1976 Legislative Session: ist Session, 3ist Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3097 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Submission of government rate increases to AIB. Mr. Barnes — 3097

Possible ICBC refunds. Mr. Gibson — 3099

Number of licensed automobiles. Hon. Mr. McGeer answers — 3099

ICBC staff reduction. Hon. Mr. McGeer answers — 3099

ICBC cash on hand. Hon. Mr. McGeer answers — 3099

Committee of Supply: Department of Forests estimates.

On vote 75.

Mr. Lockstead — 3100

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3101

Mr. Skelly — 3102

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3102

Mr. Lockstead — 3103

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3103

On vote 77.

Mr. King — 3103

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3103

On vote 78

Mr. Skelly — 3104

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3104

On vote 79.

Mr. King — 3104

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3105

On vote 80.

Mr. Skelly — 3105

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3106

On vote 82.

Mr. Skelly — 3106

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3106

On vote 84.

Ms. Sanford — 3106

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3107

On vote 85.

Mr. Nicolson — 3107

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3107

Mr. Skelly — 3107

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3108

Mr. King — 3108

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3108

Mr. Skelly — 3108

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3108

Department of the Provincial Secretary estimates.

On vote 152.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3108

Points of order.

Mr. Gibson — 3109

Ms. Brown — 3109

Mr. King — 3110

Mr. Skelly — 3110

On vote 152.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3110

Ms. Brown — 3110

Mr. Gibson — 3115

Mr. Wallace — 3116

Mrs. Dailly— 3118

Mrs. Jordan — 3119

Mr. King — 3121

Mrs. Wallace — 3123

Mr. Nicolson — 3124

Mr. Kahl — 3124

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3124

Mr. Gibson — 3127

Ms. Brown — 3127

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3128

Privilege

Recognition of private members' day. Mrs. Wallace — 3130

Mr. Speaker rules — 3130

THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): We are very lucky to have

on the floor of the House today Her Excellency, Ambassador Dr.

Dolatshahi from Iran who is president of the International Council of

Women, Princess Ngarmchita Prem Parachatra from Thailand, who is the

president-elect of the International Council of Women, Mademoiselle

Françoise Dissard, the vice-president of the International Council of

Women from France, and Mrs. Cathryne Armstrong, who is now living in

Brentwood Bay.

We're fortunate, Mr. Speaker, not only in having these ladies here

today, but that the people of British Columbia and our country of

Canada have been honoured to be the site of the triannual conference of

the International Council of Women which is taking place at UBC between

June 21 and July 2.

This gathering of brilliant and dedicated women from all parts of

the world is addressing itself to the challenge for the future and the

many concerns crucial to society of our times.

It might interest members in the gallery to know that the

International Council of Women consists of national councils from 62

countries. The organization was founded in Washington in 1888 for the

purpose of unifying and advancing the role of women in those days in

society, and they were vigorously and successfully continuing to pursue

this role today.

The council of women, Mr. Speaker, has provided around the world

through the years ideas of leadership and strength, and in Canada they

have taken up causes where the need was evident. Their success is

paramount to all of us in such areas as public health, the promotion of

the arts, the franchise for women, family law and the peaceful use of

atomic energy.

This is the second time that this international conference has taken place in Canada and the first time in western Canada.

It would also interest members to know that the National Council of

Women of Canada was founded by Lady Aberdeen, who played a major role

in the development of agriculture in our own province and was then wife

of Canada's Governor-General in the year 1893. Our council has been in

federation with the International Council of Women since 1897 and is

one of the 62 national councils so federated.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members to join with the Government of

British Columbia on whose behalf I speak in welcoming these

distinguished ladies to the floor of our House and to wishing them

success and challenges in their deliberations.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official

opposition, I, too, would like to join with the government in welcoming our

four very distinguished guests to the floor of our Legislature.

I am really thrilled that the International Council of Women decided

to have their triannual convention in Vancouver this time and regret

that due to the unusual sittings of the Legislature I was unable to be

with you on Monday morning as invited for your official opening.

Believe me, my thoughts are with you throughout this time and lots

of very good wishes for a great success at this time. Thank you.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'm

delighted to associate my party with the remarks of the hon. member for

North Okanagan and the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard and

would wish them a very productive and happy stay in British Columbia.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add

my welcome to the distinguished ladies attending the convention. It's a

very timely date that you're here because we're about to debate the

estimates of the Provincial Secretary's office, if we ever get past the

estimate we're on, I guess. (Laughter.) Don't count on it, Tom.

I just would say that if you're following in the steps of someone as

noble as Lady Aberdeen you're bound to be headed for great success.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, seated in

the gallery this afternoon are also two very distinguished women, my

wife Sheila and my mother-in-law, Mrs. Evelyn Boyce from Sudbury,

Ontario.

Introduction of bills.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of any other bill I would like to introduce Bill Backup. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't know that was a subject of debate on the floor of this House.

Oral questions.

SUBMISSION OF GOVERNMENT

RATE INCREASES TO AIB

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question

is directed to the Premier in the absence of the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe). Yesterday the Minister of Finance introduced the

signed agreement between the provincial and federal governments

respecting the Anti-Inflation Board

[ Page 3098 ]

programme, and I would like to ask the Premier if he would indicate

now to the House when it will be submitting for review to the

Anti-Inflation Board the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, the

ferries, Hydro, hospital insurance and other increases that would be

subjected to the Anti-Inflation Board regulations.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Well, Mr. Speaker, in response,

all of this is clearly spelled out in the agreement, and due to the

fact that the member hasn't read the agreement, I might just quickly

review for him what was also on the news last night. That is, these

agreements will be reviewed with any rate changes that are made now

that the agreement is signed.

MR. BARNES: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Premier's response.

I have read the agreement and, to my understanding, it does not

include on a retroactive basis the increases that I have indicated. If

so, when will the application be made to the Anti-Inflation Board for

review, specifically? When will it happen? What are the mechanics

involved?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, again the agreement is just

that. Any rate changes that may come up in the future will be subject

to the scrutiny of the AIB.

MR. BARNES: No, not in the future, in the past. These are

already on the books. ICBC increases have already taken place. Will

they be rolled back as of October 24, 1975, when the agreement was in

effect? Is that not right?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, these agreements are not in

the agreement for retroactive study. The member asked when they will be

rolled back. I would hesitate to judge in advance what the AIB would

say on anything.

MR. BARNES: Perhaps the Premier is not aware that some time

ago — I think it was May 26 — the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon

(Mr. Veitch) quoted the Premier in previous statements in which he

indicated that he would welcome a review of any increases that had been

made beyond the allowable guidelines. I'm just asking him if the member

was speaking for himself or for the government, because I also asked

the same question of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and he

confirmed that that in fact was government policy and they would be

submitting all of the increases for review on a retroactive basis. I

hope that they intend to do that.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): This is a supplementary to the

Premier, Mr. Speaker. Since B.C. Hydro has been excluded from control

of prices, and since the rates have been increased twice in the past

nine months, has the government decided to keep the commitment in the

throne speech of March 17 that an independent agency will be

established to monitor the pricing decisions made by all public service

agencies and corporations?

Will that independent agency be set up?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the government hasn't changed its mind on policy that was announced. The timing may be something else again.

MR. WALLACE: A further supplementary. Since the Premier

affirms that the commitment in the throne speech will be kept, has the

decision been made that...?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Oak Bay has the floor.

MR. WALLACE: Can the Premier tell us then if, in fact, all

future proposed price increases by B.C. Hydro will be brought before,

and will require the permission and approval of, this independent

agency as and when it is set up?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, at such time as the government

gets the time to tackle all the problems in British Columbia, certainly

at that time we'll spell out, as any agency is created, the terms of

reference. At this particular time, I don't want to go step by step

through any future policy.

While I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, in response to a question

yesterday by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) concerning the use

of a government car requested from the Provincial Secretary's office,

any such invoice that the Premier's office might have for such a

vehicle I'll ask leave to table in the House.

Leave granted.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary on this matter of the

independent monitoring agency. The Premier has stated repeatedly in

this House that inflation is the No. 1 battle, and now that he's had

time to write the agreement, can he not tell us if he regards it as a

rather...? In view of the double standard that wages can be rolled

back but prices will not, and the fact that B.C. Hydro is excluded from

the agreement although prices have gone up twice in nine months, can he

not assure the House that it is a very urgent matter which will receive

his immediate attention — to set up the independent monitoring

[ Page 3099 ]

system?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I might say that I appreciate the comments

that prices should come under review. The member is correct that under

the former government Hydro was given an increase, and they've had one

since we've been government. Last year they showed the first loss in

electrical sales they've had in years. Up until that time, the losses

have been attributable to.... It's the only loss they've ever had on

electrical sales. Up until that time, losses have been associated with

transit. Certainly we're concerned about pricing on government

corporations and that's why we had a policy statement in the throne

speech. I just can't give you the specifics today.

POSSIBLE ICBC REFUNDS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): A question to the

minister responsible for ICBC: yesterday the minister was quoted as

saying that accident claims for the first three months of the fiscal

year could be down as much as 50 per cent, which more or less bears out

the kind of advice they had earlier from Byron Straight of the board of

directors that the premiums had been set too high. In view of the fact

that the corporation predicted a 15 per cent increase rather than a

drop, and given the fact that this year's exorbitant rates were based

on those predictions, and now that they aren't proving true, will the

minister undertake to refund to the motorists at the end of the year

the surplus that looks like being something over $100 million if this

rate of low claims continues?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, it

would be a wonderful thing for the motoring public of British Columbia

if there could be a surplus of $100 million to distribute at the end of

the year. But we have made it very clear from the outset that the rates

for ICBC were established on a break-even basis, based on the

performance under the NDP. And the policy of the government is to

provide insurance for automobiles at cost to the motoring public of

British Columbia. Therefore, of course, any surplus that may be

achieved, because of better driving habits and better efficiency of

ICBC under a Social Credit administration and a businesslike board of

directors, will be returned to the motorist. There's no question about

it! I would like to think, to the member, that we would be $100 million

better than the NDP, but that's a very high target indeed.

Mr. Speaker, while I'm on my feet, I wonder if I could answer some

questions on ICBC that were taken as notice a couple of days ago.

NUMBER OF LICENSED AUTOMOBILES

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) asked about the number of

licensed automobiles on the road. I'm afraid that we have no better

update on the figures than the last time when I reported on this. I am

told that the most recent date has been put through the computer and it

will not be too long before we can give accurate figures. Again I

reiterate, however, that gasoline sales are up this year.

ICBC STAFF REDUCTION

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) asked about the

number of adjusters: were we going to lay off 50 per cent of the

adjusters? The answer to that question is no. But the answer to the

question posed by the member for Port Alberni (Mr. Skelly) is that the

branch in Port Alberni, as with a number of other claim centres and

branches in British Columbia, is overstaffed at the present time, so

there will be a reduction in staff to keep pace with the amount of

business which ICBC is doing at the present time.

