[ Page 2145 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

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

On vote 3 8. On vote 45.

Mrs. Dailly –– 2145 Mr. Wallace –– 2155

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2145 Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2155

Mr. Cocke –– 2145 On vote 47.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2145 Mr. Barnes –– 2155

On vote 39. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2155

Ms. Brown –– 2145 On vote 49.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2145 Mr. Wallace –– 2156

On vote 4 1. Ms. Brown –– 2157

Mr. King –– 2145 Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2158

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2145 Mr. Wallace –– 2159

On vote 42. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2159

Mr. Cocke –– 2146 Mr. Barnes –– 2160

On vote 43. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2160

Mrs. Dailly –– 2146 On vote 50.

Mr. Barnes –– 2146 Mr. King 2160

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2146 Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2160

Ms. Brown –– 2148 On vote 52.

Mr. Lloyd –– 2149 Mr. Wallace –– 2161

Mr. Lea –– 2149 Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2161

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2149 On vote 54.

Ms. Brown –– 2150 Mr. Wallace –– 2162

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2150 Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2162

Mr. Wallace –– 2150 On vote 5 5.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2153 Mr. Skelly –– 2162

Mr. Barnes –– 2153 Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2162

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2154 On vote 56.

On vote 44. Mr. Skelly –– 2163

Mr. Wallace –– 2154 Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2163

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2155

Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates.

On vote 116. Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2166

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2163 Mr. Rogers –– 2169

Mr. Lea –– 2164

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

THE PROVINCIAL SECRETARY AND

TRAVEL INDUSTRY

(continued)

On vote 38: public information, $150,000 -continued.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Chairman, this is a question to the Provincial Secretary. She did explain before we adjourned for the dinner hour what this vote entailed; I was wondering if it is then limited just to the information she said. I presume each ministry, then, is carrying on its own PR or publicity with a vote in each ministry, because the $150,000 obviously wouldn't cover it all. Is that correct?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry): Mr. Chairman, public information is allowed for in each ministry. As you know, this is for public information services. It covers information that is requested by the citizens of British Columbia as to where to go for information, where to reach a certain programme and so on.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if this beautiful, expensive brochure which we were provided with tonight comes out of this particular vote. If it does, and if it's widely distributed, the likelihood is that it's going to be a fairly significant situation. Otherwise, does it come out of Travel Industry?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the particular brochure to which the member for New Westminster refers does not come under vote 38, public information. The question that he raises can be raised under the Travel Industry administration.

Vote 38 approved.

On vote 39: legislative tour guides, $96,354.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Is there some kind of decision that only women can be tour guides? Why are there no male tour guides? There are some of us who would enjoy that. (Laughter.)

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In the interests of having non-discrimination throughout the public service, I'd like to tell you that there was a young man who served as a tour guide in the last year. There is no concerted effort to hire one sex or the other in this case.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that I have an opportunity to speak to this vote I would like to say what a good job the tour guides do in this building.

Vote 39 approved.

Vote 40: Queen Elizabeth Centennial Scholarship Act, $10,500 - approved.

On vote 4 1: Flood Relief Act, $ 5 0,000.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate a word from the Provincial Secretary on this particular vote. I am not sure what the purpose is for $50,000. 1 understand that there is a flood relief fund under the ministry of water resources for erosion to private property such as farms and so on. Is this the same kind of provision? If so, just how effective is the sum of $50,000 to accommodate that kind of need?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member would understand, we cannot anticipate floods or any crisis situation, as the name of this Act would entail. If there is a major flood it would not be covered under the Flood Relief Act. It would come before us as a drain, an extra situation on the consolidated revenue. But the actual statutory expenditure in 1975-76 was $52,719 and the estimated statutory expenditure for 1976-1977 is $43,000. That's why the round figure of $50,000 was chosen. It can only be an estimate at best.

MR. KING: I just wonder if the Provincial Secretary could advise the House whether or not this is the only source of flood relief. I appreciate that if there is a major problem in any given year of high water and floods, probably some special arrangement would have to be set up. But in almost any given year creeks, through flash floods and so on and that don't necessarily bear any relationship to a heavy snow pack and so on, can occur creating considerable amounts of damage to private property which, I believe, have been compensated for in the past. I would be very, very surprised if the annual compensation did not far exceed $50,000. What I'm really interested in is whether or not the water resources branch still provides some assistance or some grants for this kind of problem as well.

[ Page 2146 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Flood relief is granted or is met under the Ministry of the Environment in co-operation with the federal administration. This particular vote would cover the kind of damage done due to acts of God that would result in a flood damaging personal property, et cetera. As I have explained in past years, that figure of $50,000 approximately covers the demands or the calls on that vote.

Vote 41 approved.

On vote 42: general administration, Travel Industry, $63,380.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the Provincial Secretary for having put out such a beautiful brochure under Travel Industry. It's a very find brochure. I would also like to congratulate her on having gone to CP Air and elicited their support to advertise in such a diplomatic way. You can hardly even tell that it's an ad. But I just want to congratulate her for one thing. I have had difficulty all through her votes but I must confess that I can congratulate her for this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're very kind.

Vote 42 approved.

On vote 43: travel division, $4,237, 780.

MRS. DAILLY: 1, too, certainly can appreciate the way this has been prepared. It is well done. I could also appreciate the Tourism British Columbia brochure which was set out at the opening of the new Tourism office, but I am somewhat puzzled, because I go through the travel division vote and I see printing and graphics with actually a decrease from what was spent last year. I am somewhat puzzled as to where the minister is going to find the funds when she already seems to have embarked on a very, very high-profile brochure campaign to promote tourism in the province. I am looking at her funding and I can't see where she's going to get it. I wonder if she could break down that $633,000 figure which dropped from $06,000 last year. I think that she must have spent a considerable amount of that figure already.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I hope that this is the proper vote, Mr. Chairman, to inquire of the minister respecting some earlier remarks that she had made concerning the possibility of the development of a convention centre. I know that you have not specifically said where, and when, but there has been some speculation as to the implications of such a centre being introduced. Along with that speculation has been the suggestion that it could be located in the downtown area of Vancouver, which is partly....

MR. COCKE: No, no. He said downtown New Westminster.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: But could you explain to the House just at what stage the concept of a convention centre is, or if that is a possibility at all, and also the fact that it has been mentioned that there is a cabinet committee that has been doing some studies on the feasibility of such a convention centre? You've had representation also, I understand, from the Vancouver Board of Trade in support of the idea.

Constituents in the riding of Vancouver Centre have wondered what the implications of the introduction of such a centre would mean to the livability concepts that have been promoted by the regional district in that area. One of the concerns that we have if you are going to seriously pursue this concept on an international level of bringing in large conventions of perhaps some 8,000 persons is the kind of planning that's involved. Who have you consulted with? Have you consulted with the local persons who would, you know, be directly affected by the concept? I think it's a good idea in one sense because it would help solve some of the economic problems that we are experiencing right now, especially with hotels which have been noted by yourself as having been overbuilt in the past years. Perhaps this could be a way of utilizing those facilities. Certainly in the spirit of good tourism programmes, it would create quite a bit of traffic.

However, I think there are some problems that I would just like to know if you're including in your long-range plans. I understand that if you did develop a centre it would be perhaps sometime in 1981 - not that it's going to happen overnight - but is there something in the works? If so, how much input are you getting from all of the prospective persons that might be interested in such an event? Also, have you nailed down the most advisable location for such a centre?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, firstly, in response to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) , she's asking about the $3,000 decrease in printing and graphics. Really that is in response to the better printing contract that we've been able to negotiate for the publications that we have had. It's just a saving that we've been able to predict.

In response to the cost of the brochures and the printing that we have done, I'm pleased to know of

[ Page 2147 ]

the member's complimentary remarks regarding the printing of the commemorative booklet. The total cost of this booklet has been underwritten by the single page ad - which, I think, is a very tasteful advertisement - which is on the last page, the inside cover of the magazine, for Canadian Pacific Airlines. The total underwriting of the 100,000 copies to be given in the United States is underwritten by the ad which has been taken by Canadian Pacific in that respect. I think we should suggest that it's a good partnership between the private sector and government that allows an invitation from British Columbia to all of the United States to visit British Columbia.

Now addressing my remarks to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) , in response to the request regarding information on convention centres, a recent study by the Greater Vancouver Conventions and Visitors Bureau in the city of Vancouver has told us that the accommodation for delegates to conventions which house over 1,500 people number some 2,000 conventions a year. The possibility of hosting 2,000, or to extend an invitation to 2,000 conventions which would be held in North America -primarily United States associations - is open to the city of Vancouver and to the province of British Columbia only if we have a facility which would house more than 1,500 delegates.

At the present time the largest convention facility in the city of Vancouver really reaches only 1,400 delegates, and unfortunately we are just not in the running for the major conventions in North America. We are being outstripped and we are being out manoeuvred and we are being outsold by major cities in North America, including Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto and Montreal, not to mention Seattle, Washington, which has just had the go-ahead for their major convention centre. If you're asking what the government's position is in regard to whether or not a convention centre should be built in Vancouver, I can say that I feel that a convention centre should be built in the city of Vancouver, that we are long past due, in the third-largest city in Canada, having a suitable convention site to attract those major conventions.

When we attract major conventions to the city of Vancouver, there is a spillover to other areas. Our convention co-ordinator has already attracted to the city of Victoria post-convention business because of the fact that Vancouver and Victoria are so close together, and he has already been able to arrange post-convention and pre-convention tours in association with conventions that we have been able to attract in the present accommodation.

So when we talk about a convention centre for the city of Vancouver, we're talking about a convention centre which would benefit all of British Columbia, not just the city of Vancouver. I think that should be made very clear to those members of the House who represent the smaller areas. Because Vancouver is the international receiving area for the world and it's the international airport and the international entry from the Pacific Rim countries and so on, we have an opportunity of hosting conventions of a great size. It is my hope and it is certainly my desire to see a convention centre of such proportions built in the city of Vancouver. When that is to be feasibly and economically and financially possible depends on the kind of co-operation that we can receive from the federal administration and from the city of Vancouver. I don't mean only financial; I think it's a moral, sort of a psychological commitment we all have to make to make sure that we get these kinds of conventions.

I'm pleased to see the member's interest because it is likely that that convention centre ... and frankly I would personally like to see that convention centre in his particular constituency, because I think it would be foolhardy to put it anywhere else but in Vancouver Centre, where all the hotel accommodation is. Therefore I would say that I would like to see it in Vancouver Centre, I would like to see it close to the hotel centre, which would benefit from the spinoff from the convention attraction, and I would hope to see it at a very early date, all things being equal - financial and so on - in the scheme of things. I would just like to say that I think that it is long past due; that it is time in the city of Vancouver that we were in competition and able to attract from all over the world the conventions which should come and want to come to the city of Vancouver in the province of British Columbia.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I'm quite appreciative of the minister's response. It has cleared up considerably some of my questions. I would only ask now just a few brief assurances that, if the minister is of the opinion that this is a matter that should be moved as expeditiously as possible in terms of getting people together, she fully intends to include not only the city of Vancouver but to encourage input from local interests - not just from the business community but also from the residents who have resided over the years in the Vancouver area and also in the West End and particularly the Vancouver Regional District who would want to ensure that livable regional concepts are being adhered to. I hope that to this stage there have been no decisions made.

