 - which didn't cater just to the professionals of British Columbia, but gave the amateurs a chance to participate. I was very impressed with the annual that we put out, which included photography and poetry from our local amateurs. It made a beautiful gift and it was well received everywhere it went, I'm sure. I would hope that the Provincial Secretary would consider getting out a similar such production that would utilize perhaps not just poetry. Perhaps there should be some encouragement.

I know that Beautiful British Columbia does use some amateur writers, though it seems to tend to try to get at least the semi-professional in the prose articles that accompany the photography there. I realize that in wanting to turn out a very polished product we have to keep at least semi-professional, but this is one way that we can encourage our artists to participate. I would certainly recommend to the Provincial Secretary that she do what she can to move in the direction that will encourage the amateur sector to participate in such a venture.

I want to go on now to the Indian Advisory Act and the First Citizens' Fund, Mr. Chairman. I recognize that the First Citizens' Fund is a very valuable thing to the native people in this province, and certainly the granting of these funds for various projects throughout the province has been very beneficial to many of the bands that have been in receipt of these benefits.

But I'm a little concerned as to just how that First Citizens' Fund is being administered, and whether or not it is being administered in line with the intent of the Indian Advisory Act. It seems to me that this Act is much broader than just simply the administration of a fund. Again, we get into a conflict of interest, perhaps, between this minister and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) where we have both parties being charged with certain responsibilities relative to the native people in this province.

If one looks at the Indian Advisory Act, it sets out some pretty firm things that the person who administers this Act would be responsible for. Under section 7, it talks about the appointment of a director and a committee.

"The director shall act as the secretary to the committee, collect and correlate information relating to Indians; collaborate with other departments of government in the

[ Page 1809 ]

province and of Canada in the compilation of information relating to Indians; study, investigate and inquire into such questions relating to civil rights of Indians; and other matters affecting Indians as may be designated by the minister."

These are pretty broad, far-reaching powers under this Act, Mr. Chairman.

". . submit to the minister reports of the studies, investigations and inquiries, together with such recommendations, and each year make a report."

These are fairly far-reaching powers, and I am a bit concerned as to how this correlates with the duties of the Minister of Labour and how the lines are drawn. I'm also concerned as to how this Act, as I assume from what I read in the estimates book, empowers the minister to administer the First Citizens' Fund and what the guidelines are for that fund. Has there been a set of guidelines drawn up by this committee? If so, what are they? If there are such lists, would the minister be willing to file such lists as to the guidelines that are used in administering the First Citizens' Fund - the whole chain of responsibility? It concerns me here because, goodness knows, we have enough conflict between the federal and provincial bodies without having conflict within two ministries within the cabinet.

I'm not criticizing the First Citizens' Fund because I believe that that fund, as I said earlier, has done a great deal of good. It's been very helpful. I know of several projects that have been undertaken with that fund, and the Provincial Secretary is always good enough to send copies of the letters which she sends out with grants from this fund to the various groups within my constituency. As you know, Mr. Chairman, this is something which concerns me very much because I have some five different native Indian bands within my constituency, and one of the largest per capita Indian representations, I believe, of any constituency in the province. So I have a great deal of concern about this First Citizens' Fund and its administration, and also about this apparent conflict when I see this Act is completely and solely~ under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Secretary, with no reference to the Minister of Labour, who, in the eyes of the public is charged with the responsibility for native Indians in this province.

I would ask the Provincial Secretary if she could fill me in a bit on that particular facet of her duties.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In response to the member for Campbell River, first of all in regard to the project which she....

MS. SANFORD: A point of privilege. I'm from Comox.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! There is no such thing as a point of privilege. But it was a correction that the member has made. It's well taken.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Provincial Secretary has the floor.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, my apologies to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) , and the confusion between those two constituencies. The member for Cowichan-Malahat did ask about one project for which she would like to have an answer this evening.

AN HON. MEMBER: The member for Comox.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: From Comox. Okay. First the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford): She would like to have an answer regarding her special project in regard to one organization. I think the 'question was: is it too late to submit an application? Any organizations from which we have received applications have all been told that we do not have the funding and we are not going to be funding any of those particular organizations. So I would not lead you on by saying, please have them put in an application - that I would just simply treat the same as all others.

