[ Page 5363 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Northeast coal development. Mr. Leggatt –– 5363

Appointment of assistant deputy Attorney-General. Mr. Macdonald –– 5364

Jurisdiction of ombudsman. Mr. Macdonald –– 5365

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

On vote 173: Government Employee Relations Bureau –– 5365

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Howard

Mr. Levi

Mr. King

Division on an amendment

On vote 174: Public Service Commission administration –– 5370

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Hanson

Ms. Brown

Mr. Barber

On vote 176: superannuation branch –– 5376

Mrs. Dailly

On the amendment to vote 176 –– 5376

Mr. Levi

On vote 176: superannuation branch –– 5376

Mr. Levi

On vote 178: Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act –– 5377

Mr. Lea

On vote 180: government information services –– 5377

Mr. Lea

Hon. Mr. McClelland

Mr. Barnes

Mrs. Dailly

Division on an amendment

On vote 181: building occupancy charges –– 5379

Mrs. Dailly

Division on an amendment

On vote 182: computer and consulting charges –– 5380

Mr. Barnes

Hon. Mr. Chabot

Mr. Nicolson

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. Lauk

Hon. Mr. McClelland

Mrs. Dailly

On the amendment to vote 182 –– 5382

Mr. Lauk

Division on the amendment

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr.

Hyndman)

On vote 44: minister's office –– 5382

Hon. Mr. Hyndman

Mr. Levi

Tabling Documents

Trade Practice Act annual report, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 5386

Appendix –– 5386

MONDAY, MAY 4, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. ROGERS: This morning I had a meeting with mayors from Tsawwassen to Hope, including Mayor Burnett from Delta, discussing the floodplain problems and floodplain management proposals for the province of British Columbia. A number of the mayors have had the opportunity to stay over, and I see some of them in the gallery now. It would be a very lengthy list if I were to introduce them all, so I would ask the House to make welcome all those mayors who came to meet with me and officials of the Ministry of Environment this morning.

MRS. WALLACE: In the gallery today we have visitors from Alberta — a couple who farmed for many years some 20 miles from where my father had his homestead. They are now retired and living in Red Deer, Alberta. I would like the House to join me in welcoming June and Cecil Wade.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Following, in a general way, the Minister of Environment's introduction of the mayors, I would like to acknowledge the presence of the mayor of Richmond, His Worship Gil Blair, who is part of the delegation here discussing the floodplain situation in the province. It is of interest that Mayor Blair's grandfather was an early member of the Legislative Assembly.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I ask the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Mike Bolger and his son, who are formerly of Bella Coola and now of Qualicum.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In the gallery visiting us today is a group of grade 6 and 7 students from Marion Schilling School in Kamloops. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

MR. LEGGATT: I ask the House to welcome Mr. Larivée and his class of Mary Hill Junior Secondary School pupils, who have with them some very special Quebec visitors. I'd like you to make them welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm pleased to tell you that we have visitors from Vancouver in the gallery this afternoon. They are Mrs. Ethel Ferguson, Mrs. Howard, Mrs. Jessie Cunliffe, Mrs. Peggy Lee and her daughter Kathy. I'd like to ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I have two introductions. First, there are two local residents with a very keen interest in public affairs, Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd Walters. Second, in the gallery are a number of very interested students from Thompson Secondary School in Vancouver South, with their teacher, Mr. Sandhu.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today is a visitor from the city of Penticton, Mr. Jim Dewdney. If the name Dewdney doesn't mean anything to you, it should, because his forefathers were involved in Fort Steele, the Dewdney Trail, etc. He is the son of Edgar Dewdney, a prominent lawyer in the city of Penticton. With Jim is Connie Squizotto. They are finishing up their first year of university and are heading back to Penticton. I'd like the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like the House to welcome the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mr. Wolfe's) brother in law, Mayor George Preston of Langley.

Oral Questions

NORTHEAST COAL DEVELOPMENT

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. The minister stated on March 26 of this year that the cost-benefit analysis of the northeast coal project was still in progress. Can the minister advise whether he is now able to table the cost-benefit analysis, or is that analysis still incomplete?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question I would like to inform him and the House that great progress is being made on this cost-benefit analysis study, and when it is complete, I'll be happy not only to table it in the House but to make it available to every man, woman and child in this great province of ours, if they so desire.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I take it then that the answer is that the cost-benefit analysis continues to be incomplete.

My second question is this: in view of the $1 per tonne reduction in the BCR freight rates, has he decided how this is going to be financed? Is it going to be financed by the province directly, by B.C. Rail, or by some other device he has in mind?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I think I have to draw the member for Coquitlam-Moody a picture, because as I explained to him several times in this House before and again last Thursday, the negotiations between the coal companies and the railway companies — both the Canadian National Railway and the British Columbia Railway — were carried on on a commercial basis. The $1 reduction is not necessarily what the member is trying to paint, because it was evident from the negotiations that went on that the railway companies, in dealing with the coal companies, naturally started off negotiating on a high freight rate — normal commercial negotiations — and when they went back to the bargaining table again, they found that they could indeed reduce the freight rate and still have a commercial and viable operation, whereby the freight rate then negotiated would indeed give both railways a profit for the movement of that coal from Tumbler Ridge to the port of Prince Rupert.

Mr. Speaker. I do hope that the member will get that firmly entrenched in his mind so that he understands that indeed these were commercial negotiations. I'd be happy to explain it to him again if the member so desires.

MR. LEGGATT: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that the incompleted cost-benefit analysis didn't deal at all with any projected losses for the BCR as a result of this. Did it deal with it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm almost at a loss to get that member to understand a few basic facts of life. Commercial

[ Page 5364 ]

negotiations took place between the coal companies and the British Columbia Railway and the Canadian National Railway. In those negotiations it was the responsibility of the railway negotiating team, both for the British Columbia Railway and the Canadian National Railway, to set a freight rate which would indeed pay for the cost of moving the coal and return a profit. That's what took place. That really has nothing to do with the provision of infrastructure. I hope the member understands that. Those are commercial negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to take up all the time in the Legislature this afternoon, so I won't get into talking about the surcharge and the cost of the Tumbler Ridge line. In history it's unheard of that we have a surcharge on a development railway line, but we have certainly negotiated that for the people of British Columbia so that the cost of that Tumbler Ridge branch line, which is a development railway to open up a vast new inland empire, is indeed going to be paid back by surcharge on the movement of coal — unheard of in the history of Canada and this province.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, now I'd like to ask the minister a question dealing directly with that and take him away from the freight rates for a minute and on to the question of the surcharge. The surcharge will generate revenues of $22.25 million a year based upon the contracted coal sales. In the government's own figures the capital cost of the Anzac spur line will be about $500 million. That requires an annual debt service payment of $75 million. Can the minister explain how the government is going to finance the annual gap of more than $50 million between the income from the surcharge and the debt service payment? Now that we're onto the railroad, tell us how you're going to find that $50 million a year.

MR. SPEAKER: This could be a very long answer, hon. member.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: First of all, let me tell you that the cost of building the Tumbler Ridge branch line — which it is now called because in railway terms it has to be called, at the destinations to the Anzac line.... I want to inform all members of the House that so far as I am concerned, it is indeed a good estimate because we have employed the best engineering brains that we could find in Canada.

MR. LEA: That's what we're worried about.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If the member for Prince Rupert wishes to put down the engineering skills that we have in this country when we export them to everywhere in the world to assist with major projects, let that be on that member's head. I know there was a great exodus of engineering skill when they were government because there was nothing to do in this province, and our engineers had to go elsewhere to seek employment.

Starting off from a base that we have indeed employed the best engineering skills we can find, the cost of the railway spur line in 1980 dollars is $310 million. It's anticipated that the government will put that money in, so we're not talking about interest. It shall be capitalized, my friend, Again, this member sitting opposite is talking about trying to have the developmental line paid for by the first two contracts. As I have explained before, at the present time there are other negotiations underway to sell additional tonnages from that area. It will be on that member and that party's heads when we show the true figures. History will prove that this is the greatest deal. There has been no other deal ever put together in the history of Canada or British Columbia where there have been so many guarantees and payback clauses, not only for the Anzac line but for all the infrastructure that we're building.

MR. LEGGATT: This question isn't about all those pie-in-the-sky contracts that are in the future. I want to ask the minister about the present contracts with Teck and Denison. Regarding those contracts — we're not sure they are contracts yet — what legal commitment has the minister received from Teck and Denison by the placing of a bond or by a firm written agreement — not by this exchange of valentines that he's had, but by a firm legal agreement — that Teck and Denison are going to commit their capital prior to the government making massive expenditures on the tunnel and the Anzac line?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to inform the member for Coquitlam-Moody that the taxpayers of this province are indeed well protected.

MR. LEGGATT: My last question to the minister is: will you now table your legal documents? Let's have a look at what your commitment is.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the last question, I will do so in due course.

MR. LEGGATT: That was not the question.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you mean he was making a speech, as usual.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the member would like to put the question more directly.

MR. LEGGATT: My question was: will the minister now table these legal documents that he says commit Teck and Denison to their expenditures in the coalfields so the rest of the House can examine them?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to answer the member by saying that there is nothing to hide in this deal. All the documents will be tabled in due course.

APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT
DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Attorney-General. Has the Attorney-General engaged the services of an Ian L. Jessiman, a lawyer with a practice of law in the city of Winnipeg in the province of Manitoba, to be assistant deputy minister in his department?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Jessiman was engaged to head the civil law section of the ministry many months ago.

MR. MACDONALD: Does Mr. Jessiman still have a law practice in Manitoba, and does he go back and forth to attend to that law practice while he's carrying out this work for the government of British Columbia?

[ Page 5365 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Before entering upon his duties with the ministry, Mr. Jessiman transferred his practice to others.

MR. MACDONALD: Do I take it the Attorney-General has told the House Mr. Jessiman is not going back and forth to Winnipeg to attend to that practice?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not telling the House that Mr. Jessiman does go back and forth to Winnipeg from time to time. His wife has been there. He was back just last week for the purpose of closing up his home before bringing his family to this province.

MR. MACDONALD: Will the Attorney-General advise the House what the terms of employment are, and whether there are any special allowances for relocation or travel expenses? Will he table the agreement with the House?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'll be happy to take the question as notice and make inquiries as to whether there are any special allowances. There are always allowances for relocation of employees.

JURISDICTION OF OMBUDSMAN

MR. MACDONALD: A different question to the Attorney-General, who on April 1, April Fool's Day, informed the House that the ombudsman had approached him and said that it wasn't his responsibility or jurisdiction to dictate to that honourable figure. When asked whether he had offered any opinion to the ombudsman as to whether the investigation into Gracie's Finger should proceed, he said no. When did the Attorney-General notify the ombudsman that he is in fact going to offer him legal opinions from his department?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I wonder if the member would be good enough to restate the question.

MR. MACDONALD: Has the Attorney-General advised the ombudsman that he is in fact going to have an opinion prepared by officials in his department and that he will make that available to the ombudsman?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: Is the Attorney-General obtaining legal opinions from his department with respect to the jurisdiction of the ombudsman in this matter?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to the jurisdiction of the ombudsman, he having advised me that he proposed to embark upon this inquiry, I am seeking opinions as to whether or not that is within his jurisdiction.

MR. MACDONALD: Why did the Attorney-General not come back to the House and inform us? So you're not going to offer these opinions to him at all, eh? Let me just ask you this. Why didn't you tell the ombudsman to get on with an investigation which was requested last summer, in 1980? Why are you looking for legal opinions on a matter which is solely within his jurisdiction? Are you not trying to stall the ombudsman?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer to the last part of the member's question is absolutely no. As the member well knows, the ombudsman will proceed upon such investigations as are before him, based upon such advice as he obtains. It is not the responsibility of the Attorney-General to give any advice to the ombudsman in this respect, and I don't intend to do so.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF THE
PROVINCIAL SECRETARY AND
GOVERNMENT SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 173: Government Employee Relations Bureau, $11,874,590.

MRS. DAILLY: Just before we adjourned the House on Friday, we had just come to this vote. It is a vitally important vote, with a lot of questions to be answered by the minister. In the official opposition we call this "the brass handshake vote." Never before have we seen government which has eliminated so many senior civil servants during their tenure of office. Top senior civil servants have disappeared. If that doesn't raise questions as to the competence of some of these cabinet ministers who are eliminating their senior civil servants right and left, the next question which comes to our mind is — and we have a responsibility on behalf of the taxpayers to ask this question — how much money and how many payoffs has this government made quietly in order to keep these people who leave from criticizing perhaps their ministers or the government per se?

