[ Page 3723 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial Statement

Vogel report on Eckardt commission.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 3723

Mr. Howard –– 3726

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services estimates. (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

On vote 170: minister's office –– 3727

Mrs. Dailly

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Brown

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Passarell

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.)

Prayers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, with us today on the floor of the Legislature is Pastor Ron Dowbush of the Delta Pentecostal Tabernacle, who led us in prayers, I would say that Pastor Dowbush has earned the respect and admiration of an entire community for the outstanding work he has done with young people in my community. He's here today visiting with us, and his wife Rose is in the gallery. I would ask all members to give him a most warm and cordial welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'm informed that Public Accounts desires to sit this morning. I therefore, prior to calling Committee of Supply, ask leave to move that the public accounts committee be permitted to sit while the Legislature is in session.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would therefore move, Mr. Speaker, that the public accounts committee be permitted to sit this morning while the Legislature is in session.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Proceed, hon. minister.

VOGEL REPORT ON
ECKARDT COMMISSION

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I received from Deputy Attorney-General Richard Vogel the following letter:

"Dear Mr. Williams:

"Herewith attached please find a copy of my report to you pursuant to your instructions to me on January 18, 1980. I would be pleased to discuss it with you at you at your convenience."

Attached to it is his report, dated August 5, 1980:

"This is my report to you as a consequence of your instructions to me on the 18th day of January, 1980. On that date, you gave to me a letter of that date signed by Bruce Larsen, managing editor, the Vancouver Sun, addressed to you. Attached to the letter was a statutory declaration sworn by one Florence Toyomi Tamoto dated the 18th day of January, 1980. I attach a copy of Mr. Larsen's letter and a copy of the statutory declaration of Miss Tamoto.

"Your instructions to me were to consider the statutory declaration and to take it under consideration together with such other facts as may be germane to this declaration and to provide you with an opinion as to what action, if any, should be taken by you as the Attorney-General of British Columbia in respect of the allegations therein.

"On the same date, I instructed Mr. Norman Prelypchan, executive director, civil law, Ministry of the Attorney-General, to inquire into the matters contained in the declaration and to interview persons having knowledge of those matters. My instructions to Mr. Prelypchan were confirmed in writing and I delivered to him a photocopy of Mr. Larsen's letter and the statutory declaration of Miss Tamoto.

"As a consequence of these instructions, Mr. Prelypchan and I, either together or alone, interviewed all of the people employed as members of the Eckardt commission: members of the staff of the Queen's Printer; members of the staff of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, legal surveys branch; members of the staff of the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, central statistics bureau: members of the staff of the Ministry of Environment, map production division; members of the staff of the deputy chief electoral officer; the Hon. Grace McCarthy; and His Honour Judge Lawrence Eckardt.

"An interview was arranged with Mr. Ernest Alexander, counsel for BCTV. The purpose of this interview was to arrange interviews with staff of BCTV preparatory to interviewing other members of the media. Mr. Alexander indicated that, on his instructions, none of the staff of BCTV would disclose their sources of information. We did not attempt to interview any members of the media.

"In some cases it was necessary to interview people more than once. Some of the witnesses were interviewed in the presence of their counsel. This was the case with Miss Tamoto and Miss Susan Thomson, both of whom were members of the staff of the royal commission. In all, there were more than 40 people interviewed. These interviews took approximately six months to complete and document.

"I would now like to deal with Miss Tamoto's declaration, as this was the commencement point of the inquiry. Miss Tamoto worked for the royal commission as a typist-receptionist; at the time of her interview she was employed as a CBC radio employee."

Mr. Speaker, I now refer to the statutory declaration of Florence Toyomi Tamoto, which is attached to this report.

" I, Florence Toyomi Tamoto, of 2161 Bonaccord Drive, Vancouver, in the province of British Columbia, do solemnly declare:

" 1. That in August of 1978, in a discussion with a person known to me as Susan Geisler (nee Thomson), a Vancouver lawyer and junior counsel on the staff of Lawrence Eckardt, commissioner, electoral reform commission (1978), the said Geisler told me that:

"a) A person identified by Geisler as 'Grace' did in a discussion with Commissioner Eckardt place her finger on a document and say, 'Change that,' or words to that effect.

"2. That I believe the person referred to as 'Grace' to be then Provincial Secretary Grace McCarthy.

"3. That I believe the remark by the said 'Grace'

[ Page 3724 ]

to have been made at a meeting in a Victoria hotel room on or about June 19, 1978.

"4. That I believe the document concerned was a map of the city of Vancouver, province of British Columbia, bearing lines denoting divisions between electoral ridings.

"5. That I believe the change referred to by the person identified to me as 'Grace' was subsequently made.

"And I make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.

"Declared before me at Vancouver in the province of British Columbia, this 18th day of January, 1980."

It bears the signature "F. Tamoto," and is sworn before a commissioner for taking affidavits whose name appears to be Potter.

Continuing with the report:

"In the course of the interview with Miss Tamoto it was ascertained that she swore the statutory declaration on the 15th day of January, 1980, at the invitation of a reporter for the Vancouver Sun, one Paul Musgrove. He had approached her about the nature of her work with the commission in early January. Following the interview Mr. Musgrove asked whether or not she would be prepared to make the declaration about the conversation that she had alleged she had with Miss Thomson. She agreed that she would do this. In the course of Mr. Prelypchan's interview Miss Tamoto was asked on what fact she based her belief that the remarks said to have been made by 'Grace' were made at a meeting in a Victoria hotel room on or about the 21st day of June, 1978. She said that she had come to this conclusion based only on press reports that she had read in early January 1980 which described a meeting between the Hon. Grace McCarthy and His Honour Judge Eckardt. She said that she had no other basis for having this belief.

"She was also asked on what facts she based her belief sworn to in paragraph 4 of her declaration. She said that this belief was based only on press statements that she had read in early January 1980. She gave the same answer in respect of paragraph 5 of her declaration. She was asked whether she had any other reason to believe that there might have been political interference in respect of the preparation of the report. Her answer was that she had none.

"She also said that she had not discussed the content of the conversation that she alleged she had with Susan Thomson with anyone else up to the time of her interview with Mr. Musgrove and the making of the declaration. The meeting with Mr. Musgrove was some 17 months after the lunch with Miss Thomson.

"As a consequence of the allegations made by Miss Tamoto which involved Susan Geisler (nee Thomson), Mr. Prelypchan arranged an interview with Miss Thomson. This interview was conducted in the presence of Miss Thomson's lawyer. Miss Thomson is a lawyer who was employed as junior counsel to the Eckardt commission. Miss Thomson categorically denied the allegations contained in Miss Tamoto's declaration. Subsequent to the interview she swore a statutory declaration which was subsequently delivered by her counsel to Mr. Prelypchan."