I'm wondering because of certain suggestions that we would enlarge the Stanley Park causeway with $3.5 million. I wondered about that. There is no connection between that and the convention centre, but it is a question because I wondered if there was some idea about moving traffic. It's not a fait accompli?

[ Page 2148 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I think that's all I need to know, Mr. Chairman. If we are going to have an opportunity t to have input, I think the idea is certainly one that would be welcomed by many of the business people in the area. But keeping in mind that that is a t residential area, Madam Minister, the downtown area r of Vancouver L's one thing and the West End is another; there are many families there. There are t problems of congestion, traffic and pollution. A convention centre certainly can't be overlooked but t somehow it has to fit. I'm quite pleased that you're picking Vancouver Centre. That's impressive. I feel t good about that, but at the same time, I don't know if we can accommodate it unless there is some serious input, not just by the business interests and politicians, but by the residents who live in the area.

This is something that is often forgotten - in the West End are many people who have lived there for years. Some of them are retired senior citizens who have been there for many, many years. If we're not careful, they could find that real estate value will go r up because of the exploitable potential and it would ultimately be uneconomical for residents to continue to live in that area. This is something that I think we t should keep in mind, so that progress is truly in balance with the total environment and not just a t stopgap decision that is going to aid us over the hump, until we then find, a few years from now, that e we're going to have to back off. I think that your intentions are well meaning, and I would just close by saying that I hope you mean it when you say this is s not a fait accompli, because I've been a little paranoid about it. I know that you want to get on with getting the economy going, but I hope that we don't find that some decisions have been made with planners in the city of Vancouver, that roads are going to be widened, that we're going to end up with Stanley Park ripped up and that we're going to have a new traffic route down Robson Street or something like s that, as it is all a plan for the next five years.

But if that's not the case, you can count on full support from this member in trying to do what's best for all British Columbians, as you said. I certainly do not want to stand in the way of resolving the very serious problem of unemployment and getting the economy moving again. I realize that the Premier wants to succeed. He's suggested that he would solve this problem and I'm not going to stand in his way, because I think that the people are desperately in need of some solutions. I want to be part of helping you solve the problem, if you can, of getting some t activity going in that area and in all of British Columbia.

MS.- BROWN: Actually, Mr. Chairman, I could t have brought this up under the publications vote, under this vote or under Beautiful British Columbia. But what I want to voice is my concern that all of the publications, including this one on the Royal Hudson our, going out of the government offices tend to perpetuate the myth that British Columbia is peopled only by white Anglo-Saxons. We know that that's not true. We know that Canadians come in all sizes, all races, all cultures, all whatever; yet, whether it's Beautiful British Columbia or a brochure dealing with the Royal Hudson tour or whatever, we continually find British Columbians being depicted as belonging to one particular race, and, in many instances, to one particular sex. This myth is some kind of insidious thing, certainly in terms of the picture that we project to the rest of the world.

I don't know whether you're listening or not, Mr. Chairman, but I hope you are. ...

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not.

MS.BROWN: ... because I want to share with you my dilemma when I was invited to Australia to represent Canadians at their International Women's Year Conference. The persons sent to meet the airplane were sent to meet a Canadian. I stood around here for 10 or 15 minutes, and the welcoming party didn't know I was a Canadian because the picture hat they have of a Canadian is that either you're an Eskimo or you're an Anglo-Saxon. Finally, when everyone had left the airport except me, we sort of wandered over towards each other and I said, "Are you looking for a Canadian?" They said, "Yes, " and I said, "Well, I'm a Canadian." It took me a few minutes to explain this - and this was from the Canadian High Commission office. They didn't even know that I was a Canadian. I spent half of my time in Sweden explaining that Canadians come in all kinds of colours and shapes and designs. I'm not going to blame the provincial government for all of this, but surely there is something that the British Columbia government can do, and that is to show that at least British Columbians come in different colours, different sizes, different shapes and different cultures, as the case may be. A good place to start would be with the Royal Hudson tour, and with Beautiful British Columbia magazine. I'm giving this a light touch.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: It's my accent, right!

But in all seriousness, Mr. Chairman, the only thing I resent is the implication that the only people who have fun in British Columbia are Anglo-Saxons. The rest of us ski too - not very well, but we try. We play golf, and we fly around in airplanes and do crazy things like this magazine shows that we do, including Scottish dancing.

[ Page 2149 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you hang-glide?

MS. BROWN: Well, no, I don't hang-glide.

I think that really if the Provincial Secretary is interested in giving a true picture of British Columbia, as beautiful as this brochure is, it would come not just in living colour but it would also come in black and white.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Speaking of convention centres, I think that my constituents would agree that the province certainly needs a major convention centre that is capable of holding the international-sized conventions. But I am also pleased to see the Provincial Secretary mention that it is also a concern of her department to see that proper convention centres are established across the province. I feel the lower mainland and the Okanagan have very good convention centres. They're limited in size, but I think the communities in the Okanagan and throughout the lower mainland can be basically proud of what they have.

I would feel that the northern half of our province from Williams Lake north is falling behind in this particular area. It is falling behind not only for the tourists and the outside conventions that could be called in, but it is falling behind for the citizens themselves who at times like to get together in a particular area and discuss mutual problems. I think everyone realizes that Prince George is the geographical centre of the northern two-thirds of our province, so I think we are very much overdue for a major convention centre in our city. Our city has done extensive planning on a cultural convention centre over the last few years and they've come up with a very commendable plan, including a library and arts complex that I'm sure would be a credit not only to our city but to the entire northern half of the province.

Again I would like to stress that we don't expect any major provincial assistance on it, just what's our share. I would certainly like to see the province get a major convention centre, but we would like to have that consideration kept open that we need this type of facility in Prince George. Our hotel and resort facilities, I believe, are without equal in this province. Our rates are quite reasonable and the staff that works on the service of the tourist industry is very cordial, agreeable and very friendly.

I think this is something that we should be able to look ahead to in the foreseeable future. The city of Prince George has been assessing its spending priorities since amalgamation. It's gone through a terrific expansion. I think they'll be coming out with some definite costs on putting this cultural convention centre together. Here we are talking about a centre that could handle something in the neighbourhood of 1,800 to 2,200 people, which I think would probably take care of the northern part of the province for the foreseeable future.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, I'd like the Provincial Secretary to keep that in mind, that we are one of the centres that will be looking for a major tourist centre in the future.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to congratulate the minister on this brochure on the Royal Hudson. It's one of the better brochures that I've seen, even though the criticism of the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) of course still stands. No, it is a good brochure.

Probably one of the best, if not the best-run visitor's bureau in any municipality in the province, is in Prince Rupert. Prince Rupert has been packing a load for a number of years that they've been glad to pack. But it's getting to be a little harder for Prince Rupert to carry the load that they have because the Prince Rupert Visitors' Bureau has also, in many ways, been acting as a B.C. reception centre because of its geographical location. People come into British Columbia through Prince Rupert via the Alaska ferries, and a great many of them. So not only has the Prince Rupert Visitors' Bureau been dealing with those people who have just come to visit Prince Rupert, but with the great many people who are on their way through, but indeed are here to visit British Columbia as a whole.

The visitors' bureau has written to the hon. Provincial Secretary pointing out that it would cost very little to have the visitors' bureau in Prince Rupert and its physical plant act also as the physical plant for a B.C. reception centre. They have asked that there be some help from the provincial government to offset those costs because of the many duties that the visitors' bureau does for the entire province.

I think the Provincial Secretary is aware of what I'm talking about by the nodding of her head. If she does have something to tell me at this time....

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, in response to the member for Prince Rupert, I'd like to concur with him in his admiration for the programme that the Prince Rupert tourist association does. They do an admirable job and work at it constantly. They just do an excellent job and are really an example to the province.

I'm going to be meeting with them on April 26. We have had some correspondence and some meetings with them in the past and I don't want it to appear that that really opens the door too wide to extra assistance. But to all of the members of the House, there will be extra assistance this year for information

[ Page 2150 ]

centres. This was brought up in estimates last year and the financial restrictions that have been placed on the tourist information centres historically have been quite great. This past year we decided that we should increase the amount of money to those who do a good job and perhaps even eliminate those who do a mediocre to less-than-mediocre job.

In other words, what we're saying to those people in the province of British Columbia who operate tourist information centres is that we will not give a blanket amount of money any longer to each one, which is probably less than any one of them can survive on, but that we should give to those who strive to do a better job and give a better service. For instance, one criterion that should be met is that they have regular hours, and some of them don't. So we now have sort of a terms of reference programme which they will follow and, if they follow it, they will have more money this year. Certainly Prince Rupert comes within those guidelines. I'm looking forward to meeting them on April 26.

MR. LEA: I believe that the minister has answered my question satisfactorily. I'd just like to point out that there is a small grant now that comes through the Yellowhead Travel Association in the amount of $500 a year, but I believe that probably less, or the same amount of money that goes to other places is going to be better spent in Prince Rupert by the mere fact that right now the visitors' bureau is open eight hours a day in the off-season and 12 hours a day during the season, so it's a year-round operation. It would just be a matter of getting a little extra money to really provide the service that they're providing now gratis to the rest of the province. As the minister says, and I concur with her, they're doing an admirable job in Prince Rupert. I'm glad to hear that she knows that and that they can look forward to some more help - more than they're getting now -in the coming year.

MS. BROWN: I think the minister forgot to respond to my suggestion. I just wanted to add that the Department of Economic Development in its annual report in 1974, 1 think, is a really very good example of the kind of thing that I was suggesting to the minister. I wonder whether she would just respond in terms of, first of all, acknowledging that British Columbians do come in different colours, different sizes, different shapes, and whether, as the person responsible for our publications and public communication, she is prepared to take my recommendation into consideration. I don't want to have to go around the world explaining that I'm a Canadian for the rest of my life.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I didn't think it was a question that was being asked. I thought it was just simply a statement of information that the member was giving me. I'm delighted to have the information and I'm pleased to have her comments. I will certainly pass it along to my department. In addition, I think it would be interesting to note at this point in time that this province has a four language brochure which is going around the world which will, for the first time, give interpretation in languages other than English. I think this is a first in British Columbia and I think you'll be pleased to know that. I'll certainly take your comments kindly and constructively and pass them on to my department.

MS. BROWN: Good. Thank you.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, this vote 43, under its description, talks about promotion programmes, tourist-market development and information services. I know that we've already touched on this point, for which the member is not directly responsible, but I would not be meeting my duty as a greater Victoria representative unless I reminded her to plead with her colleague, the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) , that the travel industry and the tourist business cannot be promoted on Vancouver Island when you double the ferry rates.