One just has to look at some of the lists of the people who have gone. In the Ministry of Energy and the Utilities Commission, the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland) removed two top people from very important positions. We would like to know how much money this cost the taxpayer. Now I'm not asking the minister to say to us that this is the responsibility of each minister, because he is the Provincial Secretary. According to vote 173, there is a sum here of $9 million for other expenditures, so just to get the debate going today, I have two specific questions for that minister. First of all, would he tell us if the $9,300,000-odd which lists other expenditures has been used to create money to pay off some of these public servants? Secondly, would he give us some idea of the total sum of money that has gone through his ministry to reimburse these civil servants for whom — for whatever reason, possibly basic incompetence on the part of the different ministers in government — he has had to be responsible for seeing that they receive a sum of money; and without making any aspersions on the character of the people who have left, I want to simply ask the minister why so many people in top positions have left his government. Number two, how much money has been expended just in the last year alone on these settlements?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The major part of the code 90 or other expenditure appropriation in that vote is $9,363,000 to provide for the cost of benefits for licensed professionals, management appointments and other employees not covered

[ Page 5366 ]

under collective agreement. In other words, we have the established benefit program for management, for deputy ministers, for order-in-council appointments, and in addition to that, there is a small amount which is strictly contingency, to take care of other severances. I think the amount that you requested in this past year would be approximately $300,000 all told, including certain bargaining employees, including certain employees of the Energy Commission, and several others. In other words, I think it's to be expected when for one reason or another an employee is to leave early, that severance arrangements are only fair and reasonable, and that part of this arises due to reorganization — changes in policy where ministries are reorganized. So the answer to your question is: approximately $300,000 in the past year, and a small amount is provided in this $9 million figure I just mentioned for the coming year.

MR. MACDONALD: The chief coroner of the province of British Columbia was summarily fired — not requested to leave early, but summarily fired. So would this vote look after whatever lump sum will be paid to him? He was asked to go within a year of his appointment. Will this vote look after any lump-sum payment to Dr. William McArthur, the chief coroner who was given his walking papers?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I presume that's the case, yes.

MR. MACDONALD: In that case, has any figure been agreed upon?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised there is a figure which was arrived at, which included back pay as well as a severance arrangement for his departure.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Chairman, maybe the minister would give the figure to the House — the total cost of that dismissal.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm advised the figure would be $59,250.

MR. MACDONALD: So the chief coroner was presumably paid up to date and whatever.... I don't suppose he would have any pension by that time; he was in office for less than a year, I think. Would he have a pension in addition to that? Well, he may or may not have had a pension. What the minister is telling the House is that it cost the taxpayers of the province $59,000 to....

HON. MR. WOLFE: For back pay plus forward settlement.

MR. MACDONALD: For back pay?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Including back pay, yes.

MR. MACDONALD: How much was the back pay? Why would he not be paid as he went along?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Without the documents before me it's difficult to give this kind of information. What I mean by back pay is that the matter of his adjustment at a prior period had not been addressed, and that is included in this arrangement. In other words, he was due for an adjustment in pay at a prior date; that was incorporated in this final arrangement.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, can the minister say what the cost of the golden handshake was? How much did it cost to fire him? Was it $50,000? Maybe the $9,000 represented some adjustment that was still coming to him.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, it would be difficult to answer a question of that kind. On departure, anyone is owed what is normally viewed as so much time in lieu of severance, and that would be so many months at so much per month, I presume, depending on the term of his employment. There are certain rules that are followed in that regard, in addition to which there would be moneys owing to a particular employee due, as I explained, to an adjustment owed to him for a prior management adjustment which occurred on a certain date. So it would be difficult to answer the specific question you asked, except to say that a payment of $59,000-odd was made in this connection.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I don't understand why it should be difficult for the taxpayers to find out how much it cost for the blunder of either employing Dr. William McArthur in the first place, or firing him without any explanation being given as to why he was let go. Now I realize that it's not this minister's responsibility to explain why he was dismissed, but we've had a whole series of these senior civil servants who have been appointed and discharged. And that, you know, is a record of blundering in terms of proper management of the taxpayer's dollar. I can't believe, if $59,000 was presented in a cheque to Dr. William McArthur instead of the handshake or.... What do they usually get — a gold watch or something of that kind? I don't understand why the minister can't tell us what the lump-sum settlement was, because the fellow unquestionably said to the government: "I can't do anything about you firing me, but I've been wrongly fired and I want some money — a lump-sum settlement." Now how much was it?

This is only one in a whole series of people who've been ejected from the government and have come out and said: "You've treated me badly and I want a lump-sum settlement" — not something that he is entitled to in terms of severance pay or pension allowances or back adjustment on what he should have been receiving while he was working. What was the lump-sum settlement to Dr. McArthur? It sounds to me as if it was at least $50,000. But the minister should know, because that's the money of the province that we're paying for a blunder. It must be, when you hire somebody for less than a year for such a responsible job and then he comes in one day and finds somebody is in his office; he isn't even told beforehand that Mr. Galbraith is now occupying his office. That could happen to any of the ministers over there under this Premier — don't laugh — but that's a separate point. The point is that there was a lump sum settlement to Dr. William McArthur. I would like to know what it was.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I indicated the amount to the member. After all, one should appreciate that these amounts are sometimes arrived at between counsel for the parties, and my ministry is simply requested to disburse certain funds. It might be appropriate for you to ask such a question to the minister responsible. I could take direction from him on the matter. That is the amount we were requested to disburse. I

[ Page 5367 ]

might say as well that there are a number of amounts in this total code which are not for senior employees; they're more intermediate-level employees.

MR. HOWARD: It would seem to me, with respect, that the minister is coming to the committee and saying: "I want $9,360,000 this year to pay for a variety of things." Included therein is the question of severance pay for people who are fired. It should be incumbent on the minister having responsibility for this money — he's the one coming for the money, not the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) or any other minister — to have that information available to tell the general public what he, the minister, has been doing with that money. What's the breakdown of it? Can the minister give us the commitment that he'll find out how much the severance pay settlement was, how much the retroactive wages were and how much is in whatever other categories there are, so the general public will know what it cost them in settlement money to get rid of Dr. McArthur? If the minister doesn't have that at his fingertips, will he make a commitment to get it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 173 pass?

MR. HOWARD: Could I pose that question to the minister again? Will he make a commitment to the House that he'll find that information and that breakdown of what it costs and come back at a later date and tell us?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I seek your direction on this matter. With respect, Mr. Member, the reason I have difficulty with the question is that these matters are arrived at, as I say, between counsel. Weighing three or four different adjustments in the process, they arrive at a final figure. To state that so much was for back pay and so much was for forward pay or other particular adjustments is difficult. My ministry is simply directed to disburse the funds. I would presume that your question is more appropriately addressed to the Attorney-General. As I say, it is a consolidation of the factors I mentioned to arrive at the figure.

MR. HOWARD: I can't accept that. This minister is asking for the money. This ministry has paid out the money. It's like a blank cheque. I'll tell you what the Attorney-General will answer if we wait until that period of time. He'll say: "Oh, that's a private matter" — as he said publicly — "and nothing to do with the general public's interest." Obviously the minister just isn't interested enough in the affairs of his department to question when somebody comes along to him and says he wants $59,000 because he's getting rid of somebody who shouldn't have been there in the first place or is being fired for whatever reason. The minister should not ask this House for the authority to write cheques without questioning the reason.

With respect to the former comptroller-general who was squeezed out of office — Lionel Bonnell — could the minister tell us what settlement was made?

HON. MR. WOLFE: That particular item is not included in this vote. Being a so-called consent judgment, it would be in another ministry, namely the Attorney-General's.

MR. HOWARD: So some people who are canned are covered by your ministry, and others are not.

HON. MR. WOLFE: By court judgment.

MR. HOWARD: In any event the money to pay them comes from somebody else. That's what I'm getting at. How about Harry Swain, the B.C. energy policy planner, who was let go as well? Was any money paid to him, and how much?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, we have no record of a settlement in terms of that particular name during the past year. I am referring to those disbursements made during the year 1980-81.

MR. HOWARD: How about Norman Gish, a former energy commissioner, or John Kelly, former head of the Treasury Board staff?

HON. MR. WOLFE: It might be more beneficial to the committee were the member to put a question of that kind in the order paper, but I have an amount of $48,000 disbursed on behalf of Mr. Gish during the past year.

What was the other name you mentioned, Mr. Member?

MR. HOWARD: Mr. John Kelly, who was head of Treasury Board staff.

HON. MR. WOLFE: He is not on last year's list.

MR. HOWARD: Do I understand the minister to say that he doesn't know anything about John Kelly, the former head of Treasury Board staff, either?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No. I can only respond by saying that there was no disbursement in the particular vote that you're referring to on behalf of that employee.

MR. HOWARD: I suppose there is no sense in going any further. You know, the pattern is clear. People are removed from office for incompetence — assumed incompetence on the part of whatever ministry it is: perhaps some are removed from office for political reasons. It costs the taxpayers who knows how much money because of inappropriate action on the part of a particular ministry. The minister comes forward to us and says he wants $9 million as a total lump sum for "others," whatever "others" is. It apparently encompasses everything. Ninety percent of this vote is in this "others" category for such things as "grievance settlements," "grievance arbitration," "rights disputes," "severance pay," and other personnel related settlement issues. He is not able to provide the general public with any indication — except in a few instances, as he did with Dr. McArthur — of a breakdown as to what happened to the money in the past and what he is going to do with it in the future. I think that's a very inappropriate way to approach the estimates — asking the general public for a blank cheque to the extent of some $9 million, being virtually 90 percent of the total budgetary item for the Government Employee Relations Bureau.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I think the member is misunderstanding what I explained earlier. The amount provided in code 90, which amounts to $9.3 million, for "severance payments" is roughly $300,000. I've answered the questions you've asked with regard to the amounts for individual employees. I'm trying to be helpful to the member. The balance of that appropriation, which is the major

[ Page 5368 ]

reason for it, is to provide for the cost of benefits for licensed professionals, management appointments and other employees who are not covered by the collective agreement. These include, for instance, the licensed professionals benefit plan, which provides for 7 percent of their salary in lieu of overtime and other matters; the established benefit plan for some 2,257 management employees, which provides for an average of 10 percent; the policy for deputy ministers is the same, with the extra-benefit provision at 15 percent; and order-in-council have an average of 10 percent. The net total of those amounts and the provisions I've mentioned is somewhere in the area of $9 million. The severance provision, which is an estimate and a contingency, is provided for in addition to that included in the vote.

MR. HOWARD: I didn't misunderstand what the minister said in the first instance. In fact I wrote down the $300,000 as encompassing these other items. What I'm getting at is that it seems inappropriate to lump all this together in an amount of $9 million. That's all I'm getting at. You could find some other code. You know you can separate office furniture and equipment, for argument's sake, quite readily. In a vote of this magnitude and nature, can't you separate it into its component parts? If you need to set up another code, set up another code.

What the minister really is doing is coming and saying: "I want a blank cheque for $9 million, and I'll give you some general information as to what it's going to be used for." It'll be used for extraordinary benefits to guys like Doug Heal and fellows like him. He's an order-in-council appointment. He's a deputy minister. He's not in the collective agreement structure. We may find out a year and a half from now, after the public accounts for that year are settled.

Going to the year 1980-81, I ask the minister how much of the amount asked for last year out of the vote for the Government Employee Relations Bureau has been expended to the end of the fiscal year of March 31, 1981.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Do you mean the whole vote?

MR. HOWARD: In the whole vote, and if you want to break it down with your "others" categories as a separate item, that's fine.

HON. MR. WOLFE: We do not have that figure at this time. The year end is, of course, March 31. The close-off figures for the year end for any given vote wouldn't be available to us at this point.

MR. HOWARD: The Ministry of Agriculture had the year-end figures of March 31, 1981, with respect to items under his vote. Do you mean that you're less efficient than the Ministry of Agriculture? He dragged them out and told us what the year-end expenditures were to the end of March 31, 1981. I assumed that all ministries were operating at the same speed. Obviously not.

For the ten months ending January 31, 1981 — those were the figures which were provided to the public — out of the vote last year of $10,331,745, the expenditure was $4,900,000. There were two months left in the fiscal year — February and March. If the minister expected to reach the allocation — I'm not trying to suggest that he be a spendthrift in this regard just to do it — he'd have to have spent more in the last two months of the fiscal year than was spent in the previous ten months of that fiscal year. That's all I'm trying to get to. Can one normally take that ten-month figure, take one-fifth of it, add that to it and get what might be an expected year-end expenditure?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm told that the cash flow on that vote, in particular the one having to do with other expenditures, takes place largely between November and March. It doesn't flow in the earlier months of the year. The payments are for concluding arrangements for employee benefits and so on. You understand that in the case of management employees, the established benefit-package plan is a cafeteria-style purchase that the employee makes with certain options. If I'm correctly advised, he chooses this option and the arrangement is finalized once a year. Those three plans I referred to earlier are finalized between the months of November and March. That is why cash flow appears low through the first ten months of the year.

MR. HOWARD: "Cafeteria style" is a beautiful way to put it forward. There's a lump sum of money — take it whichever way you want. I can understand that.

If the minister would take this as a thought and suggestion — you can't do it now as you obviously haven't got your figures or the breakdown available and other ministers don't tell you what they're doing; they just want lump sum money — I think it would be most appropriate for the minister who has to pay the money out to ask for an accounting from those other ministries of what the lump sum payment is, just to protect himself. So the general public will be able to find out from one source what the $59,000 to Dr. McArthur means. His salary was $47,000 a year, and he got a settlement package of $59,000. Even if you take $12,000 off that for retroactive wages and whatever, the settlement with him was for a full year's salary, all because the Attorney-General doesn't know how to handle affairs in his department. This minister is stuck with that and being unable to provide adequate information to the committee. I would suggest that you do that in the future.

