[ Page 1399 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Provincial Home-Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 15) . Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 1399

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

on vote 194.

Mr. Stupich –– 1399

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1399

Mrs. Dailly –– 1400

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1401

Mr. Levi –– 1402

Mr. Cocke –– 1404

Ms. Brown –– 1406

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1409

Mr. Levi –– 1410

Ms. Brown –– 1412

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1413

Mr. Levi –– 1413

Mrs. Dailly –– 1414

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1415

Ms. Sanford –– 1416

Mrs. Dailly –– 1416

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1417

Mr. Cocke –– 1417

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1418

Mr. Cocke –– 1418

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

PROVINCIAL HOME-OWNER GRANT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

Hon. Mr. Curtis presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Provincial Home-owner Grant Amendment Act, 1978.

Bill 15 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF THE

PROVINCIAL SECRETARY AND TRAVEL INDUSTRY

(continued)

On vote 194: minister's office, $212,278 -continued.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, if I can go back to the line of questioning that I started upon just before the dinner hour adjournment, you will recall the Provincial Secretary seemed upset that I should be asking these questions and reminded me that I had asked similar questions as recently at 2:30 in the afternoon.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I admit that I did. It did provide some two and a half hours. It was the earliest opportunity I could ask the questions that I did because the announcement of the use of Brannan Lake came on the weekend. I did choose the earliest opportunity; it was question No. 1. The next opportunity to ask questions of this minister arose when we started discussing her estimates, and I couldn't really leave it any longer to be sure of getting the questions in. She seemed critical, asking why I would ask such questions.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the answer is quite obvious. I did read parts of some correspondence. I referred to a letter that went to this minister dated February 21 from the Marine Gardens Association asking for an opportunity for the community to be involved in discussions. I read from a letter from the city council dated March 21:

"The council of the city of Nanaimo, together with many persons in this community, have expressed serious concern with respect to the proposed use of the Island youth centre. The members would recommend that prior to any action being taken further on this matter there be input from the community which is vitally concerned with the situation."

Those are two communications. Then another communication went to this minister:

"We have collected 4,169 signatures on a petition to date opposing such a facility and feel this to be a fair and valid indication of the will of the people."

Mr. Chairman, I'd certainly be derelict in my duty as the MLA for Nanaimo if, in view of the representations from the Marine Gardens Association, from the city council and from the Steering Committee for the Better Use of Brannan Lake supported by 4,169 signatures, I didn't ask these questions. I think it's only reasonable that I do ask them, Mr. Chairman.

To continue the questions, some of which were answered, most of which weren't, I am informed that there was a cabinet committee that would make the decision. The decision was announced on the weekend, not by a cabinet minister but by a civil servant. My question, Mr. Chairman, is whether or not the Provincial Secretary was a member of that cabinet committee when the cabinet made the decision that was announced on the weekend by someone other than a cabinet minister, and whether or not there was any representation to that cabinet committee from the Ministry of Travel Industry.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, as I answered earlier, I think the letter to which the hon. member for Nanaimo refers is a copy of a letter which I received in February. I think he described it as a copy. I don't very often answer copies of letters to other ministers because they are in the hands of that particular minister to whom they are addressed. The letter to which he referred in the last week of April - as I mentioned to you earlier from memory - I believe that was simply passed on to someone in another ministry or to someone in my ministry for a response. Other than that, I really believe the question.... I appreciate the hon. member's query today as it does involve a particular action within his own constituency and I know that he will have an interest in something that happens in his constituency. But it really does not have any relation to this particular ministry's vote. Again, I suggest that that should be queried under another ministry.

As to the questions and the line of ques

[ Page 1400 ]

tioning as to whether or not I was a part of a decision on the Island Youth Centre, as the Chairman knows and as the member for Nanaimo knows, all of the decisions that are done within cabinet are decisions done within cabinet, and I don't plan to respond as to what debate goes on within those walls. I have an oath that says that I cannot tell you that.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't asking the minister to break her oath of secrecy with respect to cabinet discussions. I simply asked whether or not that minister was a member of the cabinet committee. It seems to me that's a fair enough question. Names of members of committees are not secrets. If the member prefers not to answer, so be it. And I did ask when the cabinet made the decision. I think that's a fair enough question. I could add to it and ask if it was a cabinet decision or if it was decided at some other level. It seems to me those are reasonable questions. They're not asking that any oaths be broken.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm hard pressed to find out why they would come under vote 194, though.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the member is asking if it was a government decision. The answer is yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: However, Madam Minister, that is also not under vote 194.

MR. STUPICH: I have just one remaining question, Mr. Chairman, and that is whether or not this minister was a member of the cabinet committee.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I said it was a government decision. I'm a member of the government.

MRS. DAILLY: This afternoon when we were debating the minister's estimates, I was trying to make a point to the minister, and there was really no comment on it, which I hope we will have this evening. Could she rationalize for us her short-term investment promotional policies in relation to really getting involved in the tourist industry in an area that would have some long-term benefits? She made no comment on that and I think she really should be accountable to us on where she really sees the value of the short-term promotional things such as a Smile campaign and Captain Cook, et cetera.

Before we have an opportunity to hear from the minister, I thought I could perhaps quote to you from an editorial in the Vancouver Sun tonight which, I think, puts very clearly the point I was trying to make this afternoon. It says:

" There is something a little out of whack when a government cuts back the $10 million budget estimate of its fish and wildlife branch by $240,000, but spends $1 million to promote Captain Cook as a summer tourist theme and spends $40,000 for a wolf-poisoning programme that many biologists privately condemn as unnecessary.

"Now while Provincial Secretary Grace McCarthy may attract an increased tourist trade this summer, careful husbanding of the province's natural assets, its wildlife and their habitat is an infinitely more important long-term investment in the province's future ability to conduct a viable tourist industry.

"It's really unfortunate to have to boil down an assessment of our irreplaceable natural resources to dollars and cents, but apparently this is where we're at today."

So really what I'm saying to the minister is that we seriously question not only your priorities within your own ministry but, of course, the priorities of this whole government. I particularly would like to hear the minister comment on how she really thinks that tourism in this province is going to thrive when she bases it on these short-term, promotional, gimmicky programmes.

Before I leave that subject, I would also like to point out that not only are we concerned with the approach the minister is taking, but we do find it, may I say, most annoying that the minister not only is involving herself in these promotional programmes which we seriously question, but at the same time she is also flaunting around the province extravagant figures with no backup and comparison tourist figures with the years the NDP was in government. I'm sure the public gets tired of hearing what happened when the NDP was in compared to the Socreds and vice versa. But really, again as I said this afternoon, the minister travels all aver this province and keeps repeating statements, using figures that are very questionable. So here is the opportunity to raise them right on the floor of the House and ask the minister to vindicate them.

The minister consistently talks about the great return of the American tourist, pointing out there was a 2.6 per cent rise in the number of U.S. residents entering into B.C. in the first nine months of 1977. Yet at the same time her former deputy says we're heading for

[ Page 1401 ]

a $450 million deficit in tourism in this province because of the fact that the Americans are not coming.

They certainly are not coming in comparison to the pre-McCarthy days. If we look at the figures back in 1975, the last year the NDP was in government, we find that the rates for the tourist industry as far as the return of tourist money were really higher. Actually, the figures today are 6.6 per cent below what they were in the last year of the NDP government.

The hotel occupancy rates, I know the minister would agree, are one way of looking at the health of the tourist industry. The last figures available show a 63.8 per cent occupancy rate, which is up from the 62.5 per cent of 1976. But in 1975, the last year of the NDP, it was 65.7 per cent.

An interesting thing to note is that at no time during the New Democrats' term in office did the hotelmen have a complaint about earning an adequate return on their investment. Yet they are expressing sincere and genuine concern about the hotel occupancy rates in this province since Social Credit assumed office.

Why I am making these points, Mr. Chairman, which I know you find very interesting, is so that the minister, I hope, will stop running around this province referring to the drastic tourism record of the NDP when the figures show that there has been a definite tourist slump since the Socreds took office. All I'm saying is: let's keep the record straight, at least on the floor of this House. It's obvious that when the minister starts on the campaign trail the record is not kept straight.

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of people who want to follow me. But I wish we could have a statement, which is really a statement of philosophy, I would think, on her whole ministry from the minister. How does she vindicate these short-term promotional policies?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I want to give everybody an opportunity to ask questions but I would like to respond to this particular one separately, if I may.

First of all, let me say just to keep the record straight, the hon. member for Burnaby North has said that I have run all over the province talking about the sorry state of tourism under the NDP. I want you to know I have been in very many communities within the province. I was elected to do just that - to represent the people.

I intend to keep that promise, and I'll continue to do it. I won't stop going throughout the province in every community that I can reach because I think it's important. And I think it is just as important for members in Atlin and members in the Shuswap and members in Fort George and so on to hear from the members in this House as it is for the members in Victoria or the members in the city of Vancouver, whom I'm privileged to represent.