I'm not going into all the details on that because I'm sure there are many members on this side of the House eagerly awaiting the opportunity to debate the estimates of the Minister of Transport. The evidence is abundant that you can promote tourism positively or negatively, and when you double the cost of getting onto Vancouver Island, that is a negative promotion of tourism. The minister, in an earlier debate, said that people would not travel to the west coast of British Columbia and then decide not to come to the Island because of the ferry rates. With the greatest of respect, I have to disagree with that because there are people who have, in fact, publicly voiced that very opinion. There has been the odd letter to the editor in our local newspapers of persons who, as the minister stated, proceeded to the Island but wrote to the newspapers after they returned home saying that they thought the ferry rates were very much greater than comparable services on other ferries.

If I can just quickly refer to the Victoria Times on July 6,1976, which is entitled: "Record Loads on Ferries to the United States." While we were bringing about something in the order of a 20 per cent reduction in utilization of our ferries, the alternative ferries operated by the United States were carrying record loads.

Now it is quite clear, Mr. Chairman, that that decision has been made. It seems unlikely that it's about to be reversed. But it's very interesting that on

[ Page 2151 ]

the date in this House when one of the directors of the new B.C. Ferry Corporation who has hardly had time to catch his second breath had resigned, he's quoted in the November 6 edition of the Vancouver Province, 197, 6, with the headline: "Never Again Such Ferry Hikes, Says Director." I just think that the impact of these rates, while they're the direct responsibility of another minister, is very much an indirect responsibility of this minister, one of whose primary functions under vote 43 is to promote tourism.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. WALLACE: I hear some rather squeamish, half-hearted cries of order, Mr. Chairman. I think maybe my message is getting home.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member. I think that the reason for the cries for order is the fact that perhaps this debate ought better to be carried on under the estimates of the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) . The Chair has allowed a rather general reference to it, but if the member wishes to carry a debate under this vote with that particular information, I think that it would be out of order.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just would like to remind the House that vote 43 is entitled: "Travel Division. Description:, the division administers all internal and external travel promotion programmes, travel research programmes, advertising, tourist market development How you develop a market by making it twice as expensive for tourists to come here I just don't know, Mr. Chairman. If that isn't relevant, I don't know what is.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): What's twice as expensive?

MR. WALLACE: I thought that these wizards of the free-enterprise philosophy would know what twice the market costs are, but I've got voices behind me asking me what twice the price is? That means putting the fare up from five bucks to ten bucks, Mr. Chairman. Do you think that would answer the query?

MR. STRONGMAN: Get on the boat down the drain.

MR. WALLACE: "Get on the boat down the drain, " says the member from behind me. Just exactly what kind of intelligent suggestion is that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Oak Bay has the floor. I would remind the member for Oak Bay that we're on vote 43.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Vote 43 deals with tourist market development and travel promotion programmes. If I can move on, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you'll be much relieved.

In moving right along, I'd like to quote from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer which, for those who may not be as wide awake tonight as usual, is a newspaper published in Seattle, a city not too far from us from which we draw a surprising number of tourists. The lead story in that newspaper on August 28 stated as follows:

"British Columbia ferry rates doubled at the start of the summer for most passenger vehicles and a 400 per cent increase for camping vehicles. The experience of a Seattle-area tourist, who paid $55 for a one night's double-occupancy stay in just a second-flight Vancouver hotel: gasoline anywhere from I cent to 15 cents a gallon higher than in Washington state; food costs 25 per cent higher than in 1975; sales tax up by 20 per cent since the spring....

"The American tourists, " says the article, "have quite a case for staying home."

Since vote 43 deals with tourist promotion, and since we as British Columbians have this kind of information to deal with from a source from which many of our tourists originate, I think this vote deserves a great deal of discussion tonight. I am encouraged because the minister, in various recent public statements, has given her personal recognition of the difficulties which appear to be present in getting our message across to other provinces and other states outside of British Columbia as to what the real story is in the British Columbia tourist industry. I think it's about time that we put the record straight. I'm leaving aside the earlier subject, Mr. Chairman, which caused you some discomfort.

The British Columbia Hotels Association publishes a monthly magazine, and they take some real trouble to get their facts and figures in perspective. There's an article each month entitled "Earle's Court, " which the minister's probably familiar with. I think it's important that we should establish one of the findings of a study that was done in comparing hotel room rates.

The bureau conducted a survey of greater Vancouver hotel room rates on an average basis from January to June of 1976. The average hotel rate in 50 metropolitan areas of North America was $27.04. For the similar period, the greater Vancouver average was $27.73 - which represents 69 cents more than the average in North America. So I suppose I could turn the minister's argument around on ferries and say: would anybody stop coming to British Columbia

[ Page 2152 ]

for 69 cents a day on their hotel room?

More specific examples, Mr. Chairman. The Hilton Hotel rates in Vancouver are lower than Montreal, San Francisco, Chicago and Los Angeles. Similarly, the Hyatt Regency rates are lower in Vancouver than in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and Toronto. This article says it's the same story for the Sheraton, Holiday Inn and Western International hotels. But all we ever seem to hear when single voices are expressed in newspaper articles and elsewhere is that somehow or other British Columbia is considerably more expensive in regard to accommodation than the United States.

I am responding to the requests of many people in the tourist industry in British Columbia who feel that their attempts to provide efficient tourist services at a reasonable rate are not being articulated adequately.

I'm delighted to see the new Deputy Minister of Travel Industry listening very carefully. I want to welcome him to this chamber and say that 1, for my part - as a representative of a highly tourist-oriented city - would like to co-operate in every way that I can. What I'm trying to do tonight is to get some of the facts and figures recorded accurately in this debate.

The people in the tourist industry feel that the right image has not been promoted and that all we have been promoting lately are the costs, which have increased with tremendous unfortunate but understandable emphasis on the ferry rates.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: My occasional visitor on my left from Burnaby says that that's what I'm doing right now. It's nice to have him back in the House, Mr. Chairman. I would just say to him that I'm quoting facts and figures that are documented. The emphasis on the hotel room rates is to correct some of the wrong figures that are being peddled all over British Columbia and Canada.

There's no difficulty accurately relating that ferry rates doubled on June I of this year.

MR. KING: Hey, McGeer, put your wallet away -the moths are getting at it. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: That's the tight hold that that government has on the purse strings. Every now and again they loosen and we get a moth flyer.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: If I might continue, Mr. Chairman. . . . ,

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, here we have an antidemocratic person behind me. He doesn't want me to continue. He wants to crush the freedom of speech. What does the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) think about that?

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Iron heel.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the Victoria Visitors Information Centre in October of this year released some statistics that I think are also worth quoting. The average rates in Victoria for a single room varied between $22.80 and $31.40. These figures are related to a wide cross-section of different levels of accommodation in the greater Victoria area.. I think that's worth mentioning also, Mr. Chairman. It's very easy to slant an argument one way or the other if you compare different levels of accommodation in another.

We all know that in whatever city you visit on the North American continent there is that range of accommodation, and by and large you get what you pay for. But a great deal of damage has been done to our image as a tourist centre by failing to correct some of the statistics and facts that are peddled, when the comparison is made between different styles and levels of accommodation as between Victoria and other cities - both in Canada and in North America.

The study done by the Victoria Visitors Information Centre showed that rates across Canada in general proved that Victoria had a slightly lesser average rate for the same level of accommodation as could be found in other cities across Canada. If the minister wants one particular direction to follow in correcting the image that developed last summer, this would seem to be the first step she might take in documenting specific statistics, comparing like kind of accommodation with like in cities across Canada and with similar cities in America. The executive director of the Visitors Information Centre in Victoria, Don Nixon, has also made this point, I think, in the January 31 edition of Monday Magazine. He makes the second point, which I would like to stress tonight, that the people of greater Victoria do a lot of complaining about the tourists and they are also complaining about unemployment. I wish the people in greater Victoria would realize that they can't have it both ways. If we are to have employment in the greater Victoria area, and since tourism offers one of the main ways in which you can employ people, you can't possibly say that we must develop tourism and provide jobs and then complain about some of the inevitable consequences of tourism, which is a lot of traffic on our streets, for example. I feel that it is about time we did some straight talking to the people of the greater Victoria

[ Page 2153 ]

area, including the people of Oak Bay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh.

MR. WALLACE: That's right - including the people of Oak Bay. They want to be able to commute into the city and have their jobs and have their sons and daughters get summer employment ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. WALLACE: ... and a whole lot of other positive assets. But they don't want to put up with some of the inevitable consequences of campers on our streets, tally-ho’s carrying visitors to see the scenery of the Oak Bay area ...

HON. MR. CHABOT: Double-deckers.

MR. WALLACE: ... and perhaps some of the disadvantages of having to negotiate double-deckers as you drive home from work or drive out on a Sunday afternoon.

HON. MR. CHABOT: With Gorst driving.

MR. WALLACE: I welcome the approach that the tourist industry made to me. I am not anybody's patsy or voice, but I think that it's about time we got something straight in the greater Victoria area and tried to educate people who want the benefits of tourism. They want the dollars and the summer jobs for their sons and daughters, but they don't seem to want to put up with some of the consequences.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: This isn't an election speech, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I have a voice inquiring on my left as to whether I am going to run again. Well, that's undecided, but after tonight the chances of getting re-elected might be a little less.

I think this vote deals with promotion, and while we have to promote B.C. tourism to potential tourists outside our boundaries, our first job as far as Victoria is concerned is to promote it to Victorians and to tell them about all the secondary and tertiary and spin-off values that come from having tourism as a very important industry.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In response to the hon. member for Oak Bay, I appreciate the advice that he has given this ministry.

I would like to say that at the Golden Opportunities programme in the Newcombe Theatre tomorrow evening, I hope to give a message to the hospitality trade in Victoria. But in defence of the hospitality organizations, I think that they are just blessed with the same psychology that has gripped all of British Columbia. We have taken the industry for granted for the past 15 years. It's an industry that has come without any effort because we have the most beautiful part in North America. We are blessed with the most beautiful scenery, the best fishing, the best province in Canada and, obviously, the best area in North America. People flock to it. Now there's no question that we have taken that for granted, and Victoria people are no different. They are no different than the entrepreneur in Prince George, Campbell River, Kelowna or the city of Vancouver. They just thought that that golden goose would continue to lay the golden egg, but it's not going to without effort because the competition today is keener. Competition is so keen in the world today that all of us in British Columbia have to decide to address ourselves to the job at hand, and that is to do what our forebears in Canada and the province of British Columbia did to build this country and this province. May I say that they didn't built it with negative thinking which said that because things aren't going right today in the business and we're not filling the hotels in Victoria, it all has to do with the government. They got busy and did something about the business at hand. They started to promote the province and did something for it.

I don't stand before you as the Minister of Travel Industry in this province tonight with any great panacea for what we can do for the tourist industry. It has to be done by private enterprise. It's a partnership, but most of the onus lies on those entrepreneurs who make their living and who hire the people and provide a living. We have to make sure that those people know the value of this tourist business to the province of British Columbia, and more specifically to Vancouver Island.

