[ Page 2067 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Wage and price controls. Ms. Sanford –– 2067

Criticism of B.C. Hydro. Mr. Wallace –– 2067

Payment to Northern Central Municipal Association. Mr. Lea –– 2069

Municipal transit systems. Mr. Barber –– 2070

Matter of urgent public importance

Bicycle Safety Week. Mr. Gibson –– 2070

Mr. Speaker rules –– 2070

Routine proceedings

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

On vote 19. Mr. Barrett –– 2095

Mr. Wallace –– 2070 Mr. Macdonald –– 2097

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2073 Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2098

Ms. Brown –– 2074 Mr. Barber –– 2099

Mr. Cocke –– 2076 Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2099

Mrs. Dailly –– 2077 Mr. Levi –– 2100

Mr. Barber –– 2078 Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2102

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2079 Mrs. Dailly –– 2102

Mrs. Dailly –– 2081 Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2103

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2082 On vote 25.

Mr. Barber –– 2083 Mrs. Dailly –– 2103

Mr. Gibson –– 2084 Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2103

Hon. Mrs, McCarthy –– 2084 On vote 26.

Mr. Gibson –– 2085 Mrs. Dailly –– 2103

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2086 Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2103

Mr. Barrett –– 2086 On vote 27.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2088 Mrs. Dailly –– 2103

Mr. Lea –– 2089 Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2103

Mr. King –– 2092 On vote 29.

Mr. Gibson –– 2093 Mr. Wallace –– 2104

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2095 Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2104

Mr. King –– 2104

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): We will have in the House at 3 p.m. today a group of students from Port Moody Secondary School, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Tyldesley. In advance of their arrival, would the House join me in making this group of young people and their instructor welcome?

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): In the gallery with us today is a group of individuals from my constituency of Omineca, representing the Fraser Lake Health Society. They are: Mrs. Jane Santeur, Mr. John Stewart, Mr. Mark Bisanze, and Dr. Jim Swaney. Accompanying then is His Worship, Mayor Angus Davis of Fraser Lake. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome a guest from Vancouver. She happens to be the mother of our legislative intern. I'd like her to know that her daughter's doing a first-rate job. Would the House please welcome Mrs. Houston?

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): We have a special guest in the gallery today. Her name is Mrs. Anne Van Heteren. I ask the House to make her welcome.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): In the gallery this afternoon is my wife Ruth, my daughter Angela, and Mr. Frank Callahan. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to inform you that we have a delegation of students from the Pitt Meadows Senior Secondary School in the constituency of Dewdney. Their teacher is Mr. Collins and I bid you to make them welcome.

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I have a special guest in the gallery today: Mr. Lloyd Hoole, station manager for radio station CKEK. I would like the House to bid him welcome.

Oral questions.

WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): My question is to the Minister of Labour: In Vancouver last week, at the $100 per plate millionaires' dinner for the politically handicapped, the Premier said the government has legislation ready to replace federal anti-inflation controls if the federal government removes the controls early. Now the Minister of Labour is on record as saying repeatedly that provincial controls alone would be disastrous, unworkable and ineffectual. My question to the Minister of Labour is: in view of last week's remarks by the Premier, does the minister now agree with the Premier that B.C. controls would be safe, workable and effective after all?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I draw to your attention that it is really incorrect to ask one minister to interpret or reflect or pass an opinion on a statement made by another hon. member or another hon. minister. I think it would be proper for you to ask a direct question of the hon. Minister of Labour, but it is not in any way proper to ask him to reflect upon remarks or statements by other members of the House.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rephrase that then, in view of the guidance you have given me. What I would like to ask the Minister of Labour, as I'm now reflecting on remarks that the Minister of Labour had made earlier, is: does the Minister of Labour now feel that controls in British Columbia alone would be safe, workable and effective?

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I understood the member to say that she "would like to ask, " and I thought she was asking a question of you.

MR. SPEAKER: I hardly think the question was directed to the Speaker but rather through the Speaker to the hon. minister.

MS. SANFORD: Does the Minister of Labour feel that provincial controls alone would be safe, workable and effective?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As in my previous answer, my personal opinion is no.

CRITICISM OF B.C. HYDRO

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this is a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing with regard to the minister's weekend statement that Hydro has adopted an attitude of revenge-seeking, much of it exaggerated and all of it done in a spirit of vindictiveness.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I'm just quoting the

[ Page 2068 ]

minister's statement. (Laughter.)

Since this is impairing the minister's capacity to administer transit services in British Columbia, could the minister tell the House what the specific problems are that are creating such a serious degree of dissension between his ministry and B.C. Hydro?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, within the understandable limits of question period, I'm not sure that I could fully answer the member's question.

I have, by a statement correctly reported in the media, indicated the problem and I think that that will assist us on the road to resolution of the problem. During my estimates, which have not yet been presented to this House for approval, I hope to have an opportunity to spell it out in more detail.

MR. WALLACE: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, since the minister did talk in some specifics regarding the Burrard ferry system, could the minister at least tell the House what the problems are which are being created in the introduction of the system by the action of reputedly anonymous Hydro officials?

What specific obstruction are they causing in regard to the ferry system about to be implemented?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that I indicated obstructionism or an attitude of obstructing, but rather a very difficult attitude which has caused some serious concerns in my ministry. In particular, we're attempting to build public interest in and awareness of the system. As I said in the press statements - and they were quite correctly reported - it is rather difficult to understand an agency assuming a major new responsibility such as the Burrard Inlet ferry system and expressing grave doubts as to the viability of that operation before it has commenced. I think it's a rather poor way in which to tackle a new assignment.

MR. WALLACE: This is a final supplementary, if I may. Since the minister is reported to have made attempts through the appropriate channel - namely, the chairman of B.C. Hydro, Mr. Robert Bonner - to have some of these problems resolved but has apparently failed, has the minister made any requests that Mr. Bonner appear before cabinet in an effort to have this problem resolved?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. c

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I a have a question for the Premier on the same subject. Given the minister's statement over the weekend on B.C. Hydro, and given some statements by the Premier up in Cranbrook last November about him I personally being against the Kootenay-Columbia diversion and then B.C. Hydro deciding to go ahead with it anyway, does the Premier consider that this Legislature and this government have adequate control over the operations of B.C. Hydro?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): I believe that Hydro is responsible to the Legislature and the government and, of course, must appear before public accounts committees. I think there is some concern, though, over the large amount of capital expenditure required by Hydro, for its electrical generation purposes. The government is considering those tremendous expenditures and whether additional controls are needed.

However, in the case that the member brings up involving the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in regard to the transportation system, it has been obvious for some time, not only to this government but, I am sure, to the people of B.C., that he transportation system must be rationalized, or rapid transit and transit must be rationalized, to a different authority - one which would deal specifically with transit. As such, future government policy, I am sure, will indicate to the member, Mr. Speaker, and to others that we have addressed ourselves to that problem and will be taking the appropriate steps.

MR. GIBSON: Could I ask the Premier if he was aware of the minister's statement made this weekend before the minister made it?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I wasn't aware that the statements attributed to some unnamed members of Hydro in a column in a Vancouver paper.... Yes, because of these statements I did have discussions with the minister over who could have made such a statement as it did not seem to be in the best interests of bringing a new transit scheme on stream to supplement the buses in the greater Vancouver area. As such, without the specifics of the remarks being discussed, the problem of unnamed officials, which is always a problem for government - unnamed officials in government, in government agencies and even unnamed spokesmen for the opposition....

MR. GIBSON: I wonder if, in view of all these vents, the Premier could tell the House whether he is giving any consideration to appointing a commission of inquiry into the general operations of Hydro as with the BCR or bringing its rate-making powers, currently uncontrolled, under the control of some agency or of this House by legislation?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question, as we've already said, is that Hydro and their large capital

[ Page 2069 ]

expenditures, which will reflect on the type of rates needed by our customers, are under consideration by the government.

PAYMENT TO NORTHERN

CENTRAL MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It's the same question that I've been asking for a few days now about the $25,000 gift from the Kitimat Pipe Line Co.

MR. SPEAKER: As I pointed out to you, hon. member, it's improper to rephrase the same question.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the minister would like to answer the question.

MR. SPEAKER: I accept that you can bring the matter back to the minister's attention, but not to rephrase the same question.

answer it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, I'm prepared to answer the question which was raised on a couple of occasions last week by the hon. member for Prince Rupert. I've looked at it very carefully with respect to the $25,000 offered, reportedly, by the Kitimat Pipe Line Co. to the Northern Central Municipal Association or, more correctly, to the district of Kitimat as host municipality for this convention. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I find - on the basis of the review - nothing that would prompt me to recommend to cabinet or to representatives of the ministry that this should be in any way interfered with. One can express personal opinions as to the propriety of it or otherwise.

I note also that the Kitimat Chamber of Commerce and other local businesses have raised approximately $20,000 towards the same sea-going convention or conference. The matter, as I understand it, on the part of the administration in Kitimat has been discussed rather widely and openly. My concern relates not so much to a grant made by a company or a series of companies towards the convention, but rather to the total cost of this particular conference, which is in a rather unique setting on a cruise ship rather than in a particular city or hotel. I have concern about that. However, ultimately, Mr. Speaker, I assume that it is a matter between the citizen taxpayers of the participating communities and their elected representatives at the local level as to whether that is an acceptable use of public funds.

MR. LEA: A supplementary: am I to understand, then, that government's policy, as stated through the minister, is that it's okay for a company to give a municipal government money in order to carry out their deliberations at a convention? Would the minister or the government then consider it all right for any company to pick up part, or all, of these legislative sessions where we are deciding for the people? Should we be paid, in part or in whole, for these sessions?. I'd like to ask the minister if he cannot draw some analogy between a local government holding its deliberations and the government of British Columbia and this Legislature holding deliberations with pay from companies.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): The Premier is telling him what to say.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, that may have been the case with the former government - the Premier telling his ministers what to say - but it is not the case here.

I am attempting to assist the member. Quite frankly, it's a very difficult question with respect to local government. The decision with respect to the pipeline will not be made by representatives of local government, and in that respect relating it to this Legislature or to some other level of government is really quite hypothetical.

MR. LEA: The minister has stated that he's also concerned about the cost of the convention, regardless of this other situation. I know that two communities in my riding, both Masset and Port Edward ...

MR. SPEAKER: Would you state your supplemental question, please, hon. member?

MR. LEA: ... will not be going to the convention because of the overall cost. But we're talking about the specifics, and I want to have it perfectly clear from the minister that it is now government policy that companies can pay for legislators or elected people....

AN HON. MEMBER: Twist, twist, twist!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Never mind "Twist, twist, twist." I want to get it clear.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. members please allow the hon. member for Prince Rupert to state his supplemental question?

MR. LEA: Is it now okay for companies to offset the cost of government deliberations by paying part

[ Page 2070 ]

of that cost for those deliberations and conventions?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the specific before us, last week and again today, is with respect to local government. I've answered the member's question to the very best of my ability, and I can do no more for him today.

MUNICIPAL TRANSIT SYSTEMS

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, my questions are also for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

First of all, on behalf of the opposition, we would like to thank him for the strength and conviction with which he supported the Burrard crossing ferry service that we initiated. We're glad you're fighting for it because it's a good programme.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we state the question now, hon. member?

MR. BARBER: Most certainly. On December 8,

1975, the present Premier said that the Social Credit policy was to remove transit from B.C. Hydro and to initiate instead a transit plan, both programme and fiscal, whereby the municipalities would pay 25 per cent of the total capital costs and 50 per cent of the operating costs of the then B.C. Hydro transit service.

Can the minister confirm that it is on the basis of this programme and that promise that we expect to see financing for transit in the future established by his department?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the matter to which the member has addressed his remarks in question period today will be the subject of legislation introduced in due course.

BICYCLE SAFETY WEEK

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, in searching through the nooks and crannies of standing order 35, 1 feel I may have found a qualifying issue. I ask leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance - that matter being the need to debate the urgency of debating resolution 8, moved by the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) , who is in Vancouver today opening the Bicycle Safety Week, and reading: "that this House urge the provincial government to declare Bicycle Safety Week, as announced by the City of Vancouver for March 21 to 27, as a province-wide Bicycle Safety Week."

Mr. Speaker, the matter is clearly definite. The matter is clearly urgent. Debating the need to debate this resolution must be done today or the opportunity - to declare safety week for the whole of the province at once, including our largest city - will have passed for this year. The matter is clearly important, relating to the safety of thousands of children around the province and the possible prevention of a number of deaths. I will send up a statement here.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, in dealing with your request for a debate under standing order 35, 1 think you are as aware as everyone in this House and the Speaker is, that the matter you refer to already holds a position on the order paper, which means that it will, at some time, be debated on the floor of the House.

It has also often been held by previous Speakers that it is improper and unacceptable under standing order 35 to ask for a debate concerning a matter, a motion, a bill or an order that is already standing on the order paper. I'm sure you're aware of that.

MR. GIBSON: What I was asking for is a debate not of the motion but of the urgency of the motion.

It seems to me that is an urgent question. As I say, his is the first day of that week, if it is to be proclaimed. It can't be debated later than today and hat's why it seems to me it is a definite question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): What say you, Munchkins?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is a different - and, perhaps, novel - proposition which you have put forward. But it is not so different or so novel that t convinces the Chair that your request, understanding order 35, is in order. I therefore must rule hat your request under standing order 35 does not succeed.

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. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few brief follow-up questions on a subject we touched upon when the minister's estimates first came on the poor, namely the Status of Women in Vancouver, who were appealing for funding for 1977-78, which, I believe, runs out at the end of March. There is some

[ Page 2071 ]

real urgency in their knowing what they can guarantee for their continued staffing. I was in touch with them today and I understand that members of the Ministry of Human Resources office have been sent to the Status of Women office in Vancouver to assess in some way.... I'm not quite sure whether it's their work or the money they're spending or how they're spending it, but since the Status of Women operations are not funded by the Ministry of Human Resources, I would just like to ask one or two questions.

First of all, what is the specific purpose of the Ministry of Human Resources assessors and what criteria are being used to assess the work that these women are doing? Is it the quality of the work or the cost of the service, or both? If so, what guidelines are being used to evaluate that kind of service?

The work, for example, of the ombuds person is very crucial to that organization and they're very concerned if there is to be any prejudice to the confidentiality of the files in their office. I think that's a reasonable concern because the work that they've been doing in trying to help women with the various marital problems and family problems and family court problems and all the other range of troubles they try to help with puts material in the files of a very confidential nature.

The last but by no means least question, I guess, is: how soon does the minister anticipate that the assessment of their office will give her enough information to make a decision regarding funding for the coming year? There is this urgency because the budget runs out at the end of March.

On another topic, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister if we could have some clarification on the general rule that applicants for government employment cannot be considered until they have been in British Columbia one year, unless there is no one else of a suitable position or degree of experience to fill the existing vacancy. I have two particular examples and do not wish to reveal names publicly because both of these people wrote to me just asking for advice and help. But one concerned an older man in the interior who had filled a particular job on two or three occasions on a temporary basis and when the job was finally filled on a permanent basis - although he had worked at this particular location - the job was given to a person who have moved into British Columbia just three months previously. I'm talking about janitorial service in a public building in the interior.

Although the matter was explored at some length on the basis of discrimination for another reason, this part of the issue was raised at the same time and this gentleman would like to know just what the ruling is specifically and to what degree it is always applied. Because here was an example of a situation where the older man - and I'm not sure what his exact age was

- suspected that he didn't get the job because he was an older man. The person who did get the job was a younger man but certainly had not been living in British Columbia one year. Mr. Chairman, I'm not necessarily saying that that's a good rule in the first place, but if the rule is there, let's live by the rules. It's very difficult when an MLA gets asked if the government has a policy regarding employment and it seems to be a rather arbitrary policy.

I also have another letter, Mr. Chairman, from a highly trained person who worked with the Department of Highways in Ontario. This man has applied very diligently for employment with the B.C. government since he came to British Columbia. He came to British Columbia in August, 1976, so he has not been here one year. This man has applied for 27 competitions within the B.C. public service. Of the 27 competitions, he was interviewed for one position, and he was denied employment because the interviewers felt that he was overqualified.

This is another question I'd like to raise with the minister - namely, that this is not the first time, by any means, that I have had people come to me stating that they applied for a public service position and were told that they were overqualified, even though that person is more than willing and happy to take the job for which they're overqualified and for which they're probably going to be paid less than their talent and their experience would otherwise justify.