I pause now to read the declaration of Susan Rowena Thomson:

"I, Susan Rowena Thomson, barrister and solicitor, of 846 Greenchain Road, in the city of Vancouver, in the province of British Columbia, do solemnly declare that:

" 1. I was retained as junior counsel to the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, 1978 (the 'commission'), from approximately May of 1978 to approximately May of 1979, and as such have personal knowledge of the matters set out herein;

" 2. I have read the declaration of Florence Toyomi Tamoto ('Tamoto') sworn the 18th day of January, 1980, a copy of which is attached as exhibit 'A' to this declaration;

" 3. I did not tell Tamoto in August of 1978 or at any other time that which is alleged in paragraph 1(a) of Tamoto's declaration;

"4. I was not in Victoria on June 19, 1978, or at any other time during the month of June, 1978;

"5. I have never been present during any meeting between Lawrence Eckardt and the Hon. Grace McCarthy, in June of 1978 or at any other time, and in fact I have met the Hon. Grace McCarthy on only one occasion, and in that instance I was very briefly introduced to her sometime during the spring of 1979;

"6. Neither Lawrence Eckardt nor anyone else involved with the commission has ever informed me of any attempt by the Hon. Grace McCarthy to influence Lawrence Eckardt's decisions concerning electoral boundaries, during a meeting in Victoria in June of 1978, or at any other place, or at any other time;

"7. I make this declaration in reply to the allegations set forth in the said declaration of Tamoto.

"And I make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath.

"Declared before me at the city of Vancouver, in the province of British Columbia, this 29th day of January, 1980.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Susan Rowena Thomson."

It is sworn by a notary public, Keith Clark. I return to the text of the report, Mr. Speaker.

"As a consequence of the clear conflict between the declaration of Miss Tamoto and that of Miss Thomson it was necessary to extend the inquiry. The purpose of this extended inquiry was to determine which of the two declarations was supportable by other facts.

"Based upon the information elicited by the extended inquiries that we have made, I can say that we have not found any fact which would support the allegation or beliefs of Miss Tamoto. In the course of coming to this conclusion, it has not been necessary for me to decide whether or not Miss Thomson did or did not say what was alleged by Miss Tamoto. I repeat, however, that the facts and circumstances which we have elicited do not support the beliefs sworn to by Miss Tamoto in any respect.

"The conclusion which I have reached in this

[ Page 3725 ]

respect flows directly from a reconstruction of the sequence of events surrounding the preparation and production of the interim report on the redefinition of electoral districts for the province of British Columbia of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, 1978, hereinafter referred to as the interim report, over the period June 16, 1978, to June 22, 1978, inclusive.

"In order that this will be clear to you, I must now refer to the matters disclosed by the interviews touching upon this aspect of the commissioner's work.

"Two separate technical divisions of government were involved in the preparation of material and the printing of the interim report. These were the Queen's Printer and the surveys and mapping branch of the Ministry of Environment. The processes of both of these agencies are complex and highly technical. Despite this, neither group maintained work logs or production records which would make it possible to precisely reconstruct work sequences. As a consequence, it has been necessary to reconstruct the work from the interviews which we have conducted. The following is the sequence:

"Friday, June 16, 1978. The maps required by the commissioner for his report were prepared by the surveys and mapping branch of the Ministry of Environment. Some of these maps were delivered to the Queen's Printer for the purposes of reproduction and for inclusion within the interim report. The report contained five maps, but it has not been possible to determine precisely which maps were delivered on this date.

"In addition the Queen's Printer began the first production run of the metes and bounds descriptions of the electoral division boundaries as prepared by the staff of the surveyor general, in consultation with the staff of the chief electoral officer. This first production run was completed on the evening of June 16, 1978. Subsequent to its completion, it was delivered to members of the staff of the chief electoral officer by an official of the Queen's Printer.

"Saturday, June 17, 1978. The staff of the chief electoral officer transported the packages of material received from the Queen's Printer from Victoria to the offices of the commission in Vancouver. During the evening of this day, this material was collated with other parts of the draft text of the interim report. A copy of the draft interim report was given to Judge Eckardt that evening.

"Sunday, June 18, 1978. On this day, Judge Eckardt made his decision in respect of the electoral boundaries of the ridings in the city of Vancouver. This decision dealt with the electoral boundaries of the following ridings: (a) Vancouver East, (b) Vancouver South, (c) Vancouver–Little Mountain, (d) Vancouver–Point Grey. The decision was communicated to a member of the staff of the chief electoral office, Mrs. Evelyn Robbins. Mrs. Robbins is administrator, mapping and statistics, elections branch, Ministry of the Provincial Secretary. On receipt of these instructions from the commissioner, Mrs. Robbins, together with a member of the commission staff, made the consequential amendments to the metes and bounds descriptions of these electoral divisions. This work required these two people to work through that Sunday night into early Monday morning.

"Monday, June 19, 1978. Mrs. Robbins and the member of the commission staff transported the material which they had produced to Victoria. The legal descriptions for the ridings within the city of Vancouver were delivered by her to the officials of the surveys and mapping branch, Ministry of Environment. They were also delivered to officials at the Queen's Printer. While most of the mapping division's work on the electoral divisions for the parts of the province other than Vancouver were completed on June 16, the production of the master copy of the greater Vancouver ridings drawn from the new legal descriptions which had been prepared by Mrs. Robbins through Sunday night and Monday morning were completed on June 19. Subsequent to this, these maps were delivered to the Queen's Printer. Additionally, we have confirmed from the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development's central statistics bureau staff that they received the final maps from Evelyn Robbins on Monday, June 19. From these maps they commenced the preparation of the final population estimates for the individual electoral ridings.

"On the evening of June 19, 1978, Mrs. Robbins and the member of the commission staff who had been working with her had dinner at the Laurel Point Inn. They were joined by Judge Eckardt, who had come over from Vancouver on that day to supervise the final stage of the report prior to the delivery of it to the Provincial Secretary.

"At the time Judge Eckardt joined Mrs. Robbins and the other commission member, the Hon. Grace McCarthy was also present in the dining room of the Laurel Point Inn. As a consequence of the inquiries that I have made, I am able to say that she was present at the invitation of Dr. and Mrs. McRoberts, registered guests at the hotel, prior to attending a reception aboard a Japanese sailing vessel docked at Ogden Point.

"Mrs. Robbins drew Mrs. McCarthy's presence in the dining room to the attention of Judge Eckardt. The commissioner spoke to her and advised that he and members of his staff were working in the hotel to complete the report for delivery to her the following day and invited her to meet his staff. After her dinner Mrs. McCarthy went to the room where Judge Eckardt, Mrs. Robbins and the commission staff member were working and expressed her thanks to them for the effort they put into the preparation of the interim report. Following this Mrs. McCarthy left the hotel with Dr. and Mrs. McRoberts.

"It is important to note that the work being done at the Laurel Point Inn on this evening was restricted to the final preparation of population tables and indexes required for the final copy of the interim report. There were no maps in the hotel room as these were in the possession of either the Queen's Printer or the surveys and mapping branch, the Ministry of Environment.

"I draw to your attention two points: (1) The electoral boundaries for the city of Vancouver electoral division had been settled Sunday morning by Judge Eckardt. (2) There were no maps in the room

[ Page 3726 ]

visited by Mrs. McCarthy on the evening of Monday night.

"It may be helpful to recall the first and fourth paragraphs of Miss Tamoto's declaration: 'A person identified by Geisler as 'Grace' did in a discussion with Commissioner Eckardt place her finger on a document and say 'change that,' or words to that effect.' 'That I believe the document concerned was a map of the city of Vancouver, province of British Columbia, bearing lines denoting divisions between electoral ridings.'