It meant $260 million last year; it generated $260 million in 1976. Two and a half million visitors visited and toured the Island last year. Twenty-three per cent of the total tourists who come into British Columbia go through Vancouver Island, which is greater than the percentage of Vancouver Island's population in relation to the total British Columbia population.

I would just like to say that in comparative costs with other areas of the province, we will have through our research programme this year comparative costs with other cities. We will have that information more readily at hand than we have now relying on just specific areas of the hospitality trade as we have had to rely on through the hotel association. We'll have a complete picture, and we, 11 be able to guide our hospitality people in that regard.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Relax, Mr. Minister of Labour

[ Page 2154 ]

(Hon. Mr. Williams) . I don't want to prolong the matter. I just wanted to ask the minister if she could perhaps clarify what she suggested, that 23 per cent of tourists coming to British Columbia had been on the Island - had come to Vancouver Island. Was that what you were... ? I have a note here: " 17 per cent of the previous year, " but I'm not sure if that's what you were saying.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Vancouver Island's population represents 17 per cent of the total provincial population, but it enjoys 23 per cent of the tourist population, the tourist figure. In fact, of the 10.5 million people who visit the province of British Columbia, the percentage that visits Vancouver Island is 23 per cent.

MR. BARNES: That's interesting. Could you compare that to the situation the previous year? The question that I wanted to ask is: based on the economic policies of the government when it assumed office, including the things that have been pointed out by the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) -I won't go through those again, but ferry rates, sales tax and so forth.... Most of us were under the impression that this seriously impaired the tourist traffic on Vancouver Island. This seems to have been reflected in the amounts of traffic on the ferries, both foot traffic and vehicular traffic. I'm wondering if, that being apparent, you are suggesting that in fact your economic policies improved the situation in terms of activity on Vancouver Island.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I did not give a comparison, but I did give figures earlier in the debate. I believe it was Thursday last when I quoted figures. I'm sorry I don't have them at hand, but it showed an increase, a slight increase, of those people who came who were called foreign visitors - in other words, not domestic travellers. It showed a decrease in domestic travel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Those figures are in Hansard.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: They're not at hand, Mr. Chairman, but they were quoted and you can pick them up in Hansard of last Thursday.

MR. BARNES: I don't suppose I'm going to get the answers to the questions that I am asking because perhaps it has not been worked out in detail. I don't blame the government for working these out because I'm suggesting that because of the economic policies the government may in fact have improved the situation with costs of running the ferries. But the spill off which is normally achieved through generating a lot of activity in tourism was lost because of these economic policies. I wasn't here, unfortunately, on Thursday last, but I'm wondering if the minister is suggesting that Vancouver Island -and most of those businesses that I assume were suffering hardships because of lack of traffic - are in fact better off than they were. I would like for her to be specific. If she's suggesting that there have been less bankruptcies declared, less turnover in terms of people changing ownership of properties....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, unless the minister has these figures right off the top of her head, I would think that perhaps the better place to put this kind of a detailed question would be on the order paper.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I agree, so I'm only going to leave these thoughts with the minister for the record. That's my main point. I realize she can't have all of these details with her but her answers give the impression that the economic policies of the government had improved the situation on Vancouver Island, and I was having some difficulty seeing how that could be, with less traffic. I realize that the revenue may have gone up, but the number of people and the number of automobiles that were coming to Vancouver Island appeared to be less, although the revenue was up. What I was going to ask is: in terms of an exchange, you may have those dollars, but what about the spill off dollars that are not there because of lack of foot traffic and vehicular traffic? You're suggesting that statistically 23 per cent represented a full percentage of people who came to the Island, but you didn't get down to dollars and cents in terms of how much revenue was generated, how much activity was created and compare the activity in the last fiscal period to the present.

These are the kinds of things that I'm concerned about. I know the local chambers of commerce had been quite concerned. They seem to have settled down a bit after a few $100-a-plate dinners. They've been a bit quiet, but certainly earlier in your policy statements they had seemed to be quite adamant about the effects of what the government had introduced. I don't suppose you're able to answer those questions, as the Chairman has pointed out, but I just wanted to indicate for the record that I did have some concerns about whether or not we were ahead or behind again.

Vote 43 approved.

On vote 44: Beautiful British Columbia magazine, $1,185, 068.

MR. WALLACE: I think we are all very proud of Beautiful British Columbia magazine. I think it's an excellent effort. I send it to my relatives in the Old Country, as a matter of fact, and receive nothing but

[ Page 2155 ]

strongest praise for the beauty of the magazine, but t the item which describes "advertising and publications" as $616,000, it seems to me, is a very large sum of money to be using for advertising. I get the feeling that Beautiful British Columbia magazine can stand on its own merits; it's a magazine that promotes itself. I wonder if there are other advertising costs in this vote that do not relate specifically to that magazine. I notice the description of this vote mentions "publication and circulation of Beautiful British Columbia magazine and other travel literature." I wonder how much of the $616,000 will be spent on other promotional material.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, this large amount of money is actually the production of the magazine itself. It has been decreased over the last year by $54,000. The decrease is the result of greater cost efficiency for production and lower printing bids that we've been able to accomplish. This is actually the printing. "Advertising and Publication" is perhaps a misnomer. It really does refer to the publication of the magazine. Incorporated in that, I guess, is the odd advertisement in newspapers and so on, but it's a very little amount. Most of it is in the production of the magazine itself - the printing, that is, of the magazine itself.

MR. WALLACE: Could we delete the word "advertising"?

Vote 44 approved.

On vote 45: California and London offices, $174,720.

MR. WALLACE: A quick question, Mr. Chairman. I recall the minister stating somewhere recently that there was the thought that the government might open other offices. I seem to recall that Tokyo was mentioned. I don't have the newspaper clipping at hand, but I wonder if the minister could tell us, in light of the fact that the budget for 1977-78 is almost the same as 1976-77, if she has some definite plan to open other offices elsewhere or is that something further down the road?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, we haven't made any allowances financially this year because we don't feel that we have the opportunity in this particular fiscal year to make that arrangement. However, we look to the day where we can have that kind of arrangement, perhaps in co-operation with the Ministry of Economic Development. We will have that office which would be situated in enticing the Pacific Rim trade and particularly the travel industry.

While I'm on my feet, there was mention earlier of the state of the London office. I would like to say hat that is undergoing some study at this present time. We hope to have a more attractive appearance than the old posters that were mentioned earlier today.

Vote 45 approved.

Vote 46: film and photographic branch, $588,182 - approved.

On vote 47: building occupancy charges, $5,496, 452.

MR. BARNES: Just a matter of inquiry, Mr. Chairman. I know the cost of buildings and maintenance is quite expensive. We have a new B.C. Buildings Corporation. This will be the first experience we've had with the cost-accounting system with the various ministries paying as they go. I'm wondering if the practice will be for the government to just list the simple statement under that particular vote in the various ministries dealing with buildings and maintenance rentals, without any detail of what these facilities are, where they are and some breakdown. You have $5.5 million for rentals and maintenance. Where are these buildings and What are they used for? It would be nice if we had some kind of detailed list.

Just for the record, it's very interesting. that the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Travel Industry is spending something like $5.5 million. The most expensive is $19 million in Education; there is $16 million in the Attorney-General's ministry; Public Works is $ 10. 11 million or better-, the Ministry of Human Resources is over $10 million. Nowhere could I see what these figures related to. How many buildings were involved? How many square feet? Are these rentals or are they buildings on the constituency here? Where are they? I think there should be some detail if not full detail so we could get some idea about where these costs are. I'm hoping we could get some clarification on this.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd be pleased to answer the member's query in regard to occupancy charges. As he so rightly says, it is 'the first time. Lease property services and rental I think I should give to you in total. I can give you the breakdown and it's no problem to do so. But I think that if I give you the total occupancy of lease properties, they are 114,600 square feet. They range in terms of cost from an average rental and service cost of $4.53 a square foot in Victoria to $13.20 a square foot in Los Angeles. It varies in between those two areas. The offices in government-owned buildings to be occupied by my ministries on a charge-back billing system of building occupancy - you understand that that figure is attributable to both Provincial Secretary and Travel

[ Page 2156 ]

Industry - will total 199,137 square feet, with a further 278,350 square feet to be occupied as storage and workshop space. This is government-owned as opposed to leaseback. The cost of the square foot is calculated on the private sector charges which will average between $7.50 to $8 depending on the location.

I I think that I shouldn't take the time of the House this evening, but I do have documented how much is within my ministry. If you'd like, I'd be pleased to send this over to the hon. member and save the time of the House. It's quite clearly and exactly detailed.

MR. BARNES: That would be good if you'd do that.

Vote 47 approved.

Vote 48: computer and consulting charges, $450,000 - approved.

On vote 49: Public Service Commission administration, $2,564, 830.

MR. WALLACE: This very important part of the minister's responsibilities, the Public Service Commission and the administration and employee relations division, has the responsibility of administering all regulations pursuant to the Public Service Act.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

One of the specific questions I would like to ask the minister concerns a withdrawal of service by a variety of employees around this province last October 14 - labour's day of protest, so-called. According to the secretary of the B.C. Government Employees Union, Mr. John Fryer, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 14 per cent of public service employees did not report for work on that date. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I could inquire of the minister whether she has records....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, hon. member.

MR. WALLACE: Does the minister have records of precisely what percentage of the government employees labour force did not show up for work on October 14? The minister is nodding so I take it that some records were kept on that date. I think that happens to be a precedent-setting situation that I hope would not be repeated again. If it came to be accepted in our modern society where confrontation seems to be a fairly frequent strategic move, this government, or the government of the day, could face some very serious problems in maintaining its credibility as an employer if a large number of people can choose at any one time just simply to protest by being absent from work.

I would like to know, first of all, what percentage did not attend for work on October 14,1976.

My second question would be: to what extent, if any, did the government, as an employer, take disciplinary action against employees who were illegally absent from work? I use the word "illegally" with consideration. There was no established, justifiable reason why 14 per cent, or whatever, were absent from work. I would like to know what action the government took, if any.

Thirdly, I wonder if, in the example that was set on that occasion, this minister, in conjunction with the cabinet, has developed any policy for the future. It's quite obvious that we are living in very uncertain times as far as anti-inflation control programmes are concerned. None of us really knows when and in what manner controls will be sustained or removed. I think the people of British Columbia are entitled to know what the government's policy will be if there should be any repetition, or any threat of repetition, of illegal walkouts by government employees.

