1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th 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, APRIL 24, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1669 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Accidental incarceration of Mr. Wallace. Mr. D.A. Anderson —

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1670

Mr. Wallace — 1670

Routine proceedings

Truth in Autoplan Act (Bill 67). Mr. Bennett.

Introduction

and first reading — 1670

Oral Questions

Turkey marketing crisis meeting. Mr. McClelland — 1670

Cabinet review of Indian demands. Mr. Gibson — 1670

Government add in Georgia Strait . Mr. Wallace — 1671

Funding for farm income assurance programme. Mr. Curtis — 1671

Equal pay for hospital personnel. Hon. Mr. Cocke answers — 1672

Consumer Services department statistics. Mr. Phillips — 1672

Compensation for expenses in Celista Motel hearing. Mr. Gardom —

Transfer of inmates from Haney Correctional Institute. Mr. Smith —

Change in Highway I terminus. Mr. Morrison — 1673

Cost of Marguerite refit. Mr. Curtis — 1673

Committee of Supply: Department of the Provincial Secretary estimates.

On vote

Mr. Fraser — 1674

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1676

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1679

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1682

Mr. Curtis — 1684

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1685

Mr. Wallace — 1686

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1691

Mrs. Webster — 1693

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1694

Mr. Morrison — 1695

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1696

Mr. Gibson — 1697

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1698

Mr. Phillips — 1699

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1701

Mr. Rolston — 1702

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1703

Mr. Chabot — 1704

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1706

Appendix — 1707

THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker,

it gives me a lot of pleasure today to introduce, sitting on

the floor of the Legislature, one of the candidates for the

federal leadership of the New Democratic Party later this year,

Mr. John Harney, who is the former MP for Scarborough West.

Apparently Mr. Harney had some trouble coming over on the ferry

this morning; they were a bit late. I understand that the

Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) was piloting one of

them and that was our difficulty. But it is a pleasure to

welcome Mr. Harney, and I take a great deal of pride in being

able to make this announcement in the House.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I would ask the House to welcome

a group of students from Centennial High School in the District

of Coquitlam who also had some difficulty getting over here.

Perhaps after today's performance they'll wish they might not

have made it at all. But, in any event, let's welcome them.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd ask the Hon.

Members to give a very cordial welcome to a group of grade 11

students from the Prince of Wales High School in the great

riding of Vancouver–Point Grey. They're here today with Mr.

Duffy and their teachers, Mr. Frizell and Mr. Mosdell.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I'd like the House

to join me in welcoming a group of students from Burnaby North

Senior Secondary who will be here later on.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I too would

like to welcome John Harney and wish him luck. (Laughter.) But

the real reason I'm standing on my feet is to ask the House to

welcome a delegation from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association

who are sitting in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, with their

past-president, Mr. Reg Robson.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Today in

the gallery is a group of women from the YWCA Women in Training

in Vancouver who are touring the parliament buildings and the

Provincial Museum. I believe they are in the galleries now; I

would ask you to welcome them.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, there has been a contest undertaken between

a number of Hon. Members to name the visitor to the gallery who has never ever

been introduced and who has heard literally thousands of bid-welcomes but has

never ever been on the receiving end of one. He is an individual, Mr. Speaker,

who has spent more cumulative time in these precincts than all of the 55 legislators

put together, and I'd say a person who is second only to the Member for Kootenay

(Hon. Mr. Nimsick) and the Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan) for

years of attendance to the debates of this Legislature. A brute for punishment

indeed this individual must be. The winner is — if I can have the, envelope

— under the seal of the comptroller-general, Mr. Speaker....

AN HON. MEMBER: Auditor-general.

MR. GARDOM: I wish we had one of those, Mr. Premier.