This man was particularly concerned about the episode that erupted last week - which dealt with the Department of Highways - where individuals appeared to have a better chance of getting a job if they were on welfare. Now I realize that that distortion of government policy has been corrected, but we have here a man who is highly skilled and experienced, Mr. Chairman, after many years with the Department of Highways in Ontario - I believe particularly in the landscaping and maintenance of highways - who seems to have brought a lot of skill to the jobs for which he has applied, and who is willing to take a job for which he may be overqualified and which pays less than he was earning elsewhere.

Here again, was he really turned down because he was overqualified or was he turned down because he's only been in British Columbia since August of last year and there were many other people who had been in British Columbia longer than one year? I just wonder if this residential qualification is applied uniformly. I would say this reluctantly, Mr. Chairman, but it seems the issue is brought to my attention, off and on, fairly regularly and I get the impression it's just a convenience. It's just a regulation involving employment which can be applied when it's convenient or it can be ignored when it's convenient. I would just wonder if the minister might reconsider whether it's a good idea at

[ Page 2072 ]

all - that maybe there should not be this kind of arbitrary one-year regulation regarding these jobs.

There is another similar type of situation which I know the minister is well aware of, and again I don't wish to mention names, but I'll be glad to talk to her privately about the individual. Another man is having very difficult times in this province. He was brought here having applied for a job. Mr. Richardson's listening carefully. I'm pleased to note his presence in the chamber - he knows about this man. He was brought to British Columbia and obtained a job through the Public Service Commission. Admittedly, it was a probationary six-month or three-month period - I can't remember the exact number of months. This man was adjudged by his employers to be inadequate to do the job for which he had been employed.

He had brought his goods and his chattels and his family from Alberta, he moved in, did the job to the best of his ability, was told at the end of the probationary period that he really was not meeting the responsibilities of the job, and he was released.

That was over a year ago, and that man has made numerous applications for competitions under the Public Service Commission. He also is almost broke now and in some considerable economic difficulty to look after his family. His case is a little different in that he moved into British Columbia from Alberta with a job already established for which he had competed and been accepted. Nevertheless, after the probationary period he has found himself in very serious difficulty as far as gaining alternative employment. I just wonder if the minister has any thoughts on how there might be some department or ministry policy to ensure that people who come under these circumstances won't face the serious hardship this man is facing simply because his job was terminated after the probationary period.

The only other point I'd like to touch on at this moment relates to the rather incredible situation regarding Mr. Schmidt. Now Mr. Schmidt, I understand, was a member of the Public Service Commission whose particular expertise lay in the area of labour management. According to The Vancouver Sun of March 14, Mr. Schmidt had handled the management service division, which dealt with management employees' wages, classifications and benefits, and that when the government set up the Government Employee Relations Bureau his particular expertise was no longer required on the Public Service Commission.

Now Mr. Schmidt took a rather novel approach to his new situation. I'm not quite sure what he meant when he said he had been "deprived of his functions." At any rate, this was the phraseology that appeared in the press. He had been deprived of his functions and was sitting around with nothing to do.

1 realize that it makes no point to keep someone in a position if the duties of that position have been moved elsewhere, but I do recall, Mr. Chairman, that the Public Service Commission, by legislation, was reduced from five members to three members. When that happened, I'm just puzzled as to why it was reduced to three. Why was it not just reduced to two? If it was obvious at that time that Mr. Schmidt's particular job would disappear, why was the commission not reduced to two members instead of three?

Of course, it's also become obvious in the press statements that Mr. Schmidt had a six-year contract beginning June, 1974, which could only be terminated by resolution of the Legislature, I understand. Now Mr. Schmidt was being paid $32,700 a year, according to Public Accounts last year. I wonder if the minister could tell us what severance pay or what other financial commitments have been made or are in the process of being made in regard to Mr. Schmidt choosing to leave the service under these circumstances. I suppose if Mr. Schmidt had chosen to be stubborn about the nature of his appointment, he could well have sat at his desk and done nothing for another four years, or at least have found some other duties to take up his time. But strictly speaking, he would not have been fulfilling the role for which he was originally appointed.

Other questions come to mind about Mr. Schmidt's particular situation. Mr. Richardson, the chairman of the commission ' is quoted as saying that he was surprised to see Mr. Schmidt go because he thought some kind of arrangement would be made. I would think exactly the same if a man is appointed to six-year position and within three years the duties of that position are transferred elsewhere. Could I ski: was Mr. Schmidt given the opportunity to go and work for GERB, the Government Employee Relations Bureau? What initiatives were taken to determine how Mr. Schmidt's employment by the government should continue, or was he told he should look for a job elsewhere? The whole thing is the most unusual situation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair doesn’t have knowledge, but it is my responsibility to ask: have actions been commenced in this regard and s this indeed subject or not?

MR. WALLACE: It's not before the courts, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must caution the member, if t is sub judice, that it is a matter not to be discussed in this House.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we an accept your guidance on that and talk in the

[ Page 2073 ]

more general terms of the reduction of the Public Service Commission from five to three at a time when the government reorganization plans were clearly to set up a separate employee relations bureau. I wonder if, perhaps, we could leave it at that. Would the minister tell the House why, in the process of reorganization, when it became obvious that only two commissioners would be required, the legislation reduced it to three?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry): Mr. Chairman, in response to the last subject that the hon. member for Oak Bay has raised, I just would like to clarify the one point. I would prefer not to respond to the others in regard to the case that is before the courts. As you know, a writ has been issued and I prefer not to comment on it. I'd like to say and clarify for your assistance that the legislation does read that the commissioners should be numbered "at least three." You'll note in the Act that it gives that amount. So when you say, "Could it have been reduced to two?" I'd just give you that for clarification. I prefer, really, to stay away from that topic, if I will, because it is really not within my jurisdiction to comment on it at this time.

Could I just go back to your first request regarding the Status of Women? May I just tell you that we will be assessing this particular grant and all grants within the government in the months to come. The particular assessment that is being done by the assessment team from Human Resources is one of a continuing nature that is being done. It isn't anything specific or anything geared particularly to this week or to this month, through you, Mr. Chairman. Their terms of reference are the same as they are when they assess any other grant within the Ministry of Human Resources. The reason that we have used them in this particular case is that this particular group is doing a social programme along with it and we feel that they have the expertise to take a look at it. They relate to how the organization relates to the community and they can assess the quality of work and the cost of service and what the return is to the community in that regard. Therefore we felt that this was a particularly able group. They do come under the oath of secrecy and so all of that protection is built in and I know that you're concerned about that, as I would be.

But further now on the broader subject of the Status of Women and their appeal for funds, I'd like to tell you that we have decided to announce the monthly operational grant for 1977-1978. We will continue for this coming year the grant at the same level as was provided during the previous fiscal year in the amount of $75,000.

Now I think you will note that in that request for funds they've been very heavily on the services that they could do for women in the province of British Columbia in terms of getting information. One of the reasons that we want to keep it - it's not just specifically for Status of Women but for all grants -is that there has to be continuing assessment. I particularly think that there are some areas that we are providing in government that are going to either duplicate some of the services or are going to take the place of some of those already provided. Now I think that in the continuing assessment with them, they may even be able to prove me wrong or they may be able to add to their services and perhaps take up other causes for women which we in our services to government will replace.

Let me give you an example of that. I think that you know that there's a discussion of the ombudsman in the province of British Columbia which will take a lot of the pressure from some of the work that this organization does. You know too that we have an auditor-general, which is confirming an appointment of that position. I'd like to tell you that within my own ministry we are considering the establishment of a special committee to investigate equal employment opportunities within the public service of British Columbia. This has been done in the past. I really think that they have done a good job, Mr. Chairman, because as we mentioned earlier in this debate on my estimates, there has been a true attempt made both by the previous government and by our government in trying to have that equal opportunity concept adopted. I really think we're working towards that. I think perhaps something in an educational programme should be more initiated. So in that regard, I'm pleased to announce that they will not have to worry in the next year in terms of their funding, but they will have to, as will all organizations, be concerned about how they spend the public funds. I know that they take on that responsibility with the sense of responsibility that we expect from them.

I would like to also respond to your suggestion regarding the applications for employment. The policy of the Public Service Commission is this: first, people who have lived in British Columbia for one year and other British Columbians are given first preference. If that job cannot be filled by that category, then the Public Service Commission will go to an all-Canada competition. If all else fails and they cannot get a Canadian - first a British Columbian and then secondly a Canadian - then they will expand their applications to go forward to an off-shore competition, which, as you can realize, is very, very seldom because this is not.... It is possible to fill, Mr. Chairman, these jobs within Canada and particularly within British Columbia. It will be the government's stand always to offer the position to British Columbians first.

In the case of the gentleman you spoke of who

[ Page 2074 ]

had expertise in a special field, it is quite possible that was filled within service. You see, they always go to the in-service competition first, and with 39,000 employees it very often is done within service. I think that that probably applies.

I know the case which you mention where a gentleman has applied for several competitions and has been turned down. It could well be that other people better suited for the position have been found in those particular 26 cases, but I would like you to know that I will look into that case once again. It has been a trouble to me as well because of the many competitions that he has applied for.

I would really like to say, though, that I think it's unfair to say that there is any suggestion within the t public service that they do not operate in the fairest t way. I think they have really tried very hard to do it in the most fair manner, and any time I would have any suspicion of that I truly would see that it was looked after immediately. I will look into that specific case because it has been a question to myself as well. I just think that he has had the competition t from in-service which has taken him out of that area. a

MR. WALLACE: Just very briefly, I would like I clarification of the $70,000 for the Status of Women c grant. It is very reassuring that the money will be made available but, of course, as the minister knows,

Mr. Chairman, they are dealing with increasing costs each year, as we all are in our business or our private affairs, and I wonder if I can clarify one point. Does the minister mean that the basic amount of $75,000 t will be made available and, depending on the t outcome of the assessment, there could be a recognition of - whether it's 8 per cent inflation, or 10 per cent, or whether there is established evidence t that they are doing any additional service in various areas... ? On the basis of the $75,000, 1 would assume that they would be able to do less for that amount of money in 1977-1978.

I know the minister is aware of this, but it's worth making the point again that there are several of these ladies who are highly qualified, with a great deal of experience and training, doing a job which, in private industry or with the government, would be paying them considerably more. I can't recall the exact figures of their incomes, but I do know that they are being paid a lot less than if they worked in private industry or were officially employed by the government. To give them the same funding in 1977-1978 is the equivalent of cutting their salaries still further or cutting back on the range of service they can provide. I wonder if the minister could comment as to whether the essential value of the assessment would be to determine whether or not the service they are providing warrants more than the $75,000 in 1977-1978, for some of the reasons I have mentioned.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In response, I would like to say that the amount of money for this year will be $75,000. In discussing it with the chairman of the Status of Women last week in terms of where they are going financially, we did discuss the possibility - in fact, the question was raised by herself, Ms. Karen Richardson, in discussion with me - that they would be going to the community for funding and that they felt quite secure in that. They hadn't done that before but they were feeling quite secure in that. We would like to see this happen and we would like to see the organization have a footing within the private sector as well, where the community is involved. On that basis, we think that he $75,000 is a fair assessment considering that we, too, are taking on some of the things and, hopefully, are going to be doing more in the future.

I also would like to say that we in this government re still confined to the financial restrictions for which we took responsibility just over a year ago. We re also guided with those budgetary restrictions. So I think, considering we are, we are not diminishing the mount, and I really consider it to be a fair assessment of what we should be contributing in this particular area. We hope they will go to the community. They have already assured me that they will. We are going to be talking with them some more in this line and it will be part of the assessment.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted to continue along he same lines, I would say to the Provincial Secretary hat they have been to the community. They went to Vancouver city hall. They have been to United Way. They have been to the Vancouver Foundation. They have been to Canada Works. They went to the Legal services Commission through the Ministry of the attorney-General and they were turned down. They sent to the federal Department of Justice and they ere turned down. They went to the Secretary of state and were turned down.

In terms of their alternatives, what they are going o try and do is raise some money on a one-to-one basis by running some kind of fund drive and, of course, trying to sell more subscriptions. But that's out going to come anywhere near their needs, aside from the fact that this doesn't take into account the per cent inflation. What they did this year was something very unique in that they tried to budget or genuine salaries. When the Status of Women first started it was strictly a volunteer organization. All of

s who were in it had other jobs and we did it on a voluntary basis. Then when it started getting funding -through the Secretary of State and then through the provincial government, what we found was that the find of financial assistance we got didn't make it possible for the women working there to make decent ages. They started out at $400 a month, $500 a

[ Page 2075 ]

month, and I think in 1975 they were up to about $700 a month.

These are women with a lot of skill and training. There is a bookkeeper involved, for example. There are a couple of people with training in legal services and other things. What they have done this year is put in for salaries in the range of $1,200 a month. This was a philosophical decision as well as an economic one. They sat down among themselves and decided it didn't make sense to fight against the exploitation of women and then be prepared to be exploited themselves.

This is the first time that they have put in for salaries that they think accurately reflect their worth in terms of what they are doing in the community. They took into account the fact that this government was, for example, prepared to pay its consultants fees like $250 a day.

In fact, the budget that they submitted to you shows that they have fixed costs of $24,000. Their rent, rental equipment, telephone, transportation, postage, office supplies, bank charges, lights and heat are fixed costs. There is nothing that they can do about that. So that's $24,000 out of the $75,000 that they have no control over. What that leaves is $4 1,000 to be divided among eight people. Eight staff members are going to have to pay themselves a little over $5,000 a year, give or take a couple of extra dollars in terms of what they are able to raise through increases in their membership and going to the public for some kind of contribution.

They have not received an increase in two years. They didn't get an increase last year, Mr. Chairman, and this year again.

When one takes into account inflation, increasing rent, increasing hydro, increasing everything else, I think it's very good that they have been able to secure a grant out of the Provincial Secretary's department. But I'm really concerned that the grant is going to force the Status of Women to cut back on its services at a time when it is becoming increasingly obvious that their services are more needed than ever.

I want to ask the Provincial Secretary whether she would be willing, after she -has received the report from the Ministry of Human Resources, not to close her mind, Mr. Chairman, but to leave her mind open to the possibility of some kind of additional grant strictly directed at the business of paying salaries. I know these eight women are going to settle for that $5,000 a year. That's just not good enough. They're not going to cut back. They can't cut back on the rent, the telephone, the postage, the bank charges and these kinds of things. They can't cut back on that. They don't want to cut back on the number of staff because they are overworked as it is. If anything, they would have liked to have been able- to expand.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Postage has gone up, as the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) just pointed out to me.

So what we have is that these eight women are going to sit down and somehow try to divide this $41,000 among them. It may go up to $45,000 if they can raise an additional $4,000 out there.

They have tried applying to other places. They have been turned down in every instance. I'm asking the Provincial Secretary to keep a little something aside - to keep an open mind, at least - so that after she gets the report from the Ministry of Human Resources and has a much clearer understanding of the real value of the work being done by the Status of Women council, she will be willing to supplement the wages of those women. A salary of $5,000 or $6,000 a year is just not sufficient, especially when you take into account the fact that the eight women working in that office are all self-supporting. They are their own sole means of support. This is not a part-time job for them, and they are not being supported by anyone else.

The other thing I wanted to comment on was the Provincial Secretary's statement about the ombudservice. An ombudsman is not going to be able to replace the kind of work being done by the ombudservice. Actually, the word "ombudservice" is a misnomer. The women struck on that word because we couldn't think of anything else that came close to describing the kind of work that the service does.

But it's not a means of protecting women against bureaucracy or struggling with bureaucracy on behalf of women. It deals with the whole business of the kinds of problems that women run into in their everyday life, simply because they are women.

An ombudsman isn't going to be able to deal with those kinds of problems because he doesn't understand them for the most part. Or, if by some stroke of genius the government appointed a woman to the position of ombudsman, she wouldn't understand them.

Some of the things which have resulted from the ombudservice, and which the community at large is now the ' beneficiary of, are things like the Rape Relief centre. That came out of the kind of experiences that we had and the kinds of requests that came to us in the ombudservice which we had to deal with. Transition houses are an outgrowth of the experience of the ombudservice. The Women's Health Collective is another outgrowth of the experiences of the ombudservice. The women's legal services, the women's employment boutique - all these things developed from the experiences that we had working for the ombudservice.