The legislation was brought before this House to give government employees all the rights of full collective bargaining, including the right to strike, and without getting into that issue per se as to whether they should or should not have the right to strike, that legislation was brought in and passed in good faith, and I'm sure the government of the day and the government of today expects that the least that should happen is that government employees should live up to the terms of that agreement. Their capacity to stay off the job because they don't like federal anti-inflation measures is not included in the collective agreement.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I think this was a precedent, the full impact of which may not have been recognized by the people in this province, or maybe even by the parties participating in the event, but I do feel, Mr. Chairman, that it's an event which should be recognized by this government publicly and about which we should have some idea of future policy. I ask in particular whether or not the government took any disciplinary action, other than docking one day's pay, presumably, from the persons who didn't show up for work on that occasion.

There are one or two other questions I would just like to ask the minister, and she already alluded to this issue the other day. When the Public Service Act was rewritten, section 3 (2) states that the commission shall consist of not less than three members, one of whom shall be designated as chairman. Without transgressing on another issue which raised this matter in the first place, I wonder if we could find out whether the government or this minister was aware at the time of rewriting the Act that because of the reorganization of service and the creation of

[ Page 2157 ]

GERB, the Government Employee Relations Bureau, there would not be work for three commissioners. Why was the legislation written to say that there should be not less than three members on the commission?

Now there may be other reasons I'm not aware of, but to the layman reading press reports recently the government did not appear to be fully informed as to the full impact of the reorganization which was to take place in setting up a separate organization - and I think it was a good idea - called the Government Employee Relations Bureau, which would deal with bargaining and leave the commission to deal with the other area of jurisdiction.

The last point I would like to make is about the statements by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) that civil servants are lazy and non-productive and that a minister of cabinet is lucky to get three day's work out of these employees in a five-day week. Now this comment isn't made mischievously to try and create a division between this minister and the Minister of Human Resources. I just want to stay above that kind of debate and away from that kind of comment and ask the minister: have any studies been done, or is the minister contemplating any studies, to try and determine the productivity of the government employees' service?

Rather than base my comments or my questions on the kind of blunderbuss statement made by the Minister of Human Resources, which unfortunately is typical of many of his comments in public, which are rather extreme, Mr. Chairman, if I might say so, and not usually backed up by any facts or evidence that can be documented - rather than indulge in that kind of debate - I wonder if the minister has either embarked upon studies, or is about to do so, in trying to determine what, in fact, productivity is in the civil service.

We all know the customary jokes about the civil servant who doesn't look out the window when he gets up in the morning because he'd have nothing else to do all day. These are rather sick jokes, but nevertheless statements have been made by a minister of this government that the public employees are not producing and that they're not putting in an honest day's work. I think that when that kind of blunderbuss accusation has been levelled against all government employees by one minister, it's very much incumbent upon the minister responsible for government employees to put the record straight. I wonder if she has some statistics or the result of studies to do just that.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a couple of comments about the Public Service Commission and ask the minister about the equal opportunities committee - if it's still in existence and how it's getting along - because the British Columbia civil service has been notorious for years for the fact that the women in the civil service are all concentrated in the low-paying jobs and the men, for the most part, tend to float to the top.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): My two sisters are civil servants.

MS. BROWN: Yes. The second member for Victoria says his two sisters are civil servants and they're at the bottom too.

But I want to ask the minister if any women have made it to deputy minister level yet, if any women have made it to associate deputy minister level yet, if any women have made it to assistant deputy minister level yet? I know they've made it to....

HON. S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Have any women made it as leader of the NDP?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I know that there are a couple of directors. I know that in the Ministry of Economic Development, for example, the women's economic rights director has made it to the director's level, but I'm kind of curious about above that - the assistant deputy, the associate deputy and the....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I know one of the directors of the commission. Oh, yes.

But in particular, I'm glad that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is sitting here because I'm really curious about the kind of hiring practices that have to do with his department. Mr. Chairman, as you know, there are 133 agriculturists in that department, of whom three are women.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, could you kindly stay with vote 49?

MS. BROWN: Oh, yes, this is vote 49 because they are all hired through the Public Service Commission. Mr. Chairman, a third of the graduating class in agriculture at UBC is made up of women. Yet out of the 133 graduates who were hired through the Public Service Commission into the Ministry of Agriculture, only three were women. These were really curious women, because in fact only one was hired as a horticulturist. Two were hired to be responsible for the 4H programme, which means that they are frozen at a step 2 level. They can't go beyond that. So really, out of 133, there's only one woman who could work her way to the top in the Ministry of Agriculture, and

[ Page 2158 ]

this is in a community where 50 per cent of the population or more is women. Certainly, as I said, a third of the graduating class in the faculty of agriculture are women.

But something even more curious than that happened in terms of home economists. There are three home economists and none of them are men. This also happened through the Public Service Commission. So the Public Service Commission doesn't discriminate against women; it discriminates against men, too. You get it coming or going. It doesn't matter whether you're male or female when it comes to the Public Service Commission; you get discriminated against.

I'm wondering whether the Provincial Secretary would like to make some kind of comment about the hiring practices of the Public Service Commission. Is there any coercion on the part of the Ministry of Agriculture? Are there any directives that come down from the Ministry of Agriculture that say, "No women need apply here, " or, "Keep the men out of the home economics department."? Just what is the situation? But there is a crisis situation in the Ministry of Agriculture, and what is the Provincial Secretary going to do about that?

What about this whole business of affirmative action, which I know the Provincial Secretary is committed to, unlike the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) who says he doesn't understand it? I know that the Provincial Secretary understands it. What is happening to affirmative action? I've been waiting for months now. A leak came to me that legislation was being drawn up and I've been waiting for the bill dealing with affirmative action to be tabled in this House, but so far nothing has happened. So would the Provincial Secretary like to make some comments on this area?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, in response to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard firstly, and then I'll respond to the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace): the Public Service Commission has responsibility for re-training programmes but it does not have responsibility for productivity. Was that part of yours or of the Oak Bay member's?

MS. BROWN: 1 was speaking about recruitment and selection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Okay. You were absent last Thursday when I gave a very full explanation of the women who have applied and the statistics of those women compared to men who have applied for the top jobs.

You asked how many are associate deputy ministers or deputy ministers in the departments; I have that list and it was given last week in the debate. I'm sorry that you weren't present for that and unfortunately, I didn't bring that information with me. But it is in Hansard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The information will be in Hansard, hon. member.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The information is there.

I would like to say, in response to the question on the equal opportunities committee, that it is still active and we are giving consideration to even more activity within that area. That still comes under my jurisdiction and I'm pleased that it does. There will be more activity in that regard.

In response to the member for Oak Bay, we do have the responsibility of the Public Service Commission in retraining programmes. But the duties of the Public Service Commission, in response to productivity, really fall within the responsibility of each ministry. It says in the Act that it is the duty of the deputy minister of each department. He has the authority, subject to the minister, to supervise and direct the employees in the department and to report as to their efficiency.

The responsibility of the Government Employee Relations Bureau - which actually doesn't fall within this vote but within the Treasury Board's finance department and under GERB - is to maintain a "competent and efficient public service." The responsibility of maintaining a competent and efficient public service falls within the duties of the Public Service Act.

The other questions you asked regarding the public service pay in regard to the October 14 situation really fall within GERB and within the Ministry of Finance. In response to that though, between 12 and 14 per cent - from memory - is the advice that I have had given to me. I haven't got the actual figures in front of me but less than 14 per cent, I believe, that stayed off work.

What action did we take? It was taken through the Government Employee Relations Bureau, not through this ministry. They notified all pay offices that those employees who stayed off would not be paid for that day, and they were not paid for that day.

As to future responsibilities or future programmes in that regard: that is the responsibility of GERB, because as you have underlined, we live in uncertain times. I would suggest to you that because of their uncertainty, we really can't meet that situation until we come to it. But it is done, as I say, under the Treasury Board and under the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) .

MS. BROWN: I just wonder if the minister would like to make some comment about the disgraceful situation in the Ministry of Agriculture. I'm sure she

[ Page 2159 ]

doesn't condone the situation as it exists.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, I really don't think so.

Mr. Chairman, I made a fair commentary last week in terms of women in the public service - the opportunities for women and the opportunity that women have to apply. I also gave figures that substantiated the fact that, despite the fact that there are many positions open in the provincial public service, fewer women apply for those top jobs than any others. That documentation is in Hansard: out of 91 people who applied for the office of the deputy minister of tourism, only three, I believe it was, were women. So that's about the percentage.

They do not apply and we're trying to reverse that. But it is a human nature thing that we're trying to reverse, and I suggest to you that it's a tradition, an historic thing, and it's not going to be done overnight. All of that is within Hansard last Thursday, and I suggest that we shouldn't delay the House in response to that.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not interested in delaying the House. The women came to me with a complaint. A third of the graduating class for the last couple of years in the faculty of agriculture were women. This government has not been hiring them. These women have applied; the Department of Agriculture has not been hiring them. This is a different situation to your 91 applicants for the position of deputy minister in tourism. The Department of Agriculture has not been treating women fairly in terms of its hiring practices. The hiring is done through the Public Service Commission and they are concerned about it. The government is the No. I employer for people for degrees in agriculture. If you don't work for the government, the chances are that you don't work, and the women are concerned.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to have the information, but could I just say to you that the applications that come before the Public Service Commission are not discriminated against because of sex. It is not only this government, but it was the past government's policy that if women apply for the same jobs as do men, it is a question of the abilities of those people as to whether or not they get the jobs. It is not on the basis of their sex. That is continued under this ministry, and under this government, and it will continue to be so.

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to follow up on one of the minister's answers. In regard to the employees who did not report for work on October 14, she mentioned that they had one day's pay deducted. Is there any record made on the individual record of each employee that, in fact, they've breached their collective agreement by staying off? In other words, one year or two years from now, is it possible to determine whether certain employees broke their collective agreement? I'd like to know that.

I'd also like to know if the minister has taken any further specific action, either by memo or otherwise, regarding her concern about double funding where various consultants are asked to participate in government consultant work while they are also receiving a salary from some other source. The minister did give some answers to the attitude she feels is appropriate in regard to the universities. I would say again that I think we should be just a little cautious and not suddenly go through 180 degrees to find that we're overlooking a great deal of the expertise and knowledge that resides in our universities. Universities are, and always have been, and I hope always will be, a tremendous depository for information and expertise and the capacity to bring forward new information. I think that any government policy which went overboard in cutting out university consultants would be unfortunate and excessive. But at the same time I understand the minister's point of view. I wonder if subsequent to her memo regarding university consultants there has been any other government policy formulated in any other specific written record of the minister's policy circulated.

The third question is: how are we doing on the Higgins report? Mr. Higgins was a retiring commissioner who was given an appointment to investigate how government bargaining and collective agreements were being implemented and followed at, I gather, $50 an hour. Recently the minister mentioned that he was no longer expected to complete his report. Could I just ask two- simple questions: When is the report due? Up to this point, what has the report cost in terms of the agreement that was reached with Mr. Higgins to pay him $50 an hour?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that the reason for the withdrawal of payment of services would be noted on the employees' pay sheets. 1 was not aware of that until now, but I understand that that would happen.

The Universities Council has been asked by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) to bring forward a recommendation regarding the so-called double funding of university professors. We're still awaiting that recommendation, so I have no report for you at the present time.