And the winner is...Mr. Fred Moonen! (Laughter.) We all, I

know, Mr. Speaker, wish to bid him an especially cordial,

though long overdue, welcome to this most genuine, highly

respected and kindly person.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond by pointing

out how invalid the auditor-general is. Although I welcome the

announcement for the selection of Mr. Fred Moonen, Mrs. Ruth

Johnson obviously should have been the committee's choice. I

want a recount.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I have a grave

question of privilege to raise affecting all Members of this

House. I would refer you to

chapter 215 of the Statutes of

British Columbia, the Legislative Assembly Privileges Act,

section 6(8) dealing with obstructing Members of this

Legislature.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know the Member responsible, namely Mr.

George Scott Wallace for Oak Bay, would be too diffident to

discuss this matter, perhaps a trifle embarrassed. I know,

perhaps, that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett),

who has been trespassing on parking lots of fried chicken

stands and might feel he has been accused of trying to steal

Colonel Sander's recipe, would be a little diffident about

it.

As the only opposition leader at the present time not

trespassing on either government or Colonel Sander's property...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Or who has yet to be busted.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...I would like to point out, Mr.

Speaker, that obstructing a Member on his way to and from the

Legislature is an offence, and this Legislature could sit as a

court of record. I think that

[ Page 1670 ]

we could point out that the Member in question though that

he was doing his duty at 2588 Cadboro Bay Road in Oak Bay, the

property of CLEU, the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit, which

I understand is now being renamed Scott-land Yard.

(Laughter.)

We would like to know, Mr. Speaker, whether or not the

Member was taken into custody on the instructions of the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) as part of the protective

custody arrangements to protect this rather lonesome Member,

who is important, of course, to the government strategy and

plans; whether there has been a promotion of the individual who

arrested him for following the full letter of the law; or,

indeed, whether he is being demoted. We feel that would be a

question the Attorney-General might like to comment on.

As a final point, Mr. Speaker, we feel he should pay a lot

of attention to the question of who released him. Was he

released on the instructions of the Attorney-General — or over

the objections of the Attorney-General?

I think, Mr. Speaker, these questions are well worthy of

your consideration, and I commend them to you.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker.

Oh, dear! What can the matter be? Scotty Wallace locked in the laboratory....

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nobody seemed to care.

MR. SPEAKER: If you say nobody seemed to care, you are

forgetting me. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We are investigating as to who made the

release. (Laughter.) The security there entailed that somebody

who had been working for a week and left late had, as security

required, to lock doors behind him. As this person was leaving,

he stepped back to pick up his newspaper, and at that time a

man who looked like Sherlock Holmes type if ever there was one,

in a raincoat, with keys in his hand, was seen. He assumed that

he was a member of the organization. (Laughter.) So he went out

and locked the door behind him. I have to apologize to the Hon.

Member, and we will make him an honorary member of CLEU.

(Laughter.)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I really don't feel

that an apology is necessary because the most successful part

of the CLEU operation is the security in the buildings, and

that's as it should be. (Laughter.)

Introduction of bills.

TRUTH IN AUTOPLAN ACT

On a motion by Mr. Bennett, Bill 67, Truth in Autoplan Act,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Oral questions.

TURKEY MARKETING CRISIS MEETING

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, my question is

to the Minister of Agriculture regarding the story this morning

in the paper about the coming crisis, perhaps, in the turkey

marketing industry. I wonder if the Minister has anything to

report about the meeting which was held apparently in Victoria

this morning and as to whether or not an impasse has been

resolved.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): The meeting was

held at my request, but I haven't had a report on the meeting

yet.

MR. McCLELLAND: Have the government or the Agriculture

Minister instructed the government-controlled processing

plants, which now make up the majority of processing facilities

in the province, to reach some agreement so that the turkey

producers are not left out in the cold and are able to move

their product?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I can only repeat that this meeting this

morning was held at my request.

MR. McCLELLAND: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder

if the Premier has instructed the Agriculture Minister to make

any agreement with the poultry producers, and has he threatened

violence to anyone in the industry?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not today.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask if the

Minister has had any indication of whether the egg producers

and the broiler growers have approached the government to

withdraw quota from Panco Poultry;

HON. MR. STUPICH: Panco Poultry has no egg quota. The broiler board

has discussed this with the Department of Agriculture.