ICBC CASH ON HAND

The member for New Westminster asked about the cash on hand in ICBC.

ICBC has no cash on hand because all of the receivables are immediately

invested to bring an income return to the corporation and directed to

the people of British Columbia. As of May 31, 1976, the total amount

held in short-term investments was $311.9 million. Of this, Mr.

Speaker, $251.4 million was in unearned premiums — that is, premiums

that had been collected on behalf of the motoring public but which had

not been yet applied to accidents that are expected to be incurred

before the end of the year. In addition to that, there were $164.6

million of unpaid claims. In other words, the corporation owes to

people who have incurred accidents over $164 million which has not been

paid.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you speed it up a little?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Would you defer to the hon.

member for New Westminster who had a number of replies given to him?

Then I'll come back to you, Hon. Member.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, a

supplementary to the Minister of Education, the minister in charge of

ICBC: in view of the fact that the government was accused, at the very

outset of the new rate schedule, of rating very, very

[ Page 3100 ]

high, extraordinarily high, and now that the minister comes in with

the answer that he came in with today, will the minister now admit that

they were way out of line in putting up the rates the way they were?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the rates were set, as I have said before, by actuaries of the corporation on a break-even basis.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I repeat: the rates were set by

actuaries of the corporation; they were ratified by the cabinet but not

set by the cabinet, as with the former administration....

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: The rates were deliberately set low!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. McGEER: There was a great deal of publicity to a suggestion by one member of the board of directors, Mr. Byron Straight...

MR. COCKE: An actuary.

HON. MR. McGEER: ...that the rates may have been set 4 per

cent too high. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, no one could have

predicted the amount of waste that took place in ICBC...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McGEER: ...and the encouragement to bad driving that was under that administration.

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, when rates were deliberately set at the cost

level, it was done by the former Premier (Mr. Barrett), by the former

Minister of Hospital Insurance (Mr. Cocke) and by the former Minister

of Transport (Mr. Strachan).

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, the minister

didn't really answer my question, which was: will a refund go to this

year's motorists? They need the money to pay their extra sales tax.

Here's my supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister was quoted yesterday

as saying the staff has already been reduced 10 per cent by attrition

and he is looking at chopping it further. Could I ask him what his

target is in cutting down the ICBC staff for this year?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the second

question — the member will understand this — whatever will bring

maximum efficiency to that corporation.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 75: administrative and support services, $28,755,041 — continued.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Chairman, I wish to

change the topic from this morning's discussion. I am a bit concerned

about the many independent operators in this British Columbia coast.

Under the previous Social Credit government over the last 20 years

prior to our becoming government, large tracts of timber were given

away, particularly on this coast, by a method of tree farm licences and

pulp harvesting licences and this type of thing. The result of all

this, Mr. Chairman, was that a large number of small independent

operators who provided jobs and a way of life on this coast and in the

interior and in these communities were forced out of business.

I realize that under the provisions of a TFL there were provisions

where a certain percentage of the harvesting to be done was to be done

by independent operators. But some of these operators were not small

and certainly not independent. They were directly under the thumb of

some of the larger private corporations. For the remaining timber that

was left in some of these areas, Mr. Chairman, through you to the

minister, areas were set up which were called public sustained-yield

units. The few remaining independents that were left had to compete in

those areas for the timber within those areas. However, the regulations

at that time did not provide for the fact that if one of those

independents wished to sell his quota, he could do so without the

approval of the minister at that time. The result of that was that some

of these small independents being forced out, particularly when the

market was at a low level, sold their quotas, some of them quite

cheaply, without reference really, to the department or to the

minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, and further reduced the number of

small independent operators on this coast.

So I am asking you and hoping that prior to the Pearse commission

report being tabled hopefully this July you will make sure that the

small independent logging and sawmill operators of this province will

once again have the opportunity to participate in the forest industry

in this province.

[ Page 3101 ]

On another topic, very briefly, I would hope that the minister, in

view of some of the remarks that were made this morning regarding the

Ocean Falls Corp., would see fit to table the Simons report and make it

public. In a public accounts committee hearing approximately two weeks

ago, the general manager of the Ocean Falls Corp,, Mr. Vesak, told us —

and he has seen the Simons report — that there were three viable

alternatives. One of these alternatives was through expansion and

upgrading the community and the planned facilities in that community,

and one which he favoured. Now I don't know which one he favoured. He

briefly outlined, as I recall during the public accounts committee

hearing, these three or four alternatives.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, may I just interrupt you long

enough to remind you of something that I'm sure you know, and that is

that details of information or proceedings or evidence presented to

public accounts committee cannot be discussed here in committee.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you very much. I'm very pleased you reminded me, Mr. Chairman, because I'd completely forgotten that.

So just to change the subject, I would ask the minister to read the

draft of the public accounts committee, and read those remarks of the

general manager, because I think he would find them very interesting.

But basically what I'm asking is that the Simons report be tabled in

this House, because it involves more than Ocean Falls, Mr. Chairman. It

involves the community of Bella Coola, which must have a tax base, and

will provide employment in that area if some of the recommendations, as

I understand them, from the Simons report would be implemented. There's

a high level of unemployment in that area, and it would alleviate some

of those problems in that community — and Bella Coola as well, a

community of some 1,200 people where there are horrendous problems of

unemployment.

So I'm hoping that the minister will take a few minutes and answer some of these questions.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In response to the queries from the

member for Mackenzie, it is quite true that the H.A. Simons report has

been available to the Forest Service; in fact the former Minister of

Forests has a copy of it. The base studies made in that report

indicated a marginal rate of return, after rather massive capital

investment, of approximately above or below 10 per cent, which is not

sufficient return to entice an capital to make investments in the Ocean

Falls Corp. as it is now.

Additional studies are being carried out by the Forest Service. We

are still looking for a way of utilizing the Ocean Falls operation and

possibly tying this in with other developments on the coast. I realize

that Mr. Ted Vesak, the manager of Ocean Falls Corp., feels that the

return is sufficient. However, as stated in the H.A. Simons report, Mr.

Vesak does not have the $100 million, $200 million, or $300 million

required to bring that about, and until such time as the return is

sufficient to get that capital into the province, then another approach

has to be taken, and we are continually working on this.

We're very concerned about Ocean Falls and about the people living

there. We don't want to do anything that will jeopardize their

employment in that area in the forestry industry. We will continue to

study this, and, hopefully, some solution will come about as our

studies proceed.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, just a very brief follow-up.

First of all, I should tell you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman, that the manager of the Ocean Falls Corp. did tell us, for

starters, that there was enough resource in the central coast area to

supply three pulp mills. So we have the basic resource in that area.

But we were further told, Mr. Chairman, that the 9.5 per cent return on

the various options that were proposed, apparently in the Simons

report, was based on a time when the market was at its very worst, and

at this time we could expect a much, much higher return. Certainly I

don't think now, because the markets are improving and the world market

for pulp and paper products is improving.

But I can't understand, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, how

the mill is expected to pay its own way if we don't as a province, as a

government, or as a corporation, provide the funds necessary to

improve, upgrade and modernize that mill. The mill, at the moment, is

deteriorating so much every year and the situation is just getting

worse. You've indicated that there are further studies taking place,

and I wonder if you could indicate to us — and if you have indicated

this already, I'm sorry, I missed it — who is doing the study, when you

expect these studies to be completed and what general direction they

are taking.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The Forest Service at the present time is

having a very close study of the timber resource available in that

area, and they are attempting to come up with an invitation for bid

proposals which will fully utilize the resource in the area. Ocean

Falls, of course, must play a big

part in whatever invitations are

made. We haven't resolved this problem yet, and when we do it will, of

course, be public knowledge.

The member also mentioned the independent logger and the importance

of the independent logger to the forest economy of British Columbia. I

couldn't

[ Page 3102 ]

agree with him more. I have stated on many occasions that I feel

that the independent logger has been the backbone and the starting

point of many of our major industries in this province related now in

the forest sector.

I've done all I can to encourage the independent logger, and I know

that Dr. Pearse, when he brings in his report, will be addressing

himself to this problem. We don't want to see the independent logger

disappear. He's a vital part of the industry, and we will do everything

we can to encourage him to continue. The independent, free enterprise

loggers are something that we need in this province.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, there's just one final question I'd

like to ask of the minister and it relates to a problem that's been

drawn to my attention in the riding of Alberni, particularly on the

west coast of Vancouver Island. A large number of people in that area

have built or use cabins located in provincial forests or in tree farm

licence lands for wilderness activities — for hiking, fishing and this

type of thing. Although the cabins are built on public land or built on

tree farm licence lands that are administered by forest companies,

they're not really used by the persons who build them. They're used by

a number of people. They're wilderness cabins and they're generally

accessible to a number of people using the forests for recreation uses.

Now the Forest Service comes along and they put the torch to these

cabins, and there's a lot of money invested in the cabins — stoves,

repairs to these cabins. I've just been notified by one of my

constituents that one of these cabins on Megin River, just north of

Tofino, will be put to the torch by the Forest Service. This person has

been ordered either to remove the cabin or it will be burned down by

the Forest Service. I've talked to some of the officials of timber

companies involved — for example, in tree farm licence 19 — and those

officials feel that the cabins constitute no danger to the forests;

that there's not much danger of fire.

I'm sure the minister is aware that very few fires are caused by the

location of these cabins in forest areas, and yet they do provide

wilderness recreation to a lot of people on the west coast of Vancouver

Island. There are cabins located at Rugged Point on Kyuquot Sound near

Zeballos, and there are cabins located north of Tofino.

The Forest Service has notified a lot of the people on the west

coast that they intend to destroy these cabins and have told the people

to remove their property. I'm wondering if the minister will not

consult with some of the recreation groups in that area, with the

people who operate tree-farm licences in that area, and perhaps allow

these cabins to remain as wilderness shelters for people involved in

wilderness recreation on the west coast of Vancouver Island. What is the minister's reaction to that?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, there is a problem not only

on the west coast of Vancouver Island but throughout the province where

people build cabins on Crown land and proceed to squat and eventually

claim to have some form of title to the land. I would never encourage

citizens of British Columbia, or people who are not citizens, to

attempt to acquire Crown land through illegal means. This is a great

problem. There are literally thousands of these throughout the

province. It is a problem which is presently before the land use

committee, and we are trying to determine a way of solving this problem.

Now as far as wilderness cabins in areas which are used in common by

many people, there is a very fine line to draw here, too. If someone

builds a cabin in the bush, puts a lock on it and that's his cabin, he

is in effect saying: "This piece of land is mine." I can't buy that at

all. However, if a cabin is in an area which is used generally by the

public as a refuge in a remote area, I think consideration must be

given to that fact also, because I think in many cases it is good. It's

nice to have shelter when you're exploring wilderness areas of the

province and I would not encourage such cabins to be destroyed.