One of the reasons I am so sure about what the ombudservice did, Mr. Chairman, is because I designed that service. I was the first ombudswoman in this province, and I know the kinds of problems that women bring to the ombudservice. It has nothing to

[ Page 2076 ]

do with the kind of bureaucratic tangles that we are talking about that the ombudsman is going to be dealing with. It's a completely....

MRS. JORDAN: Why don't you give the women's bureau credit?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely nothing in the world preventing the hon. member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) from standing up and speaking on behalf of the women's bureau. I am not as familiar with the work of the women's bureau as she is, but if for some reason or another she is unable to speak for herself I would be very happy to speak for her. The women's bureau deals with employment; the ombudservice didn't deal with employment - it dealt with things like violence committed against women. That's where the Rape Relief centre and transition houses come in. They dealt with things like the kinds of poor delivery of health care to women in this province. That's where the Women's Health Collective came in. The women's bureau didn't deal with those kinds of things.

I really wish the member for North Okanagan would stand up and say something about the women's bureau because it's been gutted by this government, too, and it needs all the funds that it can get. I'm relying on the member for North Okanagan to stand up and say something on behalf of the women's bureau, and I'm not going to do that because that's not under these estimates, Mr. Chairman.

I could go back to the Provincial Secretary and say that there are a number of things that the Status of Women council is doing which could be done by the Provincial Secretary's department. Certainly the kind of informational material that they give out could be much more effectively done by them since they do it on a province-wide basis, and the kind of research they are doing into pensions and into manpower-training programmes and these kinds of things probably could be much more effectively done by a department of government if such a department were interested in them.

The ombudservice can't be handled by an ombudsman for the government. In fact that is where the largest part of the budget is going. There are five people working on that service now, and that is the reason why it's so crucial that the funding be increased.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it would appear that like her colleague, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , the Provincial Secretary uses an appeal committee that very much resembles the squeeze committee: squeeze them down, hold them down, and maybe they'll go away or die or something. That's too bad, and I hope that the Provincial Secretary some day walks the road to Damascus and has a change of view around the whole question of volunteer groups.

This was the government that was elected on the basis that they were going to encourage volunteerism and this is the government that has denied everything they stood for right from day one. From the very first day when elected, they moved in the direction that was quite the antithesis of supporting volunteer groups.

I wanted to say one other thing just before I get out of the debate around the Provincial Secretary's participation in politics during the time that she was a researcher for the official opposition prior and also during the time that she was the president of the Social Credit Party. At that time, at the encouragement of the now Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , she was going around this province making false charges. Nothing short of that - nothing more, nothing less than false charges. Those false charges, as the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) knows very well, were that there was a secret police force in the province, that there were 500,000 rounds of ammunition, police cars, guns and all the kinds of things people find frightening. That gave the kind of climate in British Columbia that that minister wanted. She wanted to create fear, and, with some, she was able to manage.

Now we've all asked whether or not, when this new government took power, they found any of these guns, special police forces, high-powered cars and rifles. The answer, of course, is no - absolutely no.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The silly little Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , sitting over there talking about cucumbers, isn't particularly appreciated.

But, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to report what we read in the Blues....

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Can't you speak for yourself?

MR. COCKE: Oh, get down to the bottom of the mine pit where you belong, Mr. Minister of Mines.

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

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, isn't it interesting that he finds this embarrassing? He finds it embarrassing that his party was out there lying during the time they were trying through any means possible to attain power. He finds it embarrassing and I don't blame him a bit, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. May I just interrupt the debate long enough to

[ Page 2077 ]

observe that we've had a very good debate up until this hour this afternoon. Perhaps we should observe the rules of our House and not have hon. members from across the floor interrupting members who have the floor. I would like to encourage the member for New Westminster to perhaps use ...

MR. COCKE: More temperate language?

MR. CHAIRMAN: ... more acceptable language.

MR. COCKE: The kind of language, Mr. Chairman, that the Provincial Secretary was using when she was making those wild charges?

MR. CHAIRMAN: But not in this House, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Yes, not in this House. She can get away with it out in the province but she couldn't get away with it in the House.

But this is what she said in reply to those charges that I made the other day. She said, 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.

Mr. Chairman, what solid rubbish!

MR. BARBER: Tell that to the Islands Trust.

MR. COCKE: Yes, tell that to the Islands Trust.

Tell that to so many people who have particularly been viewing this present government.

But then she went on, Mr. Chairman. She says:

I'll say this to you, Mr. Chairman. When I say that I believed it then - and I did - I did not trust that government with the powers that they conferred upon themselves. I did not trust then; I do not trust them now. Mr. Chairman, the people of the province have made their decision blah, blah, blah.

Mr. Chairman, that's the kind of an answer that we'd expect from someone trying to weasel out of an apology. All I asked for was a simple apology. t

AN HON. MEMBER: Right. -

MR. COCKE: She got the power that she was so particularly motivated toward; she got that power. Once having attained it, then she had access to any kind of information that could justify the things that she had been saying. She has never once stood up and said she's found the police force, the ammunition or anything else. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , of course, has denied it and said that there is no secret police force. Naturally we all know that. Most of us were sufficiently sophisticated then that we knew it.

But, Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of thing that makes politics smell. If the minister would just get up and apologize I think it would be all over and maybe then we could all take a little bit more of a responsible position with respect to selling our wares to the people who are going to vote at election time.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I'm not going to belabour the point which was just brought up very clearly by the member for New Westminster. I simply want to make one point. I just want to register my great concern that the Provincial Secretary has refused to get up and apologize to the House for a statement, which was false, which she made when the campaign was on. Again, as I said earlier, it will be up to the people of British Columbia to judge their representatives on their behaviour.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to go back to the beginning again of our discussion on the Provincial Secretary's estimates when we were discussing tourism and the very sorry state of tourism in our province. I don't intend to repeat the points which I brought up at that time.

The Provincial Secretary did reply to some of the points I made and pointed out some of the areas in which she was intending to devote her energies. We're well aware of that because there has been an exceptional amount of public relations following and being created around the minister - what she herself is planning to do in the tourism industry. But I still wish to hear from the Provincial Secretary her comments and her reaction to the major point that I was making when her debate first came up and we were discussing it, and that is the very serious effect one of the policies of the government which she represents has had on the tourism industry, Mr. Chairman, that is the ferry rates. We still have had no comment from the minister as to what she is intending to do, as a member of the cabinet, about the ferry rate increase, which there is no doubt whatsoever has had a serious effect on tourism in British Columbia.

I want to reiterate that all the promotional tours hat the minister can design that may be well intentioned, certainly by her new deputy.... That is his work, and we're not knocking whatever honest attempts are made there. But I'm simply saying that all those great promotional tours still will not be able to affect the increase of tourism to this province to the degree we all want until her government takes some major steps financially to improve the economy of this province so that our citizens can travel and have the ability to travel because they have the money in their pockets to travel.

I understand the minister is not too concerned

[ Page 2078 ]

about domestic travel. She's still suggesting, from speeches she has made - and which I've read - that domestic travel may be down. This was in the Colonist. She says: "I don't want to get into a discussion on that aspect." So I hope this doesn't mean that the people of British Columbia are in for another year or two of more withdrawal of money which they could circulate and spend in this province. Does this mean that this government intends to continue their heavy financial burden on the people of British Columbia?

It may seem, Mr. Chairman, that I'm getting rather general here. But I do think that the whole tourism industry of this province and the future of it depend on the actions taken by that minister and her colleagues in cabinet. I don't think there's any question at all. We have quotes - and I don't intend to go over them all again - from the tourist bureau, the Visitors Information Centre in Victoria and other places, that say without equivocation that the ferry rates have had a very, very bad effect on tourism in this province.

I don't think the minister has a right to be evasive in this House the way she apparently is when she's touring the province. When she is asked at her speeches on tourism what she has to say about ferry rates, that is the very specific question which the Provincial Secretary will discuss very seldom. As a matter of fact, in most of her speeches, her promotional ideas, I accept, are received well. But when it comes to questions - "what are you going to do about the ferry rates?" - the Provincial Secretary usually turns aside those questions or simply does not answer them.

Now we are here in the Legislature. We are members of the opposition. I think we have a right to know. We are concerned. We want to see tourism increased in this province. But we have to have some idea when we are voting on this minister's estimates exactly what she is planning to do about the ferry rates. What is her government planning to do? I simply am asking again, Mr. Chairman, that the Provincial Secretary stand up, inform the House of her opinion. of the effect of ferry rates on tourism in this province, and what plans she and her government have. I repeat, once more, that all the best promotional tours in this province are not going to assist tourism until her government takes some very strong steps in the direction of lowering ferry rates and in handling the whole economy of this province. I await with interest the minister's comments on ferry rate increases.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I arise today to talk about the unusual interest which the Provincial Secretary has always displayed in the administration of justice in British Columbia. Later on in my debate, I will be presenting certain information to the House about an apparent attempt made by the Provincial Secretary on Wednesday, March 16,1977, to become most unusually involved in the operations of the Ministry of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) ; to attempt, in fact, if the report is correct, to take the administration of justice in this province into her own hands for her own political purposes; indeed, in the words of the former Attorney-General, to place it into political receivership.

In a few moments I'll be presenting that information to this House. If the information is incorrect, I'm happy to stand corrected. But it is the best information we have to this date. It continues to demonstrate the most peculiar interest taken by this particular member in the administration of justice in the province of British Columbia.

I want to talk about the roots of that interest, Mr. Chairman, and demonstrate the authority with which we accept the information we've received, because it's entirely of a pattern and a theme and a trend. The interest she presently shows in the Attorney-General's department is interest that she has always shown in the administration of justice in this province. The statements that she's made about the present operations of that department are entirely consistent with the political approaches that she took when in opposition as well.

It's been repeatedly demonstrated in this House, Mr. Chairman, that this minister made up stories about a secret police that cannot be verified by any fact or body of evidence ever presented. She has yet to present a single shred of evidence, and no one can on her behalf either.

AN HON. MEMBER: Has she backed off?

MR. BARBER: She hasn't backed off, but that's for her own political purposes.

It's clear, therefore, that when she was in opposition she was prepared to tell wild stories about the actual operations of justice in this province. It's fairly clear from that time in opposition and her time in government now that she continues to tamper and intervene and interfere with the operations of justice in this province.

She is in a cabinet, Mr. Chairman, which is full of contradictions. She herself has been the centre of at least two of them. You may recall the recent debate with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) on the question of the honour with which this House assumed and intended to carry out its promise to aid the people of Vietnam - North and South. You may remember that, in that particular case, Mr. Chairman, she was at loggerheads with the Minister of Labour.

Finally, and fortunately, the Premier - to his considerable credit - came down on behalf of the side represented accurately and honestly by the Minister of Labour and said, indeed, there was a

[ Page 2079 ]

commitment made by this House. It was a commitment made in good faith and one which will be executed in good faith. Fortunately she lost that battle.

She's in the middle of a coalition cabinet which is itself confronted by other contradictions, Mr. Chairman. One of the contradictions is the rivalry for the leadership of that party, and one of the splits is the split between herself and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) .

Recently, in Victoria, notoriously and almost humorously, the Minister of Human Resources came forward and informed the people of Victoria that the city of Victoria was beginning to look something like, if I may suggest it, Surrey. It was beginning, he suggested, to be full of shopping centres and hamburger stands and neon lights and billboards. In this particular case, the minister whose debates we're now discussing, Mr. Chairman, came forward and said: "No, the Minister of Human Resources was wrong. It didn't look like Surrey. It still looked like Victoria, and gosh, it's a nice city after all. It's the best capital we've got. Thank you."

The tourist industry agreed with her as well, and in this case we feel that she was perfectly correct. The insulting remarks of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) were quite uncalled for. But they did demonstrate, as did her earlier argument in debate with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , that there are splits in that coalition already.

Since coming to power, in cabinet and in caucus, the Provincial Secretary has repeatedly expressed her concern about the role of the Ministry of the Attorney-General in the province of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. She has expressed a lack of confidence in some of the senior personnel of that department. She's expressed a concern that that department is somehow the property of the opposition party. She's expressed a concern that that department is somehow still in the control of the former Attorney-General. She has made these concerns known. We're aware of them; the department is aware of them.

During the last year, her department has been engaged in a running war with the Ministry of the Attorney-General's personnel office. Through the Public Service Commission, for which the Provincial Secretary is responsible, there have been a series of conflicts with the personnel office of the Ministry of the Attorney-General about hiring practices and procedures. Through the Public Service Commission, for which the minister is responsible, they have engaged in endless arguments and small quarrels -petty quarrels - about the operations of that office. It's our information that that is part of a theme and a pattern, a trend and a history for which that minister is well known - an interest, most personal and most odd, in the administration of justice in the province of British Columbia.

While this has been going on, while those contradictions have been observed, while that kind of interference has taken place....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: On a point of order, the hon. member is making some charges which he says document an attitude of mine towards the Attorney-General's department. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that he either produce public statements or comments made by myself in that regard which substantiate the charges that he is making or withdraw the charges and withdraw the intimation he is giving with his speech today. It is an intimation that cannot be substantiated by actions of mine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member who has the floor, if he does make an error in his speech, is to be corrected at the conclusion of making his speech. The Chair will do the very best he can to try to keep the member in order in the material that he is covering in this speech, according to the rules.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: Now I'm also informed, Mr. Chairman - and again, will be happy to be corrected at the end of my remarks rather than in between them on spurious points of order - that the Provincial Secretary has expressed during the last year considerable concern about the role of the office of the prosecutor in Vancouver. Indeed, as I understand it, the political interest she's taken in that department came to a head during the recent debates about the 180-day directive made public by the Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. Vickers, during debates made public by Mr. Gil McKinnon on the charges which are presently being examined in Vancouver, and during debates about the proper role, the facilities, the systems, the necessity, the competence of the Crown prosecutor's office in the city of Vancouver. I understand the Provincial Secretary has been extremely concerned about all of these things, and has so expressed in private on a number of occasions.

It appears now that this concern has come to light at last when we understand, as I'm told, what occurred in the meeting that took place in cabinet on Wednesday, March 16,1977. The Premier confirmed in this House that such a meeting did take place, and he told us as well that the meeting lasted some four hours. The Premier, in Hansard, is reported as saying that they met with senior officials from the Ministry of the Attorney-General and discussed in an overall and general way the operations of that department, and in an overall and general way the administration

[ Page 2080 ]

[illegible] of justice in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does this relate to the vote before us, hon. member?

MR. BARBER: Well, if you'll permit, Mr. Chairman, what I intend to do is lay before the House two pieces of information. Let me say for the fourth time that I'll stand to be corrected. If the Provincial Secretary gives her word that this information is incorrect, the House will be so informed. But it concerns the role of the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Chairman - which I think is most appropriately debated under her own office estimate - in the administration of justice in British Columbia.

Very quickly, if I may review: the historic interest she's taken in the problem, the claims about a secret police, the splits with the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , the split in that cabinet between the Liberals and the Socreds within it, led to a meeting on March 16 in which the Provincial Secretary, I understand, saw to it that two proposals were put forward. Because of the concern about the 180-day directive, the role of the Crown prosecutor's office, the charges of Mr. McKinnon, and, if I may suggest it, Mr. Chairman, that minister's personal lack of confidence in the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , to whose political party she does not belong, two proposals came forward.

It was first of all proposed that a committee of cabinet, to be composed of, among others, the Provincial Secretary herself, be established to review the policy decisions and the basic administrative decisions of the Ministry of the Attorney-General. She proposed, I understand, that that committee be established as quickly as possible in order to overcome various political and administrative problems from which, it's clear, the present operations of the Attorney-General's department are suffering.

It was secondly proposed, Mr. Chairman, that an outside consultant be appointed to the government through the Provincial Secretary, I am informed, to examine the entire operations of the Ministry of the Attorney-General. If that information is not correct, the House will be happy to stand corrected, and so will I. It's clear, Mr. Chairman, that the lack of confidence that that minister feels in the Attorney-General himself and the Ministry of the Attorney-General, and her historic interest in the problem, led her to make those two proposals which came forward on Wednesday, March 16,1977.

If, as usual, Mr. Chairman, the concern of this government is not the contents of the information but the source, let me tell you that. my source is not the present Deputy Attorney-General and it is not Arthur Weeks. So they can rule those two guys out. If they're concerned more about the source than the content, they can rule those guys out.