CABINET REVIEW OF INDIAN DEMANDS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano):

[ Page 1671 ]

A question to the Premier in his capacity as being in charge of the

cabinet agenda. Mr. Premier, in view of the growing disillusionment and

unrest in the Indian community caused by the government's statement

that they can't decide their position without a thorough cabinet

review, will the Premier agree to

schedule such a thorough cabinet

review and meeting on the subject, say, within the next three months?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I welcome the question. I wish to inform

the House that Mr. Judd Buchanan sent a wire which was just

received today requesting a meeting, and we are acknowledging

that wire today.

MR. GIBSON: To repeat my question, would the Premier agree

to

schedule such a thorough cabinet review within the next

three months?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's no way that I am going to discuss

cabinet agenda here. I have enough difficulty discussing it

with cabinet.

MR. SPEAKER: I think you realize that you can't ask what

cabinet is going to do.

MR. GIBSON: No, Mr. Speaker, I am asking if the Premier is

willing to do this, because the government has taken this

position that they can't negotiate with the Indians until they

have had that meeting. I am asking for that meeting, Mr.

Speaker.

GOVERNMENT AD IN GEORGIA STRAIGHT

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier a

question with regard to the full page ad on the budget which

appeared on page 9 of the Georgia Straight , dated March

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Do you read the Georgia Straight ?

MR. WALLACE: No, I don't read the Georgia Straight .

(Laughter.) A taxpayer does read it and has a very interesting

question for the Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Caught in a locked-up building reading the

Georgia Straight .

MR. WALLACE: The ad in the Georgia Straight provided

financial support for this publication. This taxpayer writes to

me: "Was the government aware of the highly erotic classified

ad

section on page 23 seeking partners for perverted sex

practices?"

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have no budgetary provision for that particular

activity. We do not determine what each newspaper puts in its newspaper. We

advertise and we're not politically elective. We don't want to punish anybody.

If we were, we would have to consider the Georgia Straight , The Vancouver Sun , the Province — all those papers who write editorials attacking us. Some of those

editorials border on hard-core porno. But I don't mind. I take it in good grace.

We advertise in the free press, which we will never interfere with.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Premier is

being very flippant about this, but I don't think that's a very

fair way to answer a legitimate question from a taxpayer. He is

asking the Premier if he believes in spending taxpayers' money

to advertise in a publication which also promotes which society

surely would accept as being undesirable.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in no way do I determine what

society considers to be desirable or undesirable. The laws of

this nation determine that. There are things that I consider to

be offensive in terms of the daily newspapers showing

advertisements by oil companies, by automobile manufacturing

companies, by liquor companies; but there is no way we would

interfere with the pushing of booze through stupid advertising

in the big newspapers or other people advertising other things

in free society. If people want to go to blazes on their own

carts in a free society, that's their free right. I don't

intend to make moral judgments on anybody's behaviour,

including the opposition.

FUNDING FOR FARM

INCOME ASSURANCE PLAN

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister

of Agriculture on the subject of farm income assurance for

approximately 130 greenhouse growers on the Saanich peninsula,

the lower mainland and, I believe, a few in the Okanagan. Would

the Minister tell the House if it is correct that his

department has recently informed these growers or their

representatives to the effect that the original plan of income

assurance, which was apparently agreed to some time ago, has

been reduced by something in the order of 50 per cent of the

dollars which were to have been made available in 1974?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, many things have been said in

communication between staff and the committee negotiating the

income assurance. None of this will be official until I sign

the letter; I have signed no such letter to the greenhouse

growers.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary. Would the Minister indicate to

the House if it is likely that the terms which have been

discussed between representatives of his department and the

representatives of the

[ Page 1672 ]

commodity group will be the terms which will finally be

agreed to by the Minister?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, many terms are discussed

during the process of negotiation. When the plan is ready for

my approval I will take it to cabinet. Until then there is no

plan.