I'd also suggest that you take another look at that code 90 thing and have a bit better breakdown of it than just the bald figure here of $9 million for something called "other expenditure," regardless of the fact that the rationale and explanation for it may make sense. It doesn't make sense when you look at it and read it.

MR. LEVI: In the 1979-80 Public Accounts there is an item on page 266 which reads: "Advanced Management Research International Inc." — AMR — and the amount of money attached to it as an expenditure is $23,645. In this vote the description part of the estimates book says: "This vote provides for staff support to the Treasury Board by developing personnel management policies and practices." This group, Advanced Management Research, is a company which operates out of the United States, and they come to British Columbia and run a number of courses. For instance, in 1978 they ran a course called "strategies for preserving non-union status."

I guess the first thing I should find out is: did this expenditure take place within your ministry? If it didn't, then we'll have to ask somebody else. Can the minister assist me, Mr. Chairman?

[ Page 5369 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm advised that that expenditure did not take place under vote 173. I could make an effort to advise the member where expenditure took place. I presume he's referring to a list of expenditures made in the alphabetical listings of Public Accounts. But it's not in this vote, and I'm not able to inform him where it did take place.

MR. LEVI: Is the minister suggesting that he did engage this corporation but he's not sure how it was paid, or that he didn't engage them? That's one of the things we need to find out, because if he didn't deal with it, then presumably we'll have to go to another ministry.

The kind of work the group does is very much related to personnel matters. It also has a reputation as being a union-busting operation. They advise people how to stay non-union, and they also offer other advice about the problems that you have with unions.

Because we're dealing with the vote for GERB — the Government Employee Relations Bureau — which deals with all those kinds of matters, I would remind the minister that about two years ago we had some problem with the former Minister of Labour, who was soliciting information about right-to-work legislation. I recall he wrote a number of letters which were made available and read in this House.

This is not a small amount of money, and it's not an insignificant project. I'm sure the minister or his staff would remember, because this group is a little bit controversial. They're not by any means your average management consultant firm; they specialize in something very specific. If we can be reasonably sure it's not under this vote, then we'll leave it.

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, it isn't.

MR. LEVI: The minister advises it's not, so we'll leave it and find out where it is.

MR. KING: Further to this issue, Mr. Chairman, you can appreciate that the opposition has a problem. Unless we receive some advice from the Provincial Secretary as to precisely which ministry or agency of government made this expenditure, we have no way of knowing under whose aegis to raise it in the estimates. I'm very concerned about this particular expenditure, and I wish to devote some time to examining the kind of services this particular company puts forward. I would think the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) would be particularly interested too, because on the basis of the documents I have at hand advertising the services this particular company offers, I suggest that if they do not breach the unfair practices section of the Labour Code, they certainly come perilously close to it. Perusal of the language used indicates very clearly that it's in conflict with the unfair labour practices section of the Labour Code of British Columbia.

I think the opposition has a right to know what agency of government retained this corporation, and for what precise purpose. The expenditure is in the neighbourhood of $23,000, and I'm very concerned. Before I let the Provincial Secretary off the hook, I want to know precisely where we're turning to. I have to assume, since the Provincial Secretary is responsible for industrial relations within the government apparatus, that it must be in some way related to either his ministry or one of the agencies functioning under the authority of his ministry. Was it GERB that retained this corporation? Can the minister indicate that?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I've just said no.

MR. KING: It's definitely not GERB?

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's right.

MR. KING: Are you sure that it was no other agency dealing with the relationship between the government employees' union and any agency of government?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'd like to be helpful to the member. What I have said is that there is no expenditure in this vote for that firm or whatever service was being rendered. I have no information on what it was spent for, or anything else in order to assist you. I just want to be clear. In other words, there has been no expenditure under GERB for this particular service, whatever it may be. It might be appropriate to suggest to this member, Mr. Chairman, that he direct this question to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who has responsibility to the comptroller in the allocation of accounts and who might give him information on where the expenditures were made. I presume the expenditure in Public Accounts would also relate to the previous year, would it not?

MR. LEVI: To 1979-80.

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's right.

MR. KING: I thank the minister for his advice. As I understand it, the Minister of Finance would be responsible for the total vouchers paid out. In that sense, it could be raised under consideration of his estimates, rather than the opposition having to get up and raise this with every ministry until by a process of elimination we come up with the culprit, as it were. If we can defer this until the estimates of the Minister of Finance, which presumably might come up sometime, then we'll get at it. Thank you so much.

MRS. DAILLY: Just before we wind up discussion on this particular vote, I want to recap for the opposition that we're not satisfied with answers on the tremendous number of settlements that have been made through that minister's office to make payments to senior civil servants who have been relieved of their positions with no explanation given to the public, unless it was a political move, which the Minister of Energy (Hon. McClelland) obviously indulged in — if he was responsible at the time for being minister; I'm not sure — when the Energy Commission people were removed. We have no explanation. The people of B.C. don't know why these people — many of them esteemed senior civil servants — were removed. I can think of Dr. Bonham, whom I had the pleasure of working with when I was on the Metropolitan Board of Health for the metropolitan area. He's a very respected man. Suddenly we find out that he's removed from his position.

We can't hold that minister responsible for their removal, but we have to hold him responsible for paying out the money and not being able to tell this committee what he actually paid out. When we take up the votes on the individual ministers — some of whom have been known for eliminating some of their top senior servants — we definitely intend to ask those ministers to tell the public of B.C. why these people were removed. We do not believe that there should be any behind the-doors, secret negotiations and settlements. You're not dealing with your own money.

[ Page 5370 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Do it on TV like you did with Bremer.

MRS. DAILLY: One thing about it, Mr. Chairman — I knew that the Minister of Energy would like to get into this. At least the public of B.C. knew how much money was expended by the NDP on that particular settlement.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: We don't have to buy prime time to cover up our weaknesses in our portfolios.

The point is that this government has a record of removing many respected civil servants. What we're asking for is information. It hasn't come. The minister in charge of the Provincial Secretary has said: "Ask the minister, and he or she will tell you."

So, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to leave it at that. We intend to take his advice and ask those ministers who are responsible to give us the information. We hope if — heaven forbid — we're all sitting in the same position next time around that the Provincial Secretary will give us more definitive answers on these questions. Therefore, because we do not have any explanation of the actual amount of money paid, because in looking through this vote we notice an unnecessary increase in travel and office expenses and because we do not yet know the total sum of taxpayers' dollars spent to make up for the blunders of some of the Social Credit cabinet ministers — without meaning to reduce the normal benefits that come to the civil servants — we are still not satisfied with the final vote and travel expense increases. Therefore I move that vote 173 be reduced by $1,072,664, because we feel that well over half a million dollars has been spent this year in paying senior civil servants who have been removed, and we have no idea how much was paid in the past.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 26

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 173 approved.

On vote 174: Public Service Commission administration, $4,042,381.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, before Social Credit assumed office in 1975, I recall that one of the things they kept talking about during their campaign was hitting on the fact that they would reduce the number of public servants on the payroll. Despite the defence made by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) in discussing and showing the figures on public servants last Friday, it's very interesting to note that the Social Credit government is following exactly what the old Social Credit government did to make their figures of more employees not look quite what is factual. They are once more following the policy of keeping on auxiliary employees instead of putting them on as full-time workers after six months. Because of this, in the last four years the percentage of auxiliary employees under the Social Credit government has more than doubled, from 13.2 percent to 26 percent.

Mr. Chairman, that again is an attempt to fool the public of British Columbia. They want to go out on the platform in the coming election and suggest that they have kept the public servants down to a very minimal level, not like that terrible NDP. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, and I want to repeat this, that they have increased the number of auxiliary employees on their payroll. It has more than doubled, from 13.2 percent to 26.5 percent, in the last four years.

These are the facts and figures, Mr. Chairman, that will be brought out. I don't think the public is going to be fooled by that attempt of the Social Credit government to try to be hypocritical in their stance on the number of public servants under their jurisdiction. This is a wide area, and there are many things to discuss in it under public service. I know that the minister has had a chance to meet with the union and that they presented a brief, so I certainly am not going to go through the details of that brief with him. I simply would like to know if he is going to reconsider the present policy of keeping so many people who have been on the job for six months, full-time public servants in this province.... Is it your policy to continue the trend and keep them as auxiliary instead of placing them as full-time?

I have one more question to the minister in this particular area. I wonder if the minister can tell us if he has a complete and full commitment to the concept of equal pay for work of equal value. We know that there is one area which can set the right precedent for the hiring of women without any discrimination, and that is the public service. That minister can do much for the women of B.C. If he gives this commitment. To date the facts don't seem to show that the women of B.C. are getting too much leadership, although I know the minister in his earlier statements did say that he had an understanding of the need for equal pay for work of equal value. I would like to know if the minister can really back it up with some very specific facts since he assumed his portfolio. I think the minister is aware that the current policy of posting government jobs for out-of-service as well as in-service applicants tends to effectively bypass many qualified female employees for the higher-paid positions in favour of male applicants with less knowledge of the job. That is a current policy which we feel tends to discriminate against women who are quite capable of doing the work within the public service. What we're saying is we'd like to hear from him and from his

[ Page 5371 ]

government. We'd like a full commitment to equality of women in the public service. This commitment would include provisions for training clerical employees who indicate an interest in applying for entry-level positions in other classifications. I know the minister knows what I'm talking about; he's met with the union with their brief. I understand that the union has been asking for a reply no later than April 30. My final question is: has the minister replied to their brief?

HON. MR. WOLFE: In reply to the last question concerning the recent brief from the B.C. Government Employees Union, I have activated a committee having to do with that. I have indicated as recently as this morning to Mr. Richards, president of the union, that I will be responding to that brief later this week — as soon as my estimates have been concluded. I did meet with the union in receiving the brief and have gone over a number of other matters. I have staff members of GERB and the Public Service Commission studying it in the meantime. I have indicated to them that I will be responding in the very near future.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member brings up the question of growth in the public service and indicates that we are trying to cloud this growth by having new employees hired as temporaries and therefore not revealing the growth in the public service. This distorts the picture, because in actual fact all of the records of the Public Service Commission as reported through their annual report include both permanent and temporaries. Also if the member would study the answer to question 26 on the order paper of this session, in which the member for North Vancouver–Seymour asks the specific question of the total number of people in service of the government plus the total number of people in service with the Crown corporations, she will discover that the growth in a five-year period in the total numbers of Crown corporation plus public service employees is only 7.9 percent in five years. That's roughly an average of 1.5 percent growth in all of the Crown corporations plus public service employees in that period of time. In the earlier period, as you well know, this government placed a great deal of emphasis on the control of the growth.

There was absolutely no growth in the first year and very modest growth in the second year. With the advent of new programs, it's literally impossible to have this happen and not have to be providing staff backup in support of this. In comparison to any other jurisdiction in Canada, you'll find that that degree of growth is very modest. It indicates the control which Treasury Board and this government have exercised in terms of growth in the public service which is 7.9 percent of the total number in a five-year period. In 1976 there were 57,105 employees in Crown corporations and the government. At the end of March 1981 that figure was 61,650 employees. That's an increase of 4,545 employees in a five-year period, or 7.9 percent.

Does the inclusion of temporaries have any impact on that? The answer is no. In answer to that allegation, there has been an increase in the number of temporaries in the most recent annual report. I recognize this. I'd like to explain that Treasury Board, in two periods that I know of, have placed a great deal of energy into analyzing, reviewing and adjusting the number of temporaries, which would really be more appropriately taken in as permanent. That particular process is taking place right now, again. Periodically we do address that question.

It's not possible to have no temporaries, There are many cases in the public service with a need for temporary employees, yet there are other cases where once having been here some length of time on a quasi-permanent basis, they should be placed on the permanent establishment. That's being recognized and studied by Treasury Board. This is not a case of deluding anybody at all on the numbers. I think the member realizes this. It's simply a case of the matter having to come under review of Treasury Board periodically, which is being done now.

The last question has to do with the advancement opportunities report — the quality of opportunities for women and others in the public service. As the members here in the committee at the moment will remember, that report was generated through the B.C. Government Employees Union and other organizations with the cooperation of the government. The cabinet have endorsed that report and have introduced the major aspects of it.

Its accent is on trying to provide better access to particular senior staff positions for women and others in the public service through means of education and training, the creation of bridge positions and exchange programs, and basically through the improvement of recruitment and selection methods. It's a fact of life that many women do not apply for a great many positions, but there certainly is an apparent anomaly in terms of the numbers in senior positions. We are in accord with the report. We've acted on it. We're monitoring what the public service is trying to do to try to implement the measures indicated.

MR. HANSON: One of the Provincial Secretary's responsibilities is to preside over the accident prevention branch of the provincial government. Some time ago I pointed out that the accident severity rate amongst government employees has increased markedly over the last year or so. The government is a dangerous place to work. The minister stood up a little later and gave a response that in actual fact committees had been set up and many things were being undertaken to alleviate the problem. I just want to pursue the matter a little further today.

The Ministry of Transportation and Highways had a target of 638 for the 12-month period ending August 1979. The severity ended up at 1.643. This is a formula where the Public Service Commission rates a severity rate through the time loss and so on. The target was 638, and they ended up with 1,643 — it deteriorated 157 percent. When the minister responded, he said there had been a number of deaths in the public service, which there have been. I would like to draw to the attention of the House today the details of one of those incidents where a government employee died, an employee on the centre-line crew for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways in Fort St. John. The reason I'm raising this is because I wanted to ask the Provincial Secretary to take the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) aside and take the necessary action to make sure this kind of accident never happens again.