But I would like to say that at no time during my addresses throughout the province on the matter of tourism do I refer to the New Democratic Party and their philosophy or their ideals in regard to the travel industry in the province. I'll tell you why I don't, Mr. Chairman. They weren't worth talking about, and I haven't referred to them.

Let me now respond to the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) on what our philosophy is in Travel Industry. I'm very concerned, too, with the conservation programmes for this province. I'm very concerned about the highways in this province. I'm very concerned about the social services in the province, and the health services, and the educational services. There isn't anybody in this House, I hope, who doesn't share that concern. I think we are all sent here for the very reason that we are elected members in order to respond to the needs of the citizens whom we do serve. I feel privileged, Mr. Chairman, to represent the part of the government which has the responsibility for providing some of the dollars.... It doesn't provide all of the dollars, because there are two other ministries in this area of government which are producing ministries, if you like - one is Economic Development and the other two natural resource portfolios are forestry and mining.

But the travel industry, being the third largest industry in the province, is responsible for bringing a good portion of the budget to the government in order to spend on such things as conservation, fish and wildlife, and so on, and the services that we want. If it weren't for the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and the Ministries of Forests and Economic Development, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and Travel Industry, and those productive areas from which there is a greater return in tax dollars than there are in other areas, those other areas which are service areas of government such as education, social services and health services would not have some of the dollars to spend.

So we're very lucky, Mr. Chairman, and very fortunate indeed that there is a very vibrant and a very good travel industry in the province which supports the kinds of efforts which we want to make in fish and wildlife, in

[ Page 1402 ]

conservation, and in all of those services and health services and so on.

So that's the philosophy. We have a strong travel industry in the province and we spend some money. My only responsibility and the responsibility of all provincial governments across this country is to advertise their particular provincial jurisdictions to the world. We're in a very competitive situation. I'm going to tell you that there are places in the world today which aren't as affluent, which don't have the natural resources that this province has, which are spending more in travel industry promotion than this province is.

I can tell you right now that people such as McDonald's and Coca-Cola and all of those people spend about 30 times more advertising one product than the province of British Columbia uses to advertise. Last year we spent approximately $6.5 million to advertise to the world to make a $1.4 billion return to the taxpayers of the province.

So that's the philosophy. We make a healthy climate. We tell the people of the world they're welcome: "Come here and spend your money so that some of our people can be employed." After they have a better way of life for their families, they'll send some of the tax returns to the several levels of government, one of which is the provincial government, which handles their money well in giving good services to those who are underprivileged and those who are in need and those who need education and those who need help.

MR. LEVI: Maybe we could move from tourism for a minute to the Public Service Commission. I'd like to ask the minister some questions. Last week she answered a question as to how many public servants there were employed, and she gave a figure of 37,720 as of December 31,1977. In 1976 she answered a similar question and gave the figure of 39,139.

Now in May or June of this year, the minister's ministry issued a staff training division Public Service Commission booklet: "Organization of the B.C. Public Service, 1977-78." On page 33 it says, "The number of staff by ministry or service as of May 31,1977, is a total of 41,928, " which is some 4,200 more than the minister's figure that she gave us last week.

Now I know that arriving at some kind of accurate figure as to how many public servants we have is not very easy. Probably one of the reasons is that British Columbia over the years has not been noted for having the kind of system that could extract from its myriad bookkeeping methods the kind of figures that even Statistics Canada would like. If one looks at Statistics Canada in the quarterly reports that are put out for provincial government employment B.C. doesn't show at all. Now unless the minister gets sensitive and stands up, I can also say that it didn't show when the previous government was in, and it didn't show when the previous government to that was in. But there is something that does show in the quarterly reports which perhaps we could deal with, and then the minister could tell us with some degree of accuracy just where we stand.

Because we have Crown corporations in this province, they do report, and they report separately. In this provincial government employment Statistics Canada publication there is a section called "Provincial Government Enterprises by Type and Employee." What I would like to do is just take the minister slowly through a couple of things and then ask some questions.

In 1976 British Columbia reported that it had 12,400 employees in July, 12,700 in August and 12,900 in September, so it was within 400 or 500 above 12,000. The amount of salary paid for the three months was $56 million. This is reported in here.

In the quarterly report for October to December, 1977 - same provincial government employment - if you look under British Columbia, it says: "British Columbia - October, November, December. That's what we're going to deal with now. We dealt with July, August and September, and now we're going to deal with October, November, and December, 1977. We're dealing with government enterprises and the people who are on the payroll. In October, 1977, there were 16,913 employees on the payroll. In November, 1977, there were 17,040, and in December there were 16,047. That represents an increase of over 4,000 employees in one year. It also represents a 50 per cent increase in the salary cost, because in 1976 we were looking at some $56 million for a three-month period, and in 1977 we're looking at $78 million.

Now there are many difficulties in trying to arrive at just what these public enterprises are. We do know that within the period of 1976 and 1977 B.C. Ferries became a Crown corporation. B.C. Systems Corporation became a Crown corporation, and there we're probably dealing with something of the order of 3,200 to 3,400 employees. The one that'-s always somewhat nebulous in all the reports you read about the public service is the Liquor Board. You never quite know whether it is in or out, because it always appears as a separate figure.

The minister did table the 1977 annual

[ Page 1403 ]

report for the Public Service Commission, and I have some problems with this document because it differs quite remarkably from the previous five years that I have on hand here. I have from 1972-1976, and what's missing from the 1977 document are statistics related to the number of employees, whether they are permanent or temporary. For instance, in 1976 and all of the preceding years there was a table called the Summary of Total Government Employment, and it lists established positions and temporary positions, and then deals with combined totals. Now that was up to 1975. In 1976 there was a change again, because in 1976 we do not have a combined totals statement. We only have an annual sick leave report, January 1,1976, to November 30,1976, but within that it lists the number of employees. The number of employees that are listed come to a total of 33,197, and then underneath it's got B.C. Ferries, 2,285.

As I recall, B.C. Ferries was transferred out of the public service sometime in 1976. But the minister, in answering the question last year - it appears in the Journals of the House - said that there were 39,139 people in the public service. Now one does not count, as I understand it, the B.C. Ferries.

What I'm getting at here, Mr. Chairman, is that we have to try and obtain the figures on just how many public servants we have by a series of deductions. We have to go first of all to some federal government statistics in order to find out how many people work for government enterprises in British Columbia. We find that there was an increase of 30 per cent within one year. We find that the salary bill in those public enterprises increased by 50 per cent. Then we try to deal with just how many people are in the public service.

Now I would like the minister to tell us, within $10 million or $50 million - if she wants to do it that way - just what it costs to pay the public servants. We know what it costs to pay the Grown corporations. And I do not think that we should make any mistake that, when we talk about government employees, we're somehow not talking about enterprises which in fact are being paid by the taxpayers. Ferry service is a taxpayers' enterprise; so is the B.C. Systems Corporation, and so are many of the others. The point I'm underlining is this: contrary to what we've heard over the past two and a half years, that the governments effort at reducing the number of public servants has been successful, I'm suggesting that it has increased.

The issue of whether that's desirable or not is not what I'm raising at the moment. It's my estimation, given the figures that the minister has given us, that we've got 4,000 more people in public enterprises, Crown corporations. And she's suggested it to us, in the figure that she laid down last week, that we have 37,500 public servants. So either way you look at it, there are something like 41,000 or 42,000 public servants. This in no way represents a reduction. The costs are up and the number of people are up. Let me say that that in itself is a good thing. People are employed; they're giving service, and that's okay.

But we can't have some of the people over there running around saying that we've cut down the public service and we're not putting so many people on the public payroll when Statistics Canada indicates that, in one year, 4,000 more people went onto the public payroll in terms of public enterprises. And the minister tells us that there's a reduction in the number of people who are in the public service. Last week she told us there were 37,700. But let's remember that in May, 1977, she published this book - it's from her ministry -

and she tells us that there are 41,928. Now we heard an interesting little aphorism from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) this afternoon, something to the effect that - I can't even remember how he put it now - liars figure and figures lie. But the point is, I think, that, in the interest of the taxpayer and of the members of this House, the minister has an obligation to try and give us an accurate estimation of the number of people are in the public service, so that we can in fact make a judgment on just what the situation is in terms of total public employees. You know, to have a reduction of something like 4,000 within a six-month period - on information given from the same ministry - is remarkable. I mean, how is it possible that that ministry can produce a figure of 41,928 and then the minister can come into the House and tell us that as of December, 1977 -six months later - there are only 37,720.