EQUAL PAY FOR HOSPITAL PERSONNEL

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, on Monday

last I was asked a question by the Second Member for Victoria

(Mr. D.A. Anderson). He asked whether or not we would do

anything regarding the fact that technicians or technologists

within the hospital system are being paid more than residents

and interns. He didn't put it in those terms but I believe that

that's what he meant.

They're not supervising personnel, Mr. Speaker. I just

wanted to make that clear. Residents and interns are trainees

at the hospital. The technicians are supervised by chief

technicians, and the chief technicians are supervised by the

pathologists. So there is no conflict there whatsoever.

CONSUMER SERVICES DEPARTMENT STATISTICS

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like

to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer Services. Are

there statisticians and librarians in the various storefront

offices of the Department of Consumer Services throughout the

province?

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services):

Statisticians and librarians in the various offices?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.

HON. MS. YOUNG: There are in the Victoria office.

MR. PHILLIPS: Prince George?

HON. MS. YOUNG: No. Not to my knowledge.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I have

been advised that there are a statistician and a librarian in

the Prince George office. I'd like to know if the statistics

prepared in these offices by the statisticians and librarians

are monitored for accuracy or cross-checked with files or cards

before being released by the Minister as statistics?

HON. MS. YOUNG: I'll take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

COMPENSATION FOR EXPENSES

IN CELISTA MOTEL HEARING

MR. GARDOM: A question for the Minister of Health. A couple

of days ago the Minister responded to questions from the Member

for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) concerning Celista Motel on Shuswap

Lake. In that situation parties were successful in obtaining an

interim injunction in the public interest before His Honour

Judge Lamperson in August, 1974, which was to restrain the use

of a field for sewage disposal. Then the government's

order-in-council came in on January 23, 1975, which changed the

regulations under the Health Act and literally turned legal

success before the court into legal failure, and essentially

legislated these people out of court by changing the rules in

the middle of the trail.

I'd ask the Hon. Minister, since he did see fit to change

these rules in midstream, if he is prepared to compensate these

well-meaning individuals for the expenses that they have

occasioned in these judicial hearings.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar question,

I believe, on Monday, though not about the compensation. I

would, however, take the Member to issue on this particular

situation in that the reason an order-in-council was brought in

was because there was no definitive measurement as to what was

high water. The judge, as a matter of fact, in that particular

case couldn't even come to a verdict on the case. So the Health

department decided they'd better make clear the Act, not only

for Celista but for the whole province. I think that was

absolutely prerequisite. We could have held it off and I'm sure

that the judgment would have been held off. As far as any kind

of monetary.... If we were to try and reimburse those people,

I would say that that would set a precedent that I couldn't

recommend to cabinet.

MR. GARDOM: On a supplementary to the Hon. Minister, an

injunction was granted by the court, and the position was taken — I'm quoting from the transcript — "that the people were

legislated out of the court by the government and that any

position taken to maintain the injunction would be untenable as

the grounds on which the application was made had been entirely

removed." So you emasculated the grounds....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member is entering upon

an argument. The Hon. Member for North....

MR. GARDOM: No, I was just.... Mr. Speaker, if I may finish

this point....

[ Page 1673 ]

MR. SPEAKER: There's no question....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: You are making a speech, Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: I am not, Mr. Speaker. I am raising a

supplementary question, if you will just bear with me and let

me finish it, I would ask the Minister if he doesn't consider

this to be interfering with the administration of justice.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This asking for a solution to a

legal problem is really not the jurisdiction of this

Minister.

TRANSFER OF INMATES FROM

HANEY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my question

is to the Hon. Attorney-General. Recently, Mr.

Attorney-General, you announced plans to phase out Haney

Correctional Institute and transfer the person incarcerated

there to other centres in the Province of British Columbia.