The report has been completed by Mr. Higgins and has been delivered to myself in the last few days. It is now under study by the government ministries concerned - that is, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and this ministry.

[ Page 2160 ]

MR. WALLACE: How much was the cost of it?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: How much was the cost of it? It was done in a very short time. I'll have to file that for you. It was not a very long period of time.

MR. BARNES: I wonder if the minister could tell us if the members of the B.C. Government Employees' Union have been kept apprised of any changes that may be taking place with respect to the opening of the B.C. Buildings Corporation? I'm thinking specifically of maintenance crews, of which I do not know the number, inasmuch as once the B.C. Buildings Corporation is instituted and is operating there may be some changes in respect to policies on work procedures. What is the status of the number of people, particularly the persons on maintenance, who are presently carrying out some of the work of the government? Certainly the policy of the BCDC appears to me to be one of opening the tenders to the public, and this could seriously change the status of a number of public servants.

At this stage I am only asking this as an inquiry. I haven't that many details. I wonder if the minister could just advise us as to the communications that have taken place with public servants. Are they aware of how they will be fitting in with the BCDC? Obviously this is a matter with pretty serious implications for them. It may be that the government's policy would mean further reduction of the public service sector.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Well, that's good. I'm glad to hear that, but it could, if the BCDC has a policy of perhaps letting certain of their developmental programmes to public tender, which might mean that the government employees would not be able to participate as they have in the past. I am only inquiring at this stage. I don't have any complaint but it just seems to me to be one area that I would like some clarification on in terms of the amount of communication that has taken place, particularly with the maintenance crews.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I should tell the member that the BCGEU has, under the Labour Code, successor status with regard to the employees moving into the B.C. Buildings Corporation. I think that the concerns he has expressed are well taken, but I think they are well protected.

Vote 49 approved.

On vote 50: grants re public service and retiring allowances, $3,970, 000.

MR. KING: I would just like to ask the Provincial Secretary if this is the vote which she used to provide a retirement allowance to Mr. Joe Broadbent and if it is anticipated that any further such allowances would be made out of the budgetary appropriation for 1977-1978.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Would you mind rephrasing that?

MR. KING: Well, I just want to know whether this vote was the authority under which the retirement allowance of $8,000, 1 believe it was, was made to Mr. Joe Broadbent, and whether or not the current estimates for 1977-1978 contain any allotment for the coming year for disbursements such as that made to Mr. Joe Broadbent.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: This would be the vote under which that kind of benefit would be paid. I would like to say to the House that earlier in the debate there was a question as to whether or not vote 209, which was attributable to the payment of Mr. Broadbent's severance pay, should be paid. We are changing the order-in-council to put payment under this particular vote - from vote 209, transport, research and planning, to vote 174, employee benefits. The reason for that is advice was given to us that it was administratively incorrect. It will be changed by order-in-council and come under this particular vote.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) is correct. This is the vote under which it should come. Secondly, we cannot foresee what grants would be paid out or what severance payments would be paid out of this vote but when and if they come forward, it would be under this particular area.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I appreciate the Provincial Secretary's acknowledgment that the initial grant paid to Mr. Broadbent was, in fact, without statutory authority. I am still uncertain as to whether or not the statutory authority remains to make that kind of payment even under this vote.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, we have advice from the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Gardom's) office that it does.

MR. KING: Thank you.

Vote 50 approved.

Vote 5 1: public service adjudication board, $266,600 - approved.

0 n vote 5 2 : superannuation branch

[ Page 2161 ]

administration, $1,153, 661.

MR. WALLACE: I have just a brief question to the minister in regard to some of those pension plans for individuals who served during the Second World War and who, for whatever reason, were unable to take advantage of re-enrolling in the plan or obtaining the appropriate benefits when they resumed teaching at a subsequent date after the war. Could the minister tell us if, in the light of any recent discussions or hearings, there has been any change in that basic policy?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: There has been no change, Mr. Chairman.

Vote 52 approved.

On vote 53: public service superannuation and retirement benefits, $45,120, 000.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity to meet with a group of retired civil servants. It really was an incredible kind of meeting. There are retired civil servants who are receiving less than $ 100 in their pension from the government and so have to be receiving Mincome to make it up to the Mincome rate. What happens to these civil servants is that every time their pension goes up, that amount of money is deducted from their Mincome, so they never ever get over a certain level in terms of their income per month.

Now I wonder whether the Provincial Secretary, first of all, is aware of this situation and realizes that these people, who have worked many, many years for the people of this province, are locked into that kind of system. They're never going to be able to make more than what the Mincome rate is because their pension is so low. Has she considered any kind of negotiation with the Department of Human Resources to allow them to accept their COLA increases without having the equivalent amount deducted from their Mincome payment?

The other point which they raised was this business of coverage for dental care. Apparently they've been trying to negotiate coverage for dental care and the government has been very reluctant to take on this kind of coverage. As they pointed out to me, 60 per cent of them have dentures anyway and wouldn't be using this dental coverage. It's just the 40 per cent of them who still have teeth who need this kind of coverage. Yet the provincial government is really reluctant to give them. . . .

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes. Of that 40 per cent, not all of them need dental care; some of them have pretty good teeth.

Now the retired civil servants are having their annual meeting here in Victoria tomorrow. It's quite possible that the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Chairman, is going to be addressing them. These are two areas that they would really be interested in hearing the Provincial Secretary talk about: one, that their dental care would be covered, and the other that some kind of negotiation would be made with the Minister of Human Resources so that they can get their increment each year without having it deducted from their Mincome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'm very much aware of that problem. It's a problem, of course, that Canadians throughout the country are burdened with. It isn't just the municipal employees or the provincial government employees who have retired. It's old retirees of the CPR; it's all those who have lived to this age and see the cost of living which has increased to the point that they are having a very difficult time. We are very much aware of the problem.

Last fall we met with that same group, and I'm meeting with them next week. At the time of our last fall meeting they said they would come forward with some proposals. I said that I'd be very pleased to hear of them. I think part of it does incorporate the dental situation. At any rate, it isn't just a question of offering sympathy, Mr. Chairman. It's a question about trying to do something realistic but realizing, too, that in facing that we also face the fact that there are many, many Canadians and British Columbians who are left behind because of the problem of inflation, because of the problem of an increased cost of living. But I am meeting with them next week and I will certainly take your concerns into consideration.

MS. BROWN: I just want to say to the Provincial Secretary that I think we have a kind of peculiar responsibility to the civil servants who worked at a time when wages were very, very low. Consequently their pension benefits were very, very low. It probably will call for some kind of revolutionary action on the part of this government. Although I admire your concern for all British Columbians who have been hit by inflation, I think that this particular group needs some kind of special consideration from your department, Mr. Chairman. I certainly hope that the Provincial Secretary will have some kind of negotiation with the Minister of Human Resources so that he'll allow them to hang on to their increment which they get each year.

MR. BARNES: I only wanted to acknowledge that I appreciate that the Provincial Secretary did not blame the former administration for the fact that

[ Page 2162 ]

many Canadians do have dental problems (Laughter.)

Vote 53 approved.

On vote 54: Members of the Legislative Assembly Superannuation Act, $135,000.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, since I'm fast approaching retirement age, and since I know that comment will bring great applause from the government benches, I find that this vote is very interesting. I'm a little concerned, as any person should be approaching pension age, when he realizes that his employer is putting less and less money into his pension fund. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, I never really paid much attention to the MLAs' pension fund, because I almost had the feeling that if that was all I had in my old age, I would indeed be in trouble. So being a free-enterpriser, I have some other irons in the fire. . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign!

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, hon. member.

MR. WALLACE: It's rather difficult to proceed, Mr. Chairman, when you have all these smart-alecs making all those interjections. I meant to be serious until I got on my feet, but it is just puzzling that the contribution by government is reduced by $15,000.

As I say, I'm no great student of pension plans and I know that some plans are partly funded and some are fully funded and some are not funded at all, but I wonder if the minister could explain why at a time when against all national indications our salaries have gone up by I I per cent or they will do as of April 1. I'm not objecting to that either, but....

I'm sorry I'm sniffing into the microphone, Mr. Speaker, but I have my problems with hayfever this time of the year and the doctor's pills don't work. If I could get back to the point ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you would, hon. member.

MR. WALLACE: ... vote 54 shows a reduction of $15,000 on the part of the government contribution to the MLAs' pension plan at a time when our income is actually being raised by about 11 per cent in the coming fiscal year. I'm just puzzled.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I am advised that in 1976-77 that figure was based on the actual indemnity without the reduction of 10 per cent. Therefore the other figure is taking into consideration the reduction of this 10 per cent.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm even more worried than ever. Does that mean that the increase that we've read about in the news media that we will go back to getting $24,000 a year is a fallacious report? If it is not a fallacious report, why estimate on the basis of an income we were paid last year which is going to be 10 per cent less than we are paid in the coming year? Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that we were paid $24,000 minus 10 per cent last year.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I think the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) should answer the question. He seems to be very well informed.

Vote 54 approved.

On vote 55: Municipal Superannuation Act, $50,000.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Just two brief questions: I've had two cases recently reported to me in the city of Port Alberni involving the municipal superannuation plan. In one a fireman died after close to 10 years of service but he didn't quite reach the 10 years of service that's required for his wife - and he has a young family - to qualify under the survivor benefits for the municipal superannuation plan. As a result, I understand, they'll be losing out on benefits under the plan.

Another is where a worker in the parks department of the city of Port Alberni was laid off after 11 years of service because he had a degenerative heart condition. Unfortunately during his 11 years of service with the city he had taken leave of absence for health reasons covering 16 months so that he falls short of the 10 years of required contributions to qualify for early retirement under that plan.

I'm wondering what the policy of the government is. Will they allow people who have fallen short of their contributory months or years to make those up in a kind of a lump-sum payment so that they can qualify for these superannuation early retirement or survivorship benefits? Do you contemplate any changes in legislation or policy in order to make this available?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, there is always the problem because if we did have a legislative change - as you know, this is a statutory thing - you would change it to 12 and you would have the person who just fell within the 12 years and so on. Unfortunately this will be forever with us.

All I can say to the hon. member is that we don't contemplate changes at the present time because

[ Page 2163 ]

there have not been that many problems presented. When they are, they are real and they're tragic, and we really regret them, but we would probably have the same amount if we made two years difference either way, or even one year.

MR. SKELLY: Well, I can understand that there is that problem. I'm thinking of the worker who was employed for 11 years and unfortunately, during that period of time, had to take 16 months' leave of absence because of this heart condition. It is possible for a person like that to make a lump sum catch-up payment so that he can qualify for early retirement? He was employed for the full I I years, but because he was on leave of absence due to health reasons, he couldn't make the contributions, and I'm wondering if it would be possible for a catch-up.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, it is a voluntary contribution. He has the opportunity to make that contribution, and he opted not to. It's a personal choice that he had.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: For the 16 months that he was absent he could make a voluntary contribution to cover him during that time, and I take it that he chose not to, Mr. Chairman.