1 am very critical of the minister for producing a document like this. There are no figures in it, Madam Minister, nothing to go on. Now I understand that some efforts are being made to deal with what follows from the Statistics Act. Perhaps you might tell us that. How are the discussions going with Ottawa in respect to making information available in terms of the public service? British Columbia is the only province in Canada - and also there are two territories, that does not report any information. Now we have an opportunity, because the minister that brought in the Statistics Act said that the information would be available. I'd like the minister to

[ Page 1404 ]

tell us how we're going with that. It may very well be that, if she can't tell us, I'll have to, in the question period, ask the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , who is responsible for the Systems Corporation - because, presumably, they must have some function in there.

So what I've attempted to do, Mr. Chairman, is to put the facts as I see them, based on published documents. I find that the documents produced by the provincial government are in serious conflict. Their accuracy must be questioned. Two sets of figures coming out of the same ministry have a discrepancy of 4,000 people - as a matter of fact, something in the order of about 11 or 12 per cent error.

Facts in terms of Statistics Canada appear to be consistent with all of the previous reports that I've looked into - going back to 1973. They do state the number of people who are in public enterprises and they also state how much money is paid out. So perhaps the minister can enlighten the House. How many public servants do we have? Where is the information? Is it intended that we will get an addendum to this annual report, or did they forget it? Is it lost somewhere in the office? There is a break in the tradition of this House in terms of this report. So I'd appreciate it if the minister would answer these questions.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of things that I would like to deal with, a couple of areas under the minister's purview.

First, I want to ask the minister if she realizes why she has such an overrun. I know percentage-wise it's very high, and I realize in round figures it's not all that high. It's only around $900,000 to $1 million, but there's a possibility that there is more.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

But I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that looking down the telescope that the minister provided me - along with so many other people in the province - I can understand why she has an overrun. I want the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe) to have a look at this finite document, this marvellous piece of expensive work on behalf of the Provincial Secretary, promoting none other than Captain Cook.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You don't like him, do you?

MR. COCKE: Oh, well, you know, he was like a lot of other explorers.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask you just what price one would pay ... and I want the Minister of Finance to look at this very carefully, because you're looking at the reason for this huge percentage overrun.

I was asked to hang this up in New Westminster and, you know, I felt charitable toward the government. I said to myself that if I did, the people around New Westminster would say: "What are they doing wasting our money like that?" Look, it's supposed to denote the tall ship syndrome. The poor, little tall ship only comes up to about one-quarter of the whole size of this marvellous piece of paper, which indicates nothing much more than sky. Now we have tall ships, and what sizes they might be, but the minister couldn't find a ship tall enough for this particular document, and so therefore....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Dunsky? Who knows who did it? But whoever did it made a terrible error, and the minister wasted a lot of money - as she has wasted a great deal of money on many other promotional pieces that have come out of that ministry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two million more to come.

MR. COCKE: I want to ask the minister: who gave her this advice?

Now we have one frail, little piece of paper, Mr. Chairman, and besides that a very expensive tubular binding for it. It's a telescope, she tells us. The only problem is....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could I ask the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to move to his own seat if he's going to make comments across the floor.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I want you to understand very clearly that this telescope becomes totally opaque. It's as blind as the minister the minute you put in the lens. I can't even see the minister through it.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I can see through you.

MR. COCKE: You know, my colleagues are pointing out that the totally opaque lenses in this telescope do have some advantages. But even they are expensive. They're made of plastic, but they're still expensive.

Mr. Chairman, seriously, I ask the Minister of Finance, the next time he has a discussion with the Minister of Travel Industry because I'm sure she's not going to tell me to ask her what this marvellous piece of promotional

[ Page 1405 ]

material - which I was asked, along with every other member in the House, to take home to my riding and embarrass myself by putting it up somewhere - cost the taxpayer of British Columbia. No, I really wouldn't have been that terribly embarrassed. I think probably, if I had taken the time, I could have explained where it came from. But in any event, I thought I would give her the advantage of not doing it - just for the sake of that travel minister.

Oh, I forgot to add, Mr. Chairman, that we also got a lovely letter from the minister included.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, she doesn't bother to say yours truly, but I'll tell you, she sure puts her name out there nice and clear.

Mr. Chairman, I've had some discussions with the minister over the last two or three years about the Vancouver Status of Women and I think that once again we should have a similar discussion.

Now I'm not sure whether the Status of Women is confronted with inflation like everyone else in our society, but it would appear that if they are and if there is a need in that particular area, it should be understood by the Provincial Secretary. Years ago there was found to be a need to do some equalizing in this particular area, and that is in the whole question of status of women. I recall very clearly when I was a Minister of Health in this province, where people were doing the same job in the hospital business and a male was being paid anywhere from 1.50 to $2 more just by virtue of his sex. There wasn't an education job being done. If this is funny to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) , maybe he should go and review his thought process, if he has one.

Mr. Chairman, an education job was needed and an education job has been and is being done by certain people in our society, not only educating women but educating everybody who has anything to say with respect to the status of women. In 1975, the Vancouver Status of Women - and I want it understood clearly that this group represents a cross-section across the province - was provided with a grant of $75,000. When we're talking in terms of billion-dollar or multibillion-dollar budgets, this is not an awful lot of money, particularly money that's required to provide some kind of equality. And we're a long way from it, Mr. Chairman. But in any event, this group at that time received $75,000 as a grant.

In 1976, the first year of the new coalition, they showed a valid basic budget of $102,000. And what did they get, Mr. Chairman? They got $75,000, exactly the same as they had received at their inception.

In 1977, they showed again a valid budget of $139,000. What did they receive? No increment, no thought in terms of the need for more, just by virtue of inflation alone. No, they received $75,000. Their needs continue to increase. Once providing that basic provision of service that they have provided and provided well over the last number of years, naturally they are called upon for more and naturally inflation continues to erode the funds they are getting.

In 1978, this year, they showed again a valid budget of $151,000, and what did they receive? They got the same amount they received in 1975 - or they are in the process of receiving it - $75,000. Mr. Chairman, they met with cabinet on February 28. They told their problem to the cabinet. They were asked several questions. And do you know, the funny part of it was, when they met with that coalition cabinet, they were not asked one question with respect to their programmes. Oh yes, they were asked about the money but they were not asked about their programme. "Who cares?" appears to be the way it is over there. Who cares? Thoughtful people care in our society, thoughtful people who want to see people treated in an even-handed way. We're not seeing that from this group.

On March 10, they sent a telegram and asked, "Where are we going from here?" to the Provincial Secretary. On March 12, they had to have an emergency meeting because of their overdrafts and the problems that they were having with keeping their staff and keeping their services up, services that are important to every thinking British Columbian, regardless of sex.

Finally, on March 14, they were told they were getting a grant again of the same amount. Naturally the Status of Women have met again, and they have indicated very clearly - they are unanimous on this - that this half-grant is not enough. Over the years they've tried to show they've done a journeyman-like job of showing the need, and they've been ignored. I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that that's just not good enough.

On the CBC, the Provincial Secretary was talking about the proposed or the upcoming ombudsman service that will be here in place someday, sometime. She said that after all, when that comes into place, there won't be so much need. But this group has been providing ombudsman service for years for women in this

[ Page 1406 ]

province - unheralded, not talked about far and wide, not a great PR stunt but real good hard service for women who really need it.

Mr. Chairman, the advice I have for the Provincial Secretary is that she may or may not be a self-made person, who may have been the most successful businessperson under the sun, but that isn't to say that everybody has that same kind of opportunity, that same kind of luck or whatever.

I suggest the Status of Women are going to have to lay off some of their staff. They are going to have to provide less service for people than they have provided heretofore. Now that is not in the best interests of the women; that is not in the best interests of the people in our province.

I would just like to go through very quickly some of those services just to remind ourselves what those services are: resources and information centres, legal information clinics, assertiveness training, public education, television. They even have print. I think probably every member of the House receives Kinesis. If you don't read it, or at least excerpts from it, you really don't know what's going on around you. They have conferences for women, community meetings, community boards, skill-sharing programmes and, still, that ombudservice that's so necessary.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the budget that was put forward very early, this year - or at the very last part of last year, and certainly was still being negotiated the early part of this year - was all there. It's all in this booklet, including the budget. If anybody can pick it apart, please do. Let us know why not. Let us know why this very important segment of our society should be be overlooked.

We've seen a government and we've seen a male minister in Human Resources turn his back on transition houses and other services to women. But you know, I would expect more of a minister of the same gender as the people that are making this request. I would have expected a lot wore of that minister, Mr. Chairman. Yet she seems as hard hearted as her colleague with respect to the needs of these people. I would be delighted if that minister would stand up and say: "Yes, I've read that material, and I think it's about time we rethought the whole question of the grant to the Vancouver Status of Women."

She can do it, Mr. Chairman. We're told that she's a very powerful minister in this government. Then let her talk to the Minister of Finance about this important area and let her go to the Minister of Finance and say: "I'm going to give up on a lot of this fooferaw, a lot of this lighthearted stuff."