"The balance of Miss Tamoto's declaration are beliefs, the validity of which depends upon the validity of the first paragraph. No factual basis has been disclosed for any of the beliefs to which she has declared. There was no document in the room which could have been an electoral map of the Vancouver Little Mountain constituency; there was no evidence of a map of the city of Vancouver of any description, let alone a map bearing lines denoting divisions between electoral ridings; there is no evidence of any changes being made to any maps included in the interim report subsequent to Sunday, June 18, 1978.

"Tuesday, June 20, 1978. On the morning of June 20, 1978, Mrs. Robbins made separate visits to the survey and mapping branch, Ministry of Environment, and the Queen's Printer for the purposes of arranging for the printing of the interim report which, for the first time, comprised (a) a full text of the interim report; (b) the legal descriptions of the electoral division boundaries for the whole of the province; (c) a set of five maps delineating the electoral division boundaries.

"Mrs. Robbins then arranged an appointment for Judge Eckardt with the Provincial Secretary so that he could deliver a copy of the completed interim report to discharge the obligation of his commission. The report was tabled by the Provincial Secretary in the Legislature that afternoon. In the course of this day and by about 5 o'clock, Mrs. Robbins had arranged for the production of further copies of the report for distribution to members of the Legislature.

"The inquiry which followed your instructions disclosed a further matter which I must draw to your attention.

"On the 16th of January, the Honourable Evan M. Wolfe, then Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services, issued a news release. Appended to the news release, which is attached to this report, were two letters: (a) a letter from Mr. William Prior, production manager, Government Printing Bureau, dated January 15, 1980, addressed to Mr. Wolfe; (b) a letter from Mr. E.R. McMinn dated January 15, addressed to the Hon. C. Stephen Rogers, Minister of Environment.

"It is clear, as a consequence of the inquiries that Mr. Prelypchan and I have made, that the letters upon which Mr. Wolfe relied for his news release were inaccurate. Both Mr. McMinn and Mr. Prior, when interviewed, acknowledged that this was the case. Only some portions of the material prepared for the interim report were finished by the 16th of June. The remainder of the material to be included in the report was prepared by commission staff on June 17, 18 and 19, 1978, on the instructions and under the direction of the commissioner.

"In light of the conflict between the declaration of Miss Tamoto and that of Miss Thomson, and what was disclosed during the several interviews, I considered it desirable to interview Miss Tamoto further to make certain that she had nothing additional to contribute. Through her counsel on the 15th of May, 1980, I requested an interview with Miss Tamoto. Her counsel advised by telephone on the 16th of May and confirmed by letter dated the 21st of May, 1980, that Miss Tamoto declined.

"Accordingly, I must advise:

" 1. There is no factual basis to support any of the allegations or beliefs set out in Miss Tamoto's declaration.

"2. There is no evidence of any communication between the Hon. Grace McCarthy, or anyone on her behalf, and His Honour Judge Eckardt, or any member of his staff, with respect to any part of the contents of the interim report on electoral boundaries.

"Accordingly, it is my opinion that there is no action which should be taken by you as Attorney-General in respect of the allegations or beliefs sworn to by Miss Tamoto.

                                                                                                                                              Yours very truly,
                                                                                                                                                            Richard H. Vogel,
                                                                                                                                                            Deputy Attorney-General"

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table a copy of the material which I have just read.

Leave granted.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, perhaps what occurred is that the changes took place by way of political osmosis. But there is a complexity of dates, times and events in the statement just made by the Attorney-General which requires closer examination than is possible on very short notice such as this. I don't know, though, that that is the major point that should be looked at. I think it's important to know and to remember that this was an internal examination made by people within the Ministry of the Attorney-General, which doesn't lend itself to examination in public of what had or had not taken place. That sort of internal examination, certainly in this instance, leaves one with the view of that aspect of the statement that justice should not only be done but should also seem to be done.... It is at least satisfied in the latter part. It's made it appear that justice seems to have been done; whether or not it has actually been done is another question. In the statement two or three references were made to the conflict between two individuals who made statutory declarations about certain matters, declarations that are opposed one to the other. It seems to me that, in the first instance, it should not have been an examination made by government with respect to matters in which the government had some dealings. In the first instance, it should have been, as was advanced, a commission of inquiry, under the Inquiry Act — in other words, a royal commission — where all the information and facts could have been ascertained, and people who gave information could have been subjected to cross-examination, which was not possible in the manner in which this examination was conducted. That is still the situation. The Inquiry Act is there for the purpose of examining matters

[ Page 3727 ]

in public and providing the opportunity for cross-examination of all the participants. Until that is done, the suspicion will still linger that this was an activity designed to accomplish a particular end. According to government, that end has been satisfied, but it won't satisfy the general public.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL
SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 170: minister's office, $165,770.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, it seems that we did get something from our debate yesterday, Mr. Chairman, as you know because you were here.

We opened up the debate on the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mr. Wolfe's) estimates yesterday with a discussion of the whole matter of the Eckardt report and the allegations of political interference. Finally, after six months, we have the long-awaited report, which will be discussed in far more detail by the members of the opposition at another time, perhaps in another estimate.

I would like to move on now to another area and to ask the minister some questions which concern me and many others, on the matter of election expenses. We're all aware that here again the Social Credit government has apparently been tarnished considerably because of some unanswered questions with reference to the last provincial election and their election expenses. I'm going to mention this today, and perhaps tomorrow we will have another long-awaited report from the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) on the matter of an abuse of the election expenses act by some members of the Social Credit Party or government, which remains to be seen.

I'm referring particularly to the period beginning November 14, 1979, when news of a secret campaign expenses bank account in Victoria first came out. At that time the Premier's executive assistant admitted that he had authorized payment for the expenses of both researchers — Kelly and McKay — when the tapes were made. The money came out of a special account, and that's the first time anything was alluded to as a special account. I'm referring to it this morning because we have been asking the Attorney-General for the last several months for the results of that report. I have to say to the minister whose estimates are now up that as Provincial Secretary I am sure he too would be happy to have that matter brought to our attention and cleaned up one way or the other, At least bring us the results of the allegations of misuse and abuse of the election expenses act by the Social Credit Party of British Columbia during the last election.

I have a question for the Provincial Secretary, and the question is to do with the possibility of a new election expenses act being brought down for the province of British Columbia. I read in the paper on the weekend that the Social Credit Party president, Mr. Smith, has implied publicly that he is aware that the Provincial Secretary and his ministry will be bringing down a new act which will perhaps limit campaign expenditures — I'm not sure about that — but will certainly allow for the disclosure of contributors to political campaigns. If the president of the Social Credit Party has this information, I wonder if the Provincial Secretary would also give the same information to the Legislature this morning.

I'd like to make it quite clear that the NDP official opposition and the NDP — not only the caucus, but the party — would certainly endorse any bringing down of a change in the Election Act, particularly to do with limitation of campaign expenses and disclosure of campaign donations. I wonder if the Provincial Secretary could enlighten the opposition, as apparently the president of the Social Credit Party has been enlightened. May I say that we are most hopeful that this is something you have in the works, and I think the people of British Columbia are anxiously awaiting it.