AN HON. MEMBER: A fly on the wall.

MR. BARBER: Yes, the fly on the wall that some of us seem to have occasionally.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that if this information is correct, then we've begun to see the kind of political receivership, into which that department is being placed, that was first brought to the attention of this House on Thursday last by the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) . The first proposal was a committee to reveal the policy and administrative operations of that department to be established within cabinet itself. The second proposal was the appointment of an outside consultant to review in its entirety the operations and the administration of the Attorney-General's Ministry.

The implications of those kinds of proposals and our present knowledge of their author - the same person who told us about the secret policy - tells us, Mr. Chairman, that the people of British Columbia should be most seriously concerned about the future of that department - about its autonomy, about its independence from political interference, and about the extent, it appears, that one member of that coalition is interfering in the jurisdiction of the other. I'm concerned about it. We're finally informed, Mr. Chairman, that these decisions have not yet been taken and that they're not going forward at the moment. For that we may be grateful. Maybe they've been knocked down.

MR. LEA: Want to bet, Allen?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Prove it!

MR. BARBER: You be careful about that. As you frequently discovered, we know a great deal more about your operations than you wish us to. Be careful what you're saying!

MR. LEA: I bet you can't prove it didn't happen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, and please continue to address the Chair.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You are unbelievable!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: What did you say?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: I'm informed that this is still

[ Page 2081 ]

presently being discussed by cabinet and, indeed, first came to the attention of cabinet in the form of the two proposals: an outside consultant and a special cabinet committee to review policy decisions of the Attorney-General's ministry on Wednesday, March 16,1977.

One of the reasons that we are raising this at this time is to make sure that it doesn't happen. By exposing it before the Provincial Secretary has a chance to announce it, we have an opportunity to kill it. We have an opportunity to make sure that kind of thing never happens. We have an opportunity to ensure that the independence, the autonomy and the integrity of that department is maintained, as under previous administrations, including the previous Social Credit administration. It was maintained for years and years and years, the most notorious exception being the Sommers case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now to vote 19, hon. member!

MR. BARBER: So, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Provincial Secretary would care to tell the House whether or not this is totally incorrect - that it was never contemplated, never considered, never discussed, never proposed, never imagined, never debated and never suggested by herself, or, if not -hoping that it's somewhat more credible than her secret police stories - she will tell us the real nature of her personal interest in the administration of justice in British Columbia. We're most interested to hear, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, before I respond to the hon. member for Victoria, I'm going to ask you to give him an opportunity to place before the House the proof of the statement that he made in prefacing his remarks today, when he said: "I'm going to bring before this House the proof. . . ."

MR. BARBER: No, I said "information."

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, you did. Information - that would intimate....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I want you to ask that member to take this opportunity, and then I will be very glad to respond to those fabricated charges that he has just given to this House.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I caution all hon. members that every member in this House is an hon. member, and that all members of this House accept the responsibility for the statements that they make in this House, not only for the statement itself but for the veracity of that statement. I must further caution the members of this House that we, in the debate presently before us, are discussing the administrative responsibilities of a minister as they relate to her department. To bring in a widespread, wide-ranging debate, involving matters for which she is not accountable in this House, is not in order.

MR. BARBER: If I may reply, the Provincial Secretary is, of course, the Deputy Premier as well, and a most prominent member of that government. I said four times - and I'll say it a fifth time - that I have received information. I did not use the word "proof." I did not use the word "evidence" either. I said "information."

For the fifth occasion, let me repeat, Mr. Chairman, as fairly as I can - not wanting ever to be held accountable for stories about secret police or their parallels - that if the information is not correct, this House will be happy to be so informed and so will I be. I will accept the Provincial Secretary at her word. If the Provincial Secretary wishes to say that the information that I have received is wholly erroneous, is absolutely wrong and has nothing to it whatever, then I am happy to be so informed. I don't know how much more clearly or more straightforwardly I can put it, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: I have just asked the Provincial Secretary if she would care to comment on the accuracy of this information. I did not use the words "charges, " "proof" or "evidence"; nor did I talk about a secret police force. I have presented information which has come to my attention.

For the sixth and final time, if it is incorrect, totally wrong and completely unfounded, and we've been grossly misinformed by the people who came forward to us, this House will be happy to be so informed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The point is well made. On a point of order, the member for Burnaby North.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, you have sat and listened, as you always do, very carefully to this interchange. I was wondering if you could rule on whether the Provincial Secretary has a right to make such a request before replying. Apparently she is not prepared to reply unless documentation is laid before this House. I would like you to rule whether she has a right to make such a request.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Provincial Secretary or any minister of this House may listen

[ Page 2082 ]

during estimates to questions one at a time or several at a time. It seems to me I have said this on several occasions. They may elect to answer them one at a time or all at once; they may elect not to answer them at all. That is the prerogative of the minister. Any member of this House may stand at any time and make a request. Whether or not the request is granted will have to be determined by the Chair and by certain citations. I hope that answers your question satisfactorily.

MRS. DAILLY: If I may continue, Mr. Chairman, I think it does leave us ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you on a point of order?

MRS. DAILLY: ... in somewhat of a quandary. Yes, on a point of order.

Dealing with all ministers before this House from here on is going to leave the opposition in a quandary, as I say, because that means that no hon. member can get up and point out information and expect an answer from a minister because the minister will use the defence that unless that hon. member can present written documentation, he does not have a right to respond. I do think this has to be clarified.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the same point of order, the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind you that when I made that request of the hon. member it was to give him an opportunity to do what he said he would do when he prefaced his remarks in this House. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that he did not document his case, and I wanted him to have the opportunity before I responded. I have every intention of responding when the opportunity comes before me this afternoon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

On a point of order, the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: On the same point of order, what, in effect, the Provincial Secretary is asking us to do is to know the answer before we ask the question. That's what she is, in effect, asking us to do. That is not what parliament is all about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is not a proper point of order; it is an observation.

MR. LEA: It's on the same point of order. In asking you to make a judgment or a ruling on that, it is impossible.... Why ask the question? We're not playing political games. (Laughter.) We ask questions to get answers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. I think that the ruling of the Chair has been complete and adequate. Every member takes responsibility himself, according to our authorities. Every member takes responsibility himself for statements made in this House. If those statements are incorrect, then they are to be corrected at the conclusion of his speech.

The second member for Victoria - are you on a point of order or are you on your speech?

MR. BARBER: No, I am continuing, if I may, briefly, Mr. Chairman. I respect the decision of the Chair. I would remind the Provincial Secretary that I said at no time that I have anything in writing. I have no proof in documentation and never claimed anything. Any suggestion to the contrary is imagination. I have information that was received verbally; it was presented verbally. If it's wrong - I have said it more than half a dozen times - then I will be very happy and so will this House to have the Provincial Secretary stand up and say that there is absolutely nothing to it. I would like, indeed, the Provincial Secretary to be on record in this House as saying that the information presented today is totally without foundation and has not a shred of truth to it. I'll be very happy to conclude the debate, at least my part in it, regarding this matter, Mr. Chairman, if she would give this House this assurance. There are no charges. I have nothing in writing; I am in receipt of verbal information only.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think your point is well made, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: Well, I am not sure that the Provincial Secretary has quite heard it yet, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Absolutely irresponsible!

MR. BARBER: But I hope that now she will reply and assure this House that there were no such proposals or that, indeed, if there were she had no hand in them.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): How about the guns?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I think the line of the questioning as taken in my estimates has probably gone to the lowest level it could possibly go today from the member for Victoria when he fabricates a story or tells something that somebody has said to him and isn't prepared to give where that information came from to this House. In

[ Page 2083 ]

other words, you make up a story and then you ask a question on it and then you ask the government whether or not it's true. I can say this to you, Mr. Chairman: it is a very dangerous precedent. It has happened in other times in this House this year and last year when two particular members on that side of the House came unprepared but just made up a story and then asked questions not on facts, but on a fabricated story that they made up.

I'm going to say right now, and I'm going to say it clearly to you and to all members of this House, Mr. Chairman, that the discussions that are made within the cabinet room at any given time.... I have taken an oath of office and I will always fulfill that oath of office. I can tell you that each one of the ministers in this government can feel free to discuss the departments of each government and uphold each other's point of view. They are glad to openly discuss them with each other, and we will continue to do so. I don't know how your government acted, but if they felt that they could work in isolation without comment between each other's ministries, then I guess that's what happened, and I guess that's why you're sitting in the opposition today.

I'm going to say this: one of the things that I completely suggest to you is that the comments you have made in regard to what I have suggested in the Attorney-General's office are completely false. There is no committee or anything that I have suggested, and anything that you have said in that line is completely erroneous. I am going to say to you, though, that I think it's really sad to think that in last week's meeting with the full cabinet, anything that was said between the people who were in that ministry between them and the cabinet members....

Each one of those people along with the cabinet members took the oath of office. I am not ashamed, Mr. Chairman, of saying anything that I said within the confines of that room outside of that room, but I'm not able to share that with the members of this House because I took an oath of office. I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that I am disappointed to know that if there are people who are making up things that went on inside of that, or if they even think they have the opportunity or even the ability to say anything about what went on or even make up anything, which is obvious by your comments, and then comment on them to you.... It's a sad commentary on the public service of this province that there are some people within the public service whom you have admitted have politicized the public service, and it's too bad for those who are not using it politically. There seem to be a few since the NDP came into government, and I feel very sorry that they're there.

I'm going to say this to you, Mr. Chairman: I also have responsibility for the Public Service Commission. I have said to the Public Service Commission chairman on various occasions, and I'll say it to this House: we want a completely non-political public service in this province, and it will be. We never in this province, Mr. Chairman, ever had any concern that people would use the public service and their oath of office and break their oath of office as we have had the fear in this province in the past three and a half years. That still is left to us, unfortunately.

I'm going to say this, Mr. Chairman: everything that that member said today is completely erroneous. I have extremely great faith in the Attorney-General of this province and all ministers in this government because they have worked harder, done more and had a bigger mess to clean up than any government has ever been faced with in the history of this province. I will uphold what they do and I will work with them. If I can contribute in any way to assist them in their departments, as they try to assist me in mine, I will continue to do so. The kinds of remarks and the kind of fabrication - the outright fabrication that you have presented to this House today.... Mr. Chairman, I'm going to say that the member for Victoria owes the House an apology to follow that line of questioning and that line of debate in this House. It is not worthy of this House.

MR. KEMPF: You're a disgrace to British Columbia.

MR. BARBER: As usual, this government, obsessed with secrecy, seems more concerned about the source of information than about its content....

Interjections.

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

MR. BARBER: I received information, Provincial Secretary, in a very general way, without replying to the specifics of the information which I presented to this House. On eight occasions I said: "I would be happy to have it specifically corrected if it is wrong."

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I specifically corrected you. Do you accept that?

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, for the purposes of the record, I wonder if the Provincial Secretary very specifically would say that first of all the government has not been, nor is it presently, considering a proposal to appoint an outside consultant or firm of consultants, or team or group, to examine in its entirety or in part the operations of the Department of the Attorney-General. Would the Provincial Secretary specifically say that that information is not correct?

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

[ Page 2084 ]

no knowledge of that particular suggestion. If there is any suggestion within the Attorney-General's department in that regard, ask the Attorney-General under his estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's discuss those matters pertinent to vote 19.

MR. BARBER: That's right.

I just have one more question, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Provincial Secretary for her assurance and I take her at her word that there is no such proposal to her knowledge.

MR. BARRETT: She said she has no knowledge.

MR. BARBER: To her knowledge.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, hon. members.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, the second specific question I would like to put to the Provincial Secretary is whether or not there has been consideration of any kind given to a proposal to establish a committee in cabinet, of which the Provincial Secretary would intend to be a member, to review the operations - administrative and policy-making - of the Department of the Attorney-General. This would be a special committee assigned to that purpose.

Could she very specifically, as she just did on the other question, give an answer? Is this information correct or is it not correct?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It appears to the Chair that the question the member is asking is beyond the scope of the administrative responsibility of the Provincial Secretary.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, with all respect, sir, she is the Deputy Premier. She is, by common knowledge, enormously influential in the ranks of that cabinet and was an extraordinarily hard worker, when in opposition, for the political party of which she is a member.

I think, sir, that were there such a proposal she would probably know about it. If she does not, we will be happy to be so informed that there is no proposal at the moment.

I'm further informed, again, that she....

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that vote 19 provides for the office of the Provincial Secretary, including her salary and expenses and those of her immediate staff. I don't see anything here about the Attorney-General's staff; I don't see anything here about Deputy Premier, but I could be corrected.

Vote 19 - I have to hold you to order.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, is the Provincial Secretary not the Deputy Premier?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Leader of the Opposition please come to order?

There is no way we can continue with orderly debate unless we have one member speaking at a time and that member recognized and standing in his place.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, a question to the Provincial Secretary: is she not still the Deputy Premier of British Columbia? If so, my second question - it's the last - is about the special committee of cabinet which I am informed, but will be happy to be corrected if it's not, was proposed to examine and to be responsible within cabinet for the operations and policy-making and administration of the Department of the Attorney-General.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'd be delighted to answer. To the first question, the answer is yes, and to the second question, there is no truth to what you have just asked - no truth whatsoever.

MR. GIBSON: I want to follow along some of the remarks that the Provincial Secretary made in answer to the questioning by the hon. second member for Victoria in which she was criticizing rather heavily some of the public servants, presumably, who were at that particular meeting. The meeting, if I understood her right, was held on Wednesday, March 16. This, I presume, was a meeting between the cabinet and certain law enforcement officers or persons having to do with the justice system in British Columbia. The Provincial Secretary, if I understood her remarks, criticized someone there very heavily and suggested that they had in some way violated their oath of office.

I would like to know from the Provincial Secretary who was there and whether all the persons there were bound by oath. Unless we know that, we simply can't accept this grave criticism of the public service.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to have the opportunity to respond because I think that it should be clarified.

First of all, the hon. member for Victoria has

[ Page 2085 ]

worded a question today which emanated, as he said, from a meeting that was held last week in the cabinet room with members of the Attorney-General's department who, for the first time, I understand, by their admission, met and worked with the cabinet. I said that the questions raised by the hon. member for Victoria were incorrect. I take it that he is accepting that from me, and I'm pleased to know, Mr. Chairman, that an hon. member would accept the word of another hon. member of this House. But in so doing, I explained that if there are people within the public service who would make up those kinds of things and then portray them to him, I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that it's a sad commentary on the public service of the province. They were public service people within the confines of that room.

I am sorry if it became involved in an attack on someone in that room. I would like to say to the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano that I did not intend it to be so. I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, I believe, for the first time in this province, that when the socialist government became the government of this province we had a political public service - or some people within the government did become politicized. I have to say that I believe those are the same people we have to work with today. I want to tell you, too, that that does not blanket all of the Public Service Commission or all of the public service employees of this province. I would say that there would be very few in that category, Mr. Chairman.

I have said that I would not abide a political public service, at any time, in any government of British Columbia. That would certainly include the public service for which I have responsibility.

Now I hope that that clarifies to you that I have not said anything against anyone who was in that particular room. But I am saying that if the hon. member takes rumours or charges or something from someone who's in the public service, that could emanate from the fact that for the first time in this province we had, under the former NDP administration, a public service that was more politicized than we've ever known in this province before.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that all members of this House have to be very concerned to receive the information from the Provincial Secretary that she has determined that we have a public service that has become politicized, at least in terms of some of its members. I would ask her if she has been able to determine the name of anyone who is particularly politicized in the public service. If she has, would she bring that name forward? If she has not, would she not say this?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the member for Victoria, who raised the questions in this House, raised the specter of that in this House just today. It was he who raised the question of whether or not there were people who would even give information outside that cabinet room when they were invited into the cabinet room to share it with this cabinet.

MR. COCKE: You're admitting it, therefore.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm not admitting it. I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, that the charges that that member gave to me on the floor of this House were completely erroneous. If someone who had been within the confines of that room is telling him erroneous information, it must have been political, because it was erroneous, wasn't it? You have just admitted to that.

If I can reply to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano once again, I am not giving a blanket charge regarding the public service of this province. There is an inquiry that has been going on of material that has been put into the hands of the members of the opposition in our term of office, and that could not have been because they were members of the Social Credit Party. So I would think, Mr. Chairman, that that was proof in itself. There is an inquiry that is ongoing in that regard by the A-G's office.