However, many times the case is simply that people are squatting on

Crown land; they're attempting to acquire title and use of Crown land

through illegal means, and I can never condone that. There are ways of

obtaining, through the Lands department, title to Crown land in such

areas and these procedures must be followed.

MR. SKELLY: I think the minister is aware, though, that on

the west coast of Vancouver Island these cabins are generally built to

provide access. It's very difficult to go in and out of some of these

areas in one day, and overnight shelter is a requirement for access to

these areas. The forest companies involved themselves, who either hold

tree farm licences in the area or hold quotas in the area, generally

have no objections, and in fact many of the people involved in the

forest companies themselves use the cabins. Even those people who do

put locks on the door find that a lock in a place like Megin River, 30

or 40 miles north of Tofino, generally doesn't last more than a week at

a time. The cabins are used by a number of recreationists — fishermen,

travellers, this type of thing — so I don't think there's any question

of people laying claim to the land.

As the minister is well aware, forest land can't be alienated in

that area. People have made applications in the area and they've always

been rejected because the lands are located in provincial forests. But

the cabins do provide a source of wilderness recreation and shelter for

people on the west coast, and there are a very limited amount of

recreation and shelter

[ Page 3103 ]

opportunities out there.

I would hope that the minister, until a report is brought down by

the Environment and Land Use Committee on this problem, would hold off

on destroying these cabins until some type of policy decision has been

made in consultation with the recreation groups and with the managing

companies involved in those tree farm licences. Would the minister give

us an assurance that they will hold off on destroying these cabins

until consultation has taken place and a policy has been drafted?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: As long as cabins are available to the

general public and are not claimed to be the sole possession of some

individual on Crown lands.... As I said, I think refuge in wilderness

areas as a place to stay overnight and to use as an operational base

for wilderness travel is good. Yes, I will give the member assurance

that we will not destroy cabins unless each individual case has been

thoroughly investigated. The member, not correctly, says that because a

provincial forest covers an area lands cannot be alienated for a

single-use purpose such as being acquired by an individual. Small

tracts of provincial forests can be removed by order-in-council if

individuals have a good reason to wish to acquire them. This has been

done many, many times.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: One very quick question to the minister, Mr.

Chairman. Something that hasn't been raised in the estimates when I've

been present is the matter of junk wood and debris in the strait and on

the Fraser River. I know the Council of Forest Industries has been

quite active in this matter along with the Forest Service over the last

several years, and with some degree of success. It is my understanding

that this year there are problems because of so-called lack of funding

from your department, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, and that

the programme of trapping debris on the Fraser River, for example, may

be abandoned because of lack of funds from your department. I wonder if

you could clear up this matter for me.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I realize there is a problem this year.

We have been required to cut back on funding in various areas of the

department of operations. We don't do this with the intention of

creating additional debris problems. We are aware of the problem and I

hope by next year we will be able to get back to more comprehensive

debris-control operation.

However, further to some of the discussions we had this morning,

we're making it unnecessary for this junk to be taken out of the bush

in all cases before it becomes debris in the waters. This is a very

practical way of controlling this material because it is of no value to

anyone and if it's taken out of the bush it just becomes debris and

becomes a hazard to the boating public and becomes an eyesore on the

beaches. This is one thing we are doing which costs no one anything,

really. In fact it ends up in an increase of revenue to the government.

We are aware of the problem and funding will be required more so next

year than this year. We'll do everything possible to prevent this

problem from continuing to exist.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The problem may be, Mr. Minister, that by the

time you get around to funding this programme, or assisting in the

funding — and some of it is being borne by the operators and log

salvagers and this type of thing — the programme will be down the tube

and there will be nothing to fund. So I would really suggest to you to

seriously consider allocating some funds to this programme. I know the

fishermen out in the strait — the sports fishermen and the people who

use our waterways — are very interested and concerned about this matter.

Vote 75 approved.

Vote 76: resource management programme, $6,378,077 — approved.

On vote 77: reforestation programme, $22,853,993.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): On the reforestation

programme, Mr. Chairman, I believe there was a cutback in the

allocation for this particular programme as compared to last year. I

just wonder if the minister could give us some indication of what the

programme objectives are — what he sees as the need in terms of keeping

pace with good sound management policies in the forest.

What does he feel that the general budget area requirements will be?

What numbers does he feel will be involved in ensuring that all areas

the province are adequately restocked on an annual basis? I haven't got

the precise vote last year, but it does seem to me that it's a

reduction, and I wonder if he anticipates a cutback for budgetary

reasons or does he feel that simply because the progress has been

adequate to date a cutback is justified?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the original budget last

year, for the fiscal year prior to this, was for $22,093,000 for the

reforestation programme, and that budget was cut back by the previous

government. In fact, last year $16.3 million was spent on reforestation.

Our budget this year is for $22.8 million, which is an increase of

over 40 per cent above what was actually spent last year. I think this

demonstrates the awareness of this government that reforestation is a

[ Page 3104 ]

very important thing. Is is, in fact, an investment in the future of

the forest industry. We are very concerned about it and that is why

this is one of the few areas of the forest budget that has been

dramatically increased. It's absolutely essential, and we will be

planting this year something in the order of 75 million trees, plus

doing a lot of preparation work on areas for reforestation. It's very

important to this government, and, as I say, a 40 per cent increase

over last year I think is an indication of our sincerity in this area.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, there's no increase at all in

terms of the budget for the programme. In fact, if you view increasing

costs on an annual basis, one could say that there is a reduction in

the estimated budget for the reforestation programme.

Now whether or not it was all expended in the past year is another

matter. Whether or not it shall be all expended in the current year is

something we won't know until next year either. I disagree with the

minister that there's any increase in the allocation for this

programme. The budget is apparently almost identical this year to what

it was last year.

I'm more interested though in the numbers. The minister's indicated

75 million tree plantings and I wonder if this is considered by your

departmental officials to be adequate to keep pace with the alienation

of the forests through all the logging activities in the province. Is

there a backlog of areas that need planting? Are there adequate

seedlings available? Just what are the prognostications for this

programme in terms of keeping pace and ensuring that there's no net

depletion of forest reserves?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member remarked that

last year they budgeted for something in the order of $600,000 or

$700,000 less than what we had budgeted for this year. But budgeting

does not plant trees. Trees are planted by expending the money that is

allocated in the budget. We have every intention this year of doing

exactly what we say we are going to do and expending this budget for

the reforestation programme for which it is designed.

Approximately 400,000 acres are logged each year in British Columbia

and approximately 120,000 acres are replanted. Now, this combined with

the natural regeneration that takes place, does not really keep up

fully with what is required. But there has been over the last number of

years a 15-year programme which has not yet expired, and each year

progressive increases in the reforestation programme have taken place.

We are following along with that programme.

We can't just turn on tree planting, because you have to provide the

nursery stock, and this is being done as fast as it's practical. I know

the previous government carried on with this programme, although their

commitments in actual expenditures last year were not what was

budgeted. We intend to carry on with the long-range programme of

constantly increasing reforestation programmes.

Vote 77 approved.

On vote 78: research programme, $2,450,998.

MR. SKELLY: This is another

section of the forest vote that

has been cut back from previous years and I'm wondering.... The

description provided in the estimate book says the reason for these

funds is to provide technology and improved quality of information

germane to the reorganization of forests and the regrowth of an

acceptable crop of trees. I'm wondering just what type of projects are

being carried out by the Forest Service under this vote and what

programmes are going to be cut back because of the decrease in funding

this year.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Right now I don't have the details of our research programme at hand but we do have a comprehensive report on this.

Any programmes that we have been committed to will be continued,

those that have a continuing nature to them. We are not initiating new

programmes. For a full answer to the question I think perhaps I could

provide a report of our research group to the member.

Vote 78 approved.

On vote 79: fire suppression programme, $9,202,000.

MR. KING: Again, Mr. Chairman, in my own particular riding

there was a cutback this year in the number of people employed for

fire-lookout duties. I appreciate that the department has gone to

alternate methods of identifying forest fires — plane patrols and so

on. But one of the things that bothered me and the individuals involved

who had lost their temporary status, I suppose it was, with the branch

over a period of as long as 15 years where they had been employed part

of each summer as a forest lookout was that they were rather

arbitrarily and unceremoniously dumped. Although they were not

permanent employees, it seems to me that the department might well have

taken into consideration the years that they had been associated with

the department performing a very difficult task, a very isolated one,

albeit on a temporary basis. But they were fulfilling a role that was

very, very important to the security of our prime resource.

I wish the minister would have a look at the status of those individuals. They did not seem to have been

[ Page 3105 ]

represented very well under the new union arrangement, perhaps

because there was such a very, very small group of people in this

category. Nevertheless it was a source of employment to many of them

over a period of the year, which was what is needed in a more or less

rural area. Many of them farm part-time. As I said, they were

unceremoniously dumped in some cases, in the Nakusp area particularly.

I know there were about five individuals involved there who were

just notified that they would not be required for the coming year. I

would appreciate it if the minister could have someone on his staff

have a look at the circumstances of these people, and perhaps if there

is not budget or if there's an improved method of fulfilling that

important function of early spotting of forest fires, they could be

offered some alternative employment in another branch or another area

of the forest service. I think they should certainly receive some kind

of consideration along those lines.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It is a fact that the method of spotting

forest fires is changing. We are going much more to the use of aircraft

now than we have in the past. One of the reasons this had to come about

was because of the overtime provisions in the collective agreement

signed by the civil service employees union. It made it much less

competitive to use stationary lookouts than it is to use aircraft.

Aircraft are much more efficient and cover a much wider area, and in

the interest of the efficiency of government and the best possible use

of government funds, we found it necessary to go more for the use of

aircraft rather than lookouts.

I might add, however, that the Forest Service is making every effort

to employ people formerly used in lookout service in other seasonal

employment programmes. I don't think anyone was unceremoniously dumped.

It may seem like a shock when the time comes up when you're expecting

that job you have had for a number of years and it's not available. But

every effort is being made to provide alternate employment for these

people.

For example, this year in our seasonal employment code throughout

all of our votes we are hoping to employ some 2,125 students for the

season. This all comes into the same area of part-time work. Some of

these funds will be used to give part-time work where it is required to

people formerly on lookout work. But we are concerned about individuals

who have lost their seasonal work, and we will make every effort to

look after them.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Minister's remarks.