Vote 55 approved.

On vote 56: employee benefits, $11,952, 391.

MR. SKELLY: Again just one brief question, Mr. Chairman. During the Premier's estimates the question of constituency secretaries' salaries were brought up by the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) . At that time she pointed out, I believe, that most constituency secretaries were the sole supporters of their families, and that the money paid to those secretaries is low compared to the work that they do. The Premier at that time replied that because estimates had been prepared and money had been allocated for constituency secretaries' salaries there was no opportunity to change them during the fiscal year that we're discussing, but in the case of extended health benefits, medical plan and dental plan, I'm wondering if the Provincial Secretary would consider including the constituency secretaries in the group for the purposes of those plans, and if the government would allow them into the group and possibly make some contribution towards their premiums.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'll be pleased to consider that suggestion.

Vote 56 approved.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): As a result of overwhelming public demand, and at great expense and considerable personal sacrifice on behalf of one of my colleagues, I give you vote 116.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

On vote 116: minister's office, $86,016.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I rise as a rookie minister - the new Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources - in the province, having been given these responsibilities just about four months ago. I find it a very interesting challenge. I do want to say as I start into my estimates that I find that in the Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources we have a very dedicated staff that is keenly interested in the promotion of orderly development of our mineral resources in British Columbia.

MR. WALLACE: Where are they?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, some of them are probably working tonight on behalf of the people of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, but I recognize that in 1976 there's been an acceleration in exploration and development which has, in turn, resulted in an acceleration of revenue to the province of British Columbia, in order that social programmes may be made available to the people of this province.

I'm gratified to see that we have in British Columbia three potential hard-rock mines in various stages of development....

MR. KING: Hard-rock Chabot.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, when I was in Ontario just two weeks ago, talking with the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources in that province, I became aware that there are no mining prospects on the horizon in that province. I'm very gratified to see that in British Columbia, with the new policies and new attitudes that have been generated by the new government, at last we're coming out of that terrible three and a half years of negative attitude towards the mining industry in British Columbia.

MR. COCKE: You've made this speech before.

HON. 'MR. CHABOT: I hadn't intended saying that, Mr. Chairman, but I was prompted by the opposition. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

[ Page 2164 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: But in the short period of time in which I've had the opportunity of assessing my new role, I've found it interesting, as I stated before. I look forward to further discussion here in the chamber during my estimates and I look forward to constructive questions, not only from the opposition, but from the back bench as well.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the new minister finds his portfolio interesting. I would have expected that he would have told us what he found interesting about it, but I guess that it's enough that he finds it interesting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Time.

MR. LEA: Time? It's a quandary which we find ourselves in here tonight. We have a minister who has been in his post for approximately four months, and a critic who's been around for about two or three days longer as the critic of this portfolio.

But I think we should look into one thing: breaking up the exploration that mining companies do, apart from the development of properties. They really are two separate, distinct subjects which we're talking about. You can do all sorts of exploration, but unless there is money around and people around to look after that money to bring mines into production, exploration doesn't really mean that much.

We, of course, have two basic commodities in mining in British Columbia - copper and coal. These are the two basic mining exploration and development works that we're doing at this time. Coal, of course, probably has the biggest potential for the future of mining in the province of British Columbia.

It seems rather strange to me that the people who are in the coal industry in the southern part of the province - especially the CPR which is into coal in the southeastern part of the province, with Fording, being a subsidiary of CPR-Cominco, one of our biggest coal producers not only in B.C. but in all of Canada, B. C. being probably the largest coal-producing province in Canada - are telling us as British Columbians that the southeastern coal will be an ample supply of coal for the projected export and domestic needs over the next few years. As a matter of fact, they are little concerned that we may even be overproducing in the southeastern part of the province ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Louder.

MR. LEA: ... in terms of projected coal markets.

AN HON. MEMBER: Author.

MR. LEA: Do you want them? It's true.

Now it seems strange that we have a government which is negotiating, they say, with Japan and other coal users in the world for more coal to be produced and shipped out of British Columbia when, in fact, industry is telling us a completely different story. Industry is telling us that the northeastern coal probably won't be needed in the world market or in the domestic market for some years to come.

Now I'll admit that the people who are making these statements have a vested interest in the southeastern coal. But I think we have to take a look at their statements and examine them. The previous Minister of Mines, the now Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) , when I said that those people making those statements have a vested interest in southeastern coal, applauded, saying: "That's right." They do have a vested interest so maybe we shouldn't pay too much attention to what they are saying, as I assume the Minister of Forests meant.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I know I said that. But you were agreeing with the statement that I made earlier - that we have to be wary of what we're hearing from an industry which has interests in the southeastern part of the province.

I think it's time, Mr. Chairman, that this Legislature and the people of B.C. be told exactly -as soon as the minister is told by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) - what is going on in the coal industry in British Columbia.

MR. WALLACE: It's a mini-caucus.

MR. LEA: We have the government telling us that they are negotiating with markets for more coal when the coal industry is telling us that, indeed, we probably have too much now. That's what they're telling us.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nonsense.

MR. LEA: Who is right? There is only one group of people who can tell us, and that is the provincial government, through their dealings with the Coal Association of Canada and markets throughout the world. But I just have the feeling, Mr. Chairman, that we're not being told the story of coal, and I believe....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the committee is noisy tonight.

MR. LEA: I know that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If conferences are necessary,

[ Page 2165 ]

perhaps we could keep them to a whisper, just to assist the committee.

MR. LEA: I'm waiting for the conference.

Inteijections.

MR. LEA: But I think that British Columbia does have the right to know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well tell us. Tell us what it is.

MR. LEA: That's right. We want the Minister of Mines to now pass on the information that he just received from the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . That's what we want. We want to know what's going on....

HON. MR. CHABOT: It has nothing to do with the subject matter. (Laughter.)

MR. LEA: Well, where's the party?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Withdraw!

AN HON. MEMBER: This is vote 116!

MR. LEA: People in this province are completely in the dark as to what government is doing in terms of coal development in the province. All we hear from the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of Mines and from the Premier and from other ministers is: "Let's take a look at northeastern coal. We're going to develop it." But we ask why. Why develop it if there are no markets? The government is yet to tell us where they're going to sell that coal if it's developed. Do they have orders for the coal? I know that Japan has made an agreement that if it's good later on they'll make an agreement. That's the only agreement that we have right now, that they will agree to make an agreement at a later time. The Minister of Economic Development shakes his head, because I'm sure he has more knowledge that I have, but he just won't tell us.

We know for instance that it'll cost approximately $400 million to develop the mine sites themselves in northeastern coal. We know that it'll cost approximately between $400 million to $500 million more to develop the infrastructure that's needed, approximately $1 billion - $400 million for the mines themselves and $400 million or $500 million more for the infrastructure, or at least that's how I understand it.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: It's a lot of money. Are we going to spend that kind of money in British Columbia to develop coal if we don't have the orders or if we don't have any idea that we're going to have the orders? I think it would be folly; I think the Minister of Mines would know it would be folly. Yet they would expect us to believe that they're going to go ahead and develop northeastern coal with no orders.

My information is that the Japanese are now negotiating with British Columbia and the coal association to cut back on the present orders - not to increase orders, but to cut back on the present orders that we are now receiving. That's my information. I don't know how factual it is, but I'm being told by certain people in the industry that that is what the negotiations are all about - to cut back on present coal orders that British Columbia's receiving, and not only to cut back, but to renegotiate the price for coal and to renegotiate the amount of money paid to the government for coal. I hope those negotiations are not going on, but my information is that they are.

I am also told by people whom I believe to have a knowledge of the coal industry over and beyond what I could hope to have after four months that to make it an economic project for northeastern coal, we would need between $70 and $80 a ton.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Now we know that coal selling on the market right now is selling for approximately $55 a ton. So how in the world can we go ahead with the northeast development unless we know that by the time it's ready for production and shipment we're going to have about $70 or $80 a ton.

I'd like the minister to tell us what he anticipates the market will be for coal from British Columbia, say, over the next five years, and a further projection of 10 years; what he expects from the best knowledge that he can glean the price of coal will be five years from now and 10 years from now; whether the figures that I've given on the total costs of developing northeastern coal are fairly accurate; where they plan to get the money for the infrastructure.

I heard that the Minister of Economic Development went to Ottawa quite a while ago and gave Ottawa 30 days to come up with $500 million. They were saying down there after: "Who was that masked man?" And he left town. He gave them a 30 day ultimatum and left town. I asked the federal person who told me that how long ago that was. They said: "Well over 30 days. Well over 30 days and he hasn't been back." But he just came back now.

I think before we can have any sort of serious debate about coal, northeastern development, whether there's going to be a curtailment of activity, exploration and development of coal in the southeastern part of the province because of negotiations for down orders - not bringing the

[ Page 2166 ]

orders up, but bringing them down - and whether there are negotiations for another price for coal, another royalty for coal, or another taxation for coal, all going downward....

So I think the time has come for the Minister of Mines to let this Legislature know all of the story behind all of the coal negotiations and where we stand as a province. Because I agree with the government that coal is going to be a major factor in our economy in the coming years. But I believe that we do have a right to know exactly where we stand as of today, where we'll be five years from now and where we'll be 10 years from now. I think if the minister would care to let us know where we are going in coal, it would be a good idea.

There is another thing I would like to bring up with the minister and ask whether he's also run into the same information. I'm told by people in the coal business in the southeastern part of the province that they're now currently running 20 per cent under production because they cannot get the proper complement of people to maintain their machinery and that a great many of the people whom we did have in that industry, who could be utilized in that industry, have gone to Alberta and are working on the tar sands - some 10,000. There's a shortage of trained mechanical and maintenance people in the southeastern part of the province in the coal industry and, because of that lack of manpower, we're running about 20 per cent under what we could have been running in production. That's just wasted money. The coal companies are now even applying out of the country to bring trained, skilled miners in when it's obvious that we can train people to do that job and also do the maintenance jobs here in British Columbia.

I'd like to know what the minister has in mind in terms of a government programme to train people for the coal mining industry, both in the maintenance end and in the mining. It seems to me that if there isn't already a programme underway with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , then we're falling far short of where we should be going in terms of industrial education for the mining industry.

The money that's needed to develop properties in the province, as I understand it, is very tight. People going to the money markets of the world are being soaked a little bit more than the going market price for money in British Columbia right now. I'd like to know what the minister has in mind to try and get money into British Columbia for the development of mining properties. Is he leaving that entirely to the industry or is he aiding the industry in any way to bring in development money?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Does it matter where it comes from?

MR. LEA: Sure it matters where it comes from. I mean if it's going to come from the Mafia, then we don't want it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, no.

MR. LEA: Does it matter what country the money comes from?

HON. MR. CHABOT: England.

MR. LEA: No, not in my opinion, as long as we are in control of the industry. As long as we are in control of the industry by regulation and legislation, then why should be care where the money comes from?