At dusk on October 9, 1980, a young man by the name of A.D. Brummer of Fort St. John is working on a centre-line crew. They've finished painting the lines on the highway and he's recovering the plastic cones that are left to point out to drivers not to drive on the white line until it dries. He is lying on the back of a flat-deck truck at dusk in the fall. The flatdeck truck is rear-ended by an impaired driver and Mr. Brummer is thrown into the oncoming lane, run over and

[ Page 5372 ]

killed. My question to the minister is: why was this kind of activity being done at night? Why was there not some kind of flagging car all lit up like a Christmas tree following the centre-line crew? That's one of the deaths that has resulted in the increase in the severity of the highways death rate. Will the minister advise me when he will get back to the House and advise us what steps the Minister of Transportation and Highways will take to ensure that never again will a centre-line crew have to pick up those plastic cones on a highway without a follow-up car? That is outrageous.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: There's a coroner's report if the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) would like to read it.

There is a policy of the provincial government. I stand on the side of safety, Mr. Member. In the provincial government there appears to be a policy which may be contributing to a lack of safety in the air transport policy. The air transport policy is that when the provincial government wants passengers, employees or goods delivered to a particular location to perform a job, the government will only pay upon delivery of those people or goods. There are many small airlines in British Columbia that, when faced with the prospect of flying and delivering personnel or goods where the weather conditions involve an element of risk, are sometimes motivated to fly when they probably shouldn't be. In other words, what I'm saying to you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, is that the policy should be that if the weather conditions are such that in the pilot's judgment it is unsafe to deliver those public employees or goods to their destination, there should be some payment made to the airline — in other words, a disincentive to take a risk. There have been a number of government employees killed in air crashes in the last year. My information is that some of these small airlines are flying when the weather conditions involve some risk. I would ask the Provincial Secretary to meet with the Minister of Transportation and Highways and discuss the general policy of air transport, the way contracts are let for the delivery of personnel, and to review any coroner's reports with recommendations vis-à-vis airport transport policy and the movement of government employees in this province.

I mention to the member for North Peace River that we want government employees' working conditions to be safe. We don't want the provincial government and the Crown corporations to have to spend $7.3 million a year in compensation payments for injuries.

I have another proposal. The provincial government enjoys a different status from any private sector company as it relates to compensation and its role with the WCB. For example, in the private sector private companies pay according to the penalty assigned to their particular sector category. The provincial government is in a pay-as-you-go situation. They pay for specific injuries, and for time loss for individual employees according to each accident. They are not assessed according to a sector assessment where there is an incentive to make the conditions safer under which provincial employees work. My proposal to the minister is that the provincial government should have a rating just the same as any private sector category in the WCB schedule. They should be assessed a penalty based on the previous year's performance. In other words, there would be an incentive to make the situation safer for individual ministries and Crown corporations. It is not fair to go on a pay-as-you-go basis for health care. There must be plans to make the workplace safe.

I don't expect the minister to stand in his place today and give me reports on individual ministries that he is not familiar with on a day-to-day basis, but I would like him to take under advisement my suggestions: (1) on the Highways policy as it relates to centre-line crew safety; (2) that the air policy be assessed as it relates to small air carriers; (3) that the assessment for government be the same as it is in the private sector; and (4) for review of hospitals.

Many people would be shocked to know that there are as many back injuries in hospitals in British Columbia as there are in sawmills. A hospital is a very dangerous place to work in terms of back injuries. There is nothing more difficult for a person to lift than another human being, particularly in the institutions that the provincial government is involved with regarding people who are retarded, disabled, injured and so on. There is nothing more unpredictable for a person to lift than another individual, particularly a person who is ill. So I would like the minister to take under advisement the terrible situation that we have in the hospitals where they have an extremely high rate of injuries to backs. As the employees in those hospitals get older, they obviously become less able to lift other people. As we get older, we are less able to do heavy work lifting human beings. There has to be increased staffing. There has to be rotation on the wards so that younger people can assist the older employees in the lifting,

Those are constructive, positive suggestions to the minister regarding a very serious situation of accident rates in the public service. I would like some advisement from him on that.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I can only say to the member that I appreciate his research, observations and input in terms of safety improvements. The ministry will address ourselves to that. We raised the matter of the most unfortunate Ministry of Highways accident before. At that time there was concern over the variance requests by ministries having to do with Workers' Compensation Board regulations. I indicated that these variance requests are few in number and undergo the scrutiny of the compensation board and consultation with union and management representatives before they are considered. Notwithstanding this, I am in the process of asking that variance requests to the Workers' Compensation Board by any ministry be submitted to me so that I may be kept up to date and informed on such requests.

I'm sure the member means well in these observations he's making. In terms of air transport, as he is aware, in flying under hazardous conditions pilots make the decision on when they're able or not able to fly and whether they're below or above ceiling. It's inevitably a pilot's decision at any given point in time. He suggests that there should be some disincentive to sending material of this kind when the weather is inappropriate.

His observation on the experience rating that should be adopted for workers' compensation and the way in which the government pays its premium for workers' compensation is rather interesting. I can certainly look into some of these requests.

MS. BROWN: I want to go back to the minister's statement about having implemented some of the recommendations in the equal employment opportunities committee report and ask him a couple of specific questions about these implementations. First of all, when the first report came out in 1977 we were told that there was going to be a regular

[ Page 5373 ]

monitoring and updating of the public service. The last one that we received was in 1979. I wonder if the minister would let us know approximately when we can anticipate receiving the latest update. Or is there one? The last one that I have is 1979, but possibly there has been one since then. If so, I would appreciate if the minister would share the latest information with me.

However, in the event that there has not been a report since then, I want to ask the minister a number of specific questions. I would appreciate specific rather than general replies. The first question that I would like to ask the minister is: is it still true that most of the females in the civil service are still concentrated in the ministries of Human Resources, Health, and Consumer and Corporate Affairs? Can he answer yes or no? Also, are something between 60 percent to 70 percent of the women employed in the civil service still in these three ministries?

HON. MR. WOLFE: What were the three again?

MS. BROWN: Human Resources, Health, and Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I know that the Attorney-General was included in 1977, but I don't know if that's still true in 1979.

The second question is: is it still true that there are occupational group categories in which there are no females employed whatsoever, as was the case in 1979? They included things like operational services, equipment maintenance, stationary engineers, firefighting, general labour, marine services, ship's officers and that kind of thing. Does that category still exist? Are there still areas in the civil service in which there are no female employees?

The third question I'd like to ask is: are the statistics pretty much the same as they were in 1979 for the executive occupational category, which was males 83.3 percent and females 16.6 percent; management, 83.7 percent in one instance, 98.9 percent in the other instance; 93.0 percent for males and 16.2 percent, 1 percent and 6.9 percent for females? If the government has been implementing the recommendations of the report, as the minister assured us, these statistics should have altered by now. Is it still true that only in five ministries are there women employed at the management level?

My fourth question is: is it still true that among deputy ministers, associate deputies and assistant deputies there are still only two females employed, one the Auditor-General and the other a public service commissioner? Or has that situation been altered?

HON. MR. WOLFE: What about the Ministry of Health?

MS. BROWN: I'm asking these questions because I have not received the latest up-to-date audit. That's why I'm asking the minister if he would respond. Is it still true, Mr. Minister, that 83 percent of the people earning over $15,000 are male, which means that something in the area of 17 percent of civil servants would be female? The minister spoke about dealing with the barriers to upward mobility, and I wonder whether he would elaborate on that. A major recommendation of this report was that there would be a need to examine, define and remove the barriers to upward mobility of women in the public service, and a need for greater representation for qualified women at the decision-making level. I wonder if the minister would elaborate, because he said that that was one of the recommendations which the government had implemented.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The member asked a number of detailed questions having to do with the present status of the information provided in a 1979 report. There is no new report or update on that at this moment, although it is presently being updated. What I would undertake to do is to examine the specific questions — such as whether there is any group or category with no female employees or whether it is still the case that most of the female employees are presently employed in Human Resources, Health, and Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and other questions such as these — and perhaps I could get back to her later, I will have a record of these questions here, and I will endeavour to provide the information if I can. She wanted further elaboration on the barrier to advancement which might exist. I think the best answer I can give to that would be that what we are really talking about here are primarily attitudinal barriers primarily, and the provision of proper training, because there are a great many jobs that women and other employees simply do not aspire to or are not interested in. So in any given case of a position being open, there are sometimes very few female applicants. I don't know what the member has in mind with that other question, but perhaps she would like to elaborate on it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, maybe I could assist the minister. If he would be willing to share the computer printout on the civil service with me, I would be able to do the research myself. I can find it.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It doesn't show it in there.

MS. BROWN: Well, how about if the minister gives me a chance to, look for it? If the minister is willing to share the computer printout on the civil service with me, I can pull out of it the answers to these questions which I have put to him. It is possible to do it if one has the computer printout. Now I don't know whether that printout is confidential or not, but if the minister wants to do the research for me, that's fine. In the spirit of assisting, I would be very happy to do it myself, if he is willing to share the computer printout with me. The other statement about the attitude of the women themselves in the civil service is not a correct one. As a matter of fact, the report stated that it was the attitude of the civil service towards....

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's what I'm saying.

MS. BROWN: It's not the women themselves not applying. Okay, fair enough. but I would appreciate getting the 1979 computer printout, and I can do the research myself.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll get you whatever information I can.

MS. BROWN: Thank you.

MR. BARBER: In 1976 and 1977, I was involved in organizing what became the first-ever conference on industrial democracy in British Columbia. We invited approximately 150 persons to attend this conference. We held it at the University of Victoria, and it ran almost three days. We had roughly 50 persons each from management and from labour, and the remaining 50-odd seats were reserved for the general public. We were supported in this financially by the

[ Page 5374 ]

provincial and federal Ministries of Labour, by business, and by trade union groups.

One of the important conclusions reached at this seminar was the necessity to experiment in the public service with the forms and features of industrial democracy or worker participation or code-determinism. The label varies from place to place, the label varies from experience to experience, but by and large the principle is the same, and it is this: workers have a right to be heard and respected and to have a voice in the administration of their own affairs at the workplace, as much as they do at the ballot box. What our seminar concluded in part was that there are a number of specific and historical reasons why private enterprise and private enterprise unions are skeptical and suspicious and concerned about the introduction of industrial democracy in their sector of the economy. Those reasons include such matters as monopolies, patents, licences, and trade and business secrets. They include such concerns on the part of management as that a trade unionist who sits on the board of directors of two competing companies representing the same union might in some fashion be indiscreet. Management and labour both — concerned, I suppose, about some kind of co-option, some form of undermining of their traditional authority — have been deeply skeptical and, to say the least, not terribly supportive in most sectors save one — and that is the forest industry in British Columbia — in experimenting in worker participation. However, it's different in the public sector, and it's this specific address that I put to the Provincial Secretary.

It's different in the public sector because it's a bit hard, I think, to plausibly and credibly make the case that the demon capitalists are out to get you, if you decide to participate with the bosses in running the company, when the company is after all owned by the workers. I'm referring, of course, to Crown corporations and the several agencies of the government administered indirectly by vote 174. It's a bit difficult to believe in the usual and I think not very helpful ideologies of the past that blind and blinker us and deny the possibility of original thinking, when you realize that the owners of these Crown corporations and agencies of the government are, of course, the workers themselves. It could not rationally be argued that they are in danger of co-opting themselves.

Similarly, in the instance of the public sector, management has some difficulty maintaining that it has trade secrets to protect and therefore can't trust trade unionists on its board of directors. It is equally difficult for management to argue that they have some position in the marketplace that has to be protected against those dangerous trade unionists, who might spill some beans.

Clearly, Mr. Chairman, precisely because those historical preconditions do not exist and cannot apply in the public sector, it seems opportune to use the public sector as the first testing ground for the new forms and features of worker participation in management in British Columbia. At that conference we looked, for instance, at the possibility of approaching the provincial and the municipal governments of this province and making specific proposals to them. One of them had a very happy and direct result, at least in some measure. The then Minister of Health frowned on it, but happily the board of directors of Victoria General Hospital proposed to include workers on the board in any case. They established a committee to meet with the Hospital Employees Union and other organized representatives of working persons in the employ of Victoria General Hospital, and they sat down and between them hammered out an agreement for worker participation on the board. Now, it's regretful that the Minister of Health decided against the whole of the proposal made by the board, but nonetheless it was a useful precedent; it was an important illustration and a clear demonstration of the way in which in this particular sector of the public economy — to wit, a public hospital — workers and management together realized that it might be possible to run the institution in a more humane and efficient manner if they met under the same roof for the same and common purposes. They further argued that if they met away from the heat, duress and conflict of the usual process of labour management bargaining, and instead met year-round on the other equally important issues of decent and civil hospital administration, it might turn out to be a better deal for all concerned — not the least of which, of course, is the patient.