Mr. Chairman, again I'd like to say that the member for Victoria himself raised the question of whether or not the people in the public service could be trusted. He is the one who is charging them because he's saying, "I have been told." He said in his charges today: "I am also informed." Then the goes on to say: "I have been told, " and "I have discussed it, " and so on. You said that over and over again - so you're making the charge, not me.

MR. GIBSON: I just want to follow along with the hon. Provincial Secretary on this because I'm so puzzled by it. I just heard the Provincial Secretary criticize the second member for Victoria on the basis that he was making charges without producing substantiation. Now if I heard him right, he made those charges, saying: "I don't know whether they're right or not, and I'd like the information."

Then, in return, the Provincial Secretary comes back and makes charges to the House about a politicized civil service without substantiation, doing the very thing, in a worse form, that she has suggested that member was doing. Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, she goes on to justify this by saying the public service must be politicized because there was a leak of some information that had to do with the Minister of the Environment's (Hon. Mr. Nielsen's) office - the blacklist. So she said that proves the place is politicized. But what was the political colour of the person who wrote that letter? He was apparently a

[ Page 2086 ]

Social Crediter. Is that what she means by the public service being politicized?

I tell you, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about this. If the Provincial Secretary is going to say this kind of thing about the public service, will she name names? Will she say where this politicization has been found? Has it been rooted out would she say that it's wrong that people who are appointed into policy-making positions, such as deputy ministers, for example, should not have some ideas about policy? Is politics wrong at that level? This is an important and fundamental question of principle, as the Provincial Secretary knows. Our law gives public servants the right to hold political opinions, to vote, to campaign. Now does that mean that they're being politicized when they're just exercising their rights under the law? Is that what she's suggesting?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: That puzzles me very much. It puzzles that member, too. I can see that, and I hope he'll explain it to me.

Perhaps the Provincial Secretary would be good enough to help me clear my thinking on that. Then I'd like to ask her one more thing about this meeting, because, without question, she cast a cloud over everyone who was at that meeting.

AN HON. MEMBER: You did.

AN HON. MEMBER: He did, not me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the Provincial Secretary suggested that the leak out of that meeting - if indeed there was a leak out of that meeting -emanated from a member of the public service. Might it not have emanated from a member of cabinet, just for example? She immediately assumed that it came from a public servant. What I want to know is: were all of those persons at that meeting members of the public service - other than the cabinet - and were they sworn to secrecy as to the contents of that meeting? Specifically, were there any judges there?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In answer to the last question - "Were there any judges there?" - the answer is no. In answer to the question about the makeup of the rest of the staff, they were all staff people of the Attorney-General's office. Again, let me say this to you. It was suggested by the member for Victoria that the questions he asked of me today -questions that I suggested were erroneous - came from within that meeting.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, he did intimate that they came from that meeting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: He quoted March the whatever - last Wednesday.

AN HON. MEMBER: And you thought there was a secret police force! No wonder!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: If the member wishes to withdraw that intimation or that statement, then that's fine. But when he made the comment that that information came from that meeting, I suggested he was tainting those people with politicizing, which I think that he should withdraw and which, I suggest, cannot be acceptable to the House.

Now to t h e member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) - and please have this clear on the floor of the House - I am not saying that we have a political civil service. I am saying that we have a civil service which, under the jurisdiction of the NDP government, became quite politicized in the past four years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: There were examples of that during the past four years. Mr. Chairman, it's very clear to the people of the province that it was politicized in the past four years in some cases, or the party that's sitting opposite would be government at this time.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, just to follow through: I want to point out to the House that John Wood is not my brother-in-law's brother. The Premier may say that John Wood is politicized. He'd better be; he works for the caucus. Of course! Now if NDPers are available to work for our caucus, then of course we're going to hire caucus people.

Let's deal with what the member for North Vancouver-Capilano is pursuing. I think it's very important. I think it's highly important. First of all, my colleague, the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) , never said at any time to what meeting he was referring. I find this almost like a courtroom where a lawyer is probing and someone who is feeling a sense of guilt jumps up and says, "No, it wasn't really that meeting at all, " when he never referred to any meeting.

[ Page 2087 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, he did.

MR. BARRETT: No, he did not. Now don't be so jumpy. You'll get a chance on the floor of this House to answer back - through you, Mr. Chairman. Calmness is the name of the game. You've had an opportunity for two years to stand in this House and say: "I was mistaken. There were no secret police plans." Have you ever done that? You come in here and lecture the House about being nicey-nicey. Oh, yes. "And don't you say that, Mr. Member, without any substantiation at all. I think it's the lowest level this House has ever gotten to - to make charges without any substantiation at all. Isn't that just disgraceful? Oh, shocky-shocky, baddy, baddy!"

Mr. Chairman, that member is the one who ran around this province deliberately making false statements that we were establishing a secret police force, deliberately stating it to the people of this province with no substantiation whatsoever. She has now been in office two years. She has never stood up and said: "I made a very serious charge which I had no substantiation for, and I regret it because it poisoned the political life of this province." It did poison the political life of this province. She was ready to say anything or do anything just to get into power.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we find that she is in power and the rules change. "Oh, don't you say that!" When the member asks a question, we get more out of the answers than we expected. What does the member for North Vancouver-Capilano pursue? A very interesting quote, as I wrote it down from the minister. She said: "There are some who are politicized and it is unfortunate." That is what the minister has said in this House today: "There are some in this House who are politicized and it is unfortunate."

Name names! You stand up in this House and give a list of people who have been "politicized." Tell us what politicization means. Does it mean being a Socred? Does it mean being a Liberal, a Conservative or an ND Per? What is the definition of "being politicized"? Who is it that has submitted a list of names on a blacklist who are NDP? Is that civil servant politicized for forwarding a list of names? If that civil servant is politicized, is that politicization okay by the minister because it's an acceptable political party?

A list of names was given in this House a day after the Premier said no such list existed. Then when the list was tabled, what did we find? The old Greek message: don't look at the message but kill the messenger. We're going to have an inquiry - she said again today - as to how the list got leaked. How could the list get leaked if the Premier said there wasn't one in the first place? I ask you that question: how could a list that doesn't exist get leaked? Could you tell me that, Mr. former Attorney-General? How does a list that doesn't exist get leaked, and then when a list that doesn't exist gets leaked they're going to check on how it got leaked?

You know, Mr. Chairman, the more this minister talks, the more she puts her foot in her mouth. Breaking the oath of office! Mr. Dan Campbell forwarded that list. We've asked the Premier if he ever reprimanded Dan Campbell for politically forwarding a political list. We've never had an answer to that. I ask this minister: have you ever reprimanded Dan Campbell for forwarding a blacklist of names? Yes or no.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh! Well, if that is the case, I'm indeed sorry for her, because it proves that she is politicized as a minister by a political appointee.

The minister has a double standard conditioned by, in my opinion, hate. Yes, your political judgment has been conditioned by a hate of a political opponent that in my opinion has instructed a natural, commonsense, rational understanding of politics in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the minister's behaviour in making wild accusations that there was a police force contributed to a "hated" atmosphere in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. May I refer you to Beauchesne's 128th section, at page 115 of the 4th edition: "A personal attack by one member upon another is an offence against the House." I would like to caution the member who has the floor that he should try to avoid the appearance of a personal attack.

MR. BARRETT: I certainly do, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure you will draw that quote to the minister's attention when she responded to the member for Victoria questioning his motives. That certainly is a personal attack. I make an observation on the minister's statement that there was a secret police force: that statement poisoned the political atmosphere of this province. It was an emotionally charged statement repeated time and time and time again in this province. It was never denied by that minister; there was never one shred of evidence. Then today we have the spectacle of that minister getting up and lecturing the member for Victoria on a personal attack.

I'm just making that as an observation. I think it would be worthwhile if the minister got up and named names of whom she says, through you, Mr. Chairman, has been politicized, what civil servants

[ Page 2088 ]

they intend to get rid of for what political purposes, what their definition is of a politicized civil servant. Do they check on everybody's political party? Will Socreds be fired too? Are they not a political party, or are they just a movement?

MR. LEA: What kind of a movement?

MR. BARRETT: I have no comment on that.

You tell us, Mr. Chairman, that we must accept the word of an hon. member. I accept that. The minister stands in her place and says: "No such committee was being contemplated." I accept her word; I accept your word; I believe you. I accept your word that you say there are some who are politicized. Did you say that? You said that. I accept your word; I believe you. Who are they? Are you just throwing out the statement that they were politicized? Do you have any substantiation? Isn't that the line of argument you just gave the member for Victoria?

If you expect us to believe your statement that there was no committee, we're prepared to accept that. You're an hon. member. Now we're prepared to accept that you said civil servants were politicized. We believe that. You said it. Who are they? Are you throwing out casual statements? Do you not have any proof? Are you telling us that you know people who are politicized and maybe actually making political decisions in the civil service that you don't agree with and you haven't fired them? Are you powerless to fire them? Do you not have the goods on those people? Are you throwing out a McCarthy-type red herring - not Grace, but Joe? Because that's what it smacks of. The McCarthyist type of defence is to stand up and say no such committee existed but there are civil servants there and we're going to check on who gave the leak of the blacklist. "I know more!"

You've either said too much or too little, but you've said it. Now having said it you owe this House the names of people whom you think are political appointees who are obstructing this government in doing their work. If not, apologize not only to the members of this House, who perhaps are willing to accept a non-apology from that minister over the guns. But what about those people who are working out there? Don't tell this House half-stories. If you have people, let's have their names.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I want to say once again and for the record very clearly that I did not make a blanket charge against the public service of this province.

In fact, to the contrary, I want it to be made very clear that this government really truly believes in having a public service that has no fear nor favour with whatever government will come before the province of British Columbia. I really believe that that is the way that we are trying to operate under this government.

That certainly is my responsibility; it is the way I have operated in respect to the public service of this province. I'm proud of the public service of this province, and I have said so on many occasions. I've said so on open-line shows. I am always sorry that there are a few, particularly those few who have come to the fore in the past few years in this province. I am not referring to the so-called blacklist when I mentioned confidential memos and so on that have become common knowledge.

The confidential memo that was printed by a noted columnist came over my signature. It got to the newspaper. I didn't mind it being printed in the newspaper; it's one of those memos which could have been printed in the newspaper at any time. In fact, now that I look back on it, I wonder why I made it a confidential memo. It should have really been a statement quite well publicized, and I'm sorry now that it hadn't been. It was publicized late in the year and it should perhaps have been publicized earlier in the year. But it was one of those things that one does in the rush of a week, and it was just a comment on a particular policy within my department which I shared with other ministers. Funnily enough, that got to a columnist, which is an example of a leak.

Another example of a leak was one that happened to two colleagues of mine early in our administration where the original memo, I understand, was given to members of the opposition. I was in the House the day that it was read back to the government. Again, it was a confidential memo.

Now today the member for Victoria comes into this House and refers to a meeting. Mr. Chairman, I too will stand to be corrected and we'll all look at the Blues very carefully this evening. If he did not say that his information came from the meeting, he certainly intimated that it was through the meeting which was held last Wednesday in the cabinet room with the cabinet of British Columbia. That intimation was made very clear to me. Now I may have taken it incorrectly, and if I did, Mr. Chairman, I'd be very glad to say to this House that I just understood him incorrectly. And if I did, that's fine. We'll all accept each other's statements, and we'll all end this debate happily.

But I took it that he was intimating that that information - which I say is erroneous - came from someone within that room. If that is so, that person within that room is giving material which he is using on the floor of this House - and I'll say it's a fabrication - and that person must have been a political person to give him information like that. I accept the word of the hon. member that he was telling the truth in this House, that he believed the person who had given that information. I'm saying that if that is the case, then that is a political person

[ Page 2089 ]

within that area who should not be political. Again, I say that we all take an oath of office which guards us against that kind of thing. I rather think that kind of rumour, repeated on the floor of this House, or that kind of statement, is the kind of statement we shouldn't have to even debate, because it is a fabrication.

Again I say to the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, that it was he who raised the subject of whether or not it was a political statement. Even though it was I who called it a political charge, it is he who said that it was someone within that room who gave him that information.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't say that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member says that he didn't say it. I suggest he inferred it, and I took it that way. But if he says he didn't, I'll accept his word.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, we have the same story again from the Provincial Secretary that we've got from other areas of government. The Premier was asked: does a blacklist exist? He said no. The next day it was produced. They immediately launched an investigation to see how it was leaked. Instead of "Why is there a blacklist? What's the purpose of the blacklist? Who drew it up? Who passed it on?", they became lost in their anxiety to find out who leaked it.

Now here we have again a member of the House standing up, saying, "Certain information was given to me; I don't know whether it's true."

"Is it true?", the member asked the government.

The minister immediately stood up and said: "No, it isn't true, but whoever leaked it is in real trouble. No, it is not true. Nothing happened in that cabinet room to suggest that anything like that took place, but whoever that dirty person was who told you it took place is really in trouble because they've broken their oath."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Now what we have here is a government not of morality but a government of oaths. I'll tell you, if I were a civil servant and I was in that room when that government decided to put on an over-65 genocide programme, whether I was politicized or not, if I heard a group of people talking about something like that, I'd break my oath. I'd tell everybody that the government was out to try to kill everybody over 65, regardless of the oath.

If I were in that room, or any other room, or got that information from anywhere, and I found out that they were trying to politicize the judiciary of this province and the administration of justice, yes, I'd break my oath. I'd break it.

MR. KEMPF: You would.

MR. LEA: And so I should, because there are certain times that people should break their oaths. If someone had been around when Hitler was planning to put in his camps to kill the Jews, if I were there and if I heard about it and was under oath, I'd break my oath.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: They wouldn't. They wouldn't because they show blind obedience. That's what they are -blind obedience to authority - and they feel everyone else should be, whether it's right or wrong, moral or immoral.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Now back to vote 19.

MR. LEA: That's what we're talking about. We're talking about the Provincial Secretary's vote - the person who doesn't even know how to make use of the shredders and wants to run a department. They don't even know how to press the button to get the shredder going. There have been more leaks out of that government than there were out of Noah's Ark, because they don't know how to run a shredder.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Can the member show how this relates to vote 19?

MR. LEA: Yes. She is responsible for the civil service.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the shredders.

MR. LEA: And the shredders.

MR. KEMPF: The same respect you had as a minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: I had no respect for that person when I was a minister. It's a consistency I have.

MR. KEMPF: You have no respect for anybody.

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

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, would you ask the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) to debate me on the Smithers radio station? Would you ask him to do

[ Page 2090 ]

that? He's refused, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I caution you again. Let's return to vote 19.

MR. KEMPF~ My constituents would hang their heads.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: Mr.~ Chairman, what the Provincial Secretary is saying ~~s that a meeting took place and nothing happened in that meeting relating to what the member for Victoria has said, but if it was leaked she's going to get them. She's talking about a politicized civil service. Is that what she's talking about, Mr. Chairman? And then they will countenance a senior member in the Premier's office sending a blacklist along from an obvious Social Credit supporter squealing on who may be Liberal, who may be Social Credit, who may be Conservative and who may be NDP. , ,

MR. BARRETT: Did you fire them?

MR. LEA: She says that's okay. I read in the paper today where a member q her staff, under her jurisdiction, stationed in London, makes an affidavit to a public inquiry completely contradicting prior evidence given in front o~ that inquiry and she doesn't take any action.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, under ~ standing order 43, we have been dealing with the same accusation through four ministers now. Are we going to go through it on the Attorney-General too? We've been here for two or three months now. Are we going to repeat this on every estimate that comes up? Can't we deal with the subject?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The member for Fort George is standing on a point of order. Let's hear his point of order.

MR. LLOYD: I think the point, if there was a point, has been explained and apologized for half the afternoon now. I think we have wasted enough of the people's time. We have been here two and a half months and covered about five ministers. Are you going to drag up the same topic of secret police? Why were people so afraid of secret police?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Your citation is well accepted.

MR. LEA: The Munchkins are restless.