I would like to draw to his attention, despite the overtime problems

which I recognize flows from the collective agreement, to the fact that

it is possible under the labour contracts existing with the government

employees and under the labour laws of this province to negotiate a

special arrangement for small components, particularly, those people in

isolated circumstances where, if on the basis of continuous overtime,

certainly it would be a heavy burden on the employer, the Crown in this

case. But as with employees in the Highways department who are

sometimes required to maintain highways, particularly in the

wintertime, under isolated circumstances, arrangements are made whereby

they can perhaps work two weeks on at very lengthy hours and then get

out of that isolation for a reasonable period of time.

Through discussion with the union, the hard applicability of the

overtime provisions in the collective agreement are waived out of

mutual agreement between the component of employees involved and their

employer, and it makes sense. This goes on in the isolated areas of

northern British Columbia in the private sector with respect to

drilling for oil and that type of thing. No one wants to work for eight

hours a day and sit in their isolated camp hundreds of miles from

civilization six days a week and on the weekend be prevented from

travelling out because the distance is too far.

So they strike an arrangement whereby they work for two weeks of

perhaps pretty intense and long hours. Then they come out of that kind

of isolation for a period of weeks. And upon application to the

Department of Labour for exemption from the Hours of Work Act and the

overtime provisions of the Hours of Work Act, and upon mutual agreement

of the two parties, this kind of arrangement can be made. So I think it

should be looked at.

As I say, many of these people have rendered a very important

service to this province for as long as 15 years. And they were

unceremoniously dumped. Sure, they weren't permanent employees, but

they received no advice notice that they wouldn't be required again.

They were banking on that work; they require it for their way of life.

I think they deserve consideration, Mr. Chairman.

Vote 70 approved.

On vote 80: forest protection programme, $7,101,520.

MR. SKELLY: Again, Mr. Chairman, this is another vote that

has been cut back — or estimated expenditure that has been cut back —

from the previous year. I am particularly concerned about the pest

management, and I believe I mentioned this initially in the minister's

estimates. For example, there is something like 300,000 acres of

provincial forest that is affected by spruce budworm damage. Yet the

only amount of acreage they can work on is

[ Page 3106 ]

something like 50 acres out of 300,000 acres of damage.

I see in pest management that the money allocated is $29,000, which

doesn't seem to be a large enough amount to handle, say, spruce budworm

damage over 300,000 acres in the province. I am wondering if we can

expect any increase in this budget. Is the Forest Service taking the

issue of pest control in the forest seriously? Just how much of this

vote is going to be spent on the control of pests such as the spruce

budworm in B.C. forests?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the protection vote is down

this year because we are not buying any new equipment. However, pest

protection last year was for $23,000; we have increased that by 25 per

cent because, once again, we are aware of the necessity of looking

after our forests for the future of our forest industry and the

well-being of the future generations of British Columbians. We are

budgeting 25 per cent more this year than last year. The only cutback

is on the purchase of new equipment to do this. We will continue to pay

great attention to the control of pests in the forest.

MR. SKELLY: According to the estimates, you've got it

backwards. It looks like last year the amount allocated for materials,

supplies and utilities, for example, was $1.2 million; this year it is

$2.25 million. For machinery and equipment, granted, it is down from

$392,000 to $32,000. You have cut back on rentals by about half, but I

am wondering what type of machinery and equipment you are cutting back

on. Why the cutback from one-third of a million to $32,000?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 80 pass?

MR. SKELLY: I think the minister is trying to study his estimates, sir, before coming up with an answer.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The purchase of equipment used has been

cut back because the equipment is available from previous years. The

details of the type of equipment we are using — I don't have the

information at hand now. However, as I said, the pest-protection vote

is increased. We will be doing at least as much, if not more, this year

in actual pest control than in previous years.

Vote 80 approved.

Vote 81: inventory programme, $5,470,023 — approved.

On vote 82: scaling programme, $9,308,904.

MR. SKELLY: Just a small problem: the IWA local in my area

has contacted me concerning acting official scalers. People who are

log-dump operators operating machinery in log dumps have been appointed

by the Forest Service as acting official scalers. It says in their

notice of appointment by the Forest Service that they can be terminated

at any time. This could jeopardize the job of that person as dumpman

working in the log dumps removing logs from the water. I am wondering

if the Forest Service has come to any kind of an agreement with the IWA

to protect the jobs of these people should they be summarily dismissed

as acting official scalers. How has the Forest Service come to an

agreement with the IWA to handle that problem?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, we don't have any official

agreement with the IWA. However, no one is required to accept a

position as a temporary scaler. The people have to be qualified to do

the job; they are taken on as needed. We find that it is essential to

use these people. Because of the intermittent nature of the scaling

work we cannot possibly take on people under government staff to do

scaling. Once they are on, then they have to be maintained at other

jobs that perhaps do not exist. It is essential that we use temporary

scalers. There is no official agreement between the unions; however, as

I said, these people are under no obligation to do so and obviously

would work out some kind of arrangement with their employers should

they be required for scaling work.

Vote 82 approved.

Vote 83: range management programme, $1,231,540 — approved.

On vote 84: forest development roads programme, $4,617,194.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Chairman, the member for

Alberni (Mr. Skelly), when these estimates were under discussion some

time ago, raised the question about the roads in the Nimpkish Valley

and roads that applied particularly in his own riding.

I, too, am concerned about that Nimpkish Valley road, particularly

because, as the minister may be aware, it is the only road which the

12,000 people on the north end of the island have now for travel. Every

year, particularly in the winter months, the complaints that come from

the north islanders are just constant. They're just complaining

constantly about the condition of that road.

Now if there has been a cutback in the road-servicing programmes, as

is indicated in this vote, how are those people going to manage next

winter? You indicated, Mr. Minister, that you are

[ Page 3107 ]

going to talk to the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) with

respect to some sort of cost-sharing in order to maintain that road,

but in my conversations with the Minister of Highways he indicates to

me that he has no money to spare for anything. I'm just wondering how

we might resolve this problem, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I, too, am concerned about

the road access for people in remote areas. I know it is a great

problem. We have discussed it with the Minister of Highways and I

believe some $60,000 is being made available from that department to

the Forest Service for the maintenance of these roads when they are not

being maintained by the logging operators. I'm sorry to hear that the

member had constant complaints from the area last winter. I would have

hoped that the previous government would have done something about

fixing those roads up for them. We will do everything we possibly can

and provide the best road service that we can as far as the

responsibility of the Forest Service is concerned.

I would like to think that as the Highways department's budgets are

improved in future years, perhaps more responsibility for these roads

can be assumed by that department, especially as logging moves off into

different areas. The logging companies only maintain the roads while

active logging is taking place, the Forest Service then assuming some

responsibility for them. But really, servicing a community of 12,000

people, I would think that it's not going to be that long before the

Highways department will be able to provide some funds for upgrading

the road access.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the

minister. I don't think it's going to resolve the problem this winter,

though, particularly on that Nimpkish Valley road. Under the previous

government there were significant funds diverted into maintaining that

road following the numerous complaints that were brought down, but

obviously, with this kind of a budget, they're not going to be able to

funnel those extra funds into maintaining the road during the

wintertime.

If the minister is talking about the Nimpkish Valley road as the

public access road out and that the Forest Service, in conjunction with

the Highways department, will expend some funds when the forest

companies are not operating, could the minister also tell me how the

road into Holberg from Port Hardy is going to be maintained this

winter? There is a significant

section of that road on which there is

no logging company operating at the moment. Would that come out of the

funds that are available here? Does the department recognize that there

is no logging company operating there this year and that the Forest

Service will have to be responsible for the entire maintenance of that

road during the winter?

The other question — just one other brief question, Mr. Chairman —

relates to

section 6 of the Highway Act which, in fact, says that if

funds from the Highways department are used on forest roads the

companies will be responsible for paying gasoline tax and licensing and

everything else as though it were a public highway. Has that problem

been overcome between the two departments and the forest companies?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the charging of taxes for

gasoline really does not come under vote 84, as it isn't the

responsibility of the Forest Service. Perhaps that question could be

raised with the minister responsible. As far as the Holberg road is

concerned, my department is presently negotiating with the Department

of Highways hoping that that department will take over that particular

road. It will provide some hardship to the small amount of logging that

takes place there because, with the bumps, it will reduce the size of

loads that they can haul on the logging trucks. However, with the

limited amount of hauling on that road we feel that the hardship will

not be that great and that the greater benefit will be by the Highways

department taking over. A resolution has not yet been completed on this

problem, but we are still discussing the matter with the Department of

Highways. Hopefully, we can resolve it to the benefit of the people who

must use this road.

MS. SANFORD: What about the Holberg road?

Vote 84 approved.

On vote 85: reservoir waterway improvement programme, $7,130,710.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, in 1973 a

considerable amount of money was spent, I think for the first time,

towards clearing the areas behind the Duncan Dam. I'd like to inquire

from the minister how much money was spent last year clearing in that

area, thinning, and what the plans are for this year in terms of

expenditure.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid I don't have the

figures for the amount of money expended last year, but we have

budgeted $300,000 for....

MR. NICOLSON: The same amount?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, the difference

[ Page 3108 ]

between the votes this year and last year is substantial. This year

we're voting $7.1 million for reservoir waterway improvements programme

and last year we voted $10 last year.

I'm wondering if any of this expenditure is attributable to the mess

that the previous government left behind Williston Dam, the mess that

they left behind some of the Columbia River dams and if any of it's

going to be expended on the McGregor River diversion area.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, it is quite a substantial increase from $10 million to $7 million and some dollars....

MR. SKELLY: Ten dollars.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: From $10 — I'm sorry. However, this is

what we used to call a $10 vote. The moneys which were recovered from

B.C. Hydro previously went into the Forest Service. This year they go

into general revenue and we have to budget the total amount because we

don't get it directly back into our department.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the member for Nelson-Creston brought

up the Duncan reservoir which is in my riding. It's been raised in this

House many, many times over the last number of years, the colossal mess

with the flooded timber that is evident at the Duncan Lake. I'm aware

that many operators in the Meadow Creek and the Coffee Creek area who

run shingle mills and things of that nature are unable to get wood on

any permanent basis for their operation. That's virtually the only

source of employment in that region in the Lardeau valley. I wonder if

the minister could tell me whether or not, first of all, there are any

accelerated plans for clearing from the reservoir and also what the

chances are for the local small operators to be provided with a more

secure supply of mainly cedar products.

Much of it is simply salvage material from the Duncan reservoir so

their operations in that region, albeit small ones employing only a

dozen or 15 men, at least can be guaranteed some security of operation.

Over the past year they've been obliged to close, and not only the past

year. Quite frankly, I think it's over the past number of years that

they've been obliged to close from time to time, simply for lack of

material. It's rather disconcerting when we see operators burning all

kinds of cedar material that would be completely adequate for the kind

of shake product and plants that they have in that region. I hope the

minister's aware of it and will have a hard look at it in that area.