The board of directors of Victoria General took an important step forward, and I congratulate them; I observed that it was a direct result of their individual participation at this conference. I think it is now time to call on the Public Service Commission to consider the same responsible role. It's time to argue in this Legislature that the government has a role to take the initiative, to brave the fire, to tough it out and to be willing to experiment in the public sector in new forms, new aspects and new regimes of worker participation.

Most people in British Columbia are sick and tired of strikes and lockouts; most people in this province understand the necessity for them but regret the fact of them. Most people in this province would be delighted to develop a more mature and sophisticated system of resolving labour management disputes than the one currently in place. That certainly applies in the public sector as well.

I mentioned before, Mr. Chairman, that there is one private enterprise sector of our economy where significant interest has been shown by both principal partners in developing new forms of worker participation year-round — away from the bargaining table, directed toward new and more mature approaches. It is the forest industry, which, starting at meetings three years ago, began to hammer out between forest industrial relations and the IWA the possibility of a jointly funded study, within the forest industry of this province, of such new mechanisms and systems of worker participation as might benefit both parties without compromising either. If the forest industry, to its credit — union and management both — is prepared to have the guts, do the thinking and assume the responsibility to consider that just maybe we've got something to learn from the clearly more successful experience in Western Europe of industrial democracy, then it's long overdue that the provincial government assume the same courage and accept the same duty here in this province. It's in the interests of every citizen that ways be found to reduce the necessity for lockouts and strikes and, especially in the public sector, that we can demonstrate to the taxpayers that we in this House are taking such steps to guarantee the most efficient, fair, decent and humane use of all the instruments, attributes and programs of public enterprise as administered by the Crown.

Today I specifically ask the Public Service Commission to hold an inquiry of its own into the new forms and features of industrial democracy as they might come to apply within the public service of British Columbia. I ask the minister to accept responsibility to direct the Public Service Commission to commence such a study at the earliest opportunity. I advise him that there are many people both in labour and management, and many more people in the academic world,

[ Page 5375 ]

as well, who would, I am certain, be willing to assist and participate in such a study as much as they possibly could. As I say, we have the names of 150-plus people who attended our seminar and called upon the committee which organized it to continue its work across British Columbia as best it could. As one of the organizers of that committee, I do so today. I ask the minister to be prepared to commit some of the staff time, research, homework and documentation necessary, and principally the example requisite to start considering the possibility that workers in British Columbia's public service have a right and a role in the administration of the public service itself.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

Let me offer a very practical and simple example. I recall that in 1977 the then Minister of Transportation, Mr. Davis, when organizing the B.C. Ferry Corporation, announced that two places would be left vacant on the board of directors in order that workers themselves might occupy those places whenever that might be arranged. I remember standing up in the Legislature and giving him credit for doing that, because it's a hard thing to do. It has not yet come to pass. There are a number of reasons for that, and I won't go into them at the moment. I will observe, though, that at least one member of the cabinet then had the courage to realize that in this particular Crown corporation, with its simply dreadful history of bad labour-management relations, it might be possible to strike out for some new beginning by including workers on the board of directors. Worker participation means a great deal more than simply putting workers on the board. It is far more subtle, sophisticated, elaborate and difficult then simply putting workers on the board of directors; but that is one of the steps and symbols.

Again, I call on the Provincial Secretary not simply to initiate a study within the Public Service Commission of ways in which the government of British Columbia might come to grips with this issue and possibility, but also to consult with his colleagues who are responsible for Crown corporations, including B.C. Rail, B.C. Ferries and eventually B.C. Place, and any number of the other two dozen-odd Crown corporations in this province that have administrative and practical functions. I'm not talking about the Crown corporations that have very narrow and specific nonhuman-service functions, but those which, like, say, Kootenay Forest Products — thanks to the now member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), to Bob Williams and the then Premier, Mr. Barrett — were willing to say to both union and management: "This company's only chance of survival is if the workers themselves help turn it around; otherwise it's going down the drain, so we'll give you a couple of places on the board of directors as one means of doing so."

Similarly, the Provincial Secretary could, if he wished, set an important new precedent by agreeing, if he will, to my proposal to initiate a study within the Public Service Commission to find out how it's done elsewhere and whether or riot it can be done here, to find out how you might open up the public service to participation on the part of workers themselves in more than just the standard issues of job security, pay and worker safety. They are all important issues, and I don't deny it for a second. But I observe as well that there are other enduring and important issues that should and could be negotiated year-round among equals with respect — on the parts of both labour and management — in some new form of public service administration.

We know from the experience and precedent in western Europe that it works. It works by their standards and according to our own. It clearly works more successfully. We know it works within the industrial sectors of western Europe and within certain specific examples that we can find in North America. be it Kootenay Forest Products, Amana Corp. or the aluminum corporation in Ontario — the name of which slips me for a moment — that's been operating on this basis for 40 years. We know these things can operate when both sides wish them to. I urge the Provincial Secretary to recognize the possibility that it is now time for the Public Service Commission to come to grips with the issue within the realm of its own authority.

I conclude by asking the Provincial Secretary to consider two specific proposals. Firstly, I ask for the establishment within the Public Service Commission of an inquiry into the forms, aspects and feasibility of introducing new principles of worker participation within the public service of British Columbia. Secondly. I ask the minister to call upon his colleagues who have direct responsibility for the operation of Crown corporations to consider whether or not within those agencies — I specifically think of B.C. Ferries and B.C. Rail — it is also possible to contemplate worker participation and a level of industrial democracy and mutual respect that has not heretofore existed but which is most certainly long overdue.

MS. BROWN: I have a brief comment about the International Year of the Disabled. In his opening remarks the minister stated that a goal has been established for hiring more disabled people in the civil service this year. I suggest to him that that is not enough. What the minister should be looking at is an affirmative action program to ensure that the hiring of disabled people is on an ongoing basis. It's not the sort of thing that the government should look at just for one year. In fact, the disabled people have said over and over again that the only handicap they have is the attitude of people towards them. Since the government, to its credit, is going to some expense to make government buildings more accessible, certainly the hiring of the disabled is easier for the government as a result of this than it is for many companies in the private sector. In any event, the government has to set the example. It has to be in the forefront in this particular area.

What I would like to have from the minister, Mr. Chairman, is a commitment that this is not just a one-year, one-shot goal which the government has set for itself, but that in fact it is prepared to embark on an ongoing affirmative action program, giving priority to a group of people in our community who have made it absolutely clear that what they want is not pensions, not subsidies and not welfare. What they want is employment. They're willing to work and want to work. As I said before, the government should have a commitment to embark on an affirmative action program on an ongoing basis to ensure that the workforce opens up for this particular group in our community.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In answer to the last question, we most certainly do riot intend. In indicating a goal for this coming year of 300 placements of disabled applicants. that that was at all temporary. That's simply upgrading it by almost double what the previous experience has been. Certainly we want to be ongoing in that process.

Vote 174 approved.

[ Page 5376 ]

On vote 175: salary and benefits — sundry employees, $300,000.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. BARNES: I'm on vote 166. What is this? It's vote 166. I've been working all week getting ready for it. What happened? [Laughter.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 166 was passed on Friday.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Provincial Secretary, is that correct?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes.

MR. BARNES: That's okay. Mr. Provincial Secretary and I are very good friends. I'm sure he will appreciate the need for us to debate this section, because it's important to the community. Is that right, Mr. Provincial Secretary?

I ask leave that we go back to vote 166.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I'm afraid leave cannot be asked for that, hon. member. We are on vote 175, salary and benefits — sundry employees.

MR. BARNES: We want to do the public's business. I ask leave, Mr. Chairman. Is that in order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm afraid not, hon. member. The committee cannot discuss a vote that has already passed.

MR. BARNES: This is a very serious vote, as you know, Mr. Chairman — culture, recreation and heritage. I'll accept the will of the House, as long as I'm told unanimously that it's not permitted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee, under our standing orders, cannot discuss a vote that has already been brought forward or has not yet been brought forward. We are required at this time by leave of the House to, in fact, discuss vote 175. We must be relevant to the vote before us and that is vote 175.

MR. BARNES: Perhaps I could impose upon the Chair to indicate when an appropriate time might be to raise a question on this very important subject.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Next year.

MR. BARNES: "Next year." That's what you think of the culture in British Columbia. That's what you have to say about the cultural services branch. Leave it alone. Let it rip the people off and take all the money. Let it centralize and do everything. We're interested in arts in this province. I would just like to ask a few questions, and I'm not being given an opportunity. That's okay, though, Mr. Chairman. I accept your decision. The people of British Columbia will just have to wait until next year. I shall try one more time. I think there may be some hope under one of the other votes. You haven't heard the last of me yet.

Vote 175 approved.

On vote 176: superannuation branch, $2,964,018.

MRS. DAILLY: This vote has to do with the superannuation branch itself, its administration, etc. I am concerned, so I am going to move a vote to reduce a certain item of expenditure here. It has nothing to do with the pensions of the people of B.C. I want that made clear.

Office furniture and equipment under this vote has gone up from $18,300 last year to $266,200 this year. Travel expense has gone up from $29,000 to $36,000. Listen to this one. Last year rentals were $6,000 and this year they're $50,000. We consider that this government is out of control. It's wasteful. This kind of money could be better spent for the people's basic services, not for this kind of nonsense.

I therefore move that vote 176 be reduced by $304,600. Cut the fat out. You're spendthrifts.

On the amendment.

MR. LEVI: I want to ask the minister a question, in line with the amendment.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: I think we should throw out that unruly Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). He's just like a little kid. "He did it, not me."

Has the minister's superannuation branch come up yet with recommendations about any — you've got to be careful here — pension benefit legislation? Two years ago they announced a study that was done. They spent about $14,000 on that study. What has happened to the study? Is the study available? This is in respect to the superannuation branch. Is it complete? What's happened to it?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I seek your advice, Mr. Chairman; we're'debating an amendment to the vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A couple of good points are raised, hon. member. We are, in fact, on a specific amendment. The vote has not yet passed. The member has referred to the need for legislation, which cannot be discussed in committee. However, the member also referred to a study, which of course could be referred to in committee.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the amendment would reduce vote 176, the superannuation branch, by $304,000. I believe it is addressed primarily to the increase in the amount for office furniture and equipment. I would like to go on record very definitely as being opposed to that amendment.

Members here are well aware of the facilities being used by the Public Service Commission on the street behind the buildings and how ancient they are. This is a one-time, all time provision of $200,000 for new furniture required in conjunction with the renovation of those premises. We have over 100 employees involved in keeping records and addressing themselves to all the superannuation problems, and they are working in facilities that badly need this improvement. In addition it provides for the lease of word processing equipment and the replacement of certain furniture that is involved.

If a person took the trouble to go through those facilities, he would well appreciate the need for this particular appropriation. So I am definitely opposed to that amendment.

[ Page 5377 ]

Amendment negatived.

MR. LEVI: I'll try again. I guess we can direct the minister to a specific subvote in here: subvote (20), professional and special services. Can the minister tell us about a study that was done, I think, in respect to proposals about pension standards? Has it been completed? Is it now available for the members to look at?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the consideration of pension standards legislation is raised by the member. Without commenting on the legislative aspects, I can say that there has been a lot of consideration of this matter. As recently as last month a conference took place in Ottawa, called by the Hon. Monique Bégin. Our ministry had two representatives at it, who brought back a full report. We have the matter under consideration. It is currently very much under review. That's about all I could indicate to the member.

As you know, the national conference, in addressing itself to the effects of inflation on the pension problems across Canada and to the fact that a considerable degree of the private sector currently do not have pension plans, is trying to weigh whether this can be answered through the Canada Pension Plan of the national government or whether it should be addressed in some other manner. We do have the matter under review. There is no report that I can supply the member with at the moment.

MR. LEVI: Did the commissioner who attended the conference make a submission on behalf of the provincial government? If he did, can the minister table it for the benefit of the members?

HON. MR. WOLFE: There was no submission on behalf of the provincial government. We're monitoring the conference and therefore have the matter under consideration.

Vote 176 approved.

Vote 177: public service superannuation and retirement benefits, $80,345,000 — approved.

On vote 178: Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act, $260,000.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, is this where our wages as legislators come in?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, that is under another vote.

Vote 178 approved.

Vote 179: employee benefits, $40,086,000 — approved.

On vote 180: government information services, $1,336,971.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, if I could take the Legislature back to three weeks ago, at that time I asked the Provincial Secretary whether within the information services they were making a number of films that would be shown to the public of British Columbia. I asked whether the first film was going to be one starring the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), and whether it would be shown during the Kamloops by-election. All of the questions I asked, of course, have now been answered in that regard. Indeed they were making a film, it did star the minister, and it was shown during the Kamloops by-election for strictly political purposes.

The question I'd like to ask is a follow-up to that. I'd like the minister to think carefully before he answers this, because I was absolutely correct on all of the questions that I asked — absolutely correct. I'd like to ask at this time whether the government has made a decision to now pay taxpayers money out to do an audience reaction survey to the program — whether Goldfarb, in fact, has been hired to do an audience reaction to "The Bob McClelland Show." This is a serious question, and I'd like the minister to consider it seriously before he answers. Has the government made a decision to hire a public relations firm or a polling firm — Goldfarb or some other company — and has the decision in fact already been carried out that there's going to be taxpayers' money spent to find out from the people of this province what the reaction was to "The Bob McClelland Story"?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, in supporting this vote for the minister, I'd just like to set one thing straight in the record. First of all, neither government information services nor the government media centre had anything to do with the film which was produced for the Ministry of Energy. It has been under production for at least a year through the Ministry of Energy, by itself. I'd like also to say that that film was put together because of the concern that the ministry and the public have about the energy problems which are facing us in the future.