However, I would like to say to you that we have advised each of them that if there is a special project which would be of benefit to the community and which would be a project that would meet the requirements that their organization would portray to us and would be of special interest to the community, we will consider that under that grant fund. Then, Mr. Chairman, on the questions that were raised then by the member for Cowichan-Malahat, I would like to say, just to help you with the transfer of those votes: the tour guides were part of a large vote that was never designated under the Department of Public Works. It is now identified and is transferred to the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary, and is identified under that vote now.

Formerly, both the Flood Relief Act and the Queen Elizabeth 11 British Columbia Centennial Scholarship Act, although they are statutory in nature, were never identified in the vote before. Apparently, at the request of the Treasury Board -they felt that they should be identified - they now are. The Queen Elizabeth Scholarship Act was a 1971 statute and the awards for that were taken out of the grants fund.

I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member in regard to Government House. I just want to correct her. She was very kind to introduce me to her friends and I want to say they were not elderly.

[ Page 1810 ]

Now vote 45: Could I just say, too, that there are not two offices in London, England. There is one office that has two responsibilities. One is that of receiving and so on, and it does have a very heavy tourism responsibility. Yes, Mr. Lillico and all of the staff in that London office do report to the agent-general of London.

I did answer the other question regarding Mr. Lillico earlier, in question period. I have nothing to add to that answer. It is as it stood then and stands now.

I like the suggestion of the hon. member regarding Beautiful British Columbia Magazine. I would just like to say that I agree with her. That amateur photography addition is an excellent idea. Just now, as she suggests that, it would seem to me that it would be an excellent opportunity to have the amateur photographers of the province perhaps have some sort of competitions in their own organizations which would result in their prominence in Beautiful B.C. Magazine.

Let me just explain then about the First Citizens' Fund and the Indian Advisory Act, which was brought to our attention. First, it should be emphasized that there are two distinct responsibilities: the Minister of Labour's responsibilities do not touch on those which are encompassed in these two areas of responsibility -the Indian advisory branch. This is well explained and the general philosophy of the First Citizens' Fund is well explained. I think I'll make a copy of my explanatory notes that are usually encompassed in, the annual report. I will make them available to the member and I think that would assist her in the explanations. So I think, if I may, I will just do that through the mail.

May I just say that the general philosophy of the First Citizens' Fund is to help the native Indian people to help themselves. It has been the aim of the advisory committee, which has done a tremendous job and I'd like to pay tribute to them at this point in time, to encourage and stimulate Indian participation in financing various projects through shared-cost arrangements whenever possible. The most important feature of the First Citizens' Fund is that all projects and programmes are initiated and controlled by the Indian people themselves.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Provincial Secretary about the Flood Control Act. She just touched on it very briefly, but I'm still very much in the dark.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I am advised, Mr. Chairman, that the Flood Relief Act has been paid out of special warrants in times gone by. But there was an Act that takes care of this kind of expenditure, and the Treasury Board advised they would like to have it identified, as it has a statutory reference. If you'd like, Mr. Chairman, my department is getting more specific answers on that because it was.... But I think that that is just quite like the Queen Elizabeth scholarship fund, as I explained earlier.

MR. LEVI: While the minister was speaking an hour ago about the fears that she had, I was trying somehow to. . . . I'm not going to go over it, Mr. Chairman; I'm not going to repeat all the allegations. But I am a bit concerned about the fact that the end of all of her thought processes was that she was convinced that she was right and that she was justified in her fears. One thing that concerned me was that it did make out the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) as being the teller of tall tales in this House, because he told us last year that he couldn't find anything. However, he'll have to be the teller of tall tales and she's going to have to live with the feelings that she has.

I must say that I took particular umbrage with the statement she made because I recall that when I was in the previous government I was required to take, I think, altogether three oaths - one as an MLA, two as a cabinet minister. In one of them we stated very clearly that we were to be loyal to the Queen, to the government, and to the process, and we were to uphold that. And that's what we did.

I might also point out, Mr. Chairman, that in my own party it states very clearly that any ends we wish to achieve must be done through the democratic system. I think that's worth pointing out. That is the basis on which we operate and have always operated. I have some fears in respect to this minister because she's responsible for the administration of the Emergency Programme Act. As the minister she acts upon this Act.