There are many other provinces in Canada now that have such legislation. We have it federally, and I think it's about time British Columbia moved into this, particularly in light of the points I made at the beginning of my notes ' this morning, when we have a very, very strange series of events which happened with the Social Credit Party during the last campaign which have never been brought to light in this Legislature for the people of B.C. Let us face it, Mr. Chairman: that wouldn't be hanging over anyone in government if the Social Credit government had brought in these changes to the Election Act at the time they brought in the other report. So my main question to the Provincial Secretary is: can you enlighten us in the Legislature this morning as to what your plans are for bringing in this important aspect of an election act?

Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd like to move on to another area aside from election expenses, hoping that the minister will answer after I sit down. But I have one other question on another matter. I said yesterday that the Provincial Secretary is really quite a powerful minister if he wishes to use his power, which I hope he will never do in the sense of a strictly political use of the taxpayers' money for the purposes of the Social Credit Party. I'm not going to hold him responsible for past ministers, but may I say past Provincial Secretaries under the Social Credit government have certainly, in my opinion, abused and misused the taxpayers' money when it comes to government advertising.

For example, I'm wondering if the Provincial Secretary could give us some idea of the cost of this B.C. Government News. I think most people in the province of British Columbia would say that perhaps there is information in it, but actually it reads like a Social Credit Party newspaper. Yet that is being paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia. I wonder if the minister, with the help of his deputy there, could give us an idea of how much money has been expended, since he became Provincial Secretary, to publish and mail the B.C. Government News. If you don't have the figures there, I realize that I have the opportunity to do it through the order paper, but I thought perhaps you might have it for us.

Just to make a further point on this matter of government propaganda, I want to read a letter which came to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) concerning the B.C. Government News. It is from someone who lives on Pender Island.

"Dear Mr. Barrett:

"I know I should be writing to my own MLA, but I really don't think Mr. Curtis would receive my letter sympathetically. "

It is from someone who lives on Pender Island.

"Could you tell me why the publication B.C.

[ Page 3728 ]

Government News is allowed to be published and mailed to households throughout B.C. at the taxpayers' expense? If you are familiar with this paper at all, surely you would agree that its function is nothing more than to advertise the merits of the present Social Credit government. It is as objective and informative as, say, a B.C. Telephone newsletter.

"I'm tired of this government using public funds to promote their image instead of channelling them into the areas of the public that really need them, and it makes me angry to see B.C. taxpayers of all political persuasions paying to have, among other trivialities, Bill Bennett's smile distributed by householder mail.

"Any advice on what action, if any, you or I might take would be appreciated. Thank you for your attention. "

Mr. Chairman, I don't think I need to say anything more.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We'll mark him down as doubtful.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, as the Minister of Finance said, we'll mark that as a doubtful voter for the Minister of Finance. I think, though, he has said it more clearly than I possibly could. I'm just expressing on behalf of many other people of British Columbia, who are not necessarily NDP supporters, a repugnance that they have to this abuse of the taxpayers' money by a government for its own propaganda purposes.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Pender Island. If anyone is interested in it, it's Theo Miller; I think that would be a man, right? It's right here, quite open, I put it in Hansard, and the point is well made. All I'm asking the Provincial Secretary is: are you going to rise above some of your cabinet colleagues in the past who want to carry on this high political profile through taxpayers' moneys, and perhaps try to turn this B.C. Government News into a straight information leaflet without pictures, particularly of the Premier and the Deputy Premier, in almost every edition and references entirely in a political frame of mind — as I say, more like a Social Credit newsletter or newspaper than straight information? I'd like to hear the minister if he could comment on that, Mr. Chairman. Those are the two questions for now.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll take those two questions in reverse. On the matter of the B.C. Government News, I suppose one could ask whether the government of the day did not have an obligation to lay its programs before as many people as possible. It's been difficult sometimes to get proper disclosure of its plans and programs in any other way. I think that former governments, including the NDP government, also had an organ of this kind which was distributed to taxpayers in general. I would support the fact that we do have an obligation to inform people through communication of the many diverse programs and of issues that arise, subject to the fact that people who receive this may question some of the policies. But it is simply a case of setting those policies before as many people as possible. I think more people than not would support that type of disclosure.

Admittedly, there is a cost to it. I think the annual cost of the B.C. Government News is about $150,000 for ten issues.

You asked how many of them would have been under my purview. I think there were about five. Approximately half of that expenditure, $75,000, would have occurred since I assumed this portfolio last November. It's just a matter of one's view as to whether we don't in fact have an obligation. I don't think we should have to defend the obligation we feel we have to disclose government programs in a straightforward way. That's a simple answer to that question.

On the matter of election expenses and the Election Act, I can simply say that the proposal for amending the act or providing a new act, etc., is still under consideration by my ministry. My reason for saying that is this: first of all, we've appointed a new chief electoral officer, Mr. Goldberg, who has considerable experience and expertise in this field. As you are aware, Mr. Morton has retired. Mr. Goldberg is developing a great deal of information on this subject, in terms of what he may view as changes or improvements which should be made to this act. So I think we should consider that in considering what may or may not be done to the Elections Act. We welcome the opinions of all members and all citizens on deficiencies that they find in the act. We would look forward to receiving those. Mind you, many changes can take place in the election procedure without, in fact, amending the Elections Act. A lot of these things are administrative improvements or changes that go on. Of course, this too is an area where the new chief electoral officer will, I'm sure, provide his input. We welcome the views of members on ways to improve it. We're still looking at it; it's under consideration.

There is another reason for pause on this question. It's the matter of election expenses. As you know, we have sought, through the electoral officer, outside legal opinions on certain alleged improprieties or infractions arising from the 1979 procedures. These are in the hands of the Attorney-General, who is probably getting further explanations and so on about them. I presume we will wait until we hear his opinion on those matters before we would want to reflect them in the Election Act.

If I could offer a personal opinion, the matters referred to had to do with so-called late filing of an election expenses return. In fact, the party filed the return in the required number of days, and then filed an amended return after that date. This is a personal observation: I can see no fault with filing an amended return in an instance of that kind. One finds that type of capability under taxation acts.

MR. HOWARD: Only after being found out.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's not the first time, I'm sure, that amended returns have been filed. Which is worse, Mr. Chairman — to ignore what one knows to be a mistaken filing, or to file an amended return? You might want to answer that question on some future occasion. I think it's much more proper to try to get the correct information in filing the proper return. The matter is under consideration as to whether in fact they were signed by improper persons. I think it is really a moot point whether, when you read the act, it's possible to define who is a proper person to sign the election expenses return.

The other matter was whether or not detail is required in terms of breaking down the expenditures that are reported or just the total. It would appear that the act could stand some improvement in clarification where this is concerned. Regarding those opinions which have been sought, as they have

[ Page 3729 ]

not been examined by the Attorney-General it is difficult to comment further — except, as I say in all honesty, we're still considering the Election Act.