Will the Attorney-General inform the House what other centres

he plans to use in this programme?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Jordan River, a few in Oakalla, and

other community correctional centres.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oakalla!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A few. You know, there are some older

people in the Haney Correctional Institute — not very many,

maybe seven or eight. They are not all youngsters or even young

adults, so I don't rule out that maybe some close custody may

be necessary for some. Then some will be in community

correctional centres close to, where they live, which is one of

the objectives of this government, including, say, the Prince

George area, and things of that kind.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question: has the

Attorney-General, or any department of government acting on

behalf of the Attorney-General's department, recently purchased

property and buildings in Terrace to accommodate this

programme?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll take that as notice.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria (Mr.

Morrison).

MR. SMITH: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to recognize the Hon. First Member

for Victoria. He has been trying very hard to get the

floor.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, there has to be a break sometime.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You two fellows get it together over

there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would like to recognize the

Hon. Member.

CHANGE IN HIGHWAY 1 TERMINUS

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My

question is addressed to the Minister of Highways. Now that the

British Columbia government has acquired a new ferry, the

Princess Margaret, under the Lands, Forests and Water Resources

department, and paid for through the Green Belt Protection

Fund, I wonder if he could advise the House if the Highway 1

terminus will now be changed to the Victoria ferry dock or left

at the end of Douglas Street at the waterfront.

HON. MR. BARRETT: "Marguerite" is the name, Mr. Member for

Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: I said "Marguerite." I'm sorry.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): I'll take that as

notice.

COST OF MARGUERITE REFIT

MR. CURTIS: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources: on the same subject. The Princess Marguerite is now

undergoing refit and some alteration in preparation for the

1975 season. Would the Minister indicate the approximate dollar

amount of the cost of this renovation and refit work for this

season?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

I would really like to know if the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands is

in favour of this particular programme. It is not clear if Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition has taken a stand on this important matter in the capital region.

It is most unfortunate to hear the silence from the Victoria and the Esquimalt

ranks.

We expect that the costs will be most acceptable and

endorsed by the people of the capital region.

[ Page 1674 ]

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply: Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

THE PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

On vote 189: Minister's office, $76,595.

Interjections.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, first bring to

order these people who haven't got the floor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. Will the Hon. Members

come to order, please.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are going to have a

short discussion on the Department of the Provincial Secretary.

This Minister is also the Minister of Travel Industry, so I

assume that we can talk about both, and we will.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Ask him about the Princess

Marguerite .

MR. FRASER: Yes, maybe we can get into the Marguerite on

this vote as well.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Are you in favour in the

Marguerite purchase?

MR. WALLACE: Sure!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We would like to hear from the

Member for Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: Thank you. We are talking here about $85

million, which is a lot of money, but it works out that we will

discuss it at the rate of about $20 million to $25 million an

hour; then we will, of course, end up without passing the vote.

But I would like to deal with a few things, and first of all,

in the Department of the Provincial Secretary, ask a few

questions. I would like to start off on the library services in

the province.

It is my understanding that some two years ago a new library project was announced

by the Provincial Secretary which in effect regionalized the library service

throughout the province. I was never clear on how many regional library districts

would come out of it, but on the regional district level we have 28 regional

districts. I think the policy on the library was to amalgamate two regional

districts to become one library district. So we could be looking at, say, 14

regional library districts.

The question I would like to ask is how that has proceeded.

If 14 were envisaged, how many were actually in existence

today? I've had problems in my riding of the Cariboo, and I

have reason to believe that this policy is not developing in

the way that was originally thought. In other words, there is

resistance to the policy. I would like the Provincial Secretary

to advise the House how many of these regional library

districts have actually started to function.

I can relate what has happened in the interior. In the one

area that I have the honour to represent, the Cariboo Regional

District was to go in with the Thompson-Nicola, and that hasn't

happened. I know the reason why it hasn't happened, and I don't

agree that there on the local level the Cariboo Regional

District has even denied the citizens of the Cariboo a vote. I

appreciate the Minister's position on that. I think we agree

there that this is certainly what should happen, and it hasn't

happened so far — that is, having a vote.