Mr. Chairman, we are standing at a moment in time when a government spent $100,000 ballyhooing their programmes all over this province at the expense of the people of British Columbia. They call it "B.C. Government News"; I call it B.C. government PR - nothing more, nothing less. I could be a lot more germane as to what it is if we weren't in mixed company. But in any event, if we can spend those kinds of dollars on that kind of material and this kind of fooferaw, I suggest that we can spend a lot more money on something very important -something as important as the Status of Women. Let the minister have something to say to that.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I was hoping that the Provincial Secretary was going to respond to the request of the previous speaker so that we wouldn't have to discuss this issue any further, but I guess we'll have to.

I'm wondering whether the Provincial Secretary realizes that now that the Minister of Human Resources is thinking of introducing a policy of fee-for-service for counselling in his department, in fact he will be attacking the very people - the very women - who because the Status of Women have had to cut back on their services and curtail their counselling service would be going to the Ministry of Human Resources for that kind of counselling. What we find, Mr. Chairman, is these two things happening at the same time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please. When the member for New Westminster was discussing the Vancouver Status of Women, I was assuming that he was discussing something which comes later under vote 205, which is therefore admissible under the minister's office. However, if your line of attack is going to be to relate this to the Human Resources ministry, I must tell you that it would be out of order. We must only deal in those areas of the provincial government in which the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry have responsibility, and therefore just those grants that come under that minister. Any adverse effect that may cause people to go to other ministries would be better discussed under those ministries.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I'm not attacking. I am not pursuing a line of attack. I'm merely discussing an issue with the Provincial Secretary. Secondly, maybe I am a little bit slow about the way in which I express myself, but I'm quite aware that the funding for the Status of Women council comes

[ Page 1407 ]

under the Provincial Secretary because I've been debating it under the Provincial Secretary since 1972. So I'm very conscious of where it comes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: However, reference to the Minister of Human Resources isn't appropriate.

MS. BROWN: Well, I can refer to the Minister of Human Resources, I can refer to my father and my mother or anyone else, as long as it has to do with this department, which is what I'm doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MS. BROWN: And maybe if you would give me an opportunity to say what I have to say without interruption, Mr. Chairman, I would get to the point. Now I'm going to start all over again.

The Provincial Secretary, in deciding not to increase the grant for the Status of Women council, said she could not meet their request for funding because a number of the activities in which they were involved were, in part, duplication of other government services. One such duplication that she talked about, or that I'm telling her about, is family counselling, which is one of the things that the Vancouver Status of Women does under its ombudservice.

As a result of the minister's decision not to increase their grant, the Vancouver Status of Women has had to reorganize itself. One of the services it's going to have to cut out is the work done by the ombudservice, and the family counselling and the individual counselling that women used to get from the ombudservice. The alternative to those women would be to go to the Ministry of Human Resources. They cannot do so if that ministry carries through its policy of fee for service.

I'm bringing this to the attention of the Provincial Secretary to ask her whether in view of this she would be willing to reconsider her position and give the Status of Women council the additional funding that it needs so that it can continue to give family counselling and individual counselling to women through its ombudservice.

I think if the Chairman knew a little bit more about the Status of Women council and what it does he would have understood what I was trying to say much sooner. The Vancouver Status of Women council had to make a decision after the ministry informed them that they would not be getting an increase in their funding and they had to decide to curtail some of their services. They decided that the three most important things they were doing were the publishing of their newspaper Kinesis, which goes throughout the province to all women's groups and to all women in the province who subscribe to it, as well as to all members of this House and to a number of other groups. It's a link with all of the women's groups in this province and it's a very important one, so they've decided to continue that service.

They've decided to continue keeping their accommodation at 2029 W. Fourth and all of the expenses involved in that. And the third thing they've decided to do is continue their community development work with women in the community. What this means is a lot of the individual counselling that used to be done under the ombudservice is going to have to be either restricted, curtailed or ceased altogether. Their research is also going to have to suffer and so are some of their educational programmes in the schools.

They are trying to live within this budget, but since the time that decision was made, referring to the duplication of services, another ministry has introduced or is debating the introduction of policy which will render an additional hardship on the women who use the Vancouver Status of Women council. This is new information which I'm giving the minister who is the Provincial Secretary and who is responsible for funding. I'm asking the Provincial Secretary whether or not under these circumstances she would rethink her decision and increase the amount of money which she has allotted to the Vancouver Status of Women to carry on their job for this year.

Mr. Chairman, the loss of the service which the (ombudservice used to deliver to the women of this province cannot be measured in dollars and cents. There is a large number of women who, when in trouble, can turn to their church; there is a large number of women who can turn to other groups in society to which they belong, but there is also a large number of women who, when in trouble, have nowhere to turn. Those were the ones who would turn up at the Vancouver Status of Women council and would have the services of the counsellors who were attached to the ombudservice. The curtailing of that service is one that cannot be measured in dollars and cents, and I think that the minister should seriously consider the damage that's going to be done to the women of this province, unless some additional funding is given to the Vancouver Status of Women council.

I would suggest that she earmark this money specifically for the ombudservice, specifically for the counselling service which the Vancouver Status of Women council does. But if she doesn't want to just add to the grant

[ Page 1408 ]

which goes into general revenue, if one can use that term, she can specifically say that here is an additional $10,000, or whatever, to pay for the continued work of the ombudservice, recognizing how important this service is to the women of the province. Because the Vancouver Status of Women council is not a Vancouver service; it serves all of the women in the province. Everyone uses its facilities. And I'm sure that the ombudservice would be very happy to make their reports available to the Provincial Secretary, to give her some understanding of the kind of work that they have been doing since 1970 or 1971 when that service was first started. This wiping out of the ombudservice is a very, very great loss to the community of women.

If the Provincial Secretary is not willing to fund it by herself, maybe she would be willing to speak to the Human Rights Commission of the government to see whether there couldn't be some kind of joint funding worked out for this particular service - earmark it specifically for this particular service and say that it is not to be used for anything else.

There are a number of women who have turned up at that service - women in their 50s, women in their 60s - who have had nowhere else to go and have been served well by that service. We cannot afford to allow that service to die. I think that the Provincial Secretary has to take that into consideration and rethink her commitment to the women in the province.

The Vancouver Status of Women council issued a budget of their own - their own estimates, if one wants to put it that way - and listed the services that they were trying to deliver for $75,000 a year: the counselling service; the legal information clinics; the complete reference library on women's issues, the only one of its kind in western Canada and the oldest one of its kind in western Canada; Kinesis; the education programmes in schools and universities, in conjunction with the B.C. Federation of Teachers. They work together, and the B.C. Federation of Teachers puts funding into this too. A number of the women's studies programmes in the schools as well as in the universities got their beginnings here and are continuing to use this service as their reference.

They also provide speaking engagements to community groups and the television show which they have on channel 10, "Woman Alive." I don't know whether the Provincial Secretary has seen that programme or not, but it comes on once a week and it deals with matters of grave concern to women. It discusses things like breast cancer. It talks about women and alcoholism. It talks about new stress on the family. It deals with women I s unemployment. It deals with the whole concept of women and money and the poverty that so many women find themselves in in their old age. It's quite possible that the minister herself has been on that programme because I know that they try to have a different person on each programme. This programme is in jeopardy now, too, as a result of the cutback in funding.

The development of community skills for women. One of the things that the "Women Alive" programme does is to use women on the cameras. Women write the scripts and women do the interviews. It's a learning experience for them. Channel 10 allows the Vancouver Status of Women to go in there and do the entire programme themselves as a learning experience. Women are developing skills in these very vital areas. It's part of the whole struggle for economic independence, and that is now in danger because of the minister's decision to cut back on their funding.

I use the words "cut back!' because a dollar is not worth today what a dollar was worth in 1977. To say that you are giving the same amount of dollars in 1978 as you gave in 1977 is to admit that you are cutting back on the programmes, especially when it is the same amount of dollars as they had in 1976 and 1975. They're expert at budgeting. They're absolute experts at budgeting because no other department would have been able to carry on its work with their funding not increased since 1975. The minister's department can't do it. She herself has failed, Mr. Chairman, to do that.

Their office space at 2209 is open to be used, free of cost, by any and every group in the greater Vancouver area that has a service to deliver to women. A number of groups started there. That's where the Women's Health Collective used to have their first meetings. That's where the Transition House groups used to have their first meetings. That's where Rape Relief started to have its first meetings. The groups dealing with middle-aged women and older women and consciousness raising groups all used those facilities free of cost. It's a service to the community of women, and those premises are very important to all of us, whether we physically use them ourselves or not. The minister has to take that into account because they're rented premises and they're not covered by any form of rent control, so their rent goes up, their hydro goes up, their telephone bills go up. They're not the same as they were in 1975, yet the minister expects that they're to live on exactly the same amount of money as they did

[ Page 1409 ]

in 1975. It just doesn't make any sense.