We're now looking back on an election which is a year and some months behind us. There is time to give this consideration. We welcome the views. I say that many changes can be made administratively, and I'm sure will be made, with the arrival of our new chief electoral officer. We're still looking at it.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I want to follow that up with a quick question. I wonder, as the minister is apparently thinking about changes to the Election Act, if he would give his reaction to a suggestion I have: why not set up an all-party committee to work on changes to the Election Act? That is an area where, if you had all parties sitting down and working together, I think you could perhaps avoid any suspicion that all these things are being changed just for the benefit of the Social Credit Party. That aura is out there. Perhaps it is more than an aura; only time will tell. I am simply asking the Provincial Secretary for his reaction to having an all-party committee to help revise the Election Act.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, that possibility will be considered.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I have two rather unrelated items that I wish to raise with the Provincial Secretary today. One relates to his responsibilities as keeper of the funds and giver of grants. It relates to a fledgling society within my own constituency which is trying to establish itself: the Cowichan Rape/Assault Centre. This is a group of people who have given of their time to take training and to man a crisis line on a volunteer basis. Thanks to the auspices of the local mental health society, they have a temporary centre. There is certainly a great need in the Cowichan Valley for this kind of service. I am asking the minister to consider a start-up grant from his funds to help this organization establish itself in the Cowichan Valley. We have a very high rate of violent crimes in the area, and rape is certainly a violent crime.

I have a brochure here which the minister may have seen. I intend to send it across the floor to him later. It outlines the problems that they are trying to deal with in the Cowichan Valley and the methods by which they are dealing with them, and it even has a draft budget for the year. It has a series of letters attached which give support to the work of this group. They range through a wide variety of people who are working in the Cowichan Valley. I would just like to run through some of the people who have given supporting letters: the Crown counsel, Mr. Morihan; the president of the Coalition of British Columbia Rape Centres; the sitting MP, Mr. Manly; myself as the MLA.

I am certainly aware of the kind of problems that we are facing. We really have a tremendous problem in the Cowichan Valley with very little in the way of services or facilities to deal with it. The closest centres are in Nanaimo and Victoria. From a preventive point of view and dealing with the whole business of sexual abuse of children, which is something that we are facing more and more in the Cowichan Valley, we can do a lot to rehabilitate those children and to ensure that they are able to live healthy, normal lives after some rather harrowing experiences as children. This is the kind of thing this centre is proposing to provide.

The letters go on: the counsellor of the Nanaimo Chemical Dependency Centre Association, which has a branch office in Duncan; the Cowichan Band Council social worker and program coordinator; the native court worker; the mayor of the Corporation of North Cowichan; the director of the Duncan Mental Health Centre: the mayor of the city of Duncan; the counsellor at Lake Cowichan Senior Secondary School, which is also adjacent to this area.

I would like to read briefly from the counsellor's letter:

"Over this past school year one of our students has been immensely helped and counselled by a representative from the Cowichan Rape/Assault Centre. This involved several meetings between the student and counsellor, necessitating trips by the counsellor from Duncan to Lake Cowichan. The student's parents were also involved.

"Furthermore, it is my hope that during the next school year representatives from the Cowichan Rape/Assault Centre will be able to speak to most of the student body in an educational and preventive capacity."

This is the kind of thing that this group is now carrying on. There is another letter from the Cowichan Band Council. Of course, a lot of the problems relate to the high percentage of native young people that we have in the area and the alcohol problem.

Central Vancouver Island Health Unit and The Volunteer Society — a tremendous number of letters of support for this fledgling organization, which definitely needs some financial support to get itself established. It has grown through voluntary effort and through voluntary grants of headquarters and so on, and what I'm urging the Provincial Secretary to do is to take some positive steps in the way of funding for this organization. I'm sure he has, or will have shortly, an application before him. I would like to bring to his attention a real need for this particular function and the great work that has been done on a volunteer basis up to date, which I think should give it a very strong feasibility. Certainly due to the fact that these people are prepared to work on a volunteer basis, it could be expanded to fill the need much more readily if there was some funding to establish the thing and get it going on a start-up basis.

The other item that I want to raise is quite unrelated. It relates to the minister's responsibilities for the B.C. Buildings Corporation.

The Speaker of the House, who has been absent for a long time, presented to all members of the House this very beautiful book which outlines the precincts and has some very lovely pictures and so on. It is a beautiful building, but there are some areas in this building, Mr. Chairman, which are not so beautiful. I would like to draw to the Provincial Secretary's attention an excerpt from Hansard of April 6, 1977, a long time ago. It was in the question period. My namesake, Mr. G. S. Wallace (Oak Bay), who is no longer in this House, raised the question. This is a real biggie. This is to the Minister of Public Works, who was then responsible for BCBC:

With regard to renovations currently being carried out in these buildings, with a view to the importance of preserving the health, welfare, comfort and the productivity of the female staff, can the minister tell the House why it has been necessary to close both washrooms on the second and third floor stairwells on the opposition side of the building?

The Minister of Highways thanked the member and said he wasn't aware of it, but he'd look into it immediately.

[ Page 3730 ]

On a supplementary, Mr. Wallace asked the minister whether, when he was instructing his staff to close the washroom, he would consider having a sign put on the door to say it was out of order, rather than just locking it. There was much laughter and the minister, on April 6, 1977 — I give him credit, he acted very promptly — opened one of those washrooms. He opened the one on the east wing, between the second and third floor. Mr. Chairman, he opened it before the renovations were completed. It is now August 6, 1980, and that washroom hasn't been touched since it was opened in haste in 1977.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Which one?

MRS. WALLACE: It's on the mezzanine, between the second and third floor, on the opposition side.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

I have some pictures here that I'm going to send over to the minister, because I don't suppose he frequents the women's washroom that often. I've taken some pictures which show the condition of that washroom, where there's a hole in the wall with a loop of electric wires. There are holes in the floor. There's a large hole in the wall which was left gaping open behind one of the toilets. The janitor fixed it with cardboard and scotch tape, and that's been there for more than two years. There are holes in the wall and in the floor where one basin was removed and never replaced. There's a temporary plywood partition that's been up there since that date, April 6, 1977. It's just a bit of a disgrace. It's the room that the women in the opposition use. There are two very hard, very scratched chairs. It's a bit of a disaster.

I'm hoping that this minister will take to heart these pictures that I'm going to send across to him and will do something about that washroom, because certainly I think that when we have a building which is as beautiful as this book indicates it is, we should look to not just the outside things but also to the washroom which serves the staff and the women MLAs. I would urge the minister to take some action on that one. I will send him these pictures so he will be aware of what it looks like. It looks like a bomb area, a disaster. I'm also going to send across to him the items I raised on the Cowichan Rape/Assault Centre.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering whether, before I make my comments, you could give me some guidance. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) reported on the findings of the internal investigation surrounding the Eckardt report, and I'm wondering whether this can be discussed under the present Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who was the Provincial Secretary at the time, or whether we have to discuss it under this Provincial Secretary. Could you give me some guidance?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would say that it does not matter what Provincial Secretary is in office. He's responsible for the affairs of the Provincial Secretary and that is the way it stands. You may discuss any matter that concerns the portfolio of the Provincial Secretary.

MS. BROWN: I see.