I would welcome any criticism or critiques of the film, but I can tell you that it laid out a series of situations which we face today, it laid out some options for the people of British Columbia, and it asked some questions. As far as the Minister of Energy being in the film, the Minister of Energy was in that film for one and a half minutes out of the total of 30 minutes. I defy any member on the opposite side of the House to find anything biased or slanted about that film. It was not a political film; it was a firm which asked some serious questions of the people of B.C. about how we protect our energy future.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, the committee accepts the statement that in fact you were discussing an the item that is not under this vote. I found that we were entering into debate that was out of order, If all hon. members could remember that, we are dealing with vote 180.

The hon. member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: Are you saying that the money that's going to be paid out for Goldfarb by this government to check public reaction to "The Bob McClelland Story" wouldn't be under this vote?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, but it's been brought to the attention of the committee that the film on energy is not in fact covered under this vote. My further ruling was that in fact the minister himself strayed in presenting that to the committee.

MR. LEA: Okay, leave that aside. I would imagine that if Goldfarb has been hired, Goldfarb would have been hired probably directly through the Provincial Secretary to get audience reaction to the energy film.

[ Page 5378 ]

What I'm asking now is whether there has been a decision made within the Provincial Secretary ministry; or is in fact the decision made and the operation started to be carried out? My information, by the way, is that it has been, that they're already out on the doorstep. Immediately after the film, starting today, the government is going to be spending taxpayers' money to check out what the people thought of the film. Of course there's nothing political. They just want to see if people like the series. If they don't, possibly they'll try to sell out at a cheap rate to ABC or NBC or CTV. Who knows what they're going to do. Maybe we'll see it on pay television in the future. I just wonder why it is, if it isn't political, that the government has to go out now and take a survey to see what the reaction was to the film — to see how the old image is improving.

The minister is doing some checking now, Mr. Chairman. Whether we get it under this vote, whether it's in question period or in some other vote, we're going to find out. The minister knows that eventually the truth will out; we do find out. So does the minister have any knowledge of a survey that has either begun already or is about to begin at the behest of the government to check the reaction to the Bob McClelland film?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is one more item, hon. members. There has been reference to the name of a member of this Legislative Assembly. Of course, we are bound to refer to ourselves by the ridings we come from, or the ministries that are represented.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The answer to the member's question is no. I'd like to go on from there and say that in reference to the media centre, which had no input or was not used in the instance of the film that he named, we now know the film was being produced by the media centre and so on. He was not correct. I'd like to say that there is an upcoming film that he will be interested in, and may be asked to star in, in the near future. Actually it's going to be dealing with all of the members of the NDP. It's called the "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly." You may have an opportunity to star in this. I want you to keep that in mind.

MR. LEA: If the taxpayers are going to pay for it, we decline. I would imagine that's the next step. It was just like the offer we had from the Deputy Minister after he'd been to Harrison Hot Springs: "Now we've been caught. I offer it to you too." The answer is no. The minister is saying that to his knowledge....

HON. MR. WOLFE: I have no knowledge.

MR. LEA: I know that. Let's try it a different way. The minister has no information. Let's leave knowledge right out of it, at his request. According to the minister's information, neither Goldfarb nor any other polling institution has been hired by his department to check and see what public reaction was to the very political film put together at taxpayers' expense specifically to be shown during the Kamloops by-election. The minister is saying that his information is that nobody that he knows about within government, especially not under his ministry, is now spending further taxpayers' money to find out how everybody liked Bob. You have no answer to that, eh?

MR. BARNES: I'd be pleased to yield to the Provincial Secretary if he'd like to address those questions by my colleague from Prince Rupert.

Apropos the questioning, I wonder if the minister could indicate whether Mr. Cecil B. Achilles Heal, the czar of Social Credit productions, has now decided to hire additional administrative, assistants — people who might possibly carry out some of the concerns that the hon. member just commented on. For instance, will they be hiring high-class, first-class experts from other places to do the sampling and testing of marketing techniques, to determine whether or not this project you're currently involved in is going to get the desired effect? In other words, how much larger will this organization become under Mr. Achilles Heal?

Mr. Chairman, I believe what I'm asking is only realistic. If you spend the kind of money that the government is spending — $10,000 for each production, with a $62,000 retainer for someone who is of dubious value with respect to salvaging the government's image — I think that it's only reasonable to expect that if he recommends that he requires additional administrative assistants with special skills in certain categories in order to fulfill his duties, he may well get it. Does his budget allow for additional hiring of experts who would be skilled in the carrying on of that very ambitious project? It's not a facetious question, nor was the question of the member for Prince Rupert. Let's face it. If you're in the business of image-making and want to know whether or not your dollars are being well spent, you're going to have surveys. We're quite sincere when we ask if you have any plan such as that. I'd appreciate it if we could get a response from the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. WOLFE: We're debating vote 180, government information services. As the member can see, it provides for the establishment of 11 permanent positions, plus an amount for temporary salaries, plus an amount of professional and special services. I think that's about the only answer I can give him.

MR. BARNES: Has the minister any knowledge that Mr. Heal has already assigned people, or is in the process of negotiating with experts to fill those capacities that I just mentioned — in other words, executive assistants and people with special skills? Are there any people currently being negotiated with with respect to this project?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the major acquisitions have been Mr. Chazottes, who is executive director, a secretary and, I believe, one other employee in Vancouver. I could get a further update on that, but there have not been a lot of hirings at this point. Naturally, there is a need to upgrade this office, because it had been reduced considerably since the former manager was in charge and left us, you see. That's about the only thing I could provide the member with at this point.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, Mr. Chairman, we find it very interesting that 15 were estimated for this office last year — and from what the minister is saying they weren't all used — and now there are to be 11 people involved in Government Services. Yet when we hear of the plans for all these films and building up the images of the cabinet ministers, we understand there are going to be a number of freelancers hired. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the number that we have heard

[ Page 5379 ]

is up to the sum of 30 freelancers. The minister is not able to dispute that, I don't think, because he doesn't seem to know, but this is the whole object of our debate over this vote. The minister himself doesn't seem to be quite aware of how many people are going to be hired. The minister professes that....

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's in the vote.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, it's in the vote, but I want to know about the freelancers, as did the former speaker. Our understanding is that under Mr. Heal there are going to be a considerable number of freelancers hired. It's very easy to put down a slim staff here, and then find at the end of the year that there is a huge staff of people who aren't necessarily on the permanent staff, but again, like the Public Service Commission in some areas, could be working full-time on a consultancy basis. So we're just asking the minister if he's aware of that. Are you aware of that?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes. I could further explain, Mr. Chairman, that the figure of 11 includes five existing employees at the audio-visual centre plus six who will be incorporated under Mr. Heal's office in the information services, for a total of 11.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, we have canvassed this considerably, but I want to assure the people of British Columbia who are concerned about the spending of this money that we intend not to let it go just because this particular vote is going by. We intend to keep a close watch on the government propaganda machine.

Mr. Chairman, there is one other specific question to the minister. Can you explain to me why the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) would use whatever sources his ministry did for a very slick film, and why you have allowed the establishment and the takeover of the Blanshard Street health audio-visual, centre, when at the same time we have an under-utilized BCIT media centre?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 180 pass?

MRS. DAILLY: Well, silence is the answer, Mr. Chairman. This government once again is being absolutely wasteful. They have an under-utilized centre at BCIT, and then they've established this new centre picked up from Health. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, under his auspices, has come out with a slick film; we don't know who was used for that. Talk about wasteful redundancy in any government, the Social Credit government typifies this. We don't intend to let this go; we intend to keep questioning. We're quite aware that once this Legislature folds up, the machinery will get moving. Right now we don't think too much is going on because of the eye of the opposition and the public on this propaganda machine of the Socreds. But I can assure you that our eye will be constantly on it, Mr. Chairman, and so will the public's.

We can't get any definite answers, and advertising and publications is the only place I can see all this money to come from for Mr. Heal. It has moved from $8,000 to $403,000. Plus there are some other items there which we consider wasteful. I therefore move that vote 180 be reduced by $476,500.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 180 approved.

On vote 181: building occupancy charges, $11,950,600.

MRS. DAILLY: Once again we think we have before us a very spendthrift government. The vote has gone up over $2.5 million. I therefore move that vote 181 be reduced by $2,484,600.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 181 approved.

[ Page 5380 ]

On vote 182: computer and consulting charges, $2,149,000.

MR. BARNES: I note that under the cultural services branch the budget last year was $563,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we....

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, please permit me to make my introduction. I'll explain. I'm concerned about consulting charges that may have related to the cultural services branch, if you would permit me to complete my question.

You're spending $1.8 million and you have no consultation? This is not involving the computer? Is that what you're saying, Mr. Chairman? I ask the minister if he would explain what portion of that $1.8 million was used for consulting charges for the cultural services branch.

The reason I want to know, obviously — as I tried to indicate earlier to the House — is that the cultural services branch has tripled its budget from 1980-81 and is now spending so much money that it's probably one of the largest bureaucracies in this country with respect to cultural services. I'm wondering if the minister could indicate whether or not any of the funds were used to consult with the arts community — that is, the arts councils — throughout this province, rather than using its own politically appointed Arts Board made up of 15 volunteers who only meet about five or six times a year and have absolutely no power whatsoever to carry out their duties. I would appreciate it if the minister would indicate to what extent the arts community has been involved in consultation with respect to the ridiculous expansion of the cultural services branch. It looks as though the minister is becoming a culture vulture himself. He's holding the line on everything and not allowing any information to flow except in one direction — into himself.

Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to make a speech at this point. I really wanted to get some information. Is the minister paying attention or is he engaged in something else?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

While the minister is trying to decide whether or not any funds were used to consult with artists throughout this province, to involve them and to give them a feeling that they have some say in the cultural heritage of this province....

That 7.5 percent increase they received in their operating budget — the funds used for cultural activities in this province — is really not as bad as it seems, although the minister has increased the cultural services branch by 300 percent, compared to 7.5 percent for the artists in this province.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister why the Arts Board is still not a legal entity in this province. Why is it still a voluntary organization, solely for the purpose of the minister's personal manipulation, to be used in ways to which he may be so inclined from time to time? In other words, is there no guarantee that arts and culture in this province will be free from political influence, blackmail, and also — for the benefit of the politicians, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair has been listening very attentively to what the member has been saying and is having some difficulty relating the member's comments to the vote before us, vote 182, which says: "This vote provides for payments to the British Columbia Systems Corporation for data-processing and management-consulting services." I would appreciate it if the hon. member would relate a little bit more to....

The minister.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the member asked what the costs of computing services were in the vote for the cultural service. The answer is that no computer services are being provided to the cultural branch.

MR. BARNES: This is scandalous! You mean you're spending $1.8 million and not a dime for computer services? What are you doing with all that money? What are you doing with $1.8 million? I was giving you a break. Do you mean to tell me you are not even using it for that? What's going on? Mr. Chairman, I beg the minister to please explain what in God's name he could be using $1.8 million for if he's not spending it on artists. Who's getting all that money? Do we have some kind of a bureaucracy going on under your wing? You really are a culture vulture after all. I was being facetious at first, but what's going on?

The artists of British Columbia are not receiving their fair share. They are being manipulated politically. You have an arts board that is appointed by the minister, doing his bidding. They have absolutely no power whatsoever; it's a creature of the government. The British Columbia government has taken over the arts community; the British Columbia government controls the arts community.

I'm asking the minister if he would assure the House that those implications are not accurate. This member requires some interpretation. That's what I'm asking. I'd like the minister to explain to me just how that $1.8 million under consulting charges is being spent.

I don't want to make a speech, Mr. Chairman, because I realize vote 166 passed a long time ago. Unfortunately, I didn't get leave of the House, so I won't make a speech on that matter, but I think that this is an important subject and that we should at least deal with it under vote 182 with respect to the costs for consulting charges.

Please, Mr. Chairman, would you ask the minister to pay attention so I can get an answer and we can get on with the vote.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the minister could let us know what is happening to that $900,000 worth of garbage art that was bought between 1972 and 1975. Is it merely gathering dust in the vault? I want to suggest to the minister that he not participate in buying more of that junk art.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The answer, hon. member, is no, you may not inquire.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I wish to answer the member for Columbia River's question. I don't want to embarrass that minister, but one of those pieces of so-called garbage art was a Toni Onley original. Anybody who would call that "garbage art" deserves to go back to making mud pies, and had better start all over again. Such a shocking display of ignorance in this House, Mr. Chairman!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I feel confident in saying that we have at this time exhaustively discussed a

[ Page 5381 ]

matter which in the first place was not in order. A response has been allowed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I would just comment that I wish to be conciliatory on this subject, because art is in the eye of the beholder. On behalf of the government, I dedicate that we will put on display in front of the Legislature, with the prices paid, all of the art bought during that time, to let the public decide.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the opposition will accept that challenge only if the government prints the appraised value of the art as it is today. It's almost twice — and for some pieces, ten times — the amount paid by the government of the day. This government has no business sense. They are business dumb-dumbs. For the minister of lands, parks, housing and gravel pits to stand up in the committee here today and attack that art as garbage art.... The only garbage art in the government today is sitting in the cabinet; they're all garbage art.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we have allowed a full canvass.... [Laughter.] We have allowed a full pursuit of the subject on both sides. At this time I feel that we should get back to vote 182.