Mr. Chairman, that minister now has an obligation and a duty to put before this House the names of all civil servants who have been politicized or a list of names of those who have been fired or terminated by this government for being politicized. That's what we want now because she has gotten up and left a sly innuendo in this House that she has information, as the Provincial Secretary, that there are civil servants who were working in government when this government came to power, and either are not there or are still there, who are politicized. She has a duty to tell us who they have fired for being politicized. We're not talking about order-in-council people. We're talking about civil servants, not order-in-council people. How many people, other than order-in-council, have been fired by that government or terminated by that government since taking office who were politicized, and how many are left and about to be fired or terminated because they have been politicized? The minister has to put those names in front of this House. She cannot make that statement and then withdraw into a girlish twitter. She cannot do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw!

MR. LEA: I will not withdraw it because she does not act like a member of this House should act and stand on her own, regardless of sex. She uses it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member is now involved in a personal attack on another member of the House. I would ask the hon. member to please desist from this line of reasoning.

MR. LEA: I am not involved in a personal attack on the member at all. I'm just saying that she should answer those questions and hide behind nothing. She should not hide behind the cabinet, not hide behind her own portfolio, not hide behind anything. She's a member of this House, a member of cabinet, and she should not hide behind anything. She should stand up and put her mouth....

Interjections.

MR. LEA: No, that would be impossible.

What she should do is file on this table that which she has mouthed in this House, that there are people in the civil service who have been politicized to the point where they do not perform their duty as they should as provincial civil servants. That's what she's saying by inference. She has a duty to put those names in front of this Legislature so that there isn't a black mark across the entire civil service.

[ Page 2091 ]

Mr. Chairman, not only that minister, but the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and other ministers have been slamming the civil service ever since they came to office because it's another group to blame. They first of all get into office and blame the NDP for the sad state of the province....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 19.

MR. LEA: That's right. She's a minister of the Crown. She's had her share in doing what I'm talking about; she did it today in this House. They blame everybody.

Then they said: "Let's blame the trade unions." It didn't work. Then they had the nerve to turn around and blame the corporations and say it was their fault for not getting the economy moving again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. member, we're on vote 19.

MR. LEA: We're on vote 19 and we're talking about the economy of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We're on the administrative responsibilities of the Provincial Secretary.

MR. LEA: And tourism. The economy of this province....

MR. CHAIRMAN: And tourism - pardon me, travel industry.

MR. LEA: I'm talking about the travel industry and the welfare of this province.

They have blamed everybody because they got into office and didn't know what to do. They've run around in circles blaming this person and that group, everything except accepting their responsibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I warn you the third time to return to vote 19.

MR. LEA: I'm talking about the economy of this province and tourism.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are talking about vote 19, and the....

MR. LEA: Maybe you are, sir, but I'm not. I'm talking about vote 19 and the economy of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! In that case, perhaps, I will remind you of standing order 20: "Mr. Speaker or the Chairman shall order members whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of that day's sitting." I remind you for the fourth time to return to vote 19.

MR. LEA: I'm talking about vote 19. I'm talking about the general economy and what tourism has to do with that general economy, for which that minister is responsible.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEA: The only way I am going to leave this chamber is to be thrown out by the people who elected me.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LEA: That's the only way. Mr. Chairman, I don't mind being criticized by some, but to have that man over there criticize me for anything after what he did to a widow is too much for me. That's too much for me. I don't want to hear any criticism from that person about anything at any time.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if the member for Prince Rupert has imputed any improper conduct to me, I ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me ask the hon. member for Prince Rupert: did the member impute any improper motive to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?

MR. LEA: No. What does he have in mind?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LEA: I never. I don't know why he rose.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, surely no other reasonable interpretation could be put on the previous remarks by the member for Prince Rupert than that he imputed some improper conduct to me. I ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member for Prince Rupert imputed any improper motive to the Minister

[ Page 2092 ]

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I ask him to withdraw.

MR. LEA: No, I didn't. I was referring to someone else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Will the member just withdraw?

MR. LEA: I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

MR. KING: I'm interested, Mr. Chairman, in speaking in this debate this afternoon.

Interjections.

[ Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask all members, particularly the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to try to restrain themselves in their conduct in this room. We are trying to conduct orderly business in this chamber and unless orderly business can be conducted, I see no reason why we should continue.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm interested in the exchange which took place between the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) and the Provincial Secretary. I must plead guilty to being absent from the start of the debate regarding a meeting which allegedly took place and certain information which subsequently came to the attention of my colleague, the second member for Victoria.

I listened to the Provincial Secretary very carefully, Mr. Chairman. She expressed great concern about the proposition of information being leaked from a presumably confidential cabinet meeting or cabinet committee meeting - I'm not sure just what it was - and expressed concern about the leak of information that she categorized as confidential from government departments. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I have some sympathy for the Provincial Secretary's concern in this regard.

Her inference was, as I understand it - and she can correct me if I am wrong - that if the government were able to reveal the names of the people who made confidential government information public, there would be dire consequences waiting in terms of dismissal and so on.

The Provincial Secretary then made remarks about the former NDP administration politicizing the civil service in the province and indicated that "some political civil servants" still remain. Those are not her precise words, but that was the understanding I took from them. I want to say to the Provincial Secretary that her concern in this regard is shared by the opposition, I think every government has a concern for confidentiality. We certainly did as a government. Therefore I wonder if the Provincial Secretary and her colleagues have started an investigation of leaks that took place over the three-year period that the New Democratic Party was in government in this province. I refer to the telegram regarding the northern B.C. Rail development and the agreement with the CNR. It was a telegram that was directed to the then Premier, the hon. David Barrett. That telegram was stolen, and then it strangely appeared in the hands of the Leader of the Opposition at that time, the man who is now Premier of the Province (Hon. Mr. Bennett) . He revealed that telegram publicly, Mr. Chairman, in the north part of the province....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall we return to vote 19?

MR. KING: Yes, I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I want to submit to you that it is clearly within the terms and the jurisdiction of the Provincial Secretary to deal with the confidentiality and the impartiality of the public service. That is, I think, properly within the ambit of her vote.

I want to ask what the Provincial Secretary did to find the culprit who stole the BCR telegram addressed to my colleague, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) .

AN HON. MEMBER: You tell us who stole it.

MR. KING: Surely the Premier of the province must know who that was. It ended up in his hands.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who stole it?

MR. KING: They are now the government, and if they are truly sincere about plugging these gaps and weeding out these politicized civil servants, then the Provincial Secretary should make a statement and should take some action.

Well, the Premier is getting twitchy, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps that's because he doesn't want to reveal his sources, but obviously he knows who the individual was who stole that telegram and delivered it into his hands.

There was another memorandum stolen or misplaced - or at least delivered to the opposition -and that was a memo left in the parliamentary restaurant. It was a memo belonging to my colleague, the first member for Vancouver-Centre (Mr. Lauk) , who at that time was Minister of Industrial and

[ Page 2093 ]

Economic Development in the province....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, how does this relate to vote 19?

MR. KING: It relates because we are talking about the confidentiality of government material and the obligation of public servants to respect their oath of office and to, treat, in an impartial and confidential way, government documents. Now the Provincial Secretary has made a statement on this.

I want to know what she is doing about weeding out those people whom she referred to as "political civil servants" who revealed documents to her party when they were in opposition. Surely that's valid. If she's to be believable, Mr. Chairman, we want to see some consistency. We want to know that not only is she not happy to live with Social Credit sympathizers and supporters who would leak confidential documents to her party, but that she would be upset about and be prepared to act against any public servants who may have an opposing political persuasion.

Now there was the memo that was stolen from the parliamentary restaurant. It belonged to my colleague, the first member for Vancouver Centre.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, I tell you, Mr. Chairman, we didn't cry about it in those days. We didn't conduct investigations to try to fire and harass the public servants who apparently released these documents. We did not at all. And I want to tell you that there were no blacklists circulating in that era. There was no attempt to identify the political persuasion of public servants.

The Premier chirps away, Mr. Chairman. I think if he wants to get involved in this debate, he should have the gumption to stand on his feet and enter the debate and give some moral direction and leadership to his party. It's about time!

MR. CHAIRMAN: And to vote 19, hon. member?

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm being interrupted constantly. I think most people in the province find the Premier a distraction, Mr. Chairman.

The other memo that went missing which I want to refer to was one that was sent by my colleague, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) - who, at that time, was Minister of Education - and was directed to the then Premier, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) . It was misplaced and it ended up being read on the floor of this House by the now Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) . He had no compunction about reading that document in the House. He must know the identity of the public servant who squirreled that memorandum away and delivered it into the hands of the opposition.

If the Provincial Secretary is really sincere in what she is telling the House today, then I think she should be prepared to get up and identify the people who stole the three memoranda I've referred to and delivered them to members of the caucus. If she's prepared to do that, then she'll be believable. If she's prepared to do that, we can assume that she is not being political or partisan in terms of harassing people for their political views in the civil service but is prepared to deal in an impartial way for a professional civil service that has no favour on behalf of any party in this province.

She made a pitch to the House, Mr. Chairman, that she was very sincere and concerned that the public service be apolitical, be professional and be in a position to serve any government that's duly elected in the province. She can't do that and leave an inference that there are those people in the public service who are indeed partisan, who indeed have been revealing secret documents from the government, and ignore the kind of situation that went on in an earlier era which I have outlined.

Surely she is a party to information from her colleagues on who was responsible for those leaks in the past government. I think if she wants to be serious and believed in terms of developing a reliable, non-partisan public service, she has an obligation to reveal those names, too.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, we haven't got to the bottom of this yet. The Provincial Secretary, a little while ago, said that the public service had become politicized during the tenure of the former government. But almost in the next breath she said: "But it's no longer political." I want that explained, Mr. Chairman. Does she mean that all the political people were fired? Were all the people fired who were politicizing the public service back in the days of the old government? Could we have a list of those who were fired?

I know some very fine public servants like the former Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs who was fired. He was fired for being a New Democrat. How many people down in the lower echelons of the public service were fired by this government? Any? Could we have a list of them? If none were fired, how has the civil service become depoliticized?

MR. BARRETT: Re-educated.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, you think they were re-educated. They're convinced; they've seen the light of Social Credit. I don't know, I think we have more intelligent people than that in our civil service, Mr. Member.

So what happened? Is the civil service still

[ Page 2094 ]

political? The minister said in the House today that it's politicized, and then she changed her tune. But that's what she said and I want her to name names. That's the nub of the question. That's the one that was brought up by the Leader of the Opposition.

If you're going to smear the civil service generally, you cannot do that. You must name names.

MR. BARRETT: You can even name a Liberal or two, if you want to.

MR. GIBSON: I wish she would! (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: There must be one or two of those left.

MR. GIBSON: I yield to the Leader of the Opposition in his citation of Greek mythology. He's very good at that. I appreciate the "kill the messenger" line. But I am going to paraphrase Gilbert and Sullivan, who are not quite so ancient.

You remember the song: "The Lord High Executioner"? That's who this minister is:

She's got them on the list. She's got them on the list. And they'll none of them be missed.

Those are those politicized civil servants. I think she knows who they are. I think she knows where they are hiding and I think the discussions go around the government as to who is who and where.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): You're on the list, too.

MR. GIBSON: I'm on the list, Mr. Member? I'm honoured. I'm in good company.

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

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I heard the minister decry some of the leaked memos that have come out during the currency of this government. I'm just trying to remember what they were. I think there was one from one minister to another, saying "don't use such-and-such a service or employ somebody." I forget what it was exactly. Then there was the blacklist out of the Environment department, and one or two other memos. The minister was deploring that.

But, Mr. Chairman, it's a funny thing. Every one of those leaks has shed some important light on the way this government operates. It hasn't been very pleasant - what we've seen when those rocks have been rolled over. It's a kind of light they'd rather not have.

Then there was a very important point of principle raised by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) when he said: "Must a civil servant always remain silent? Is it always their moral duty to remain silent about the doings of government?"

The whole question of civil disobedience, I think, is one that has taxed the minds of philosophers over the years. It's not an easy one, and I don't think it's one on which an unconditional stand can be taken in the absence of the circumstances of the case.

MR. BARRETT: We respect it in law: conscientious objection.

MR. GIBSON: We do indeed respect it in law in certain cases, such as the conscientious objector.

Generally speaking, when a person decides to undertake an act of civil disobedience, they do it in the knowledge that they are going against the written law, whatever it may be, but they feel they are following some higher moral calling. We saw this in much of the fight against segregation in the southern United States - almost daily acts of civil disobedience and people being hauled away by the police and taken into jail and so on. People, generally speaking, at least in Canada and in much of the United States as well, thought that those acts were morally justified although they might be technically illegal.

Now, Mr. Chairman, no member of any Legislative Assembly that is concerned with the rule of law can at any time easily advocate civil disobedience. Penalties must always be consonant with that concept. Always the deed must be judged in the balance of the gravity of the act of civil disobedience as opposed to the gravity of the evil that is opposed. But within those terms of reference, I think you can say there are some times, and on some things, that civil servants should blow the whistle, especially if they are the kind of things which are apt to inure to the long-term serious disadvantage of the province, in their opinion - it has to be in someone's opinion -and if the gravity of the revelation is not a serious one.

I would say that any government that is too insistent upon laws relating to confidentiality automatically sets up within its own structure a contradiction that is going to surface from time to time in the form of the release of documentation which no reasonable person would think should have been kept secret in the first instance. That is why, among other reasons, this province deserves a codification of information rights in this province in the form of a freedom of information right. Then people will have guidelines, as they go about their daily business, as to what is correct and what is incorrect as to disclosure and its time limits. That's a question for another debate, but it's an important thing that the government should be moving on.

I'll just ask the Provincial Secretary this simple question, if I may put it thus: do I take it that it is

[ Page 2095 ]

the position of the government that if a civil servant does not agree with what the government is doing and is fearful of its effect, and is simply talking about matters of fact, nevertheless that civil servant must be muzzled and must not make that information known? Is that the blanket position of the government?

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, just in response to what the member for North Vancouver-Capilano has just asked in his questioning, first of all you said: "Has the public service been depoliticized?" That was very clearly said by the leader of the NDP at the time of the defeat of the NDP government. When he announced the firing of all political appointees in the province of British Columbia he made a very big thing of it.

MR. BARRETT: There's a difference between order-in-council and civil service.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would also like to say, Mr. Chairman, regarding the reference I made to the politicizing that we never did have in this province, prior to the NDP government, the kind of civil service changes which were done by that government under the guise of putting them into the Attorney-General's department, the Highways department, the Municipal Affairs department, Labour and Education. People who had served the province of British Columbia for many, many years were given appointments and people were put in advance of them. We all know who they are and you know who they are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: After long-time service to the province of British Columbia, those people were given associate deputy minister positions after they had held positions of deputy ministers in this province and had been respected in those positions in an unpolitical way. That had happened.

Also, I'd like to say in reference to your question about a blacklist, Mr. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano, that there are many people who have, over the past few months, made applications to this government because they were treated badly during those three and a half years. We have had to handle those requests. Some are known to the leader of the Liberal Party as well as to the leader of the NDP and the leader of the Conservative Party. I'm sure that all members of the caucuses know who they are because they have been lobbying all members of the House. They were taken away from their positions and they were left without jobs during the last four years.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Name names!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, I'll name names. Lou Madeley, and one of your particular employees whom you promised to give....

MR. LEVI: Because you people didn't pay!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: You were the one who didn't pay him, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEVI: You were the ones who stopped the payments.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Three and a half years.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It took three and a half years for a member of the public service to get some kind of satisfaction from that former administration.

Again, may I just assure the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, the hon. leader of the Liberal Party, of the attitude of the government? It is one that is clear, and we hope that it has been made clear to you today. We hope to have a public service in this province which will be completely apolitical and will not have any reference to politics in this province. I think that's what the people of British Columbia want.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, let us distinguish between sanctimonious statements and reality. I was fired by a Social Credit government for belonging to the CCF.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Yes! Oh, how you forget that!

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Shhh! Now, now! At the same time I was fired, there was a Social Credit civil servant, Kirk Vanderdent, who was working in Oakalla. He said: "How come he's fired? I was approached to seek a Social Credit nomination and I wasn't fired." That was 1960.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Do you think that Social Credit is not political? Do you think that being a Social Credit member is not political? Of course the order-in-council people were left; of course they were. Now you tell me that all your order-in-council appointments are not political? Is Mr. Plul non-political? He campaigned in the Vancouver East by-election. He's a political appointee. If the

[ Page 2096 ]

government loses he will go, I hope, and I hope you have the decency to be the ones who will rescind the order-in-council.