What I would like to specifically deal with today is one of the most depressing reports that's ever come out of the government. It's a report which is entitled "Advancement Opportunities in the British Columbia Public Service." It's a report which was prepared by the Equal Employment Opportunities Committee of the Public Service Commission in cooperation with the economic analysis and research branch of the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development. I'm wondering, first of all, whether the Provincial Secretary has read this report. Would the minister nod or shake his head to indicate whether he has...? I'm not addressing myself to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). Would the Provincial Secretary indicate whether he has seen this report?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Could you identify the report with the date on it? I believe I have seen the report.

MS. BROWN: The date on it is 1979, but it was actually released earlier this year. It's "Advancement Opportunities in the British Columbia Public Service," and it was prepared by the Equal Employment Opportunities Committee of the Public Service Commission in conjunction with the economic analysis and research branch of the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development.

What the report tells us is that far from "coming a long way, baby," as women are continually being told.... In fact, women in the public service in British Columbia have been falling further and further behind. This is why I referred to it earlier as certainly one of the most depressing reports that I've ever read. I remember in 1973, during the estimates of the then Provincial Secretary, discussing the disproportionate number of women in the public service who were in the lower echelon jobs and the almost total absence of women at the deputy, associate deputy or assistant deputy levels — the top levels of the public service. That was in 1973. I find in reading this report, which compares the public service of 1977 with the public service of today, that in fact the situation hasn't changed in any noticeable degree, that women are still filling most of the lower echelon jobs and that there's an almost total absence of them in the primarily top jobs.

So I'm going to address a couple of questions to the minister after I just jog his memory by giving him some of the statistics. On the salary situation, for example, a comparison was done, and it was found that in 1977 the average woman's salary in the public service was 71.2 percent of the average salary paid to the male, and in fact, this could dip as low as 55.3 percent. When this study was done in 1979 it showed that the difference on an average was 72.3 percent, dipping to as low as 56.8 percent.

The other statistic I want to bring to the minister's attention, which he probably knows, is that 66 percent of all the female employees working in the civil service earn less than $15,000 a year, and this is a decrease of 9 percent over the 1977 figures. It's getting worse; the gap's getting wider. Compare that with the men, 83 percent of whom earn over $15,000 a year, which is an increase of 8 percent of 1977. I'm giving the statistics first and then I'm going to be asking my questions after.

The other thing we find is that if we look at the 410 people in the management level we find that 14 are women. In 1977 the number of women at the deputy minister or associate deputy minister level was two. This is no different today. Of course, it was a 200 percent increase over 1973, when there were none, so I guess we shouldn't complain. Since 1977

[ Page 3731 ]

female employees in the British Columbia public service have become more and more concentrated in the predominantly female occupational groups — clerical primarily. Even when we get into the professionals we find that the statistics there again reflect the whole female ghetto concept of women's work that we find in the community at large. I'm not saying that the civil service is any different, but in view of some of the things that this government has done since becoming the government of the province, such as wiping out the women's economic rights branch, and the women's bureau, I'm wondering whether this report is a reflection of the impact of those two actions on the government's part.

The report starts out by saying that there's obviously a need to diversify the occupational distribution of both men and women in the civil service in order to break down the sex typing of occupations; secondly, that there is a need to examine, define and remove the barriers to the upward mobility of women in the public service; and thirdly, that there's a need for greater representation of qualified women at the decision-making level. When I'm through, of course, I'm going to be asking the minister to what extent any of these recommendations have been implemented. So maybe while he's listening to me he could be framing his response in terms of how this report has been implemented to date.

It says that the research clearly demonstrates that the basis for the present inequality of women does not lie simply in history, but it lies in the present, in the practice that's presently going on in the civil service. It says the present inequality is not a holdover from historical imbalance, not a reflection of historical occupational segregation, and not merely a reflection of present labour market characteristics. "The unequal participation of women is a condition produced and reproduced in the ongoing daily conduct of the B.C. public service." This is an incredible indictment. "As a daily matter the terms of unequal participation are fully a part of the ordinary practices of men and women in the routine conduct of the organization." I think the Provincial Secretary, as the minister responsible for the public service, has got to give some justification for this kind of finding on the part of this report.

It's a very large and detailed report. I'm not going to read it in its entirety to the minister, although I suspect that unless I do he won't read it in its entirety. So it may be necessary for us to make another appointment for me to read the report to him. After you've visited and checked the women's washroom, maybe you should come and visit me and I'll read the report to you.

Some recommendations were made, and I want to know specifically what's happened to these recommendations. It talked about training in human resource management for the staff of the civil service in terms of addressing the advancement of women, and the objectives of addressing the advancement of women in the civil service. It talked about the Public Service Commission developing training programs directed at female public servants wishing to proceed to line management positions. It suggested that no competition be allowed to proceed unless the selection panel, where feasible, was composed of both women and men, and that panel members be required to acquire knowledge of advancement processes which enhance or hinder the likelihood of female candidates' abilities being fully recognized and assessed. I want to know what's happened to that recommendation. It also suggested that the Public Service Commission review applications for competition and add the names of qualified female candidates to short-lists wherever that was appropriate. I want to know what's happened to that recommendation, Mr. Chairman.

I should have mentioned earlier that the report breaks the service down into a number of different areas. The second area it looked at was the professionals. As it's becoming increasingly clear that more women are entering the traditional male professional fields — the gap is certainly closing in the universities and in training — you would expect that in the hiring procedures and in the public service itself there would be some reflection of this gap closing.

This report says that that is not the case, that that is not happening. It looked at all of the professional groups. It says that there are 40 classifications, including natural sciences, such as biologists, agriculturalists, geologists; the medical profession, such as nurses, physiotherapists and medical officers; the social service field, such as child-care counsellors, social workers, psychologists, probation officers, etc. What did it find, Mr. Chairman? The report found that "there are 1,601 persons in this category; of that number 303 are female, 1,298 are male."

I want to revert to the earlier finding of the report which said that this could not be explained in historical terms, that we cannot say this is the way it usually is — certainly not in the professions. This year's medical school class at UBC, for example, has an enrolment of 45 percent females. So we certainly can't explain this gap in terms of female and male professionals in the civil service on the basis of what's happening in the training schools, at the university level, or even in the community at large, because the gap is closing out there. Now why isn't it closing in the public service itself? Why is it that in 1979 we're getting this kind of indictment coming out of a report done by the civil service itself?

It goes on to say, Mr. Chairman, that men and women are distributed very unevenly within the public service population, that they're concentrated in specific occupational groups. For example, 70 percent of the women were found working in the Ministries of Human Resources and Health. Those are your social workers, your nurses, your child-care counsellors and, I would imagine, your physiotherapists and maybe some of your medical officers. It turned out that most of the men were in Forests; some were in Health, the Attorney-General, Finance and Education.

The report goes on to say:

"It is very clear from the statistical data on the B.C. public service that very few women are successful in advancing to the top level in the organization. Even when they're professionals, even when they come in with equal qualifications and equal skills as professionals, they still don't advance to the top levels. The question is: what is the character of the competitive process in the professional work area?"

That's the question that the report asks, How does it result in this differentiation between men and women who come in, as I say, with equal skills, qualification and education?