But while all this is going on — and it's over a year now —

library service is starting to get into difficulty to the point

that the open-shelf library service has discontinued. That is

conducted by the provincial government. Now the citizens are

becoming not alarmed but wondering just where this impasse will

be broken. So I would like to hear from the Minister on that.

Really, does he feel that it is developing successfully

throughout the province, or is this just one isolated area

where there are difficulties?

I do think that the subject put to the voters, the 1.5 mills

for library, is a bit rich. I think there is going to be

difficulty when it does face the voters. But I would like to

ask the Minister if the library commission, which comes under

him, is reconsidering anything — more specifically, lowering

the mill rate that is put before the voters from 1.5 mills to

probably give it an assist in getting an affirmative reply from

the voters.

In this vote today, Mr. Chairman, we have some new items

here. One of the new items we've never had before is the office

of the planning adviser to the cabinet. This vote is new, the

first time we've ever had it, and it's in the amount of

$276,131. I assume that this is Mr. Eliesen, who has recently

come to British Columbia, and the staff support. But I would

like to know if this is so. My concern is whether, as adviser

to the cabinet, he supersedes all other advisers to cabinet.

The one I'm particularly thinking of is the Deputy Minister of

Finance. Where is his position with regard to the Deputy

Minister of Finance? He's quite a senior public servant, and I

would like to know just where this gentleman fits in?

Another item that comes under this Minister, and which I

think has been quite successful, was set up by the prior

administration and continued on by this Minister. I refer to

the First Citizens' Fund. I hope

[ Page

1675 ]

that the Minister will have something to say about that, how

it's progressing and whether it is still well funded, or just

what the case is. I realize that grants made are of great

assistance to our first citizens.

Another item in here that I'd like a little explanation from

the Minister on for the House is the item of Grants, Etc. In

the amount of $2,180,000. That seems to be a fairly large

amount of money to be described and spent under that title of

Grants, Etc. So I would look forward to the Minister probably

giving us more information than appears in our books on

that.

The other item I have to ask some questions of is under the

historic sites protection Act. This is where the funds come

from for the Fort Steele restoration, the Barkerville

restoration, and so on. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that these

are very successful projects. What I would like to know — and

it isn't broken down — is whether the funding for Barkerville

and Fort Steele is the same as last year, or is there any

increase? These restorations have been highly successful, well

patronized by the tourists and also our own citizens, and I

would like to know if the funding is up for the individual

projects.

A few years ago the government of the Province of British

Columbia had Essondale Farm, and on that farm they had some

fine animals, including purebred Clydesdale horses. I lost a

battle here in 1970 or 1971 when they were getting rid of the

livestock at Essondale. I lost to the now Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) and they ended up in the

bush there at Fort Steele — all these beautiful Clydesdales. I

asked at the time that some go to Barkerville. Now I believe

there are two or three of these animals at Cottonwood, which is

on the road from Quesnel to Barkerville. I'd like to know what

plans there are for these animals this year. Are they going to

be on display? I believe they had the animals last year and

nobody supplied any money to buy harness for them. I would like

to know if they're going to have harness for them this year and

have them so the public can see these beautiful animals.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Well, maybe all the harness is in Fort Steele; I

don't know.

While we're on historic sites, I'm sorry that the Member for Yale-Lillooet

(Hon. Mr. Hartley) is not in his place — the Minister of Public Works. I guess

he's busy getting ready to defend himself tonight when his estimates come up.

I want to refer to the announcement made by the Provincial Secretary's office

that Yale is going to be a resort. I got quite a kick out of that. I understand

that the MLA for Yale-Lillooet was quite upset over this announcement because

he didn't make it. There have been a lot of conflicting stories about it — that

this department is going to buy out people in Yale.... That leads me to the

question: is money provided in here for making purchases in Yale? Overall, what

are the plans of the Minister for the historic community of Yale for this year

and in the future?