Every one of the political appointees made to cabinet ministers.... Who is a consultant to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications? Mr. Chestnut - who is he? Is he not a political appointee? Was he not active in the campaign of the Minister of Transport? He was not? He's not a political appointee? Are you denying that he's a political appointee?

How about all of the executive assistants to the cabinet ministers? Are they political appointees?

How about your political appointee, the president of the Social Credit Party, an unsuccessful candidate? Is he not a political appointee?

There are lists and lists and lists of political appointees who are order-in-council. Are you saying that your order-in-council appointees are not political but ours were?

AN HON. MEMBER: Were they done through competition?

MR. BARRETT: Were they done through competition - competition among the Social Credit hacks and hangers-on and campaign workers? Don't tell us sanctimoniously that your order-in-council appointments are not Social Credit but that the NDP ones were political. We hired them and we let them go. We made no bones about it. Do we have a pledge from the Provincial Secretary today that if they are defeated, before they go out of office they will can all of their political appointees that they made? Do we have that pledge from you? Do we understand that kind of behaviour in the sanctimonious and pious statements that you're giving us? Will you make the same commitment to this House that we made to the people of this province when we let all those order-in-council people be rescinded by order-in-council before we left office? Will you do the same thing? Will you, through you, Mr. Chairman? Do you not see your appointments to the executive assistant positions - Plul and all the rest of them - as political appointees? Do you have a double standard? Do you actually stand there and think that somehow, because you do it it's nice, but because we do it it's wrong?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Really? Will you let them go if you lose government?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You will? Oh, well, then, that's fine. Now we have decided what we're talking about.

She agrees that the order-in-council appointments that they made, like ours, were political.

MS. SANFORD: And they'll be let go.

MR. BARRETT: They'll be let go if the government is defeated. That's what she's just whispered quietly across the floor to me. So they have been making political appointments. They have been, and they admit it. Thank you.

Now that we understand we're operating under the same guidelines, let us put aside the political appointments by order-in-council and deal with a statement you made about public servants. We're back now to the question raised by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . We're not talking about political appointments made by the NDP; we're not talking about political appointments made by Social Credit. We're talking about the Public Service Commission and the hiring of civil servants. Your statement was that there are civil servants, unfortunately, who are politicized. How did they get through the Public Service Commission? Who are they? What are their names? What positions do they hold? Which party do they represent? Will they be fired? If you have absolute proof that someone is in the civil service and is politically motivated, will they be fired?

We talk about deputy ministers. Deputy ministers are order-in-council by the nature of being a deputy minister. You know that. Deputy ministers do not come through the civil service. It would be pretty awful in the British parliamentary system if a minister couldn't select a deputy minister. It would be pretty stupid, but what you're really doing is going all around the bush trying to avoid a statement you made that is very, very dangerous. The statement you made was that there are civil servants in the Public Service Commission who are political. It's unfortunate, and you haven't named one - not one.

The member also brings up a very good important point about the individual responsibility of a person acting in good conscience. Mr. Chairman, it may be that someone has no political affiliation at all, but they make a decision in good conscience on a definition of morality as they see it, that they want to talk about something. That's what leads to the freedom of our society. That leads to conscientious objection. People have done that in our society and have been protected by law because that is their responsibility to themselves as decent human beings.

As my friend the member for North Vancouver-Capilano points out, no government is so sacrosanct that it's above any kind of moral examination - rightly or wrongly - by an individual. Every individual is free to be wrong, as they are free to be right. And if they choose that path, that is their responsibility, not a government's responsibility, nor

[ Page 2097 ]

a political party's responsibility. But you have smeared the whole civil service today. You've smeared the whole civil service in an attempt to gain some unknown political point. I don't know what the political point was. But you have yet to clean the air around the blacklist. You have yet to clear the name of Dan Campbell in passing on the blacklist. You still have to clean the atmosphere around the civil servant who passed on the blacklist.

Those are civil servant appointments. And then, as soon as the list is revealed, you stand up and say: "Oh, well, they're not all NDPers. What about Mr. Al Raine? What about others on that list?" Now I find it absolutely incredible that the only time there was an apology to those people about being on a political list was after the list was made public. What else is hidden that we don't know about, and which, if it becomes public, they'll get letters of apology for? We don't know. But the minister has certainly hinted today that there are lists of people in the civil service - not order-in-council and not deputy minister level, but civil servants in the Public Service Commission structure hired by the Public Service Commission -who are political and doing political work.

Now if that is wrong - if that is a misinterpretation of what you said - I ask the minister to get up and say that she's not talking about the Public Service Commission or any civil servant; she's talking strictly about order-in-council whom, she admits herself, Social Credit will fire if they're defeated. Yes, she did. Your brother-in-law's brother is one of them who goes, too. Thirty-eight grand a year and he goes down the tube. She told me that she'd do the same thing.

All the flacks and hacks that were hired as executive assistants will go down the tube, too. That's what she told me, and I appreciate her honesty about that. They're just the same kind of hacks as they accuse us of hiring. Good hacks versus bad backs, huh? My hack is better than your hack, is that what it's down to?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Who hired you, Jim ...

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

MR. BARRETT: ... through you, Mr. Chairman?

You know, in my opinion, the minister has a responsibility to stand up and say her remarks were confined to order-in-council appointees. If she did indeed say civil servants, as I heard her say, and meant it, then she has a responsibility to name names. But it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. It's exactly that, and you're not kidding anybody.

Now are there civil servants who are acting politically, in your opinion?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, well, just a minute, Mr. Chairman; I asked the minister a question. Yes, I asked the minister if she would inform me whether she was referring to people in the public service, hired through the Public Service Commission - yes or no?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, the minister has made a sweeping accusation against order-in-council, and we've clarified that their order-in-council is just the same as ours - political. I'd like to ask the minister which civil servants she is referring to when she said that, unfortunately, some civil servants are politically motivated? Does she have a list?

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a very few words. We got into a debate about the public service of British Columbia, of which all of us in this House should be very proud. I think it's unfortunate that we're discussing the public service of B.C. in this way in the House, because it's traditional, of course, that we do not bring the civil service into political debates. But it has been injected into this debate, and that's unfortunate.

I want to say that I was as concerned as anybody about the questions and the subject matter raised by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) , because over a period of some months - not just leading up to the meeting on Wednesday last - I have been concerned about the political heat that has been applied to the Attorney-General's ministry by cabinet colleagues, no doubt in good faith. But a very dangerous kind of political heat was being applied. There's no doubt about that in my mind.

The Attorney-General's ministry - while the Provincial Secretary says she speaks with that department and other departments and tries to help them out - is not a department like the others, Mr. Chairman, because it has justice functions to carry out. The kind of concern that I've just been expressing is something where the Attorney-General has to stand up for an independent role as having special statutory powers as the chief law officer of the Crown in the administration of justice.

The Provincial Secretary helping the Attorney-General with his department sounds fine, but unfortunately the Provincial Secretary is very partisan, as we've seen this afternoon. I think she has had an open door to some of the disgruntled people within the justice system. It's a big system; they're all there who have brought to her office tales largely of nonsense and sometimes justifiable complaints. She has been the recipient of that kind of news from the justice system. The open door, the willing ear to listen - that has been part of the origin of the kind of

[ Page 2098 ]

heat on the Attorney-General's department about which we in the opposition are very concerned and which was very well expressed by the second member for Victoria in asking perfectly proper questions. I hope that in raising the matter, as the second member for Victoria did, he has checked what could be an erosion of the independent justice function of the department of the Attorney-General in this province. We're all concerned about it.

The second point I want to make is just going back to the public service of B.C. which, as I say, is a very fine civil service. I'm not talking about the order-in-council people, who are separate, of course, and can very well be political, as the Leader of the Opposition points out. This afternoon we've had scatter-gun charges from the Provincial Secretary which perhaps she's thinking better of now. Unfortunately, having said these things, they're now before the Legislature in committee, and we're debating them.

She said, Mr. Chairman, that the NDP politicized the civil service. Now that's something that is totally false. Perhaps the others that were with the previous government may remember once that we were charged by the opposition in the House with politicizing the civil service of B.C.

MR. BARRETT: He said I had my relatives on B.C. Rail.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver East has the floor.

MR. MACDONALD: But generally speaking, we developed and worked with a very good public service in the time we were in office. I resent the charge that we politicized the civil service, and I say it is totally false.

The Provincial Secretary went on in a scatter-gun, blanket way to say that there are still politically partisan people within the public service. She cannot say that in that kind of a way and embroil the whole 33,000....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Only one member may speak at a time. The hon. first member for Vancouver East has the floor.

MR. MACDONALD: The Provincial Secretary, when she said that, either said too much or said too little. Each public servant is entitled as part of his job protection and the dignity of the office, if you like, to have a specific charge against him or her if in fact that person is disloyal to their oath of office - not a scatter-gun general charge: "There are very dangerous elements in the public service and we're going to get after them." Then that person has a right to grieve, to appeal and to have his case heard. But this afternoon in the Legislature - and I think this is a very bad thing - we've had a general scatter-gun attack on certain parts of the public service without being known....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, from the Provincial Secretary. Mr. Premier, you may not have been present. It's that kind of general attack on the public service that should not come into this House unless there was something specific and unless it was going to be followed up with a proper charge or discipline, and a fair right of appeal. I think we've had a very bad afternoon in this House in terms of bringing the public service into politics, as has been done. I think the sooner we either get down to the specifics, if we have to, or get off the subject the better.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) makes comment about the sad commentary on the public service today. I think he had not been in the House when I said in this House today - and I will repeat it, if you like, Mr. Chairman, for the member's edification - that I too agree that we have a fine public service in the province of British Columbia. I have said that many times publicly since taking the responsibility. I want to just say we wouldn't even have the debate on the floor of the House today and the spectre of the charge against the public service in this province had it not been raised by the hon. second member for Victoria.

Mr. Chairman, let me say this: that same kind of line of questioning that was brought to the floor of this House by the second member for Victoria began.... I have a copy of the Blues in front of me. It comes to light when he places on the floor of the House the intimation.... I will read the intimation. I thought I was correct in that intimation and his words, which are reported in the Blues in Hansard, stand me in good stead in this regard. He prefaced his remarks in this House by making charges against my particular personal opinion which he places on me. I do not have and I will not take responsibility for what he has placed on me as an attitude to the Attorney-General's office. Although I will not accept his comments on that, that is his interpretation.

I quote from the Blues, Mr. Chairman:

I understand the Provincial Secretary has been extremely concerned about all of these things and has so expressed in private on a number of occasions. It appears now that this concern has come to light at last when we understand, as I am told, what occurred in the meeting that took place in cabinet on Wednesday,

[ Page 2099 ]

March 16,1977.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that statement puts in context the whole debate of this afternoon because, as you notice, following this.... I'll just repeat again from the Blues.... He follows that assertion that this all came out of a meeting, and he is quoting fairly inaccurately.

Very quickly, if I may review: the historic interest she has taken in the problem, the claims about a secret police, the splits with the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , the split in that cabinet between the Liberals and the Socreds within it, led to a meeting on March 16 in which the Provincial Secretary, I understand, saw to it that two proposals were put forward. Because of the concern about the 180-day directive, the role of the Crown prosecutor's office, the charges of Mr. McKinnon, and if I may'. suggest it, Mr. Chairman, that minister's personal lack of confidence in the present Attorney-General to whose political party she does not belong.... Those are the words of the member for Victoria, Mr. Chairman, in which he alleges my personal opinion of the A-G's office, which I have in later comments in the House completely labelled false, and the hon. member has accepted that.

But I want to say this to you. Not only that but following in all of the other things that he has said, he has said that it was during that meeting that he got that information. Mr. Chairman, that was what raised the debate in this House. In so labelling that meeting and those civil servants who attended that meeting as people who would be giving information of any kind which he has misconstrued and falsely brought to this House - falsely, I say.... He should apologize to this House because either he has made up something or he completely blankets every person who is in that room with a misleading statement that they have made out of that room and that they have made it in violation of their secret oath of office.

Now I will go back to what one of the members has said: "Well, in so saying, then you're saying that what they said is true." I'm saying that what they said was not true. Either that member apologizes for misconstruing what was said or apologizes to the civil servants who were in that room, because he has blanketed all of them, Mr. Chairman, with being politicized civil servants who would carry anything out of a room that was supposed to be a private cabinet conversation and cabinet meeting.

I suggest to you that the whole debate today has been because that member for Victoria rushed into this House with a fabricated story which he expected me to respond to. Instead of coming to this House with facts, he comes with a fabricated story, a complete smear not only on myself, but on the Attorney-General's department, and not only on the Attorney-General's department but on the integrity of the civil servants who were in that room. I ask him to apologize to them because that's exactly where he has placed this debate today and has continued to do so in all of the kinds of debates that he brings before this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. second member for Victoria on a point of order. What is your point of order?

MR. BARBER: I wonder if the Provincial Secretary would be so good as to withdraw the word "smear" and the other suggestions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I didn't hear that on that same context, hon. member, but if she has offended you then perhaps....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you asking if the Provincial Secretary will withdraw something that offended you?

MR. BARBER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It was the Provincial Secretary's ....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: When I have order, I'll explain, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BARBER: Thank you.

It was the Provincial Secretary's assertion that I had smeared, I understand, the civil servants who were in attendance at that meeting. I did no such thing. I asked some questions. I provided what I was told was accurate information. I am now told it was inaccurate and I have not repeated it since the assurance was given me by the Provincial Secretary that it was not accurate. I ask her, in turn, if she would withdraw the assertion that I or anyone else had smeared the public servants who were at that or any other meeting.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, we have spent the afternoon debating the subject matter which was brought to the floor of this House at 2:30 by that member. I say that is the reason for the debate all afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

[ Page 2100 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. Provincial Secretary is explaining a position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, even in his explanation that I should withdraw one of the words in my last commentary, he is saying that the information that was given to me is incorrect. Again, he must have been given it by somebody who was in that room because he is quoting a March 16 meeting. Again, that simply verifies what I am saying about the whole debate in this House today.

Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to withdraw the terminology that I used if that member will say on the floor of this House that he does not think the information that was given to him was correct and that he, in turn, does not say to those people who were in that room that they had given him information.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Provincial Secretary, perhaps in any event, you would wish to withdraw the word "smear." It appears to offend the member.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, as an hon. member of this House, I'd be pleased to withdraw whatever is unparliamentary, including the word "smear."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you kindly.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Boy, do you scare us, Bill!

MR. LEVI: I just want to cover, Mr. Chairman, a point that the Provincial Secretary made in respect to her view of naming names in respect to the firing of people in the civil service. As I recall, she mentioned two names, an individual called Madeley and an individual called Delmonico. At that time, I indicated in response to the screaming of the Premier that we didn't pay him, that the government, in fact, did not pay him - the present government. What I'd like to do is just go through two or three pieces of correspondence to illustrate that perhaps what the Provincial Secretary should do would be to listen to the correspondence and then get up and perhaps apologize to the House.

Mr. Delmonico received a letter from Mr. A.G. Richardson, the chairman of the Civil Service Commission, as it was then, on September 27,1972, which read:

"Dear Mr. Delmonico:

"I'm advised by the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement that the operation of the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen is to be discontinued and your position is to be deleted from the establishment. I understand your department has notified you that you may remain on the payroll of the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen until October 31,1972. Any vacation entitlement outstanding at that time will be granted from November 1,1972.

"Should you wish to seek other employment within the service, you should please advise me at the earliest opportunity. Such other employment, if it can be arranged, will be at the appropriate salary for the-position.

"Please accept our thanks for the services you have rendered and the best of luck in your future employment."

On December 7,1972, the then personnel officer of the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement wrote to the departmental comptroller. It's dated December 7,1972. It's re Edward Norman Delmonico, former PAB employee. I'm sure the government over there remembers the PAB - the pork barrel.

"Further to your request by telephone, I've endeavored to clear up the present status of Mr. Delmonico. According to Civil Service Commission records, he's presently on leave without pay until such time as suitable alternate employment may be arranged. This leave without pay was approved by the Civil Service Commission.

"I understand also that if and when Mr. Delmonico is placed in another position, he will be able to repay his superannuation account. I believe he is also anxious to continue his group life coverage and B.C. Medical coverage. So far as his group-life payments are concerned, I am advised by the accountant of the Superannuation Commission that these payments should be made directly to the commission. His payments on medical coverage, on the other hand, should also be made directly to the B.C. Medical Plan.