The other question I wanted to put to him with respect to salvage

from reservoir areas is the question of the proposed Revelstoke Dam

which would, I suppose, flood approximately 80 miles of reservoir

between the Revelstoke and Mica Creek. I wonder if the Forests

department has any inventory of what is left for clearing prior to the

inundation of that valley due to the construction of yet another

Columbia chain dam.

I think it's safe to say the majority of the material has been

taken, but I would be interested to learn from the minister precisely

what assessment has been made by the Forestry branch of the inventory

that must be taken prior to flooding of that valley.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the indications we have

from studies the Forest Service has conducted are that we will have

sufficient lead time to completely remove the timber from behind the

new Revelstoke Dam. It will depend to a certain extent on the length of

time that these studies and hearings go on. However, I understand from

our staff that the time is there and we can fully recover the timber

before flooding actually takes place, and we will make every effort to

do so.

As far as independent people acquiring products, especially wood for

their specialty mills, I'll make every effort, as will the department,

to see that this material is utilized, because it is a shame to burn it

when it does have value and when people require it to operate their

plants.

For the Duncan Dam, as we mentioned, there was $300,000 budgeted

this year. We would have liked to have had more. However, our budget is

restrained by that of B.C. Hydro, because they ultimately pay the cost

of doing this by paying into general revenue of the government. They

have limited their expenses their year to $300,000, so I'm afraid the

Forest Service is stuck with that. But we will continue to make every

effort to clean up Duncan Lake.

MR. SKELLY: This seems strange; it looks like there's a

subsidy to B.C. Hydro taking place out of general revenue, and that

B.C. Hydro used to pay the cost of clearing reservoirs behind their

dams, with the exception of $10 which was voted from general revenue.

Now B.C. Hydro is no longer paying that $5 million, and the total

burden of clearing behind the dams built by B.C. Hydro is now being

shouldered by the taxpayer. Is that not the case? We're not getting $5

million from B.C. Hydro this year, we're not getting the cost of

clearing the reservoirs this year; it looks like it's a subsidy to the

B.C. Hydro and Power Authority.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, the member must have

misunderstood me. I said the money is not coming into the Forest

Service directly; it goes into general revenue. The Forest Service

budgets for it; the money for the Forest Service comes from general

revenue. B.C. Hydro is paying the

[ Page 3109 ]

total cost. It's just the way it's handled by the government Finance

department. The money comes back into general revenue rather than

directly into the Forest Service.

MR. SKELLY: Sounds like a case for the auditor-general.

Vote 85 approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT

OF THE PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

On vote 152: minister's office, $75,258.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Chairman, I

wonder if I could just take a few minutes of the time of the House to

introduce the vote of the Provincial Secretary. In so doing, I wonder

if I could have agreement of the members of this House that we would

discuss under this vote the salary of the Provincial Secretary's office

and then move on to superannuation and the Public Service Commission,

then do the Department of Recreation and Travel Industry following — if

that's agreeable.

MR. SKELLY: What about the other way around?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: All of the votes under Provincial Secretary first, followed by superannuation and the Public Service Commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which vote are we on?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We're on the Provincial Secretary's vote

which pays the salary of both of my departments. I was just hoping that

you would agree that we would not mix up Recreation and Provincial

Secretary under this particular debate. It is traditional that we do

the Provincial Secretary's vote first and keep the votes separate, and

I think that tradition would be observed. I just wished to put that on

the record so we would not jump from one portfolio to another. Agreed?

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): On a point of

order, and to the Provincial Secretary on the exact mechanics of that —

in other words, would Travel Industry be done under a different vote

than the vote she's just introduced, or would it all be done under this

vote but segmented in terms of discussion?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, in the order I have just noted, and

it would be the Provincial Secretary's vote and all the votes therein

in the estimates book. Superannuation and Public Service Commission

comes immediately following, and following that we could go into my

Department of Recreation, followed by my Department of Travel Industry.

It is somewhat....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Provincial Secretary still has the floor.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It is....

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Point of order: is the

Provincial Secretary suggesting that on the first vote we should not

discuss all of the departments for which she's responsible?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Not at all.

MS. BROWN: Okay, fine.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, not at all. You are saying

that all the departments of the Provincial Secretary that I am

responsible for should be discussed under that vote.

MS. BROWN: No, no — also Travel, Recreation and everything else.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think it is traditional, Mr. Chairman,

that under the vote of the minister's office that is paying for the

minister's salary.... As you know, the minister's salary is only paid

once, whether they have one department or two departments, and it is

traditional that the vote is taken first on the one department for

reasons of staffing. I would like to have the opportunity of having my

Recreation department staff here when you question me under the

recreational vote. I would appreciate it if you would confine your

remarks in the first few moments — and I'm sure it will only take a few

moments — to the department of the Provincial Secretary, followed by

superannuation, Public Service Commission, and then hopefully we could

have my staff of the Department of Recreation and Travel Industry...and

you will query me under those votes after that. Is that agreed, Mr.

Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If I may make an observation, this is the kind

of an agreement which perhaps ought better to be made through the Whips

of the House, because it is not provided that we can make this kind of

an agreement in committee.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, it's so traditionally.

MR. CHAIRMAN: However, if the House is so inclined, then so ordered.

[ Page 3110 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, may I continue then with my remarks of introduction?

MR. KING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. KING: I don't think that it is so ordered at all. There is no agreement as yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, we can't take the time of

committee to make agreements on the kind of subject that Whips should

be making agreements....

MR. KING: Very good. I agree. I don't intend to discuss that;

I do intend to discuss the Chairman's assumption that an agreement was

in effect, and giving an indication by "so ordered." There is no such

agreement as yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In a vacuum of an agreement by Whips, we must

come to agreement somehow. My observation was that this is not the

place to make that kind of an agreement.

MR. KING: Right on!

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

MR. SKELLY: Another point of order — just a question to the

Provincial Secretary: would it be inconvenient to have the Recreation

and Travel Industry people first? Would it be a staff problem to have

them appear first? Oh, it would be difficult.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, my salary is paid under the Provincial Secretary's vote.

Just in introducing this particular department, Mr. Chairman, I

would like to say that it is difficult to take each and every aspect of

the Provincial Secretary's department and make remarks, so I will save

the House from remarks on all departments, because we cover some 20

different subjects, and I know that you will want to do those

individually as you question me today.

I do want to say, in rising on this particular vote, that since

nowhere in our estimates do we pay tribute to the office of the Speaker

and the Clerks of this House, I feel that we should recognize today

that in this House, although they are silent members of the House and

servants of the House.... I would like to recognize today the great

service that the Clerks of the House give to our House.

It also should be noted, Mr. Chairman, that one of the long-standing

members of that office, Mr. George MacMinn will be retiring from that

office this year. Although he mentioned earlier to me that he has been 20 years in

office — and it only seems like about 19 and a half years — I do want

to pay tribute to the service he has given, and the Clerks have given,

to this House. I know that all members of the House will join me in

wishing them well.

Mr. Chairman, the office of the Department of the Provincial

Secretary is a very challenging one. It covers very many subjects, and

one that has been given a great deal of attention is that of the grants

programme. There is one particular grant which I would like to mention

today because our cabinet approval has just been given today, and it

may well be that we have members of the Vancouver Status of Women in

our gallery today, because I know they were visiting my office very

early this morning and I hope they are still in the precinct. It is my

pleasure to announce the additional grant for the balance of the six

months of this year of the $75,000 grant which is a continuation of the

grant that the Vancouver Status of Women had last year.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of concern

over whether or not this funding would be continued. My department has,

in the past few weeks since giving the first part of that grant,

undertaken an assessment of the programme. Because the Vancouver Status

of Women serves the whole province and because of the work they do we

are very pleased to announce that grant. I hope that there are some

members of that very dedicated group of women in the gallery today to

hear that announcement.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No. In total the grant is $75,000, which

is the like amount that was spent last year. It is a duplication of the

amount of money last year; it is a continuation, then, until the end of

the fiscal year for that amount of money. It duplicates the same amount.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, in the debate that will follow I

appreciate that all members of the House and certainly members of the

public will want more money for various programmes. In addressing

myself to the remark of the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) when he

said, "Is it the same as last year or more?" in most programmes,

unfortunately, we have not been able to give more money. I think,

without any more than has been said on the floor of this House, the

hon. Liberal leader knows why, as do all members of the opposition —

the amount of money that was left for us to work with was very much

less than the previous government had in their first term of office.

At any rate, Mr. Chairman, I will look forward to

[ Page 3111 ]

the constructive comments of the opposition. I just say, in rising

for the first time on my estimates as Provincial Secretary, how pleased

I am to represent this department and how pleased I have been with the

tremendous cooperation I have received from all the staff members in

the department throughout the province as well as here in the city of

Victoria.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I am very, very pleased that the

cabinet has approved a part of the request made by the Vancouver Status

of Women council for their continued funding, and I have no doubt

whatsoever that the hon. Provincial Secretary by so doing has certainly

shortened her estimates by a couple of minutes anyway. (Laughter.)

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Vancouver Status of Women did submit

a budget for quite a bit more than the $75,000. They were actually

asking for over $102,080 and I think they submitted with it a very

detailed description of the kind of work that they have been doing

since their inception five years ago and some very extensive and valid

reasons for their needing the additional $30,000 or $40,000 over what

they received last year. So, although I'm happy that they certainly

have received $75,000, I feel some sorrow that they didn't receive the

full amount that they asked for, because I think the budget which they

submitted was the absolute bones in terms of their requirement.

They submitted for salaries in their office, $864 a month. That's

the kind of salaries that they are going to be paying the people

working in their office.

What they have also done is to deal with a concept which we believe

in in the feminist movement. That is, all work that people do is

valuable and it is of equal value. So they pay everyone in the office

the same amount of money because they believe that whether the person

in the office is typing or dealing specifically across the board with

people with problems or giving legal advice or whatever, that

particular role — the job the person is doing — is valuable and that

nobody's work is more valuable than the other. So they submitted

salaries of $864 which would cover the service of people working as

legal people in the ombudservice, a bookkeeper to ensure that the books

are in order, co-ordinators of various programmes as well as the

clerical staff. They submitted for eight salaries and the $75,000 is

not going to be enough even to cover the basic eight salaries at the

very, very reasonable and below reasonable level of $864 a month.

When one compares the request for a salary of $864 a month with some

of the salaries being paid to advisers and consultants of one sort or

another, we find that actually, in a way, the Status of Women in

submitting this budget have fallen into the old trap of under-asking in

terms of their services. In fact, the kind of service done by these

women in that office is worth a lot more than the $864 a month which

they will be paying themselves for doing this job. But to ensure,

because they are dependent on public funding, that they do not ask for

more than they absolutely need, they have cut their request down to the

absolute minimum. Their budget, Mr. Chairman, also included things like

rent, telephone, transportation, postage, bank charges and one thing or

another. But there really isn't anything in this budget that can be cut

out.