They prepare briefs on legislation. You know, we don't want to go back into history because some of it is very painful, but some of the very first briefs on women's issues presented to this Legislature came out of the Status of Women Council. The briefs on community of property, the briefs on family law, the briefs dealing with Rape Relief Centres, the briefs dealing with the Women's Health Collective, with violence against women, Transition Houses, pensions, equal opportunities and employment - all of these briefs.... Anyone of any group that wants to present a brief can go to the Status of Women Council and they have access not just to the library and to the research facilities but to the people there with skills who give of their time and their expertise free of cost. That is now in jeopardy as a result of the fact that they're going to have to cut back on their staffing because their funds have not been increased since 1975.

How much are these women being paid who work for the Vancouver Status of Women Council? In their request for funding they've put in for a request of $900 a month; that was what they've put in for. Of course they didn't get it, so they're still working for $750 a month, which was what they earned last year, and the year before that, and the year before that too. Let's compare that with some of the other expenses in the minister's department which they have made: $400,000 on advertising; $105,000 to repair the Royal Hudson; $80,000 on hospitality certificates; $60,000 for tourist counsellors for the B.C. Ferries fleet; $100,000 for five cars on the Royal Hudson; $225,000 for the Royal Hudson's Silver Jubilee tour. Nobody begrudges the department spending that kind of money on its tourist promotion. Everyone sees the kind of dilemma that small business is in in this province, and we want to see everything done to give small business a chance to recoup and to Survive.

But the Vancouver Status of Women Council regards itself as being at the disposal of the more than 1 million women who live in this province. Surely they're worth more than $75,000 between us. What does that work out to be - about a penny each? Would the Minister of Finance do some quick arithmetic and tell me? A million pennies gives you less than a penny each. The women in this province are not even worth a penny each - one cent, pardon me. I keep falling back into English when I should be speaking Canadian. Not even one cent each are the women of this province worth.

One of the things that the Vancouver Status of Women pointed out in their brief was that unlike many other provinces, British Columbia has no Status of Women provincial council -that is, government council. Accordingly the Vancouver Status of Women has mail redirected to it from the minister's own department. When mail goes to the Provincial Secretary's department concerning women, it's redirected to the Vancouver Status of Women Council, because most people in other provinces assume that there is a provincial Status of Women Council operating in British Columbia in the same way as there is one in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Yukon.

HON. MS. McCARTHY: Who funds them there?

MS. BROWN: They're funded by the provincial governments in all of those provinces. A number of really excellent reports in particular have been coming out of the Ontario one, which I'd be very happy to share with the minister if she's interested in seeing the material. But the assumption is that B.C. has such a provincial Status of Women council, and we don't. The Vancouver Status of Women Council has been doing the job. It's not going to be done by an ombudsman. The work of the ombudsman is to deal with an individual's battle with government.

The Status of Women Council does not address itself exclusively to the complaints that women have with government, but is very much involved in the day-to-day life and the problems of the community of women in this province. Now, more than ever, in times of high unemployment, in times of great stress, the caseload of the Vancouver Status of Women is higher than it's ever been - at a time when its funding is being cut back.

I'm asking the Provincial Secretary if she would be willing to at least consider a special grant or some form of special funding exclusively for the counselling service which is done by the Vancouver Status of Women Council - please.

HON. MS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, let me first refer to the remarks made by the member from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) in regard to the Status of Women Council.

I would like to share with the first member for Vancouver-Burrard some information regarding grants. You suggested that we cut back -and a rationale for cutting back could, of course, be made for everything. But let me just tell you of the grants that have been given out this year, and the decisions have

[ Page 1410 ]

been made on all of these. Big Brothers of British Columbia, Boys' and Girls' Clubs of Canada, Boy Scouts of Canada, the British Columbia Association for the Mentally Retarded, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Canadian Paraplegic Association, the Canadian Red Cross Association, Canadian Youth Hostels Association, the Central City Mission, the Girl Guides of Canada, the Immigrant Services Society of British Columbia, the Maritime Museum of British Columbia, the Navy League of Canada, the Order of the Eastern Star cancer dressing programme, the Lester B. Pearson College, St. John Ambulance, Salvation Army - Maywood Home, Salvation Army; Miracle Valley, Salvation Army; Victoria Harbour Lights - Vancouver Variety Club Telethon. the Vocational Counselling Service, the Western Institute for the Deaf, Travelers' Aid and the YWCA have all received the same amount this year as last, and there hasn't been a change in their status - as is the case with the Vancouver Status of Women Council.

You made the comment that they have made an issue of money spent in another part of my ministry, and you quote $80,000 for hospitality certificates. It is not for certificates, it's for the hospitality course. Let me just take the $80,000 for the hospitality course. It's hiring women and it's using women and it's providing jobs for women - the very thing that you're asking to be recognized in your discussion tonight. Of course we recognize that and I thank you both for your views on that particular subject.

Let me say - and you ask for a special allocation in terms of an amount of money for counselling, et cetera - that was part of the programme that was given to us both in the cabinet presentation and in written material, which I was pleased to read through, and in the reports that are given to me on a monthly basis from that organization.

So in answer to your question: there are no other moneys at this time. The allocation is made for the Status of Women Council for this year, as in all of those other areas of interest and concern which I have just read to you and for which we all feel very strongly - all very good organizations. I think I said this to you before, but I think I should reiterate that the Vancouver Status of Women Council is one of the highest grants that we give in all of the grant service and there are very few that even come up to that amount of money. They are all anywhere from $40 or $50 to $2,400 and $3,500. The largest amount that I can see in a quick survey here is $115,000 for the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. But that is the only one that I can see in a quick perusal of this list that is any larger than the Vancouver Status of Women Council.

Again, I appreciate the sincerity of the views of the first member for Vancouver-Burrard, and also the member for New Westminster, but I think that they have been dealt with with fairness and, under the grant system that we have and the grant vote that we have, I think with some generosity under these circumstances.

And now, for the answer to the hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) , I share with you the frustration of trying to get a figure, and I want to tell you that it does vary as to the moment that you take the figure as you can understand, and, I think, as you tried to share with me earlier this evening. Let me try then to tell you where I think that extra 4,000 comes from. And, in the absence of the one person who can probably put his finger right on this particular conundrum, I hope to give you an answer that is as clear as I can give you this evening. The figure of 37,720 as of December 31, which was reported as an answer to a question posed on the order paper, reduces the paid number of employees by 1,419 from that given last year.

Major reductions in staff are attributed to the formation of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, the B.C. Systems Corporation and the B.C. Buildings Corporation, although the majority of staff in Public Works did not move until after January 1,1978 - which again confuses the figures a bit, I'm sorry. As these corporations actually removed 2,915 employees, the government service had a real growth of 1,496 or 3.9 per cent. The major growth factor , ms the transfer of 1,404 employees to the government service as a result of the abolishment of the Vancouver Resources Board. So with that factor taken into consideration, the net growth would be 92 people or 0.24 per cent. Now, Mr. Chairman, can I say that in the taking in of Crown corporations and taking in of public service employees, the public service employees are not counted then within the number. By the same token, if any are taken out and transferred into the public service for some reason, they are. This report, dated April 28, then, gives a net growth of 0.24 per cent or 92 people.

MR. LEVI: I presume what the minister meant with the net growth was some reference only to the public service. One of the questions that I did cover was in relation to the Crown corporations because the figures that those corporations provide to Stats Canada do indicate a 30 per cent increase.

I know that the minister has said there were

[ Page 1411 ]

some 2,900 people who went into Crown corporations. That is a little short by well over 1,000 from the figures that were given to Stats Canada as of last December. Now I don't know whether we're going to get the minister to say what I want her to say but it is my contention that based on the information I have - and she has given us some figures and she did preface her remarks by saying that she wasn't particularly happy with the information that she's got - there is a noticeable increase in the public service and a noticeable increase in the Crown corporations. I frankly don't find that so bad. I'm not criticizing the size because, as I said earlier, it is a question of employment.

Now I think we have probably pursued this as far as we can. Perhaps the minister might indicate if the commissioner or the public service chairman is likely to be in the House tomorrow. He will. I will leave that then until tomorrow to pursue further because he will have some time to do some homework.

I want to cover a couple of other things. V ve been going over the Brown report. Now I know that the Brown report may not come under the minister's vote, though it should come under the minister's and every other minister. It doesn't have any particular reference to any minister but there is a section on publishing. That's what I would like to talk about for a few minutes.