It proceeds with a list of the professionals in the top five ministries. It found that there were in these five ministries — Education, Health, Human Resources, Labour, Finance, and the Public Service Commission itself — 465 men at the top level and 16 women. It's absolutely incredible. There is one auditor-general and she is female; there are four women in Education, four in Health, four in Human Resources, one in Labour and two in the Public Service Commission, for a total of 16. You can compare that with something like 450 males

[ Page 3732 ]

in those same ministries. It goes on to say that "this table clearly demonstrates the very low representation of women at the management level across the public service." That was just an example. I'm sure if they had chosen some other ministries, the result would have been even worse. If they had looked at Forests, for example, the results would have been even worse.

I'm going to skip to the recommendation, because the explanations about career development and the impact that it has in terms of not encouraging women to proceed to the top levels of management I know the minister is going to read on his own. However, one of the recommendations made was: "In order to widen the competitive base for women professionals within the public service, it is clearly necessary to institute a policy of actively developing recruitment across the public service." My question to the minister is: has that recommendation been implemented, and is that now happening?

It is suggested that the Public Service Commission "relate its already available data base on male and female employment by job category in the public service to the pool of trained persons employed or seeking work relevant to their training or level of skills in the B.C. labour force." Has that recommendation been implemented? Because as the report goes on to say: "A comparison of these two data bases would serve to indicate to the commission areas in which the available pool of qualified women is not reflected in public service hiring patterns." It would be possible then, if the minister so desired and if the public service were so committed, to do something about the hiring patterns. Obviously, as the report says, you cannot any more excuse it on historical grounds. There is something wrong with the hiring patterns and the promotional patterns of the civil service. The recommendations offered by the report, although not all-encompassing, are certainly one way of starting.

Really what we are talking about, Mr. Chairman, is affirmative action in the civil service. That's what's been lacking. That's the reason why women in the civil service are worse off in 1979 than they were in 1977, because of the absence of any aggressive affirmative action program on the part of the minister responsible.

A recommendation is that the Public Service Commission review its recruitment and selection procedures against both human resource policy objectives and the data base consisting of the service-wide human resource analysis, along with a labour pool analysis by ministry and classification. I want to know if that's happened.

The other one, again, was that the Public Service Commission take the lead in aggressive recruiting, focused to attract qualified women to public service positions. Is that happening? Has anything been done with any of the recommendations in this report? Because if it had been even slightly aggressive I think I would have heard about it. There has certainly been no indication that I have been able to pinpoint of the public service going out and aggressively trying to recruit women to try to deal with the imbalance which this report has unearthed for us.

Again, there is a recommendation that no competition be allowed to proceed unless the selection panel, where feasible, be composed of both men and women, and that panel members be required to acquire knowledge of advancement processes which enhance or hinder the likelihood of female candidates' abilities being fully recognized and fully assessed. Is that happening? I really want concrete answers; I don't want any philosophical statements, Mr. Chairman, or any sloughing-off of these questions. I'm asking direct questions, and I want concrete and direct answers. Are any of these recommendations being implemented; and if so, how, and what results is the minister getting?

Another was that the Public Service Commission assume responsibility for organizing a framework for support mechanisms for women in the public service — an area where there is an identified need. That's a recommendation that we could discuss at great length. But again, because I know that now that his appetite has been whetted — the minister is going to read this report in its entirety. I won't go through it. But some of the minor recommendations to support the study said, for example, that there be sufficient financial training support for women identified as benefiting from the MBA and MPA programs, and counsel for women as to the availability of this support; that the commission develop cooperative programs for women with selected MBA and MPA departments, and counsel women as to the availability of these programs; that the commission develop an intergovernmental exchange program with the federal and other provincial public services where appropriate, and counsel women as to the availability of these exchanges; that the Public Service Commission develop a screening mechanism, with reference to ministries' demands for management personnel, for including applicants in these programs.

A lot of this counselling and information used to be done by the women's economics rights branch when it existed and should have been done by the women's bureau when it existed. But as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, those two departments have been wiped out by the government and now, within the civil service anyway, the report is suggesting that the civil service take on these jobs. I want to know whether it's actually happening. It also suggested that organizational structures be modified to provide access to bridge positions which allow female employees of high management potential to develop the activities required for their career advancement.

Then the report touches on the clerks and, of course, this is where all of the women are — in the clerical component of the civil service. This is certainly historically where they've always been and we find that today, in 1980, reading a 1979 report, again that's where they are. Even in the top levels of the civil service it's true that some men are beginning to make a breakthrough there, but it's primarily the women's job — the clerical sector. One of the things it talked about under that was the dead-ending of the clerical jobs, the fact that so many of them are dead-end jobs, and once you've gone through position 1, 2, 3, 4 to 6, or whatever, that is it. There was no way of making a quantum leap from a clerical position into some other job. One of the things it talks about in some detail is the failure of the civil service to make it possible to move from a clerical position into a non-clerical job, most of which pay better than the clerical jobs. It says that it should be recognized that movement from the clerk classification into a number of non-clerical classifications at an entry level — even at an entry level — would represent a promotion, both in terms of salary and a substantial increase in possibilities for further promotion.

Currently, there are many clerks who work in close relation to other classifications — financial assistance worker or driver examiner, for example — and gain considerable experience relevant to these classifications. Some of these clerks have indicated an interest in applying for positions in

[ Page 3733 ]

these other related classifications. As positions at level 1 and sometimes level 2 of many of these classifications are not routinely posted, openings do not usually or easily come to the attention of in-service candidates who may be interested.

The suggestion was that some mechanism for referral would increase the likelihood of effective utilization of this pool of experienced public servants as well as facilitating the career planning of individuals with the necessary skills and ambition to advance. It recommends that this mechanism be put in place. Has this mechanism been put in place? Will the minister say whether this particular recommendation has been acted on? Is it now possible for a number of clerks who find themselves or who used to find themselves dead-ended in dead-end jobs to make the leap into some non-clerical classification and move up the advancement ladder from that position?

It says that another way of providing movement within the clerical series may be to develop within the component itself advancement ladders with respect to a few areas where several levels of highly specialized technical knowledge are currently contained partly within the clerical levels themselves. The two that they mentioned were the environmental series and the financial series.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the hon. member please observe that she should be concluding her speech within the time required by regulations.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is so nice of you to draw to my attention that my green light is on. I am going to pause for someone to intervene on my behalf, if that's okay with you, Mr. Chairman,

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Oh, you have no choice. I am going to pause.

MR. COCKE: If you don't like the rules, you can get your government to change them.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to tell the minister that sometime later this week or next week — whenever we get around to it — I'm going to be talking to him about some of his moves in the B.C. Buildings Corporation. I suggest to him that the ambulance headquarters in each and every area of our province are an utter disgrace, mainly because of the fact that they are totally without motivation in that particular department to offer anything better than what they have basements, etc.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from New Westminster for those succinct remarks which made it possible for me to start again.

I'm not going to go through to the very end of the report because it gets worse as it goes along. In dealing again with the clerical staff — because as I said before most of the women in the civil service are in the clerical component — the report discovered that there were some public servants in the clerk series who possess the educational qualifications to proceed to advanced training such as the MPA or MBA. Some recommendations were made about assisting these women in terms of planning, counselling and giving them information about potential for promotion and options, the kinds of supports that would make it possible for them to avail themselves of taking this leave from clerical into the additional training to get into the management line of work. That this should be implemented is another recommendation which I am wondering whether the minister has acted upon.