So although I am glad that they have received $75,000 from the

provincial government, I am really very, very disappointed that the

grant allotted to them did not come closer to the request which they

put in. But I don't want to talk about the Status of Women in a vacuum,

Mr. Chairman, because I think that unless we understand and appreciate

the work being done by that organization, we really can't understand

how much money they are saving the province, quite frankly, just by the

work they are doing.

I want to read a letter which was submitted with their application

in support of it, from someone who has used their services, to give you

an idea of the appreciation out there for them. This letter was written

by Donald Moir, who is the chairman of the family law

section of the

Canadian Bar Association. What he said in his letter is:

"I suspect that if one were to do a cost-benefit

analysis of the services of the Vancouver Status of Women, one would

find that it had saved in reduced welfare and other social costs many,

many more times its minimal cost of operation. I suspect it might be

found that it is among the most efficient organizations, public or

private, serving the community."

This sentiment, Mr. Chairman, is echoed by Alderman Darlene Marzari,

one of the councillors from the Vancouver city council, in her letter

of support. She goes into great detail about the kind of services

rendered by this organization throughout its five years of existence

and its importance to city council as well as to other levels of

government.

What I'm trying to say is that it isn't as though the Status of

Women council is asking for money in a frivolous manner to carry out

superficial or luxury kinds of activities. In fact, the work done by

the Vancouver Status of Women saves the government, at all levels, a

considerable sum of money. The Vancouver Status of Women, Mr. Chairman,

is involved in a number of different areas. I want to talk a little bit

about the area that I'm most familiar with, and that's the ombudservice.

After the royal commission on the status of women came down, Mrs.

Bird, who was the chairperson of that committee, came to Vancouver, and

a meeting or conference sponsored by the

[ Page 3112 ]

University Women's Club, and the Faculty of Continuing Education at

UBC sponsored a conference of women to discuss the report. There were

approximately 300 women present at that conference, including the

member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). That was the very first time

that I certainly had had an opportunity to meet her in the flesh.

Out of that conference came the decision that what was necessary in

this province was an umbrella organization to work very actively

towards the implementation of the recommendations — the more than 164

recommendations — in that report. That's how the Status of Women was

born — primarily to deal with the recommendations in the report.

Soon after their founding, and I was one of the people at the

conference who became one of the founding members, it became very clear

that there were so many problems affecting women that were not even

covered by that report — instant, immediate problems that had to be

dealt with — that the Vancouver Status of Women created what was known

as the ombudservice. The function of the ombudswoman, as she was called

at that time, was to deal with the immediate problems of any woman who

phoned or wrote or turned up on the doorstep of the Vancouver Status of

Women council with an immediate problem.

I was the first ombudswoman and had a lot to do with the setting up

of this service. It's interesting to me that over the years, Mr.

Chairman, the kinds of problems that are brought to us by women really

haven't changed that much. They are still in the area of family law;

they are still in the area of housing; they are still in the area of

employment; but most of all, the one thing they all seem to have in

common is poverty.

Just about every one of the women who came with a problem was poor.

There were very few exceptions to that rule. So the ombudservice

developed resources throughout the community that could be called upon

in terms of dealing with these problems which were presented to us.

What it served to do was to lighten the load of other groups like the

Children's Aid Society, like the Welfare department, which is

administered now by the Minister of Human Resources, like the emergency

department of the hospital. It dealt with things like rape. You know,

out of the ombudservice developed the concept for transition houses and

rape-relief centres. It was used extensively by the police in the

community. Out of that also came the idea for the family law commission.

It started with one person, with a grant of $1,800 from the

Secretary of State, but it has really grown to be almost the core of

the Vancouver Status of Women council. It used four people; there are

four women now working around the clock in that service for the salary

of $864 a month — four. The additional four people on the staff deal

with such things as education, because there is no question that one of

the largest hurdles that we have to deal with in this society in terms

of the problems that women have — in terms of our rights,

discrimination, oppression, whatever you want to call it — has to do

with lack of information. It's just absolutely clear that people do not

know what the facts are. So education is a major role of the Vancouver

Status of Women Council, and the Provincial Secretary was quite right

that the council operates not just for Vancouver, but for the entire

province. In fact, it's a misnomer to call it the Vancouver Status of

Women Council, because it's a provincial body.

One of its roles has to do with the educating of legislative

representatives and municipal representatives. It has to do with the

whole concept of teachers and the school counsellors, as well as

everyone else in the community. One salary was asked for, Mr. Chairman,

to cover that as well.

The other thing that the Vancouver Status of Women has become

involved with is the plight of immigrant women coming into this

country. It is working very closely with another outstanding women's

group in this community, the YWCA. Over the past two years their

service in that area has expanded and been developed extensively.

Another salary was requested for that, again at the same level of $864.

As I mentioned earlier there was also a request for a bookkeeper,

again at the same $864. The final salary requested for for a

co-ordinator of volunteers, because a lot of volunteer work is done by

this particular organization. I'm sorry that the hon. government Whip

isn't here, because I know how committed he is to the concept of

volunteerism and I'm sure that he would want to say his bit on behalf

of the Vancouver Status of Women Council and the volunteer role that

they're doing throughout the entire province.

So which of these salaries are to be cut? In fact, the same plight

that the provincial government finds itself in, in terms of

funding...the Vancouver Status of Women Council have been notified by

the federal government that they too find themselves unable to fund

them.

They do raise some money from the community at large and will have

to continue to do so. There isn't any question about that, but what I

really want to say to the Provincial Secretary is that in last year's

budget there were $200,000 budgeted for the office of the co-ordinator

of the Status of Women for the province. That office has now been

terminated. It had been my hope, however, that that $200,000 would have

reappeared somewhere else in the Provincial Secretary's budget.

Certainly out of this $200,000 there would have been sufficient funding

to meet the

[ Page 3113 ]

very limited request of the Vancouver Status of Women's office for

their $102,000. Seventy-five thousand dollars is just not enough for

the Vancouver Status of Women Council to do the job that has to be done.

There's an increase in every single area that they're involved in,

Mr. Chairman. There's an increased demand on their services, whether it

is in legal counselling, whether it is in employment counselling and

the whole area of credit, housing, single-parent families, assisting in

the setting up of women's centres, transition houses, rape relief,

dealing with legislators, dealing with municipal councils, education in

the schools. You name it — there's an increase. More and more people,

including male people, are using the Vancouver Status of Women Council.

To allot that organization the same amount of money that they had last

year is really, in fact, to cut them back quite severely.

Everyone else recognizes that there is an inflationary spiral. The

cost of everything has gone up. Their rent has gone up, their

telephone, postage — everything has gone up. It just doesn't make any

sense, Mr. Chairman, for the government to slash their budget quite as

intensely as they have. I certainly hope that the Provincial Secretary

will find it possible to come up with some more money from somewhere to

try and meet the budget of this really very responsible organization.

What I also want to talk about, Mr. Chairman, is the whole concept

of funding for women's groups throughout the entire province. The

reason I started with the Vancouver Status of Women Council was because

that was the issue raised by the Provincial Secretary.

In fact there are about 200 women's groups that we know of

throughout the province, all of whom are seeking funding because

they're all non-profit organizations.

The most important task, as far as I'm concerned, being done by the

Department of Economic Development has to do with the encouragement of

women and women's groups to go into the business of doing things on an

economic basis so that they can become self-supporting, but that is not

yet true. The kind of work being done by the women's economic rights

branch of the Department of Economic Development is excellent, but it's

just a start.

For the most part the 200 women's groups around the province are

still totally and completely dependent on either public funding or

government funding, either at one level or at all three levels. That's

why I think it's so important that the Provincial Secretary outline for

us her criteria and the machinery which she will be using to deal with

all these requests for funding coming in from these 200 or so groups.

Under the previous administration that was one of the major

responsibilities of the office of the co-ordinator on the Status of

Women. That office has been disbanded. So be it. The decision has been

made. We have been told that it is irreversible and when a decision is

irreversible.... One just has to learn to live with irreversible

decisions.

But I am hoping it is not irreplaceable. What I am hoping is that

the Provincial Secretary has worked out some new machinery, some new

mechanics for dealing with the funding for other women's groups

throughout the province at this time. I am hoping she will outline for

us just how this system is going to work and the kind of criteria she

is going to be using in terms of deciding which groups shall get

funding and which groups shall not. Now there is the whole issue of

duplication of services and I would like to know how the Provincial

Secretary is going to be dealing with this and who decides when one

group is duplicating what another group is doing. Does she have an

advisory committee? Spell it out for us in detail, Hon. Provincial

Secretary, when you get up to respond to my questions.

The other area that I want to talk about is the whole issue of the

cabinet — the government itself — in terms of dealing with the matters

affecting or decisions affecting women. A number of groups in the

community and a number of problems are dealt with by the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). Others are dealt with by the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland). The Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Gardom) takes responsibility for one or two. The Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. Williams) is responsible for the Human Rights Commission,

which is a matter of vital interest and concern to every woman in this

province. As I mentioned earlier, the Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) has the women's economic rights branch, and you,

Hon. Provincial Secretary, deal with the grants.

What kind of communication goes on between these departments around

this issue of the needs of women? Is there an intracabinet committee

consisting of the Minister of Human Resources, the Minister of

Education, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Labour, the Minister

of Economic Development, the Provincial Secretary, the Attorney-General

and the Premier?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the whole cabinet.

MS. BROWN: That's right. It is the whole cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: We meet every week.

MS. BROWN: But do you talk to each other in terms...? No,

not do you talk to each other — but in this particular area, what kind

of consultation, what

[ Page 3114 ]

kind of dialogue takes place? Also, at the level of the departments

in terms of your deputy ministers and associate or assistant deputy

ministers, what kind of intragovernmental network do you have to deal

with the problems that are brought to your attention surrounding the

area of women?

Specifically, I want to talk about one particular issue which was

dealt with earlier under the Attorney-General's department and that had

to do, of course, with the rape relief centres which are presently

being funded by the Minister of Health's department. When the Minister

of Health found that there was not enough money to meet their needs,

the Department of Human Resources agreed to pick up a part of the

responsibility. However, what we have now found out is that the

Minister of Human Resources has come up with a concept of matching

grants. He said to the rape relief centres, if you can raise $25,000

out there in the community, we will give you $25,000. What I am saying

to you....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Sure, he broke his deal but that's another issue.

What I really want to talk to you about, as the person responsible for

most of the granting dealing with the whole area of women's rights, is

what kind of dialogue goes on across departments at the top levels —

that is, at the level of the directors and the deputy ministers and, of

course, in the cabinet itself.

AN HON. MEMBER: They never talk about it.