The report looks at the publishing function of the government. It makes some recommendations, particularly in the area of the printing part of the Queen's Printer, and some of it related to publishing. Now I want to bring to the minister's attention that in February of this year the B.C. Association of Publishers met. One of the speakers there was the head of the grants committee, but it's in another department. If I might quote from The Vancouver Sun of February 3, there's an article by Leslie Peterson and part of the article reads as follows:

"Why, asks David Kerfoot, president of the B.C. Booksellers' Association, does the provincial government produce books which compete directly with books produced by the B.C. publishers? Fielding said that the government was studying a report which recommended that it get out of the publishing field." I understand that there is a man who is going around in the government - I haven't been able to track him down yet - whose name is Pennylegion. Perhaps the minister, when she answers the question, might tell us just what Mr. Pennylegion is doing for the government in respect to the publishing business - that is, the government side of publishing. Is there such a report going on? Obviously, if we're asking about government policy, she's not going to answer. Perhaps she would tell us that. Is the government looking at getting out of the publishing business? Because the government is in the publishing business.

What we might do is give the minister's department - maybe avoiding the minister - a couple of good compliments. One of the things I want to draw to the minister's attention -she's probably aware of it, but maybe the rest of the House should be aware of it - is that there is a very excellent publication on Captain Cook. This is much better one than any I've seen. It's published by the Sound Heritage section; these are the people who do the aural history. Perhaps the minister might be able to make it available to all the members in the House. I understand the cabinet ministers get these, but the backbenchers don't. It's really a very excellent book. It's one of about eight publications that the aural history people bring out.

This is the better side of government publishing, I guess, but there is a question, I suppose, from the publishing industry, the private sector, about what the government is doing producing books like this when there is a publishing industry in the province that's trying to get going, get off the ground. They're on the up now; they're doing quite well. They are, I understand, in discussion with the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , and I'll deal with that under his estimates. There is the whole question, of course, that if the government gets out of the publishing business, what happens to the people who normally work in the printing business within the government? So it's a touchy question.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

The other thing is that we don't of ten talk in the House about the Legislative Library, and I'm sure that I speak for all members in saying that for those who use it - and I don't know if there are that many who do - the service is really very excellent. I would make a plea to all of you, through you, Mr. Chairman, who don't like books just to go in and show your face because I'm sure you'll make the staff very happy. Get them to take you in the stacks, then you can really see what goes on.

If you really want to see what the govern ment's got, get hold of this Brown report. There are some pictures of what's supposed to pass for archives in this government and it's really quite remarkable. There is a picture in

[ Page 1412 ]

the Brown report which says: "Valuable records or junk?" If any of you have seen it, you'll find that there is an incredible amount of documents that don't get disposed of. They pile up in some warehouse in Victoria and it's an incredible problem. Which brings me to a complaint, and the complaint is this.

About three months ago my colleague and I -we have access to Channel 10 and we did a 7 minute segment on the history of Vancouver-Burrard as a riding - wanted to show all of the members who sat in the Legislature who represented Vancouver-Burrard since 1932, since the boundaries were drawn. So I went, of course, to the archives and I asked for some pictures of the members who represented the riding of Vancouver-Burrard. Now I don't know whether it's because the Social Credit government is back, but the only two pictures I could get were of Bert Price and Gerry McGeer. Of course Gerry McGeer came well before the Social Credit.

Now in a serious vein - and this is not in any sense a criticism of the archives - I think it is very important that the archives be brought up to date in this respect. It was an interesting example to me that it was not possible to get any of this kind of information out of the archives. I had to go to the Major Matthews Archives in Vancouver, and what we were using mostly in reproducing on the TV were newspaper clippings because they didn't have any glossies either. But I think in the interests of the history of the province, certainly there should be some file for each riding where there is a continuing update of the members who represent the riding; a biography would not be out of line. It would be very useful, because certainly it was a bit of a surprise to me that they didn't have these pictures.

If I can now just return to the publishing issue for a minute, I've asked the minister if she will tell us whether the government has under study the whole question of what the government's role is in publishing. I think it is important that if such a study is going on there be some discussion with the Minister of Economic Development because through the B.C. Development Corporation there had been some negotiations going on with the publishing people. They are looking for a loan to help them in their operation and I'd hate to see the people working at cross purposes. The publishing business is not a large employer of people, but it does make a major contribution to the whole business of the cultural aspect and certainly the educational aspect.

I think that that's all I want to cover at the moment. There are some other things I want to cover, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps the minister would oblige us with some answers on them.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I too would like to refer to the 59th annual report of the Public Service Commission and in particular to one of the particular highlights mentioned on page 5, where it says: "The commission chairman chaired several other committees including the committee to investigate equal employment opportunities in the British Columbia public service." Now I'm wondering whether the minister would be willing to share that report with the House. I know it's an internal committee; I know the report doesn't have to be tabled in the House.

I understand that the 1976 report is complete and in the possession of the minister. I wrote to Mr. Richardson and requested permission to see it. He informed me that the minister has it. And Iove actually drafted a letter to her, not realizing that the minister's estimates would be coming up today.

There are a number of reasons why I am particularly interested in this report. One of the things that we as women thought, really was that like the cigarette advertising which said, "You've come a long way, baby, " really thought we had come a long way, until all the statistics started to be published which showed that, in fact, in the area of women and Employment, we have been sliding backwards.

Late last year in 1977 the federal government had a similar committee, and it published its report. What they found in the federal civil service was that the number of women in the lowest ranking, lowest paying jobs in the public service was increasing.

It's really important for us, I think, to do some kind of comparison, or at least to collect the information about what's happening to women in public services throughout Canada. Governments, whether the federal government or any of the provincial governments and the municipal governments, are the major employers of women. And when we talk about equal employment opportunities, to a large extent we're talking about governments because they are still the major employers of women in this country.

I recognize that the 1976 report would be primarily a status quo report, that in fact it would just reflect 1975 or 1974, probably before the committees actually began to formulate any kind of plans or to implement any kind of recommendations. But it's still important for us to know what the situation was like in 1975-76. I'm hoping that the minister

[ Page 1413 ]

will make it a habit of releasing that report each year. We'd like to see the report for 1977 when it's completed too.

It's important that the women of the province should be able to monitor what's happening to women who work for one of the major employers. And this is not a negative thing; this is information. If in fact the number of women in the lowest ranking jobs and in the lowest paying jobs is continuing to increase, then it means that we have to sit down and do some kind of analysis to find out either what we as women are doing wrong or what's happening with the hiring practices of the governments on all levels, and what we can both of us do together to change this situation.

I'm sure that all of us are really serious about the eventual equality of opportunity and employment for all people. When the federal report was tabled in the House, the minister responsible, Mr. Lalonde, mentioned that this kind of thing changes very slowly. And I certainly agree with him. The civil service is certainly one area of work that is not given to radical change. Any kind of change that comes about is going to be very slow and very seriously thought out and a well-considered kind of change. But there really is no way for us to know what's happening unless the kind of information which is coming out of this particular committee is shared with the rest of us. I'm really not interested in being critical about the report. I am just interested in getting the information. It's much more important than politics at this point. We want to know what's happening to women in the civil service; we want to know what's happening to women in every area of employment. If we're not coming a long way, as the TV ad said, if we're not moving forward, then we're going to have to sit down and start doing some planning to see what we can do to change it. And the minister would be doing all of us as women a great service if she would be willing to share that report with us.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd like to commend the both members for Vancouver-Burrard in their line of questioning. I think it's that kind of constructive questioning that gets us a little way in this House in terms of our credibility to the people we serve.

I would like to say that I agree with the first member for Vancouver-Burrard and her approach to how we can use the kind of information that we are hoping to gather. And, yes, I see no reason that that cannot be shared. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that at this present time I'm not going to give a time frame until our ministry has some approach to it and has also an opportunity to finish with it. But I would be pleased to suggest to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard that certainly I see no reason in the world why that kind of information cannot be shared.

To the second member for Vancouver-Burrard, in terms of publishing within the government service, we are trying to come to a rationale of publishing within the government, and that was what the Brown report addressed itself to, among many other things, in terms of communication. I would believe that we're coming to the point now where some action can be taken in this calendar year.

You asked about the services of Mr. Pennylegion. Mr. Pennylegion ;, us hired in order to bring that rationale about in terms of publishing, and we hope to have, as a service to the public, the kind of central area that one can go to, instead of going as one does now to several departments and several places for information. We're hoping that can be brought under at least two areas where there is a concentration of population, in the cities of Victoria and Vancouver.

I agree with the member who has just stated that we should not be in competition with the private sector. You sound as though you are sitting on this side of the House when you say that, Mr. Member, and I can say that we don't disagree with that point at all. At the same time, I relate to some of the very good things that are done by the different ministries in terms of scientific things or natural history things such as fish and wildlife and so on, put out in different areas of government.

There is going to be a new system within the Queen's Printer which is called "cold type, " as I understand it, and that new system is being initiated at the present time with the co-operation of the Queen's Printer and the staff of that fine organization which has been for many years in need of updating. We're pleased that that's moving ahead.