MR. KING: On a point of order, I think the Chair might examine whether or not the minister's categorization of the art as garbage is a personal affront to the Speaker of the House, who has one of the Kazumi paintings that was purchased at that time hanging on the wall of his office, proudly displayed to the public.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Housing minister referred to the collections that were brought into government when the NDP was in office — 1973, I believe. For the first time in this province we had access to the arts programs that was very successful. A lot of art was accumulated, giving people an opportunity to be known and encouraging them to do something that was at arm's length from the government. Now this minister has the gall to call it garbage. Those are fellow British Columbians you are referring to, who have been denied an opportunity to express themselves in this province. You should be ashamed of yourself What do you know about art? What does it matter what you know? The point is that we're politicians and we should leave the art to the arts community. This is what I've been trying to say about that government all the time. It's not up to us to make determinations about what is culture, heritage and art. That's my whole point to that minister. He should be arm's length. Politicians should leave politics up to themselves and they should leave art to the artists.

Mr. Chairman, are you going to rule me out of order! Let me check my notes. I want to make a couple more points.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you relate them at all to vote 182, hon. member?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, with respect, I appreciate that we've had a lot of fun this afternoon, but quite seriously I don't think that it's a very funny situation when the minister has been charged with becoming the arts vulture of the province. Quite clearly, $1.8 million being used for administrative costs in a simple little department that should only be assisting the arts community.... It should be just the reverse. I think that's a crime. That's the wrong direction. We don't need centralization in the arts and cultural field; we need decentralization to involve the people in the community. They have a right to participate and share in the economy of this province and the industry that is so important to us.

So I'm quite sincere when I say that the government should take another look at the B.C. Arts Board as it is presently constituted. It is a handcuffed group of 15 or so individuals, with virtually no power. They have no power whatsoever. I think it's a shame that they should have that status. The B.C. Arts Board has no power to help the people we are expecting it to help. This is a sobering time; it's not a time for jokes. It's been going on for too long in this province. I feel that if the minister were listening to the artists, he would have to admit that when you increase administration spending 300 percent in one year and direct grants to artists 7.5 percent, that doesn't reflect that we're going in the right direction. Would you like to comment on that?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say that the answers to the member's questions were given the other day when he was not in the House. We debated the matter of the cultural services branch and the increase in their vote. For the member's information, there is over a $1 million increase in grants to museums, archives and art galleries. The whole new grant policy associated with granting for private and public museums has been addressed in that vote. If the member had been here, he would have known we'd answered all of those questions.

He brings up the matter of the Arts Board and how we've ignored them. That's not so. The exact policy adopted was on the recommendation of the British Columbia Arts Board, so I don't know where he gets the notion that what has happened did not have their input. We certainly have responded to the arts advisory board, and the major amount of this increase in the vote is addressed to grants in support of museums.

Mr. Chairman, I think we've had a lot of latitude in terms of the debate on vote 182, on both sides of the House. This vote has to do with computer and consulting charges having to do with all ministries. There is no part of this which is associated with the cultural branch.

MR. BARNES: One question, Mr. Minister. The Arts Board presently is....

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I think you should be complimented for allowing some wide latitude in this matter, but if in this House we're allowed to go back at random over votes which have already been passed, to discuss measures which we have already had full opportunity to discuss.... It is not the fault of the House that that member was not here to take part in the debate. It is his responsibility to be here when he has an interest in debate in this House. Mr. Chairman, if we allow that to happen, there will be no order in the House, and we will be in disarray.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, member. Before recognizing the second member for Vancouver Centre, the Chair must wholeheartedly concur in the remarks. I think the

[ Page 5382 ]

member now standing must recognize the fact that he has been allowed considerable latitude, and I believe at this time that latitude has been exhausted. I must insist that at this time we return to vote 182. Otherwise there is no point in discussing the votes as we do in this committee.

On a further point, the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. BARNES: I appreciate your remarks, and I take them under advisement, Mr. Chairman. I am only referring directly to a statement made by the Provincial Secretary with respect to the role of the Arts Board. The specific question I would like to ask him is: has he responded to the arts community with respect to enfranchising the Arts Board so that it is a legal entity and not a politically appointed group of advisers to the minister himself? Has that been responded to?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, again I must advise you that we are currently on vote 182. As I explained to the member, I think he must appreciate that the Chair has allowed more than generous latitude in allowing the member to continue to express the points he already has expressed in debate. At this point I must respectfully request the member to refrain from discussion on that particular theme. We must entertain only discussion on vote 182. I regret, hon. member, that the Chair is bound by the rules of the House, and it has been more than flexible to this point.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the problem you may have, but none the less, once debate is commenced, I think you can appreciate that the precedent is well established. We are discussing the minister's estimates. That matter has been raised, and how can you let it go so far and then determine that it has gone far enough? I don't want to get into a debate with you; I just want the minister to answer the question. I do not even wish to introduce any new comments. If he would answer the question, I am quite willing to drop the subject.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, in view of the comments made by the last speaker, and the points we have been trying to make during this whole debate.... We're dealing with computer charges, which are connected — maybe indirectly — with the programs of the minister. We feel that this vote also is padded to some degree, and therefore I am prepared to move another motion to reduce it.

Before I do that, I recall that in the last estimates of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) brought forward a book for the information of the House. I now have a newer edition of that book. I just want to hold it up. It may not be of interest to the government members, but I think it will be to the people of B.C. This is entitled: "An Abridged Version of the New Democrat Spending Cuts." There is a total of over $5 million for the Provincial Secretary. I want to say this was not done facetiously. Those cuts were worked out very carefully throughout the book. We feel that this government has been wasteful. The Provincial Secretary, particularly in areas such as government propaganda machinery, is highly wasteful. There are other areas which I won't elaborate on, because we've already done it.

Mr. Chairman, we are doing this because we feel it's taxpayers' money, not government's money and not the money of the individual members over there, and they are abusing that trust. They're wasting it. So, Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude by moving that vote 182 be reduced by $549,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

MR. LAUK: I would like to say that the hon. member for Burnaby North did not mention — I'm sure it slipped her mind — that this book is available to any member of the House who wishes to come to our caucus offices and have a look at it. Any members of the public or press who wish to have copies of this book or the charts that are within it are welcome to come to our offices and copies will be made available to them. We will get people to read the contents to several of the cabinet ministers who wish to have a look at it as well.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 182 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

On vote 44: minister's office, $147,465.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Having some regard for the clock, what I would like to do in the time remaining this evening is to comment in some detail on the topic of scanners and item pricing in respect of an announcement I made today, and when we resume tomorrow I will make some general comments about the ministry itself.

On that basis I would like to outline the details of an announcement I made today concerning scanners and item pricing. The topic is one of very great concern to the consumer movement, and soon after my appointment four

[ Page 5383 ]

months ago I was asked what position I would take on that question. I took the view then that I was prepared to consider it with an open mind, but I wanted to do some personal research and satisfy myself as to the pros and cons of the issue and concern. Since then, with a lot of cooperation from interested groups and parties, I've had the chance to delve into this issue. In the course of my look I've had several meetings with the Consumers Association of Canada and a number of meetings with various supermarket chains who to date have instituted scanners in some of their stores.

I've had a lengthy meeting with the Kwiksave store people, who use a form of shelf or non-unit pricing but are unique in that they sell in bulk and offer the materials in quantity. I've done a good deal of personal shopping, such as I could, in various parts of the province. I've spoken to consumers and store managers. By virtue of my announced look at the topic, there has been a welter of correspondence, all of which I have studied with care.

I've looked at some interesting data from other jurisdictions. The state of California, for example, proclaimed a sunset law in respect of the use of scanners. As of January last year it was required that the state legislature would no longer legislate on the topic of scanners. What happened in consequence was a patchwork system among the counties and cities, some of which have and some of which haven't allowed scanners.

We've had some useful research. In Canada, particularly in the provinces of Ontario and Saskatchewan, there has been a somewhat active took at the topic by our counterpart ministries.

Over those four months I've had the opportunity to acquaint myself in some depth with the issue and the concerns.

Today I've made the following two announcements concerning scanners and item pricing. Firstly, effective today there will be a moratorium in British Columbia on the further introduction of scanners. Secondly, we announced the appointment of an independent task force to look further into the concerns during the period of the moratorium and to make recommendations to government.

The moratorium will be for a period of one year. I want to acknowledge the very sincere cooperation of the stores, which have readily agreed to the concept of a voluntary moratorium. In effect, for the next 12-month period no further scanners will be introduced in the province of British Columbia. Concurrently, there will be no further removal of item pricing in those stores where scanners might otherwise be proposed. So the moratorium is of a two-fold nature: no further introduction of scanners, and complementing that, no further erosion of item pricing in those stores in which scanners might be a possibility.

I stress that this moratorium is the result of my negotiations and discussions with the supermarket chains. It is voluntary in nature, but I have the very sincere belief that it will be fully effective, because I have found each of the supermarket chains more than ready and cooperative to meet with me and discuss the issue. Because consumers are concerned, obviously the chains are too. I would like, Mr. Chairman, just to outline the statistics as of today on the numbers of stores with scanners and the size of the various chains. The groups with whom I met on this topic from the store point of view were Safeway, Super-Valu, Woodward's and IGA.

Safeway has 91 stores in the province; presently four are scanner-equipped, 87 are non-scanner and 87 will remain non-scanner over the next year. Super-Valu has 86 stores — 11 scanner, 75 non-scanner; 75 will remain non-scanner over the next year. IGA has 36 supermarkets — none yet are scanner; 36 are non-scanner, and 36 will remain non-scanner. Woodward's has 14 stores, of which two are scanner, and with respect to three the scanners are virtually here; there will therefore be a total of five scanners and nine non-scanner stores. In the case of Woodward's, we did not think it fair at the last minute to say no to the three further scanners that are virtually here. Woodward's has readily agreed, with respect to the balance of their stores, to observe the moratorium.

In the result, of 207 what we might call large supermarket stores in the province, 20 will continue scanner-equipped. That's about 10 percent of the total. Particularly for the purpose of the task force, but also for the purpose of consumers generally, I think it is important that there in fact be in the marketplace something of a choice so that during this period consumers can sample both styles of store. But stores with scanners, in particular, will have to undergo something of a test in the marketplace. The fact of the matter will be that over the next 12 months during the moratorium scanners will be present in about 10 percent of our supermarkets; about 90 percent will be non-scanner, and that, of course, leaves the balance of smaller stores in addition as being non-scanner. For consumers who have very strong feelings about universal pricing codes and scanners, there will ample opportunity, therefore, for alternative shopping in your particular area or neighbourhood. Equally, for consumers — and there certainly are some — who prefer and like the scanner or universal pricing code system, there will continue to be stores to which the consumer may go. For the purpose of the task force, there will be stores and consumer reactions to be sampled of both varieties.

Mr. Chairman, there are two types of stores not included in the moratorium on which I wish to comment. The first is Kwiksave, or the Kwiksave type of store — the type of store which offers a bulk form of purchase with items and materials in the box or offered in large quantity; therefore not unit priced, and priced instead by the shelf or by the container. I've had a lengthy discussion with the Kwiksave people and with the Consumers Association of Canada particularly concerning that type of store. I believe it's accurate to say that all parties involved agree that the Kwiksave are a unique type of store offering a form of bulk purchase to the consumer, and not a normal kind of store at which individual unit pricing should be required. Hence Kwiksave and the Kwiksave type of store are not included in the moratorium. As I say, I think that is in conformity with the view of all parties concerned, including the consumers association.

The other type of store, Mr. Chairman, are our LDB liquor stores, and I raise that because the LDB is another part of this particular ministry. In the last year, although the LDB have not brought in scanners as such, the LDB have moved in many stores from unit pricing to shelf pricing. There are, however, two distinguishing features about our liquor stores. First of all, unlike the grocery sector, the liquor stores offer the same product at the same price throughout the province, and therefore the concern about price consciousness and comparative-price shopping is not there, because LDB products are uniformly priced across the province.

Secondly, the data is that the average liquor store patron is checking out with two items — not the large basket or several bags of groceries, but two items. It's a relatively small number for which to keep track of what the price is. For those

[ Page 5384 ]

reasons, plus the fact that our LDB stores are not using the electronic scanner with the UPC on the item, the liquor stores do not really fall within the bounds of the moratorium. However, on the task force on item pricing, about which I now want to comment, they will certainly be reviewed.

The task force on item pricing will be chaired by Professor Stanley Shapiro, a professor of marketing at Simon Fraser University. Dr. Shapiro is a well-known and distinguished academician, formerly head of the commerce department at McGill University. He brings a very independent point of view to his task, and he will be assisted by a six-member panel consisting of, firstly, a representative nominated by the Consumers Association of Canada, who have a very strong interest in the topic. Secondly, because the question of labour use in the stores is involved, we shall be asking the retail clerks' union for a nominee, and thirdly, because senior citizens have been frequently in correspondence will me on this topic — and they're a group in our society much concerned about food and food pricing — the Council Senior Citizens shall be asked for a nominee. In addition each of Safeway, Super-Valu and Woodward's — the three supermarket scanner chains, so to speak — will be asked for a nominee. Each of them has a differing approach to the particular type of scanner they have used, and the steps they're taking, in view of consumer concerns about scanners and universal pricing codes. We think that variety and cross section are very important.