The other category dealt with is a very small group: the executive secretaries. I know that all of the cabinet ministers would certainly be aware of these. The report found that whereas there were 80 executive secretary positions in the public service — so you see that it is not a very large component — these positions are held exclusively by women. It says that it covers a narrow salary range between $1,082 and $1,493 per month. So the options are very limited; it doesn't take that long to be promoted to your maximum. Then you really are dead-ended because what happens in this public service, as in other public services, is that the executive secretary's future is tied to her employer's, even though in the job description this is not the way it is supposed to be. The executive secretary should be free to be promoted or to proceed at her own speed, but the reality of the situation is what's known in the service as "rug ranking" — that is, as her boss is promoted, she's promoted with him, and as he's demoted, she's demoted with him, or with her. I use the word "him" because there are so few women in the top echelon. It says here that advancement from executive secretary to a senior position is a rare occasion. It almost never happens.

When you realize the kinds of skills, abilities, intelligence, training and experience that it takes to become an executive secretary, it makes you wonder why. Dead-ending really is one of the penalties that you pay to have that particular kind of job. The recommendations made about dealing with building some kind of ladder to make it possible for the executive secretary to move into a non-clerical position and to move into part of the decision-making management stream is a very worthwhile recommendation, and certainly one which I hope the minister has taken into account.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

At the very back of the report there are listed a number of recommendations. I've touched on some of them as I have been proceeding along. I want to ask the minister if he would deal specifically with some of the questions that I have raised. Why is there no active affirmative action program embodied in the civil service itself? How can he explain that the salary gap is widening? How can he explain that the disparity is on the increase? Why is there no specific program which will increase the number of women in managerial positions, for example? Also, what's going to happen to this report now? The original group came together, did the research, prepared the report, and turned it over to the minister, and it was tabled in the House, and then that group was disbanded. What's going to happen? How does one monitor the implementation of these recommendations? If you are putting a committee together to monitor this, are there going to be any representatives on this committee from the BCGEU — the union which represents most of the women, certainly, employed in the civil service itself?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Before I forget, just to respond to the last comment made by the member, there are now representatives of each of the three government employees' unions on the sort of continuing committee on equal opportuni-

[ Page 3734 ]

ties. They are each represented and have made their interests known to me as minister.

Regarding the report, I have read it. I don't profess to remember all the recommendations, but it is dramatic in the statistics that it reveals. I just want to say that I'm sympathetic to, you know, whatever within reason may be attempted to be done about it. I wouldn't agree with all of the recommendations, but certainly with some of them. So I have seen it. I can't recall all of the recommendations but you've refreshed my memory on some of them.

I can say this: it is now in the hands of a committee combining the Public Service Commission, the Government Employee Relations Bureau and Treasury Board staff.... Having been submitted to various ministries and the deputy ministers for consideration, it is in this special committee. We are now awaiting a plan to develop the implementation — that is, of whatever may be adopted from their view of the report and its findings. They are developing some kind of implementation plan; that's what we're waiting for right now. I just want to say that I have an interest in it, and within reason.... There are a lot of other groups — you mentioned the unions involved — who have some concern too, you see. So I'll certainly try to keep the thing moving along to see if we can't arrive at some conclusions on some of the matters.

It can only be said, as you well realize, that the same situation prevails across the country. It's just a matter of whether we can perhaps do something more about it in British Columbia than other areas can.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a couple of questions for the Provincial Secretary regarding election procedures. Maybe the minister isn't aware of the situation, but of the names on over 200 voter registration cards sent to the chief electoral officer by a courier within the week of the proper time frame for the last election, not one showed up in the Atlin electoral district. I bring that to the minister's attention because this isn't the first time this has happened up in the Atlin constituency. There's a definite need to bring the Election Act into line with the twentieth century so that people who do fill out voter registration cards get a chance to use their votes and have them counted.

One of the situations that quite a few political groups are facing now, Mr. Minister, is that there are only 25 voter registration cards given out at any one time. Are you aware of that? There are only 25 voter registration cards given out at any one time by the chief electoral officer or his assistants. It is very difficult for some far-flung constituencies to use 25 voter registration cards at one time. I wouldn't want to see a total carte blanche given where political organizations or groups walk in and are able to pick up 2,000 or 3,000 voter registration cards at once, but I think 25 is too few.

Another suggestion is the biannual revision of the voters' list. Presently quite a few deceased people are on the voters' list. For instance, in the Atlin constituency, which has more or less 2,400 voters on the list, in excess of 250 voters who are deceased are still on the list. There should be some type of program where deceased voters have their names struck off the list. Some of these people have been deceased for over 20 years. There's a definite need to have these names taken off the list.

Another suggestion for the minister's perusal is section 80 votes. To a certain extent, the section 80 votes are presently a scam to keep riots from breaking out at the polling station. In one instance in Cassiar at the last election which had just over 400 voters, there were 115 section 80 votes, which is too high a percentage. Being involved with the recounts, of those section 80s there were over 99 percent that weren't counted. In the Election Act some type of consideration or change should be made where we follow the federal election procedure so that a Canadian citizen and resident of British Columbia is able to go to the polling station that day and cast a vote that's counted. Quite a few people are under the belief that if they aren't on the voters' list and they go and the clerk gives them a section 80 vote, they vote and that's counted. The case is that people go into the polling station, think that they have used their franchise to vote, and find out that it's not counted. There has to be some change in the Election Act so that when a person goes in — his name isn't on the voters' list, because maybe he was working out in the bush and didn't get in to the enumeration the first week of the call of the election.... There should be a change following the federal procedure where a Canadian citizen who is not on a voters' list can swear out an affidavit, or whatever the case may be, so the person can vote.

Last, the lottery funds. I've been receiving many letters from people explaining that the distribution of lottery funds, in their belief, is political payola. As a suggestion to the minister, maybe there should be some type of review of the lottery funding of grants to ensure that the funds aren't used for political purposes or motives.

Those are a number of short questions to the minister. I would appreciate his answers.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Just to make a brief comment or two on the questions by the last member, through the new chief electoral officer it has been recommended that we have a biannual updating of the voters' list. It must be kept in mind that it is difficult to remove names of deceased people, etc., without a complete enumeration. Our present act states that a voter must be registered; that's one of the anomalies that does exist. For instance, in the province of Alberta, I understand, that is not the case, and an enumeration can at any time bring the list as near as possible up to date, at which time everybody on the list would be eligible to vote. I think the important thing here is not that there are names of deceased people on the list but that anyone eligible to vote does in fact get a chance to cast a ballot. That is, I think, fundamental to what our objective should be — that no one who is eligible to vote is refused a vote.

I don't know of the case you mentioned about the registration cards. It may be, when you look back on the time interval, that there was not sufficient time for those names to appear on the list. However, they may have been in the trays or whatever at the polling station.

As for lotteries, I know that there are members on our side of the House who complain to me about the unfairness of the lack of approval of lottery funds for our own members. I can categorically say that, where I am concerned, we look at these matters about twice a week with staff members, and we try to be as fair as possible. I think many of your colleagues would agree with what I just said: that we approve as many as possible, without political consideration, but with a view to all the other considerations where the application is concerned.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

[ Page 3735 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.