Now I recall the previous government wanted to introduce a new version of this Act. Then there was a terrible outcry from the people across the way because they said it was somehow going to take the rights of people away. When we looked and made the comparison between the bill that existed - which really in substance was the bill that was introduced by the former Social Credit government, or the Act that was on the books - and what the previous government was proposing to do, it was identical except for some changes in the order.

But there is one section of that Act which the minister is responsible for - section 5, which gives the minister and the cabinet some very large powers. Bear in mind that these powers were available to the previous government. It says in section 5:

"In order to carry out effectively the intent and purpose of this Act, and to the full extent to which the powers of the Legislature extend thereto, and notwithstanding the provisions of

[ Page 1811 ]

any public or private Act of the Legislature, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has power to do and to authorize within the province such acts and things and to make and promulgate from time to time such regulations as he may consider necessary or advisable for the purpose of or in anticipation of any matter referred to in the preamble of this section, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing may .... "

And then there are a number of various specific acts that they may do.

Now that gives to the cabinet enormously broad powers in case of an emergency. Those are on the books; they're still on the books. The previous government didn't make use of this particular Act or these conditions. If, as the minister has indicated, she was afraid that that particular government - the previous government - would move in the way that she described, then I would suggest that she has an obligation to herself and to that portion of the people that she amend this Act in such a way that she doesn't somehow leave on the books anything which might give to the government more powers than it should really have.

She told us that she was afraid of these powers, that the government would make use of them and do something undemocratic. Then, as she pointed out, the people were not pleased and the government was thrown out. Well, 41 per cent of the people voted for the previous government, and 49 per cent voted for this government, so not everybody in the province was as unhappy or apprehensive as the minister indicates she was.

I would point out that we, on this side, given the thought processes of this particular minister, must have some fears about what she might want to do with this particular piece of legislation if somehow she feels that things aren't going right, that's for sure. Things aren't going right in the province. So I have some apprehension about whether she might want to use this Act in such a way that it would be undemocratic simply for them to be able to remain in power. That was the indication she gave about the previous government, particularly in relation to that unmentionable. But, of course, the Attorney-General - who is now known as the teller of tall tales in the House - didn't find anything. He looked under his carpet and all he found was a mouse, he told us - a live mouse, I presume, Mr. Attorney-General.

AN HON. MEMBER: A rat.

MR. LEVI: No, it was a mouse. He said that in the House.

I have some concern about the way this minister thinks, as we all do over here. I think all of us have been deeply insulted tonight on this side of the House for her to suggest that we would do anything that was undemocratic. I mean that with all sincerity. We're all very insulted.

Now to the other business in terms of the minister's department. Last year she announced, with some great heraldry, that she had appointed Harry Jerome, former well-known Olympic star, to do a study. As I understand it, the study was to last six months. What I would like her to do is to tell us what the study was about, whether the study was completed and, if it was completed, could we get a report on what Mr. Jerome found? Perhaps she might also indicate to us what Mr. Jerome is doing now.

Earlier in the evening I asked the minister about pre-retirement planning and she indicated that there was a report available. I would ask her if, after a reasonable time of study on the part of the union of the government, she would be prepared to table such a report. Such a report made available to the public would be of inestimable value in the development of the whole field of pre-retirement planning and counselling.

One of the concerns I have in respect to the minister's department is one which I have, to some extent, with all those departments in government which make grants. The previous government had a practice of notifying the various MLAs about what grants had been approved in their constituencies. Then those MLAs had an option to be able to present the cheque and to make the announcement.

Now there was a reason for this - it was not just political. Everybody likes to present cheques. One of the reasons was that it gave an opportunity for the MLA who was pursuing, through his normal legislative duties in contacting departments, the business of requesting from various departments and assisting these requests, to see that it was a worthwhile project. They've met with the people in the riding. They've met with people who support the application. It kind of rounds out that activity that the members have been participating in. We made this practice of making, first of all, the notice of the granting of the request to the MLA. Then, as I said, we gave the MLA the option, if the time was available to him when he was back in the riding, to present the cheque, thereby again meeting with the group and discussing with them that this is the culmination of our joint effort - not just the effort of the MLA, but our joint effort - in terms of making representations to the government.