MS. BROWN: Right. The absence of dialogue surely must have

been what resulted in your, for example, funding the Women Alive

programme despite the fact that the Department of Health had said that

particular programme was not worthy of funding. I am wondering whether

since that incident occurred you have worked out any kind of

communication with the other departments so there is not this playing

off of one department against the other, so when a submission comes in

for a grant everyone looks at it and decides which department should

really be ultimately responsible for it, and whether the funding is

dealt with that way. What happens in so many instances is that the

groups have to apply here and then it gets turned down, and then they

apply to another department and they play this musical chairs around

the cabinet until somebody comes up with a sympathetic approach and

says, "Okay, I will fund you."

I have a number of other questions, but maybe if you could respond

to those dealing with these issues, I could carry on from there. Are

you making notes? Oh, okay, that's fine.

This has nothing to do specifically with the civil service, although

it may sound like that, because I will raise it under the civil

service, but I want to talk about the whole issue of equal

opportunities and equal employment opportunities that you are

responsible for. Or would you prefer that I wait and discuss this under

other...?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: A committee was set up by the previous government

— what has happened to that committee? I'm kind of curious to know

whether they've met, what kinds of criteria they have worked out, what

great things they've been able to achieve and in what ways have they

really enhanced the status of the women within your jurisdiction —

within the government itself. If you want I can go into more detail, if

you are unable to find....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: You can find that particular thing — okay. So I

would like to hear from you on the whole issue of affirmative action,

which is really the other way of saying what that committee was trying

to do.

You keep newspaper clippings on me and I keep newspaper clippings on you, but in one of your speeches....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Our secret files. (Laughter.) You keep a secret file on me and I keep a secret file on you.

If I can take press reports seriously, you said that women can

achieve anything they want through this government as long as they are

really serious about it.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: You were misquoted, were you? In any event, I

think I actually have the clipping here. What I really am hoping is

that what you were doing at this time was revealing some government

policy in this area in which you would be willing to outline for us the

ways in which, now that you are responsible for this department, it's

opening up and that indeed women are really going to be moving into the

top echelon ranks of the government under your jurisdiction.

There are a couple of other really serious things I wonder if you

are looking at, and that's the whole business of women in prisons.

There was funding last year for a programme, and I think it was being

carried out in Oakalla. That funding made it possible for

pre-employment training for women in Oakalla. I'm wondering what has

happened to that particular programme. You funded it last year, and

they're up

[ Page 3115 ]

again for additional funding from you.

There is an interesting

article in a women's magazine known as

Priorities . The title of it is "Mission Impossible" and it talks about

the plight of women in prisons and how really important that

pre-employment programme was. I really am quite anxious to find out

whether the decision has been made by your department to continue

funding that particular programme.

How many of the other programmes funded last year by the

co-ordinator's office, out of that $200,000, are being carried on by

you? What about, for example, the medical women of Canada branch — are

they continuing to get funding from you? The Western Canadian Women's

News Service, on which all of us are so dependent, what about the...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Two minutes, Hon. Member.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that time had gone by.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I'm the designated speaker. I'm recognized as the designated speaker. (Laughter.) No, I'm not — I know that.

The Hope Cottage factory — that was to enable handicapped women who

are on social assistance to develop skills within their homes. I think

they were working on quilting at that time — they were making quilts

which were supposed to be sold. What is happening to that kind of

funding?

I notice that my 40 minutes are up so I'll have to sit down, but

I'll be up again to ask about Isis , the news media, and also about

single-parent families.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I hope that perhaps the Provincial

Secretary might, once these introductory remarks have been made, adopt

a practice of answering reasonably soon after people have asked the

questions.

But since I'll be following along the same line as the previous

speaker, it does fit in on this occasion, and I will first of all very

much welcome the words of the Provincial Secretary with respect to the

officials of the House who have provided such excellent service in this

session and in other sessions, and welcome her words with respect to

the Law Clerk in particular who has announced that he will be retiring

this year. Anyone who can so splendidly retain his sanity through 18

years in this Legislature is evidence of great mental resilience, and I

think we all owe a great deal to Mr. MacMinn.

I would also express some words of admiration with respect to the

minister's deputy. As we started out going through the estimates it was

kind of normal to do that, but as passions have become inflamed as the

estimates went on, we perhaps haven't observed these things as much as

we might. But I must say that her deputy is a man who, in the interests

of my constituents, whenever I went to him with a problem, has been

able to solve it in an expeditious, gracious and diplomatic way. Those

are his characteristics, and very highly regarded, I think, by all

members.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would join the hon. first member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) in welcoming the announcement the

minister made with respect to the grant to the Vancouver Status of

Women organization. I will not attempt to go over the same ground as

the hon. first member for Burrard did, but I will make some general

remarks. The first one relates to the whole area of advocacy funding,

which in a sense this is.

One of the most difficult things for governments is, in a sense, to

buy the bullets that outside organizations are going to shoot at them.

When you fund outside groups that do have the job of representing the

interests of particular groups of people in society you have to accept

the fact that if they do their job well, they are from time to time

going to make things uncomfortable for governments. But at the same

time they will be helping governments do their basic job, which is to

make the society run better. Governments need advice from outside

groups tremendously in order to have the sensitivity and appreciation

of the evolving problems of our society that they require. So I say to

the minister that I am very glad she made this grant on that account. I

hope the government will continue to have the courage to go along that

route.

Very specifically, on this particular grant, it should be applauded

because of the extremely important nature of the women's movement in

our society. I have said before, and I will repeat at every appropriate

opportunity in this House, that, in my opinion, the women's movement is

unquestionably the most important movement in human affairs, at least

in North America, in the second half of this century. It's a "quiet

revolution" — that was the phrase, I guess, that was developed in the

last decade — that is changing the relationships of all members of the

human race with each other. It is allowing the unlocking of potential

that our society has overlooked or kept locked up for far too long.

Groups such as the VSW are groups which urge us onward in this area and

which make it possible for so many women especially in our society, but

men as well, to understand in their own minds and to continue the

dialogue with themselves and others about ways in which we should be

thinking and advancing.

I hope and trust, Mr. Chairman, that next year's funding will be

expanded. I would apply this to the funding to all women's

organizations, not just VSW, but they do play a very special role in

this province as

[ Page 3116 ]

a kind of central organization. The funding will not only be

upgraded but will not be done in such a way as to keep the organization

hanging and wondering for month after month as to whether things are

finally going to come through. I would hope that the studies the

government has felt it necessary to do this year will now be considered

to have been definitively done and from here on we can endorse this as

the kind of thing, at least throughout the term of this administration,

that it feels it should support.

I want to make some general remarks about what I see as the role of

the Provincial Secretary in the government and in the province as being

the person among others, but particularly at the cabinet table, charged

with advancing the cause of women throughout the government. I say that

not because the Provincial Secretary is a woman, but because it seems

to me to fit properly into her portfolio. She is charged with the

Public Service Commission generally and she is charged with grants

generally and has therefore a sensitivity, hopefully, to all of the

various currents that are arising in the province, of which this is

very much one.

I would suggest to her that she should make representations to the

Premier that there is a need in the government for some kind of a

woman's office. You can put any kind of title on it you want, Mr.

Chairman, but it would be an office that would be concerned in an

ongoing, day-to-day way with the cause of women, their rights and their

potential throughout the government service. This would be, if you

like, the bureaucratic reflection of the concept of affirmative action.

This would be the body that day after day would look through the

agencies and the departments of government and sit on committees and

ask the question: "Where do women fit in here?" They would say that in

the Public Service Commission, looking at the personnel policies with

respect to women in the public service, in the various departments, at

the various levels of executive and other authority.

Such an office could look at this in the Crown corporations. This

morning, in public accounts, we had the British Columbia Railway people

there. I took the occasion to ask the executives of BCR if they had any

kind of an affirmative plan to try and arrange for more women to be

working in the service of the BCR and to go out and look for that

aggressively and make promotions aggressively.

Mr. Premier, who just came in, I might say to you that I've asked

the Provincial Secretary to represent to you that there should be some

kind of a woman's office in the government — probably reporting to you

— which would be constantly seized of the advancement of women's rights

in the public service of British Columbia.

Such an office would constantly look at questions of pensions and

pay and equal pay for work of equal value. Such an office could, from

time to time, review our statute law, especially relating to the

family, and again always be a voice and a conscience inside the

government and with the right to make representations to all the

ministers in all of the departments as to: are they doing their job in

this area? Is it always on the checklist as the government goes down

the checklist of whether legislation or executive action satisfies the

various criteria it must? Is this always on the checklist? Some kind of

a woman's office would make sure by its presence and by its vocal

activity that it would be.

Mr. Chairman, that is all I have to say on this particular subject,

and in order not to make a confusion of things that are being

discussed, I'll sit down at this point. I will once again congratulate

the minister on having made this grant and announced it today. Also it

would be wrong if before sitting down I did not pay tribute to the hon.

first member for Burrard (Ms. Brown) who has been an absolutely

tireless fighter in this cause in this province for many, many years,

and in this Legislature. I congratulate her on it.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): If I could just avoid some of the

101 interruptions that we single-party members have in this House, I

might be able to put a more coherent speech together. But I would like

to comment on the question of women's rights and the fact that the

provincial government is making an effort by providing at least part of

the funding that was requested by the Vancouver Status of Women. I

would like to add my strong support to the comment of the Liberal

leader in regard to the first member for Burrard (Ms. Brown) who

obviously has dedicated a great deal of her time in a most effective

way in bringing a lot of the problems of women's rights and the

particular problems women have in the wide area of public life, whether

it's a matter of getting employment, fair conditions of employment,

problems of child care and matrimonial problems and so on. They're

enormous, and I can't think of anyone in this province who has done more, at least to bring this to public attention.

There's no question that until we start educating the community as a

whole as to some of these inequalities and unfair practices, we are not

likely to make much progress. I feel that there would be no better time

than now to recognize the work done by the first member for Burrard.

With regard to the Vancouver Status of Women and the report dated

February 9 which was made available to the minister and which we were

able to have also, again I think the efficiency and the clarity with

which these women have not only outlined the history of the movement of

the Status of Women, but the wide range of problems with which they are

asked to deal, only convinces me of one thing, not only of

[ Page 3117 ]

the need of this kind of service, but the fact that government

itself would be having, through various departments — Health, Human

Resources and other departments — even more pressure on them to meet

certain human needs than is presently the case, simply because of the

particular example of the ombudservice in Vancouver.

Mr. Chairman, when you read the wide variety of needs which this

service is trying to meet, not the least of which is screening many of

the problems which in turn makes the work later on of the department of

government that much easier, then it's quite obvious that if this kind

of service wasn't in existence, certain departments of government would

be even more pressured and more busy than they now are and would

probably require more paid staff to meet the need which is presently

being fulfilled by the persons the first member for Burrard mentioned

were working at a salary which is a great deal less than the equivalent

type of job within the public service.