I hope I've covered all of the areas that you asked about, except for one in which you paid tribute to the library. I know that all members of the House share in the accolades, any number of which can be given to the library, but I think the very best one that was ever given was when we were asked by a Member of Parliament from Ottawa for information he couldn't find in the Ottawa library, because ours was so good and had the information ahead of theirs.

MR. LEVI: The minister indicated - at least this is what I gathered - that in terms of publishing and perhaps the issuing of books

[ Page 1414 ]

you were looking at one or two centres. I hope we're not going to get a repetition of the Information Canada bookstores, because if we go that route, I think that's a disaster. I think that's the kind of thing that isn't really necessary at all because many of us remember the sterility of the Information Canada bookstores. What you need, if you've really got stuff to market, is to put it in the bookstores that exist in the communities. Not only can these people make a little money on them, but they also have some interest in selling them and it is worthwhile.

Just in case the member gets nervous, and I can see that the Minister of Human Resources is getting nervous.... You guys don't do anything for the free enterprisers. We've got to be over here defending them. You're the guys who campaigned under all this, and you don't do a thing. We're not ashamed to talk about doing things for small business. You've got to do something. The two suggestions that I've dealt with in this session are the mess that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , with his Systems Corporation.... But I won't get into that, Mr. Chairman, because that's under another vote. The other is the idea of doing something about the publishing of literature.

I hope that the minister was not indicating at all that we're going to get into.... I know that you, Mr. Chairman, wouldn't want us to get into the business of government-owned bookstores. I mean, that would be abhorrent to you. We could even sell them through Mussallem Motors, if necessary. That's more community oriented. But certainly not in government owned bookstores, because I think that would be very unfortunate.

My colleague asked about the women's report. We would like to be apprised, too, of Mr. Pennylegion's report, if it's available. I think that's useful, because I think that what you are doing....

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's not a report.

MR. LEVI: Oh, the minister indicates it is not a report. I might say that if more people knew about what he was doing, I think there'd be a little less trepidation about what it is he's going to come up with. I've been phoning around and checking up, and people keep saying, "Well, this guy keeps wandering around asking a lot of questions, " and they don't know when the axe is going to fall. So I think there's a need for doing a little bit of PR in that area.

I wanted to just go back again over the publishing thing. The minister has indicated that they're looking at it, and that's fine. I think that's something that really needs to be done. The Brown report did lay out some areas.

I want to deal with one other area that the Brown report laid out. My colleague for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) talked in the House the other day about the very large budget for PR or advertising.

What I would like to ask the minister is to address herself to the whole question of PR. Now we've had a lot of discussion in this House both when the previous government was in and since this government has been in, about the role of Dunsky and what they did and what they didn't do. The member for Nelson-Creston enumerated what appeared to be some $12 million of expenditures in advertising. Now perhaps the minister could comment, because she's also the Deputy Premier and a member of the cabinet, on just what the size - because it was covered initially in the Brown report -of the expenditures is expected to be in terms of the public relations. We're going to have to go through each ministry and it's going to be very difficult for her - I know that's what she should do. The member cane up with some $12 million of PR expenditures in one year for that particular area, which is more than all the money spent by the previous government in three years and a quarter. That's a very serious problem. Just what is the government doing in this area? What is the minister in her own department doing? I think this is a very serious question. This was talked about in the Brown report, and perhaps the minister would give us her views. If she won't do it in terms of the total government policy, then will she give it in terms of her awn department? There's a significant increase in these expenditures, far beyond what the previous government did.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a couple of specific questions to the minister. This afternoon I was asking for a breakdown on your overrun, and I don't think you gave any reply on that at all. I want to ask a specific question again on that. Would you give us a breakdown of where the extra money that you had authorized from the cabinet went, and what its purpose was? I also want to know if this special warrant, $900,000, No. 358, to upgrade and enlarge programmes resulting in increased business activities in the province, was your warrant.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would not be able to remember a number, Eileen.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, I'm trying to assist you with the purpose of your warrant and I was

[ Page 1415 ]

just wondering if this was it. It's 358.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, that wasn't the wording.

MRS. DAILLY: Then could you tell us what your warrant was for specifically?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, in response to the member for Burnaby North, the specifics were contained within the special warrant at the time. I don't think that at the moment I'm going to be able to remember the specifics, but there were five items or so, I believe. Part of it I can give you right now because it's just been handed to me. They were specifically mentioned in the order-in-Council. It had reference to more for repairs and maintenance on the Royal Hudson. I believe it had to do with air conditioning and that sort of thing to upgrade the Royal Hudson - it was a hot summer, as you know. All of that maintenance and repairs were done at that time. There was the initiation of the hospitality course which we brought in after the budget had been brought down, and the counsellors on the B.C. Ferries for 1977 created jobs for students on the B.C. Ferries, which hadn't been thought of before. There was an amount of money attributable to the Royal Hudson Silver Jubilee Tour through Oregon, Washington and California and overall expansion of existing promotional programmes to promote more business to British Columbia.

You did ask something else, I believe - you said breakdown of the overrun....

To the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) , who now isn't here, may I just put on the record the answer to his question? it is difficult to answer, Mr. Chairman. The opportunity is there in every ministry. In terms of the member's explanation, however, of what advertising and so on is, "public relations" is what he terms it. I think that in each of the ministries.... Let me speak for my own. With the exception of Travel Industry which speaks of British Columbia to the world, the rest of the programmes that we would have in terms of my ministry in any advertising or anything like that would be in terms of public information. We have an obligation to disperse public information.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to pursue for a minute or so a question that I asked in the House of the Provincial Secretary some time ago with respect to the Vietnam committee.

I think that the minister is aware that two years ago she stated that she felt the government had no responsibility in this regard, that it was a commitment made by the previous government. She was contradicted at that time by the Premier who indicated that he felt the government did in fact have a responsibility towards the children in Vietnam and that he would proceed with establishing the committee and finding the funds somehow so that that $2.25 million could be disbursed to the children in Vietnam.

I would like to know whether or not the Provincial Secretary at this time has had an opportunity, following that question that I asked some- time ago in the Legislature, to determine whether or not she will re-establish the committee which became defunct on the day that the House prorogued. In order for that committee to complete its work, it's going to have to be re-established. I'm very hopeful that the Provincial Secretary tonight will indicate to us that the government does intend to live up to the commitment given to the people of the province last year that that committee would be re-established and would be able to complete its work and disburse that money for medical purposes for children in Vietnam.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As the matter was discussed under vote 5 and was in order then, it is not in order now. If an item is in order under one vote, it's not in order under another vote.

MS. SANFORD: Well, there are several people responsible for it.

MR. COCKE: On just a matter of order, the First Minister certainly has access to the executive council. This particular minister also is very much responsible for grants and certainly was the minister that was partly responsible for the setting up of the committee. She was the one who brought in the motion the last time. So I would suspect, under those circumstances, that this minister could at least answer that very simple question raised by the member for Comox.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I trust, hon. member, that you do appreciate the position of the Chair. If something is in order on one vote, then it....

MR. COCKE: I always appreciate the position of the Chair, particularly a Chair so fine and one so worldly.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think the member for Comox will understand that my reference to the

[ Page 1416 ]

committee is not as Provincial Secretary but as chairman responsible for calling the selection committee together, and that is the only responsibility. As such, it is not under this vote. You asked the question: have I had time to consider the question? The answer is no. The question was asked last Friday, and the answer to that is no.

Could I also, please, put something on the re , cord that I think I missed? I'm sorry that the second member for Vancouver-Burrard is not in his place. He hoped that we were not going to start a proliferation of Information Canada bookstores. May I assure him that we do not plan that kind of installation. Of course, what we had planned was that you could have easy access through private outlets and some government agents throughout the province so that there would be an opportunity to have access to publications, which is too confusing at the present time and not available at the present time.

MS. SANFORD: The Provincial Secretary indicated that the question was asked last Friday. But I just wanted to correct her. It was asked some time ago. It was raised again on Friday, but it was asked some time ago.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move briefly on to another subject. I hope you're not going to rule me out of order on this because I think it applies very directly to the responsibilities of the minister as minister of tourism. It seem to me that if we are going to attract tourists into this province, one of the things that is absolutely essential is the kind of service - and the minister herself spoke about that earlier today - that the tourists in this province receive when they get here.

The one point that I would like to make is specifically in dealing with the food that is found aboard the ferries. I would like to point out to the Provincial Secretary that it's one of the complaints that I receive most often. There have been people writing from outside of the country and letters to the editor in papers here in this province indicating their complete dissatisfaction with the food services on the ferry.