I notice, certainly in three departments that I'm notified about - the Department of Recreation and Conservation, the minister's department and Human Resources - that we just get copies of notices to the various people who are getting the grants and the cheques are sent over. I would strongly recommend to the minister, and to the other ministers, that they resume the former practice. It's a good opportunity

[ Page 1812 ]

for the MLAs to be on point. They don't just want to be on point when they're not successful in getting grants. They also want to be on point when the grants are granted. They also have an obligation to keep in touch with the operation of that project and to see that the money is spent. Then if they have any doubts or anxieties about it, they not only speak to the group but they speak to the particular individual in the department where the grant was made. So all in all, it's a very good measure for supervision of the expenditure of the taxpayers' money.

There was one other matter that I did want to raise, and perhaps the minister might comment. I think it was raised by somebody before, but I wasn't here. I noticed she does have the legislative library and the archives here. Has this recently been taken from the Department of Recreation and Conservation or has it always been in the Provincial Secretary's department? I notice they are here now, and I have some concern about it. I don't see, for instance, the provincial library board - I think that's what it's called. Is that in there?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Oh, that's the problem I have. I understand that the provincial library board is with Recreation and Conservation and the legislative library and the Provincial Archives are with the minister.

I would like to take the opportunity just to acknowledge the excellent co-operation that we get from the people in the legislative library, particularly today. I wasn't there but I understand we have a new piece of machinery which is going to enable us to punch a few computer buttons and plug into the rest of the world as to what kind of information we need. That's a really excellent step in the right direction. The Attorney-General is shaking his head. Quite obviously he gets baffled by buttons, but I understand that even in his department he has almost everything on computer in terms of legislation.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Legislation?

MR. LEVI: All the statutes? Not yet?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, not quite.

MR. LEVI: Not quite, eh? So those are the questions I have for the minister.

MR. BARRETT: Does the minister wish to answer?

I just have two quick questions. Does the minister intend to sell the Princess Marguerite or the Royal

Hudson? They're both socialists, you know. I just wondered, since the minister has ...

AN HON. MEMBER: They wouldn't dare.

MR. BARRETT: ... such a narrow perspective of socialist enterprises. The S.S. Socialist Princess Marguerite and the Socialist Royal Hudson have been of great service to tourism in this province. Are they under any danger of being closed down or sold because they are socialist enterprises?

MR. BARBER: It's reassuring to hear from the silence of the Provincial Secretary that they will not further endanger the careers of the remaining Socreds in greater Victoria by threatening to sell the Princess Marguerite. They tried that last year and we caught them at it. They had to turn it back, and fortunately it's been saved in the public service. We're heard enough complaints from the tourist industry about this minister already without the fear of the sale of the Princess Marguerite being thrown in their faces.

I rise to discuss the Captain Cook celebrations -the bicentennial for which this minister is partly responsible - to ask a number of questions and to make a number of what I hope will be useful suggestions.

I understand that the actual author of the proposal for the Captain Cook bicentennial celebrations is a Mr. Stratford, of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, who, in a letter several months ago to this government, made a series of very interesting proposals. The proposals recognize the very important historic and cultural contribution made by Captain Cook in the development of the west coast and in the establishment of cultural and trade relations among what became several of the most important ports along the west coast.

Captain Cook is not much recognized or memorialized by the people of British Columbia. We've named Cook Street in Victoria after him and not much more. A quick review taken by a friend of mine who did the job of examining the history books presently used in the school system in district 61 in Victoria indicates that the significant contributions that Captain Cook made to the development of our own province are largely ignored by this school system. I think it's disappointing that successive governments, including, I'm afraid, our own, failed to develop a really substantial British Columbia literature on the quite remarkable achievements of this particular explorer. I'm very glad, therefore, that this present government has recognized those achievements and is willing to act on the suggestions of Mr. Stratford of the B.C. Ferry Corporation in regard to implementing some of his ideas toward a Captain Cook Bicentennial. There are a number of

[ Page 1813 ]

ways in which those suggestions could be handled, and I ~ave a number of suggestions which I'll be putting forward myself.

I think the minister, in her general responsibility as the supervisor of the celebrations, may well want to consult with some of her colleagues because, as you will shortly hear, some of them do indeed overlap into the jurisdictions of others. I understand from the minister that a committee of three members of cabinet - herself, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) - is presently responsible for developing the bicentennial celebrations programme. Is that correct, Madam Minister? Do I understand that properly?