"At this time, the Civil Service Commission is actively attempting to find other employment for Mr. Delmonico.

"I hope this is the information that you require."

Now on November 6,1975, the director of personnel administration, Mr. C.R. Spence, wrote to me when I was the minister. He said as follows:

"Re: Mr. E.N. Delmonico.

"This report is written as a result of a telegram you received from Mr. Delmonico dated November 4,1975, and a letter from Mr. A.G. Richardson dated October 8,1975.

"The sequence of events which led to the Public Service Commission granting Mr.

[ Page 2101 ]

Delmonico a leave of absence in 1972 are as follows:

"I. Mr. Richardson, chairman of the Public Service Commission sent Mr. Delmonico a termination letter dated September 27. Paragraph three outlined what Delmonico was to do if he wished to seek other employment in the service.

"2. The Department of Human Resources completed his separation document showing his last working day as October 31,1972.

"3. Mr. Delmonico apparently was placed on leave of absence by the Public Service Commission on October 17,1972. No leave-of-absence form is on file in the department and there is no official notice to the department that he was placed on leave of absence. The department was not consulted in advance, to my knowledge."

I also attach a copy of a letter to Mr. H.J. Price, which I've just quoted to the House.

"I cannot understand how this department can be under any obligation, real or imagined, to do anything further in relation to Mr. Delmonico, considering the almost three years which have passed without any communication from him or from the Public Service Commission. Under the circumstances I do not think there is an issue requiring action by this department, particularly since the leave of absence was a decision taken by the Public Service Commission. I think the department's position is clearly described in Mr. Richardson's letter."

I did not take the view at that time, regarding Mr. Delmonico, that we should just rely on the fact that we were not obligated. I wrote to Mr. Delmonico on November 28,1975. It was during the election, I was back in Victoria, and I wrote him a letter. I said this:

"Thank you for your letter of November 24 regarding your present circumstances. In view of those circumstances, I'm prepared to make the following offer, which would be a full settlement of any claims you may have.

"I asked my staff to check the matter of your sick leave, and the records show that you accumulated 71 days of sick leave while working for the Department of Highways and 40 days sick leave while working for the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement in the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen. This makes a total of 111 days, paid at the rate of $42.25 a day, for the amount of $4,689. However, the entitlement is 50 per cent, and therefore is $2,344. You did mention that if this was paid, you would like to have it put in your superannuation fund.

"Careful examination has been given to your request for severance pay and I'm prepared to recommend to the Lieutenant-Governor-in Council that a cheque in the sum of $ 10,000 be issued to you. Upon receipt of your written resignation, I will immediately take steps to implement this settlement. I await your decision."

On December 5, J.A. Sadler, the Deputy Minister of the Department of Human Resources, sent a letter to Mr. A.G. Richardson, Public Service Commission, re Delmonico.

"I'm enclosing a letter from the Minister of Human Resources to Mr. Delmonico containing details as to the final settlement with respect to his employment with the department. Would you prepare the order-in-council authorizing payment to Mr. Delmonico of $10,000 severance pay?"

I have in my hand a copy of an order-in-council -December 11,1975. Memorandum to the Hon. Ernest Hall, Provincial Secretary.

- W i t h regard to the attached, self-explanatory letter from Mr. Levi to Mr. Delmonico, I attach an order-in-council which, if approved, will grant Mr. Delmonico severance payment of $10,000. A copy of Mr. Delmonico's acceptance of resignation is also attached."

That was written on the same day as the election. The government of the day took the position that it was not prepared to pass any order-in-council once the election result was through. What we depended on was that that government would honour a commitment that we had made to a civil servant to pay him $10,000, and they didn't do it. They didn't do it. The same way as they tried to waffle out of the Vietnam aid, that minister is trying to stand up and tell us that we didn't pay.

For three years we didn't hear from this individual. We accepted some responsibility for his problem. We settled for $ 10,000 and that government - that Premier and that Provincial Secretary - did not approve the order-in-council which had been drawn on December 11. It's a shame that we have that minister standing up here and telling us about smear and telling us about facts. Those are the facts in the Delmonico case.

Now I'd like to ask the minister to get up and to deny it. She's the one who tells us that Delmonico was a civil servant and I know that. He happened to go over to the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen. We got rid of that pork barrel because it did no good. We offered him a job. For three years we didn't hear from him. She's telling us that somehow we didn't do right by him. We did everything right, right up until the day of the election. It was just a matter of a gesture on your part. You were so concerned that he was such a good civil servant - which he was - and

[ Page 2102 ]

that he should have some kind of remedy, which he should have had. But you didn't do it. You try, in this House, to blame it on us. It was your intractable behaviour that cost that man $ 10,000, not ours.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The former Minister of Human Resources, under whose jurisdiction Mr. Delmonico served before that member became the Minister of Human Resources, seems to have some of the facts a little mixed up. I, too, have a copy of the correspondence which passed between the former minister and Mr. Delmonico. I would just like to say through you, Mr. Chairman, that this government did act very promptly to Mr. Delmonico's request.

First of all, the first that we had heard of the whole situation was when Mr. Delmonico wrote to me on February 27,1976. He wrote to ask about the problems which he had endured and, as he puts it in his letter: "For over three years I was held on leave of absence by the NDP administration and crucified from returning to a civil service position."

Those are his words. I'm not putting that on the former administration. Of course, after having heard that and having had the request from the gentleman, I had, of course, to have a report from my chairman of the Public Service Commission. That report was given to me and Mr. Delmonico was given, just after his first request which, I believe, came to us on February 27. . . . It took just a little over 30 days to settle something that that gentleman was trying to settle, Mr. Chairman, in three and a half years of the NDP administration. So I won't accept the accusation that was given to us on the floor of this House a few minutes ago, that we did not settle with Mr. Delmonico in a very quick way, because we did. It took us just over 30 days from the time it was brought to our attention as government.

Now it could well be that some of the information that the hon. member mentions was maybe some that he took away when he vacated the office of the Minister of Human Resources. But it was certainly not brought to our government's attention until February 27. The settlement was, as indicated by the hon. member a few minutes ago, $10,000 in severance pay and $2,344.88 in accumulated sick leave.

MR. LEVI: Just to make it clear for the Provincial Secretary, in case she forgets to look down at the bottom where the copies are sent in terms of these letters. On December 5 the letter was to Mr. A.G. Richardson from Mr. J.A. Sadler, the deputy minister. Therefore a copy of that letter would appear in the files of Mr. Sadler, the deputy minister. The copy of Mr. Richardson sending on the order-in-council to the former Provincial Secretary would be in Mr. Richardson's files.

If you read all of the correspondence, you will find that for three years not one word was heard by the Civil Service Commission or by the Ministry of Human Resources from Mr. Delmonico - absolutely not one word until he wrote in September. We took the time after the election was called when we were meeting with him to make the arrangements.

You suggest that you got your civil servants to look into it. The civil servants had already looked into it. They had gone to a lot of trouble. There were letters from Mr. Spence, from Mr. Richardson, from the Deputy Minister of Human Resources - all extremely responsible civil servants.

You didn't answer him; you didn't do anything about it. You didn't contact him. That was part of the unfinished business of the previous government that was in the hands of the Provincial Secretary's office.

Don't tell us that you didn't hear from him until the 26th. You didn't do anything; you didn't carry over the kind of work that you should have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. LEVI: He had to get in touch with you.

Vote 19 approved.

On vote 20: general administration, $339,252.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I note in this vote that there have been some changes, of course. It's rather difficult to correlate them with the former. There is personnel officer 6 here. I understand it was in the last vote and now it is removed. We have a personnel officer 2 and a personnel officer 1. 1 wonder if the minister could explain why the change here.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I can answer for the one which is the personnel officer 2. That personnel officer has been transferred to the Government Employee Relations Bureau, doing the same work that he did, I presume, under our department but in responsibility to the treasury department, which now has GERB.

Vote 20 approved.

Vote 21: Central Microfilm Bureau, $806,242 -approved.

On vote 22: postal branch, $4,529, 088.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, a question on the section of professional and special services. We note that it has gone from $3 million to $4 million, and I don't recall in the last estimates that it was listed there at all as professional and special services.

[ Page 2103 ]

1 was wondering if the Provincial Secretary could explain to us just what professional and special services are and why the increase from $3 million to $4 million.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, all provincial government postage now is charged to this section, and the increase of $1 million for postage was based on the announced federal government general increases in postal rates of 25 per cent on September, 1976, and a further 20 per cent on March 1,1977, for first-class mail and approximately 20 per cent for other classes of mail. It reflects the increased federal costs.

Vote 22 approved.

Vote 23: Legislative Library, $646,994 - approved.

Vote 24: Provincial Archives, $742,620 - approved.

On vote 25: Queen's printer, $ 10.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Too much!

MRS. DAILLY: There is just one question here, besides our concern about the size of the vote - $ 10. If I recall, in last year's estimates we still had the name "Queen's printer, " Is that correct? I noticed now that it's programme manager 3. 1 was wondering why a decision was made for something that's been here traditionally for so many years? I just wondered what the reason was.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that they've just simply adjusted the titles. I wasn't aware of it until the hon. member drew it to my attention. But I understand from my comptroller that that has probably come out of finance in putting out the estimates.

MRS. DAILLY: Terrible. You know, I appreciate the answer, but he's still the Queen's printer. That's all we're trying to ascertain. Very good. We haven't lost the Queen's printer.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, we haven't.

AN HON. MEMBER: This would happen in Quebec.

MRS. DAILLY: Oh, very good. I notice machinery and equipment. There has been a change from last year's $75,000 up to $450,000. 1 was just wondering if you could tell us just what this involves. That is a considerable increase over last year's vote. Perhaps we can hear what it entails.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I understand the machinery and equipment is an increase of $375,000, and the $450,000 allows a $50,000 amount for normal machine acquisitions. An additional $400,000 will allow for changes in typesetting, structural modifications and related printing equipment, which will bring a modernization programme to the Queen's printer operations.

Vote 25 approved.

On vote 26: Government House, $131,888.

MRS. DAILLY: I realize I asked this question before, and perhaps the Provincial Secretary said it would be answered this week. I wondered if she had any figures on the cost of the state ball this year. Are they available?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to bring that to the House. But I am aware of the question.

Vote 26 approved.

On vote 27: agent-general's office and British Columbia House, London, England, $454,184.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary under which vote here Mr. Lillico's salary comes? Is it administrative officer 4?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's public information officer 5.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, Mr. Chairman, as B.C. House is a completely new post - it was never there before, to my knowledge - I wonder if the Provincial Secretary could explain to the members of the House what the purpose is of assigning this public information officer. What are his specific duties. Could you give us the background of this public information officer?

MR. COCKE: The Premier told her.

MRS. DAILLY: The Premier informed the Provincial Secretary? Oh, I'm sure that she knows this herself. I know he rushed the Blues to her very quickly, but I don't think the Blues will help with this answer.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lillico's duties as a public information officer are those which are the same as all public information officers, but he does undertake the publication of our

[ Page 2104 ]

bulletin from there. It also emphasizes the increased importance that we place as a government on our ties with Britain and increased trade with Britain because Mr. Lillico will fulfill a public information position i for both travel industry and trade in itself.

MRS. DAILLY: I didn't get an answer on what his credentials are except that we're all quite aware that he was a former worker for the Social Credit. We have I just gone through an exercise, I think, that the public will well remember about the number of political appointments made by the Social Credit government. t This is one of the most blatant ones, as far as I can see. This position was never there before, and we haven't had....

The Leader of the Opposition admitted quite openly about political appointments, but until we had the Provincial Secretary in a particular situation this afternoon, she was not even ready to concede that your government is also quite well known.... In fact, may I say that as the days go on no government could match you in your political appointments, Mr.

Chairman.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Lillico's qualifications are well known in the British Columbia files. If the member would like to look it up, he's had a very good record in the press gallery in this province right in this House. He's had some film experience;

he's had a lot of writing experience. He was associated before coming to British Columbia with the BBC in England so he has a lot of contacts with the British corporation there. I think he comes very highly qualified as a public information officer, and we're quite pleased to have him on the staff there to represent us.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, again on the position of the public information officer, I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary if she is going to continue to remain completely inflexible in. her duties as the Provincial Secretary with the responsibility for the people whom she has obviously selected herself in this case and with the statements that have come out relative to the investigation which is taking place. Is the minister going to remain in the position where she's going to take no action? You're going to leave him there in that position - is that correct? He's going to stay there.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. DAILLY: I just wondered if perhaps you had looked at the situation again and looked at your responsibilities as a minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, my answer still stands. It was given twice before on the floor of the House to the member.

MR. WALLACE: I have just a quick question, Mr. Chairman, about the government's decision as to the length of the term of office of the present incumbent as agent-general in London. Has the government got any established policy as to the length of time that it thinks is appropriate for an agent-general to serve in London?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the former administration gave to Mr. Strachan, the present agent-general, a two-year contract. I don't have the date of expiry on the contract.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I suppose I should be more specific. I was just wondering if the government had given consideration to adhering strictly to the terms of that contract, or have they got any other information that the House should have at his time?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: There'll be no change, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WALLACE: So the job is open.

Vote 27 approved.

Vote 28: Indian Advisory Act, $60,420 - approved.

On vote 29: Public Inquiries Act, $280,000.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm just wondering how on earth this government can finance all the public inquiries that are on the slate at the moment with $280,000. 1 notice that last year's estimate was for $1 million, and really last year was relatively quiescent compared to the excitement over all the inquiries we're having at the present time. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether it's expected that this $280,000 is realistic.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, this vote is always a guest mate, and the estimate is as presented to us. We don't anticipate any more, but if here is an overrun on it is always done through special. warrant, as it was when the Berger commission pent close to $1.5 million. That administration had budgeted for something like $500,000 that year.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure whether I understood the Provincial Secretary. If I did, it seems

[ Page 2105 ]

to me that she's saying we're deliberately budgeting for an overrun here.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, not true.

MR. KING: I'm particularly interested in why there's been a reduction from $1 million in 1976-77 to $280,000 for the coming year. The year is not very old as yet, Mr. Chairman, and I don't know how many public inquiries we have underway at the moment, but they're certainly unprecedented in British Columbia in their frequency and their intensity. I can only conclude that as the year grows older, the frequency of calling inquiries is going to accelerate. It becomes obvious, as I hear the ministers deal with their responsibility under the various portfolios. I can only anticipate that there'll be even more inquiries.

I want to ask the Provincial Secretary if she intends to work on the basis of special warrants. Why budget any amount for public inquiries under this section of the Act at all? If it's meaningless in terms of any reasonable forecast, then I submit that we cannot take any of the estimates under the minister's department seriously at all. I would like some more detail.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First of all, the ones that you're alluding to that are already underway will be completed, probably, in this year's budgeting. Municipal Affairs is one of them which will be over and be completed within this year.

It is traditional in this vote to just estimate. As you know, these votes are made up and printed prior to the suggestion that there would be an inquiry. So I am advised by the comptroller that that is the only way it's ever been done. They try very hard to keep it within an amount of money. I did give the example of the Berger inquiry, which I do believe did not expect to go on as long as it did nor to cost as much as it did. So the same argument could be made about that one. I'm just trying to say that they try to keep it within an amount of money.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. We cannot hear the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That's all right, Mr. Chairman, but I thank you for your order. I was just saying that we could not contemplate, when the Berger family law commission, for instance, was setting out in its work, that it would cost as much as it did. Last year we paid out much more in that vote than we had anticipated. It is going to always be one of those things that we don't know about, and you'll just have to accept that from the comptroller's office, I think.

Vote 29 approved.

On vote 30: grants - special services and events, $2,910, 000.

MR. WALLACE: I'm interested in the statement with the vote that there are special services for costs of government functions at cabinet level and a contingency for unforeseen expenditures. Could the minister tell us, out of the $2.9 million, how much is covered by the last item under the description of the vote please?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: They're for official functions, Mr. Chairman, which would perhaps see the entertainment of officials from other countries or from other provinces where the government itself entertains. It's been done traditionally under this vote.

MR. WALLACE: What is the contingency allowance?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, it varies, depending on what they anticipate year to year. But that is approximately the amount. It is $180,000.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.