Now it seems to me that if we're going to try to encourage tourists and to spend all this money in promoting British Columbia, we must at the same time be very concerned about the services which the Provincial Secretary referred to earlier today, the services that are available to people when they get here. And surely, as a member of the cabinet and as Provincial Secretary, as the minister responsible for tourism, she should undertake to ensure that the people from Seattle, people from Cobble Hill, people from Campbell River do not continue to write letters to the editor complaining bitterly about the type of food that is currently served aboard the B.C. Ferries. I would ask her to take that under consideration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair is patient in listening to your debate. However, I'm sure you're well aware that the ferries and the food on the ferries are not under the responsibility of the minister. The Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) is the person responsible for the ferries.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to continue somewhat along that line, and I wonder if we could get some ruling on this. The minister is in charge of tourism for this province and she has set her priorities for getting tourism upgraded in this province and bringing more revenues from her policies on tourism. The whole debate is centred on whether the official opposition actually believes that her priorities in expenditures are going to bring the best results. In referring to the ferry service, we're trying to point out that we feel that as a minister of the Crown, as Deputy Premier, she should have some influence and impact on what happens on those ferries, because what happens on those ferries affects the tourists.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that's a fine point. However, it's incidental because the administrative responsibility of the Minister i r of Travel Industry doesn't cover the British

Columbia Ferry Corporation; that's strictly under the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. If we get involved in a debate on incidentals, then everything could be covered under tourism once again - from Hydro to mines to forests to anything you'd like to care to discuss. Because, for example, a forestry logging operation on the side of the road may not be pleasant to the eye and therefore that should be discussed under it. We have to draw the line at some point. It is very clear in this instance that the ferries are under the

Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will certainly bow to your ruling, but I do hope that the minister has become aware of the fact. The point is that we've already tried to emphasize that what happens on those ferries certainly affects tourism in this province. I was hoping that the minister would comment on

[ Page 1417 ]

that to some degree and let us know whether as a member of the cabinet she is going to do anything about it. Are you? That's our concern, Mr. Chairman, without going into any unnecessary detail.

I would like to continue then on another question which was not answered this afternoon, and it has to do with the administrative responsibility of the minister. I simply want to ask her: why was Mr. Ozard fired?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the Public Service Commission has the opportunity when an employee is on probation to relieve that employee of his or her duties. We have, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) has pointed out earlier this evening, nearly 40,000 employees, and the Public Service Commission, who hired Mr. Ozard, also terminated his position. They felt they had just cause to do so. If I were to bring to the floor of the House the several cases throughout the year where the public service terminates employment, I would be bringing to the floor of the House the personal contribution or lack of contribution or whatever, and personnel questions. I don't feel that I have that responsibility, and frankly I think I have a responsibility not to do that.

MRS. DAILLY: I don't quite follow the minister when she said if she were to bring before the House the people who've had to leave the public service, she wouldn't be doing her rightful duty. Was she referring, may I ask, just to her own department or to the general public service?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: To all the general public service.

MRS. DAILLY: The reason why I'm asking the question particularly about Mr. Ozard is that it is rather difficult for the minister to completely ignore this particular situation when we have in front of us newspaper items which do certainly raise questions about the administrative manner in which the minister's proceeds with the handling of her department, and I think it's connected. There is no intention here to have to bare any particular failings or weaknesses of any particular employee. What we're trying to do is find out whether the minister has handled this particular situation in a fair and just manner.

There is a particular item in the Province newspaper which refers to a statement by Mr. Ozard which I think should be commented upon by the minister, in which Mr. Ozard says: "I sat down with Deputy Minister Currie, and he explained to me that in the Ministry of Travel no one commented on anything, no one talked to the press and no one published anything without the express permission of the minister.

Now I'm bringing this to your attention not to ask whatever failings Mr. Ozard had, but I'm really concerned with the minister's attitude towards her employees. IS it true - a nice simple question to the minister - that no one in your ministry can make any statement, publish anything without your express permission?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the answer is no.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I felt that tonight I should maybe talk a little bit about pensions, and then I noted some of the absurd remarks that the Provincial Secretary has come out with in that regard, and I think probably I won't. I particularly say that in view of the fact that her pension expert or actuary isn't with her.

I will say, however, that there are one or two points I'd like to raise about the Public Service Commission and about the decisions that the cabinet has made - particularly a decision made under cabinet order No. 987, in terms of the levels of income for the deputy ministers. Now, Mr. Chairman, I recognize that we have a government of restraint , a government that has indicated that they nt to see to it that we restrain ourselves. And we're not going to be like the federal government, where they pay deputy ministers these exorbitant sums which are infinitely higher than the sums paid the federal cabinet ministers. But it's not too different here, if you want to look at what we're doing now. I'm not suggesting that what we should do is lower the deputy ministers, but what we should do is put everything into context. I suggest that deputy minister I from $40,400 to $48,400 per annum, deputy minister 2 from $42,900 to $50,105 and deputy minister 3 from $46,000 to $55,000 is quite a contrast to the person who has to carry the can. The minister gets $24,000 plus $16,000 for his salary as an M[-A plus $8,000 for expenses.

I don't really think that it is good reasoning to have the top decision maker paid less than his deputy. What's the point in calling the deputy a deputy if in fact he already has one great advantage and a particular advantage over this government, and that is that he has tenure of sorts whereas a cabinet minister has tenure at the pleasure of the electorate?

Interjection.

[ Page 1418 ]

MR. COCKE: Chips says they're very pleased. I imagine they are. I wonder how some of the backbenchers are feeling, however. I'm also suggesting that the whole thing can be looked at. I for one don't feel that there is any particular delight to be taken in the levels of income that are paid to anybody in this House. I for one don't buy that press garbage where a full-time MLA is worth $16,000 and a full-time cabinet minister is worth $16,000 plus $24,000 which is only $40,000. 1 don't believe that under these circumstances, that is in keeping with what others of responsibility are earning.

I happen to know that the industry that I left some 10 years ago certainly has a much greater recognition of their personnel than what the people have. And the people only have this particular concept because it's one that has been built and fostered. It's an unfortunate one that has been built and fostered.

But now we're coming to the place in British Columbia that we've never been at before, and that is where deputies are paid a larger amount than the person who carries the can for the portfolio. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the minister in charge of the Public Service Commission should indicate to us how this happened, why it happened and whether or not she thinks that it is just and fair.

Now this cabinet order 987 was signed by one Grace McCarthy, Provincial Secretary, the Minister of Finance, Evan Wolfe, and also by the presiding member of the executive council, W.R. Bennett. I think, Mr. Chairman, that there should be some explanation for this departure, and an indication as to whether or not the disparity will grow in the future.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, first let me say that the schedule set forth in that order was not to increase salaries to the point that was mentioned by the member for New Westminster, but as an opportunity of increasing in steps to that point. So it is not a question of one's deputy being paid something today and then next month having an increase to that amount of money. That order and that decision was made by Treasury Board and the question really should be addressed to the Minister of Finance. But at the same time let me just offer this to the hon. member for New Westminster in explanation.

We have a very large public service and we have a very, I believe, responsible public service; and we also have a very large business to manage. In order that we retain the quality of management within the public service - in order to attract people who can take on the responsibility, the arduous task and the long hours that are required - GERB and the Treasury Board have come up with a schedule which is a change, and I think that is attributable to the kind of responsibility that we ask these managers to take on. That is why the cabinet endorsed that particular order.

MR. COCKE: I won't pursue this much longer, Mr. Chairman, only to say this: I'm delighted with the kind of feeling that one has for those in a position of responsibility. But I would be even more delighted if there was some indication that there was also that feeling for others in positions of responsibility who actually carry the can, who actually are those who are found either at fault in a bad decision or are blessed with having from time to time made a good decision.

There is probably no business in our total society as important as politics, and yet we downgrade ourselves among ourselves and we permit ourselves to be downgraded in front of the media at the expense of an institution that safeguards the freedom of everybody in this province. Mr. Chairman, oftentimes I feel that we are part of that whole downgrading process. I feel that it's about time that every one of us, no matter which side of the House we're on, started taking a far more responsible position in terms of making sure that people understand what a politician has to go through and the sacrifices that he or she has to make.

I've been at it long enough. I left a business that put me in a position where the economic decision to go into politics was a rather devastating one, which was fine, and I don't regret it. The lifestyle has been great. But I'll tell you this, the one thing that I don't appreciate at all are the kinds of stones that are thrown at politicians. I know there are politicians on both sides of this House who have made sacrifices and will continue to make sacrifices, and I don't want any more of this business of us being placed in a position where we always have to be at the end of the line in terms of income - I really don't want to see that.

I agree with the minister when she talks about the need for the deputies, and I'll tell you right now that to attract young responsible people into politics, I believe that we have to give them a lot more consideration than we have heretofore.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I might just take this opportunity to remind the member for New Westminster that that can be canvassed again under vote I which is the appropriate vote. However

[ Page 1419 ]

you seemed to have everyone's attention on that last point.

MR. COCKE: I apologize, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's quite all right. It will be in order once again under vote I.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:54 p.m.