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: It is a committee of these three ministers. Thank you.

Now I'd like to make some suggestions about this particular minister's ministry. First of all, it seems to me that it would be most worthwhile to develop a programme between this ministry and the bicentennial celebrations' committee and the Ministry of Education to overcome that error, that omission, that very large gap in the teaching of young people in this province of the career and the significance and the investment in the history of this province made by the explorations and the achievements of Captain Cook. It seems to me it would be really a very remarkable and mutually beneficial event if that minister, this committee and the Ministry of Education could collaborate in the publication of pamphlets, essays and other documents which would be made especially available and written especially for children in the elementary, junior and senior high schools in this province.

I think that kind of collaboration would provide a lasting benefit which a one-year bicentennial celebration itself could not be understood to have. An opportunity to seize upon this bicentennial as a means of creating in the public consciousness an enduring awareness of Captain Cook's contribution would be perhaps more valuable than the celebrations themselves. They would be more valuable because there would be a greater and more profound understanding on the part of our own people of how this province really came to be. It would be more valuable and more long-lasting because it would result in a more enduring understanding of the creation, the enterprise, the existence of a place like British Columbia which, in its initial recognition and in the cultural and historic connections made between Captain Cook, the Imperial! British Navy and the nation it represented and the future Crown colony of British Columbia, are not now much or well understood by the people, especially the young people of the province of British Columbia.

I would further propose that in consultation with the minister's committee, apart from the written materials that might be presented to young people in elementary, junior and senior high schools, the opportunity should be taken to develop slides and perhaps films that would supplement that written material. The opportunity should be taken to have people from the minister's department becoming especially well informed. of the career and the achievements of Captain Cook and the social, historic, cultural and economic significance of his voyages, to go into the schools and to lecture, to take those written and visual materials and go into the schools of British Columbia and talk with those kids and develop in their own minds an understanding of the ancestry and the creation, the origin and the purposes of what became the Crown Colony of British Columbia.

One of the reasons, I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that young people in British Columbia feel so little connection is because they have so little comprehension of the roots and the ancestry of this province. Let me repeat: an opportunity to use the glamour, the vigour, the vividness and the memorability of the Captain Cook Bicentennial is also an opportunity to talk to young people in this province and to provide enduringly a knowledge of what it meant when this one captain in the Royal Navy made the voyages he did and the discoveries he did. I think that's more important than the achievements of the celebration itself.

Young people as well, it might be noted, could be approached themselves to design aspects of this educational programme. Why shouldn't they be involved in their schools in developing posters and other thematic material? Why shouldn't they be involved in the creation and the preparation of the written materials and their visual material? Why shouldn't those young people be involved in attempts to recreate in some fashion or other the sense of achievement of those voyages and the sense of purpose of those explorations? Young people themselves could be brought here, perhaps as the result of a successful participation in whatever competitions might be created for that purpose, and might be given the opportunity of going to Nootka Sound where he landed, of following along to some small extent the actual trip he took, of understanding in a very personal, vivid, remarkable and intimate way because they were there just where he was and what it meant. A young person who has gone through that intimate and that direct an education will remember for all time what they learned.

An opportunity to choose from among the brightest, the most energetic and the most disciplined of young people in the public school system and to involve them in that kind of programme could be

[ Page 1814 ]

enormously and permanently valuable to them. The young people I'm talking about are the future teachers, the future doctors and lawyers, the future mothers and fathers, the future legislators of this province. An opportunity to combine the excitement, the public support and the interest in the bicentennial should not omit the opportunity to talk to young people in a language they understand, in a format they themselves helped design and in a way that will last significantly and memorably in their own lives.

For the very same reasons, on the other side of that coin of age, so too the very old in this province might also be involved. So too, it seems to me, older people in British Columbia, senior citizens whose talents and energies and imagination is hardly ever employed adequately, should also be involved in the creation and the design of various parts of this programme. They should be involved in its implementation as well. Old people in Silver Threads centres, in New Horizons clubs, in Golden Age clubs should be given the opportunity and challenged to take it, to participate in the design of any number of programmes during the life of the bicentennial, that would allow them to employ the special wisdom and experience and perhaps even the family connections - who knows, we might find some - that they uniquely possess in this province.