So that $75,000 grant is one of the best deals this government has

made in a long time. Since it prides itself on being a government which

is businesslike and gets good value for its money, I would have to

think they're getting excellent value for the $75,000, in relation to

the large number of women who are receiving benefit from that money.

It's such an enormous issue, the whole question of trying to correct

some of the archaic practices in our society regarding women — and

unfair conditions they're subjected to in our society — that one could

speak far longer than this House would want to listen. But education,

Mr. Chairman, is certainly the key.

I was somewhat shattered the other day when I was asked to speak to

a group of medical doctors and their wives at what was a social

function essentially, but when I was asked to make comments as a

politician, I suppose, I was absolutely stunned at either the prejudice

of the medical profession or their ignorance, and I'm not sure whether

it was a bit of both.

I cited some of the problems of women, first of all in getting

employment and secondly in getting fair pay once they are employed.

The principle of equal pay for equal value is just so fundamentally

just and right that I don't think it's a debatable issue. The issue is

how we go about implementing that. Goodness knows, the best place to

start would be at the largest employer in the province, and that's the

provincial government. If we can't set that kind of example through the

vehicle of the biggest employer in the province, then indeed it's going

to be extremely difficult to expect that other employers are likely to

blaze any kind of path towards the goal of equal pay for work of equal

value.

As I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, one area where women have a major

problem is in the area of matrimonial breakdown and sharing of the

material possessions in marriage, and the whole question of how this

has to be improved first of all by legislation, which in turn means

that we need leadership from all the provincial governments and the

federal government. At last, Mr. Chairman, I think we can see a little

bit of light on the horizon when we read the kind of issues that were

discussed last week by the federal minister and the provincial

Attorney-General from each province in the area of divorce and the

community of property when a marriage breaks up and this type of issue.

I'm rather straying just a little bit from the responsibility of the

Provincial Secretary, Mr. Chairman, but it is a fact that women in this

province are entitled to look for leadership from the largest employer

in the province. Figures that were quoted earlier this year are worth

repeating: there are approximately 37,000 persons in the British

Columbia public service, and 55 per cent of that 37,000 are women. They

are not represented at significant levels in the power structure. We do

not have a female deputy minister to any cabinet minister. There are no

female associate deputy ministers, and the statistics that I have

access to show that there are only eight women at the salary level of

programme manager 1 and above.

It keeps coming back to the theme, Mr. Chairman, that until women

can be given access to the important policy-discussion level and the

decision-making level, they depend on the leadership of the present

power structure, which is totally composed of men. It's quite clear

that we should have some feeling of relief at the present government

inasmuch as the Provincial Secretary herself is a woman who has, both

in private and public life, shown that she has a great deal of ability

and capacity and has the personal tenacity to compete with any man and

make it into the cabinet of this particular provincial government. I

pay great credit and recognize the outstanding ability and achievement

of our Provincial Secretary. For that reason I'm all the more

optimistic that she can be a tremendous source of hope for the women of

British Columbia that she will, in fact, appreciate the validity with

which the opposition parties are expressing the need that this

government has to take the leadership role.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: It's a little bit like charity: I think it

begins at home. If they can be the leaders, then the example must be

set in the employment practices of the British Columbia government.

The provincial government has this obligation to enhance and improve

the rules as they now exist. I'm not only thinking of the provincial or

parochial levels of government; I'm thinking of the fact that we just

[ Page 3118 ]

ended, three months ago, International Women's Year.

We've had the kind of convention of the International Council of

Women that was referred to earlier this afternoon and we have the

United Nations, which published a 10-year World Plan of Action

promoting equality of opportunity and the recognition that women are

entitled to equal rights in a wide variety of public and private

affairs.

So, Mr. Chairman, there is every reason this afternoon, in debating

the Provincial Secretary's estimates, that the focus should

particularly be on the degree that she, in this particular cabinet, at

this particular point in the political life of British Columbia has an

outstanding opportunity to show the leadership and educate the public

and to initiate ideas about the required kind of legislation to her

fellow cabinet ministers, so that in future sessions of this House we

won't have to take up further time. Late in the session when everyone

is keen to go on holiday, we won't have to spend as much time as the

three opposition spokesmen have this afternoon in hoping that

conditions for women in this province are bound to improve.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I'm sure that the hon.

Provincial Secretary and the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan)

recall when the three of us first took our place in this House

together. We all came in following the 1966 election. That's 10 years

ago — it hardly seems possible.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): You don't look any older.

MRS. DAILLY: We lived through it, did we, Pat? We're here — we're the old ones.

Anyway, my point in reminding the Provincial Secretary of that time

is that I'm sure she and the member for North Okanagan must recall that

whenever any debates took place on women back in 1967, right through

I'd say to the beginning of the 1970s in this House, the whole

atmosphere in this Legislature was entirely different. As a matter of

fact, as I recall — I think you'd agree with me — if any of us stood up

to talk about women at that time, we were greeted with laughter and

cynicism from many of our male colleagues. I'm not referring to just

any one party. This was on both sides of the House. All I can say is

that I guess women's rights have progressed to some degree in British

Columbia in the last 10 years but they've a long way to go yet.

In this Legislature now when we talk about women's rights, we have

the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) and the Conservative leader (Mr.

Wallace) on their feet speaking on behalf of women, which we would

never have had 10 years ago. We have silence now, which may be

unfortunate. We don't have the laughter any more, but we've gone to the

extreme, where I find that many of our male colleagues are very silent

on this issue. I hope maybe we'll hear from more of the members of both

sexes on this vital matter of women's rights.

So I just think it's rather interesting to stand here 10 years later

and notice a complete change in climate in this Legislature, which is

reflected, of course, throughout the whole province now. The member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) has fought so long and hard, as has been

pointed out already, for women's rights in this province. She has

pointed out over and over again that the women of this province still

have so many areas where discrimination exists. As the Tory leader

mentioned, it exists in the whole area of the public service.

When we were in government, I remember the member for North Okanagan

bringing up this point also — why do we not have more women in

positions of responsibility in government? That is an area that has

really been very, very slow. I know that there are many problems in

that area which the Provincial Secretary will face, where we have to

encourage women first of all to apply. That is one thing, but in that

encouragement we have to recognize the fact that women have had

barriers placed before them — not just artificial barriers, but

sometimes very specific barriers — in attempting to move into positions

of responsibility.

So basically I just had two short questions at this time. As far as

the Provincial Secretary's role goes, I agree that she has such an

important role to play in this whole area of women's rights. I know

that the hon. Provincial Secretary is interested in many other areas,

and so she should be, but in this particular area she can give the

leadership, as has been pointed out. My question is: first of all, with

the matter of the cancellation of the provincial co-ordinator of the

Status of Women, which has already been mentioned, I would like to know

what the policies are of the hon. Provincial Secretary to fill this

vacuum. Just to dispense grants is excellent. We were delighted to hear

of the grants handed out to the Vancouver Status of Women today, but

that is not enough. I think what people are looking for is a mechanism

to be be set up, hopefully through your department, where the women

really know that they have a government that will be responsive to

their needs. I wonder if the Provincial Secretary will tell us what is

going to fill this vacuum now, since the Status of Women co-ordinator

for the government which was set up under the NDP administration, no

longer exists.

So I think we'd like to hear from her on her whole philosophy on how

to meet the needs and the rights and eliminate discriminations against

women, how she feels about it and how as Provincial Secretary she

intends to move in alleviating the problems, because she has a

marvellous opportunity in her specific role

[ Page 3119 ]

to do this.

Also the fact that she is responsible for the Public Service

Commission ties in very well with the whole area of women,

discrimination and opportunity to move women into positions of

advancement — naturally, if they have the ability. No one denies that.

But even women with ability have found barriers placed before them. So

I would be interested in her reactions to what is to fill the vacuum of

the co-ordinator for Status of Women in this province initiated by the

former government. How does she view her role in relation to the public

service in encouraging women to move up into positions of

responsibility?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I really

hadn't intended to enter this debate at this time. I had much

opportunity internally to discuss this subject. But just sitting here

listening...there were one or two things that I would like to say.

I would like to associate myself with many of the remarks that have

been said by all members of this House and recall a conversation that I

had the privilege to have just a few minutes ago and relate it to the

member for Burnaby North's (Mrs. Dailly'

s) comments just now.

When I was talking to Mme. Dissard she was pointing out how there

had been these problems for women in France but that the change that

was coming there, as it is here, wasn't a matter of women just being

united together because of a concern for one cause to women. Women were

evolving and developing their own avenues of thinking — many

independent ideas of other groups of women. This way we were getting a

very broad representation, a much more mature representation in many

fields from women as a whole. They were feeling freer to debate as

women, with each other, knowing that regardless of whether they

disagreed or were debating how it should be accomplished they knew that

they had a common goal, that women should take their place along with

every other citizen in whatever jurisdiction it was.

I do recall, as the hon. member says, the opportunities, the fun and

the hazards of being in this Legislature some time ago. It is

interesting to recall as we were in a sense pioneering the role of

women in British Columbia in the Legislature in any great force. There

were those women who sat in this Legislature before us — Mrs. Hodges,

who sat as the Speaker in this Legislature. I think all women wherever

they are in the world, but particularly in North America where we have

so much more opportunity for independence and expression, are still in

a sense pioneering this way. That is why it is so incumbent on us to be

responsible in our efforts.

I think we have to also recognize that women tend in many areas and

many organizations to think in terms of power and that power, if that

is what they are looking for, is government and that that is the only

avenue to power or to independence. From my point of view, I feel this

is too narrow. I feel we have to recognize that there are many forces

shaping our society. Certainly government is one, although sometimes I

wonder if maybe the problems aren't so sensitive and great that they

are too important to be left to politicians and to government. But

money is a factor of power through the independence it gives, through

the freedom it gives. I feel that there is still a strong tendency

among women not to want to talk about money, that it is a "hush-hush"

that we shouldn't express and that if ever we speak in terms of our

movement of women or our group of women or we as women seeking economic

independence through our own capabilities, this isn't quite the thing

to say.

Yet we have among women some of the finest minds in this world. The

hon. first member for Burrard (Ms. Brown) knows — you all know — that

in Vancouver at this moment, at the triannual council of the women, if

you want to speak in terms of mental capability, there are perhaps some

of the brightest minds in the world there. We as women must use our

minds and our energy and our drive and our capability for people. We

must recognize that financial independence and being part of the fiscal

picture is very much a vital part of this. I would like to see us in

this Legislature who are women also suggest to women's groups when we

have the opportunity of speaking to them that there is nothing wrong in

seeking your own financial independence as organizations.

This triannual council meeting there made it known to me — I found

it quite shocking — that most of those women from all over the w