Interjections.

MR. LEA: South Africa, Chile. No, I think that you'll find that Canadian and American mining companies are putting money into Chile now that the military regime is in power. I think you'll find that Noranda is putting a little money down there, or contemplating it right now - money that wouldn't have gone there prior.

What does the minister have in mind for incentive to the mining industry for development - not so much in the exploration area but in the development or properties that should be developed?

Another area is: has the minister been in touch with and spoken with the copper interests in the Highland Valley in terms of a copper smelter? I understand that some of the companies are very interested in it, but the big property and the one that has to come in is owned by Cominco if it's to be a viable operation. I wonder whether the minister has had any contact or any conversations with mining companies in terms of a copper smelter in the Highland Valley, and specifically whether he's talked to Cominco about what they would like to see done with their property in the Highland Valley.

There are other areas that we'll be touching on, but the coal money coming in to the province for development of properties....

One other area on which I'd like the minister to comment at this time is that I'd like to know whether, in the minister's opinion, mine safety should remain within his department - I don't know whether he's had a chance in the four months to look at it - or whether he feels that mine safety and all of the regulations around worker safety in the mines shouldn't be better handled through workers' compensation. I don't know whether he's had a chance to look at that yet. Those are some of the areas that I'd like the minister to comment on.

HON. MR. CHABOT: In reply to the member

[ Page 2167 ]

backwards from the last question forward, the question of mine safety.... I've looked at in a fairly superficial way. But in discussions with officials from my ministry, there's a great interest in retaining this function within the ministry because the qualification of the people who have knowledge on mining within my ministry is most desirable, while the Workers' Compensation Board would be hard put to find people with mining qualifications. It is the opinion at this time, having examined it in a very limited way, that it's desirable that it remain within my ministry.

MR. LEA: You haven't made up your mind, have you?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No. I'd be inclined to say yes, it should stay with my ministry rather than go to the Workers' Compensation Board.

MR. LEA: Pourquois?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Pourquoi? Ca jamais presentés des problémes. Ca marche correct.

As to the other question that was put to me, yes, I've had discussion with Cominco regarding the possible development of the valley copper ore body in the Highland Valley. I've had discussions with them on about three occasions. There have been discussions about the potential of a world-scale smelter in the Highland Valley as well. One of the problems at this time is the surplus of copper on the world markets, the depressed world price of copper.

Also one of the problems - I don't know if it's a problem or not, but it's a matter of negotiations as well - in the Highland Valley is the fact that Bethlehem Copper owns about 20 per cent of that ore body. There would have to be some kind of financial accommodation between Bethlehem Copper and Valley. Copper, which is a subsidiary of Cominco. That's proceeding. I have had meetings with Bethlehem Copper.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, not Lornex. Just Bethlehem is involved at this time in the Valley Copper ore body. I'll be meeting again very shortly with Bethlehem Copper, which has some concern about its diminishing reserves of copper ore. They are fairly anxious to get a development programme on the Valley Copper ore body as quickly as possible so that they can gear up their program-me and find out exactly where they're going.

I am gratified to see that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) is not particularly disturbed whether development funds coming from coal mine development in British Columbia come from Germany, from Japan or from England. This is, of course, a question of scrutiny by FIRA in Ottawa. They decide whether a foreign investment will be acceptable to Canada. I've always felt that investment capital coming from any country in the world to British Columbia or to Canada was acceptable, provided they are willing to come and live with the rules and regulations of this province.

The training programme which trains miners - and you were talking about coal miners - is one which is being actively considered by the Ministry of Labour. It's one on which a firm policy has not yet been established as to how these potential coal miners will be trained. There is a possibility they could be trained at the Rossland mining school. They could be trained through a joint programme between the government and Kaiser or Fording and trained on the site where the coal mining is taking place, which wouldn't be the case with training at the Rossland school of mining. However, we are concerned, primarily because of the high unemployment problem in British Columbia, in training our own workers for employment in the coal fields of British Columbia.

I hope to have in a few minutes further information on the coal miner training programme, and, hopefully, on what has taken place with the Kaiser programme and their inability to keep people in their training programme, which caused the necessity of coal miners coming from England, and the inability of the national government to locate coal miners anywhere in Canada. They had to give permission for the coal miners to come over from England into Canada. That's a particular problem.

I expect some difficulties in attracting people to coal mining. It's not the cleanest occupation in the world, and we'll have to endeavour to do everything we possibly can through incentives, hopefully, to get coal miners to come to British Columbia - or British Columbians to train for coal mining, I should say.

On the coal requirements and coal markets at this time, the latest figures that I have regarding the needs for metallurgical coal are that in Japan there's presently consumed 60 million tons of metallurgical coal a year. The suggestion you've made that there's a possible cutback on the existing coal orders is news to me, because Quintette and Denison Mines were in Japan just last week attempting to firm up a five million ton a year contract with the Japanese. I don't have any information as to whether they were able to secure this kind of a tentative commitment from the Japanese.

We at the moment enjoy approximately 20 per cent of metallurgical consumption in Japan. Our market is approximately 12 million tons out of 60 million. I don't have the exact percentages, but Australia has the highest percentage of the consumption in Japan. The United States is next. Canada is third.

We're hoping to increase our percentage. Through

[ Page 2168 ]

contacts with the Japanese steel industry and other Japanese officials, we're hoping to increase our percentage of the market in Japan to something in the neighbourhood of 30 per cent of an increased base, because our projections at this time are that by 1985 there should be in the vicinity of 85 million tons of coal consumed in Japan. We would like to have 30 per cent of that consumption coming from British Columbia coal mines. We feel that a fair division would be 30 per cent for Australia, 30 per cent for the United States, 30 per cent for Canada, and 10 per cent floating.

We think there is a tremendous potential market for metallurgical coal, and not only in Japan. There are developing markets in Brazil and South Korea, and possibly in Mexico and Germany. We think that the potential for establishing new markets for metallurgical coal is great in British Columbia. We believe in diversification; we don't believe that one or two metallurgical coal mines should control the entire market or the entire production from British Columbia. We believe in broadening that base to create additional jobs for British Columbians and we're endeavouring to develop the northeast coal field with that in mind. We'll develop other regions for British Columbia and the matter is proceeding at this time.

MR. LEA: Getting back to the northeastern coal and the Japanese market: approximately I I million or 12 million tons went out of here last year, right? It wasn't all to Japan, was it?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: It was about 11 million tons.

Let's go back into the northeastern coal. What does the minister feel the price of coal would have to be on the world market to make northeastern coal a viable project? I mean, we would also like to see, as I'm sure every British Columbian or Canadian would like to see, a diversification, and that coal production wasn't the whole domain of one or two companies, and that there will be more production. But wishing or wanting that is one thing, and getting it is another. First of all, we have to have the orders. The minister said that Denison and Quintette have just come back from Japan where they were trying to get the first five-million-ton order. Is that correct?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. LEA: The first five-million-ton order - okay. The first order of five million tons for the southeastern coal isn't even a fact. We don't have an agreement for the first five million tons. Yet the government is going around as if we had orders for 30 million tons. If we don't even have the first order for northeastern coal, then where are we? What's all the noise about?

We, as much as you and every British Columbian, would like to see northeastern coal go ahead. But at what price does the coal have to be on the market to make that project viable?

Where does the minister feel the money for infrastructure should come from, and where is it coming from? We're looking at about a half-billion dollars for infrastructure money. Is it going to come in part - or in all - from the companies which are going to be involved, Mr. Chairman? Where is that money going to come from? Are the feds going to kick in some? If so, how much? Is the province of British Columbia going to kick in some? If so, how much? I would have hoped that the approximately $400 million that's needed for the development of the mine properties themselves will come in its entirety from the companies involved.

But what about the other half of the money? Where is it coming from? Where does the minister think it should come from? Where is it coming from? How much does the market have to be? How much a ton before northeastern coal is viable?

We don't even have one order yet. What does the minister see in future orders for coal? I mean, wouldn't it make sense that we have at least some orders secured before we start making announcements about development or which way we're going.

How much of what the southeastern coal interests tell us is correct? I have no reason to believe that any of it is incorrect, but I do know that they do have a vested interest so we do have to look at it with a wary eye. Industry says that they can supply the coal needs from British Columbia for some time to come from the southeastern part of the province. Does the government say that industry is incorrect, that they cannot meet those obligations from the southeastern part of the province?

Has it got anything to do with the CPR railway as opposed to CNR or BCR?

[Mr. Haddad in the chair.]

What exactly is going on? I would think that the minister could tell us, and will tell us, what is going on. We have the private companies in the southeastern part of the province saying that they, through private investment without calling on government-subsidized dollars, can supply the coal orders for quite a while to come and that there is no need at this point for northeastern coal to be developed.

On the other hand, we're hearing that it's going to cost between $70 and $80 per ton. It's going to have to be that to make it viable - northeastern coal. We're presently at $55 and no coal orders. I think the

[ Page 2169 ]

minister owes us a bit more of an explanation.

MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted to see in the chair the member for the coal belt.

All of these talks about foreign markets for coal.... I know the Minister of Mines has probably totally neglected the domestic market so I want to talk about the domestic coal market which I know you think is pretty funny, Mr. Minister, but it's a serious consideration, It's a very small market and we know there are as many types of coal as there are different types of trees. But for those of us that burn coal to keep warm in the winter and live in the lower mainland, it has become a very pressing problem. This last winter that we just had....

Interjection.

MR. ROGERS: Are you going to get a briefing from Forests or can I talk to you directly? This last winter that they had in eastern Canada....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Speak to me through the Chairman, please.

MR. ROGERS: Certainly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, talk to the Chair.

MR. ROGERS: Absolutely, George.

Interjections.

MR. ROGERS: This last winter that they had in the eastern United States was extremely cold and there were shortages of electricity and shortages of natural gas. I'm sure that if many of those people living in Philadelphia could have got a 100 kilo bag of coal they might have put some in their fireplace to keep warm. Those people who live in the lower mainland of British Columbia might like to consider the same thing. Coal used to be a main source of heating in this province. This building that we're in this evening was heated by coal until as recently as 1945. With the advent of relatively cheap natural gas and electricity, coal has about all but disappeared from our market. I think we should give some consideration to getting domestic coal into the lower mainland.

Now as the present situation stands, coal for -domestic use is brought by boxcar from Drumheller in Alberta to Abbotsford, which is the last point that the CPR will deliver on the tracks. They have closed Colliery Avenue in Vancouver and there are no longer any coal distribution places. So picture the plight of a pensioner who wants to sit by a coal fire in the evening. He has to travel by car or bus out to Abbotsford to buy a 20-kilo bag of coal. That's the only way it's sold.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

I'm quite serious when I say we should give consideration to using a spare siding or two somewhere around the lower mainland as a depository for coal as a stand-by fuel in the event that we do have a real cold snap, which has happened in the past. It's something you could probably consider this evening.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:56 p.m.