Dr. Shapiro will be the chairman. The purpose of and the instructions to the task force will be basically twofold: firstly, to seek out joint solutions to the concerns that ave been created by the removal of item pricing. Certainly that's the real issue with scanners. I think most consumers in consumer groups do not object per se to the scanners themselves, but rather to the consequence of the scanner, which is the removal of the item pricing, and the substitution therefore of what is called "the universal pricing code" and shelf pricing. So the task force will be asked to seek out joint solutions to the concerns arising from the removal of item pricing.

Secondly, you'll note there are no representatives of government or of the public service on this independent task force to make independent recommendations to the government as to the degree, if any, in the future to which universal pricing codes and scanners should be permitted in British Columbia. I would expect that the work of the task force will take in the order of six months. I expect in the very near future to be reviewing in detail with Dr. Shapiro the particulars of his terms of reference. It is our hope that by the time the moratorium period has expired, we'll have the benefit of the results of the task force and a chance to determine the path to be taken after that.

It is probably of interest to members to know that consumer interest in scanners is very lively. I've had a broad cross-section of correspondence and personal comment. Certainly there are some aspects of the scanners themselves that the consumer seemed to like, including particularly the far more detailed and clarified cash register receipt. On the other hand — it being a technological age and as with much technology — consumers are concerned about the growing absence of individual unit pricing, the consequent impact on price consciousness and potential difficulties in comparative shopping.

That is the response we're making to the issue of scanners and item pricing. Having regard to the clock, I propose to conclude my remarks for today. It may be that my friend opposite wishes to comment on my immediate remarks, but I want to assure him that when we reconvene tomorrow I will then offer some general comment on the work of the ministry over the year just completed.

MR. LEVI: Today we will relate our remarks to what the minister did, not what the minister said. However, I would like to start off by saying that this has been a crow-eating day for the government. I'll have something kind to say about the minister in a minute, but we've had another minister having to announce the rebirth of the Marguerite. That was a crow-eating effort.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: I appreciate that, but this is related to crow-eating, and we're dealing now with scanners. If you can't stretch that one, you're going to have trouble, considering how far you've stretched yourself today.

The other thing is that for three years in this House we debated the scanner question with two Ministers of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The minister's predecessors, without any real foundation in fact, argued against the suggestions made by this side that the prices remain on the shelf and that there be an inquiry into what goes on with the use of scanners. Those remarks were completely ignored. I congratulate the present minister on what he's done. He's done something which should have been done three years ago, but he's done it. That's important. First of all, he's created a moratorium, and he's got the cooperation of the stores. That's fine. We've also had some discussions with people within the stores. He's done that, and he's also going to have a task force. I have one regret about the task force, which is that properly such a task force is the work of a legislative committee. But, of course, the government doesn't believe in legislative committees, and consequently we don't have that.

[Mr. Ritchie in the chair.]

The reason I say that is this. If you examine the composition of the task force, you have three representatives from the major supermarkets of the province, a senior citizen, a representative of the Consumers Association of Canada and the chairman, who is an academic — an economist, I presume.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: A marketing professor.

MR. LEVI: A marketing specialist.

There can be some difficulty with that, in arriving at decisions toward a report. Let's bear in mind that as the task force meets, depending on the resources available to the various people who are going to present, there will be some problems. I can see the supermarkets presenting in a rather broad way. They will have people who are economists; they may have a lawyer they decide they want to present as well; and it could be that the ultimate shift in the balance of opinion in this committee could be altered because of the competition. Nevertheless, let's not knock it. It's there, and it's going to happen. We'll see what happens. If it had been done with a legislative committee all of these people would have had to come to the legislative committee to make their arguments. In that sense they would have been equal; however, there is a problem here. We'll have to encourage as many people as possible.

[ Page 5385 ]

The side to the scanner question that has to be examined closely is the cost-benefit advantage to the stores. It is enormous. We're going to have to demonstrate to that task force.... I'll ask the minister a question that he can answer tomorrow. What kind of resources will the task force have in terms of doing independent studies? After all, the cost-benefit advantage of scanners in respect to the stores is enormous, particularly from the marketing aspect. We've debated this before in this House when we tried to marshal the arguments, particularly with the previous minister. He told us that we couldn't do this because there were problems with little stores and that somehow they would have to keep prices on.

That was not the issue we want to address ourselves to. We want to address ourselves to the issue of the advantages of the scanners. That has never been properly documented, and it needs to be. It's been written about broadly, particularly in the magazine The Canadian Grocer, which really represents the independent more than the supermarkets. They pointed out in terms of marketing the advantages of having a data bank available to you. An example given in one article states that they could take 120,000 shopping baskets — the various bills that were pumped into this — all the things people have shopped for go into the data bank. That's in one day. By a series of correlation studies you can come out with enormous information that helps you in the marketing aspect overnight.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: There's that art critic getting in the way again. Why don't you go look at some art?

Let's take the arguments that the stores have used. They cost $350,000 to $400,000 to install. They have to train somebody to put them in. Those are their costs. What they haven't really talked about and what the task force should look at is the direct financial benefit to the store as a result of all the information they're going to have available. If Dr. Shapiro is a specialist in marketing, he'll be able to make some observations about this incredible advantage that you have. You no longer have to have people walking around the store, noting what people are buying. You simply have to go to the computer and punch out how many people shopped today and what they shopped for, and then take a look at people's purchasing patterns. A lot of this has been documented only in articles. These are observations made in Canadian Grocer.

We need to have somebody look at it specifically, because in the final analysis there is always the question when you introduce something innovative in the stores — and I can understand why they've done it: what gets passed on to the consumer? So far it has been demonstrated that two things are passed on: (1) the cost of the installation and operation of the scanner; and (2) in those stores that up to now have taken the prices off, the inconvenience and the inability to do adequate comparison shopping. That has been a serious setback up to this day, and it will continue to be in the stores not covered by the moratorium.

After all, the consumer awareness programs in North America date back approximately 20 years. They really started in a very broad way in the early sixties with the late Senator Hart in the United States. Then it was picked up very much in Canada. The central theme was always — we got it from the supermarkets and the consumer advocates: do comparison shopping. All that time there were arguments about adequate kinds of packaging and pricing — let's not have weights in such a way that you can't read them. There was a move toward standardizing to some extent all packaging and pricing procedures, particularly in supermarkets. Then right out of the blue came the scanners, and prices started to disappear from the shelves.

Nobody can make the argument to me that if you get used to shopping with scanners, somehow, because you'll have that great list of stuff that you bought, you can go home and you should be very happy. To do that is a rather long, onerous task. It's a problem. There's no doubt that we'll supersede the scanner someday by having our own computer in the house which we'll plug in and order from the store; we'll know exactly what we're ordering and somebody will deliver it. However, awareness is the greatest argument that we have against the business of increased food costs. The only defence that the consumer has had up to now has been the business of comparison shopping. If you've got the time, move around and compare. There isn't the element of competition, unfortunately, in the supermarkets; nor do people really have the time to constantly take advantage of it. Of course, the onset of the scanners has created some problems.

Those are the basic arguments. It's too bad that over the past three years, until this day, we were not able to get the attention of the government to even be prepared to do a study. They asked the minister's predecessor. They did some little study within the minister's department where a young man would go around and take a look, but that's not what we were looking for. We were looking for something of the order that had been done in Ontario. We were certainly looking for a minister who was prepared to go almost as far or maybe as far as the minister in Ontario, who simply, in the final analysis, said to the stores: "By the 1st of August you put those prices on, or else." This was last year. He didn't describe what the "or else" was, but nevertheless the prices remained. It went on and worked to some extent.

That's not a very practical way of dealing with the business community — do it or else. They had the benefit of studies. For the first time, we're going to have the benefit of a task force study. That's going to be extremely useful, because no doubt they'll not simply concentrate on the scanners. They'll be looking at some of the problems attendant to the general food purchasing business anyway. That's all part of it. No doubt it's going to be very useful. Certainly I know that a lot of people in the province are going to be quite happy about the announcement today, because last year some 4,500 people took the trouble to write to the Vancouver Sun. They put a voucher in the Sun. The minister's predecessor completely disregarded that. He didn't see that as being either scientific or relevant, and he ignored it. He wasn't even prepared to listen in any real way. It took us three years. Nobody on the government side got up to argue this particular point of view. Nobody got up at all about scanners, which is very unfortunate.

Consumer protection is something that we can all deal with in this House. It’s not all a partisan problem in this House. If there are problems in respect to food, everybody should be speaking on them, but not in the rather airy-fairy way some people do speak on it, which is mostly in the agricultural area. I can think of no one on that side who has spoken about the whole question of food, food pricing, scanners or anything like that. That's very unfortunate. That's not doing a service to constituents, because the complaints that I get, which are fed from other members to my office,

[ Page 5386 ]

come from all over the province and from all constituencies, whether they're NDP or Socred. There are no spokespeople over there.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You never got any from Yale-Lillooet.

MR. LEVI: That minister has been very fortunate. He has no problems in his riding at all, until we get to the problem of housing tomorrow. I remind him about that problem he's got in Hope with people who are going to get kicked out of a mobile-home park. Then he'll have some problems. There are problems in your riding; there are problems all over the province with respect to a number of things, and this one in particular.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Don't get defensive about it. It's okay. We know that it's not something you pay a lot of attention to.

Going back to the minister's statement — the minister is to be congratulated. It's taken three years — I don't know what brought about the change of heart in the government, but it's happened. I've expressed my views about the concern with the make-up of the committee. However, that's not to put it in a negative way. There is no doubt, I suppose, that the committee can, in any case, adjust itself, or add to itself, if needed. However, the minister might answer this question tomorrow: what opportunity will the committee have to commission independent short studies which it may need to help it arrive at some of its decisions? That is important, if they have a budget which will go with the operation they have.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

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

Hon. Mr. Hyndman tabled the annual report of the Trade Practice Act for 1980.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.

Appendix

32 Mr. Skelly asked the Hon. the Minister of Environment the following questions:

With respect to part six Pesticide Control Act Regulations—

1. How many permits were issued under section 22 (a) for each calendar year 1978 to 1981?

2. What pesticide substances were permitted for use (section 22 (e) Pesticide Control Act Regulations) in each calendar year 1978 to 1981?

3. What was the total quantity of each of the above pesticide substances used in the Province for each calendar year 1978 to 1981?

The Hon. C. S. Rogers replied as follows:

"1. Section 22 (a) of the Pesticide Control Act Regulation provides for the issuance of aquatic or public land pesticide use permits. The number of such permits issued in each calendar year from 1978 to 1981 is as follows: 1978, 468; 1979, 409; 1980, 330; and 1981, 140 to date.

"2 and 3. Please note the error in the original question; section 22 (e) is here taken to be 22 (a). (There is no section 22 (e).) The 47 pesticides and quantities of these pesticides permitted for use by aquatic or public land pesticide use permits issued by the administrator of the Pesticide Control Branch in each year, 1978 to 1980 are listed below. It is not possible to derive any meaningful totals for pesticides used in 1981 at this time of year.

[ Page 5387 ]

33 Mr. Skelly asked the Hon. the Minister of Environment the following questions:

In each calendar year 1977 to 1981—

1. How many investigations were conducted by the Pesticide Control Branch into complaints or allegations of offences under section 22 ( 1) Pesticide Control Act or section 51 Pesticide Control Act Regulation?

2. How many charges were laid in each year?

3. Against whom were the charges laid and what was the disposition in each case?

[ Page 5388 ]

The Hon. C. S. Rogers replied as follows:

"1. The number of investigations conducted by the Pesticide Control Branch into complaints or allegations of offences under the Pesticide Control Act and Regulation in each calendar year from 1977 to 1981 is as follows: 1977, 72; 1978, 73; 1979, 55; 1980, 56; and 1981, approximately 7 to date.

"The Pesticide Control Branch of the Ministry of Environment also conducts inspections of a routine nature which often turn up infractions in conditions of sale, application, transportation and storage of pesticides. The total number of inspections conducted in each calendar year from 1977 to 1981 is as follows: 1977, 1,629; 1978, 2,229; 1979, 1,766; 1980, 2,735; and 1981, approximately 341 to date.

"2 and 3. The number of charges laid in each calendar year 1977 to 1981, the persons charged and the court disposition is as follows:

34 Mr. Skelly asked the Hon. the Minister of Environment the following question:

In each calendar year 1977 to 1981, how many permits, licences and certificates were suspended or revoked under (a) section 13 ( 1) (a) Pesticide Control Act and (b) section 13 (1) (b) Pesticide Control Act?

[ Page 5389 ]

The Hon. C. S. Rogers replied as follows:

"The total number of permits, licences and certificates suspended or revoked by the administrator of the Pesticide Control Act in each of the years 1977 to 1981 is as follows: 1977, 5; 1978, 27; 1979, 17; 1980, 30; and 1981, none to date."