Indeed, it leads one to suggest the possibility that the very old and the very young might work together on some of these programmes. Surely there are opportunities present, especially in the elementary schools, to invite in someone who is 60, 70 and 80 years of age and has seen in the United Kingdom the actual graving docks where the keels of Captain Cook's ships were laid, has talked with people who were related to others connected with those voyages.

Surely it's possible, especially in the capital city -if I might point out our unique ancestral connections to the United Kingdom - to put together a body of senior citizens who perhaps already, in an almost direct way, have a connection to those voyages; and to mobilize the energy, the creativity, the wit. and the imagination of those older people; and to assist them to go throughout British Columbia, getting together with the very young to tell the story. It would be an opportunity to assist in the creation of a collaboration of an important social enterprise between the very old and the very young. It is also potentially more important and more enduring than the bicentennial celebrations themselves.

Business also has a role and a place, Mr. Chairman. I would very much hope that the minister might want to consider the creation of an advisory committee which would represent the tourist industry and the travel industry in the province of British Columbia.

The minister indicates that she may be doing that. I'll be brief. I have a few more suggestions.

Business should be given every opportunity - as, in their unique fashion, the very old and the very young - to participate in the design of these. The flaw and the failure, I think, of many government-sponsored celebrations of any historic sort is that all too often, with such predictable failure, they're laid on from above. Everyone knows the pattern and the theme of that failure. Everyone hopes to avoid it themselves. This unique opportunity, the first in several years, to celebrate something of this significance, should also include business in the design of it.

If the minister wishes to reply to that I will take my seat. I have a few other suggestions, however.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to hear the enthusiasm of the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) in regard to the Captain Cook Bicentennial. The opportunities which he has described are those which really initiated the idea of the celebration itself. I'm pleased to know that opposition side of the House is as enthusiastic as we are.

The advisory committee which you suggested is already starting to be in place. The idea behind the gradual adding to that steering committee - which, by the way, is not only the three ministers whom you described but also includes my deputy minister, Mr. Lawrie Wallace, whose record of staging centennial celebrations with total involvement.... I was just kidding him a minute ago that he had every citizen of British Columbia involved in the centennial celebrations which we were so proud of in years gone by, and I'm sure that that will happen again in the Captain Cook Bicentennial celebrations. But in addition to that steering committee, we will add, from time to time, advisory members. One whom I will tell you about at the present time and who has just been added is Admiral Collier. He has just agreed to accept the chairmanship of one particular committee, which is the convention of tall ships, and the tremendous work that goes behind bringing the tall ships to Victoria and Vancouver and to the waters of British Columbia.

MR. BARBER: He's a very good choice.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would also like to say, Mr. Chairman, that the reason, of course, that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is on that committee is because of the opportunities for involvement of the students of the province. I know that under his leadership that will be so.

I thank you for the very many suggestions. You mentioned Mr. Stratford of British Columbia Ferries. We are pleased to have had his suggestions. We've had suggestions from many people in writing, and we are handling those in the committee and we're pleased to have the suggestions and others that you would like

[ Page 1815 ]

to put forward.

In response to the member for Vancouver East -the second member asked a question on the Princess Marguerite. That should properly be asked, Mr. Chairman, under , Energy, Transport and Communications. As far as the Royal Hudson is concerned, the answer to his question is no.

To the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) , who asked the question regarding the Harry Jerome report: the study was completed, and it resulted in a whole reorganization of the Recreation ministry, which put under the umbrella for the first time in history all of the activities of leisure and recreation and sports and so on, in conjunction with all of the other people whom he consulted and the advice we had from different organizations. That now is no longer under this ministry but is under Recreation. The report was completed, and that question should be asked of the Minister of Recreation (Hon, Mr. Bawlf) . As Mr. Jerome is no longer in the employ of the provincial government, I don't know what he's doing besides that. I'm sure that it's none of my business. Because he's not in the employ of the government, I cannot answer the question.

The archives have always been under the ministry of the Provincial Secretary. The libraries now come under Recreation as an area of recreation, which libraries of course are. The legislative library, however, still comes under Provincial Secretary.

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 10: 5 6 p.m.