The other item in this vote which is up quite substantially

is under the

section titled Provincial Elections Act. Last year

the budget was $165,000 for the Provincial Elections Act; this

budget is $539,000. My question is: what is this money going to

be used for, this additional $300,000 odd? Is this in

preparation for an election? What kind of preparation is this

really big 200 per cent or so increase for — to set up the

machinery for a coming election? In what way are they going to

use this money?

Those are just a few points in this large portfolio. I'd

like to go now to the Travel Industry portion of this

Minister's responsibilities. Again here we see an increase from

$5 million-odd to $8 million in the travel industry budget. I

would like to hear something about the recreation side that

appears in this vote — the promotion of amateur sports, et

cetera. Being more specific, I believe this Minister's had the

request, but now we have no end of requests for travelling

teams of young people in sports activities, whether it be

basketball, hockey, and so on. We have these young teams,

amateurs, winning the title in British Columbia, and then

they're strapped for funds if they have to travel to a national

event — say to the Province of Quebec. I know I certainly have

had these requests as an MLA, and I'm sure that every MLA has

had them. I don't think there's any provision in this.... It's

not the intent in this department. My question really is: are

they planning to be able to assist these worthy endeavours of

young people in the amateur sports?

The other thing that appears in this portfolio which is of

great importance to all British Columbians is the tourist

industry. I believe the Minister, if he was quoted correctly

the other day, said that tourism will replace the mining

industry as our second industry in the province at the rate of

its growth. I'm happy in one way that this is happening, but

surprised that the Minister didn't go on to say that it's

because of his government's legislation that the mining

industry's going down. What I would like to know is what you

anticipate will be the income from tourism this year as

compared to last year, The other thing is that I feet we have, at the regional

level in tourism, a group of good citizens. I notice again in

this budget that the amount of grants for the regional level of

tourism has advanced from $350,000 to $400,000. Mr. Minister,

that doesn't even look after inflation. They have their

problems and I would like to hear from you how you would arrive

at a figure like that, a very small increase.

I really think that at the regional level the local citizens, who are a lot

of volunteers, are doing an

[ Page

1676 ]

excellent job of promoting tourism not only in British

Columbia but going to all parts of the world. I know that they

have been strapped for funds. It might be that they're not

applying as they are supposed to apply for their matching

grants. I would like to end now and, hopefully, you will be

able to answer some of the questions I've put up.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): May I deal with them in

simple reverse order and deal with the last question first? The

question of grants to the regions for tourist development is a

good point. Everybody wants more money. We received a great

deal of input from the various regions. As you know, they're

well represented on the provincial tourist advisory council. No

question; we could have used a bit more money. That's true all

over the place. However, we have a responsibility to try and

budget in terms of going to the first rounds of talks in

Treasury Board in a way that would accomplish continuation of

essential programmes and leave a little bit of money loose for

new ideas.

Frankly, what we're facing here is that we've got a good

thing going in most of the area in the middle months of the

year. Really now, rather than just giving more money after more

money after more money — because most of them are working

reasonably well and accomplishing a great deal — we're looking

now for some response to come that would make sure that our

tourist season is expanded to bring up the shoulders of these

peaks. If we don't do that, we're going to just keep on causing

trouble for Graham Lea, the Minister of Highways and for the

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). I

have a great deal of sympathy for their position in terms that

they have the on-line job of handling those problems.

If we don't do that as well, you and I won't be able to go

into nice coffee shops, have a nice glass of apple juice in a

nice place served by a nice person who is earning a nice piece

of change as a wage. Unless we have an industry that is fully

efficient, fully supported, viable throughout the year, we're

going to have that kind of inefficiency of operation that will

lead people not to build accommodation here in British

Columbia. If we're a seasonal 75-day tourist operation in this

province, we're not going to get the kind of accommodation we

should have. Before I simply keep on adding in an incremental

way to line-by-line budgeting, I want to see some ideas back to

make sure people are travelling around the province at the

right time.

Next one: tourism as the second industry. I think we're

going to get there. This was first predicted by Kiernan — your

old friend, Ken. I don't know whether he was attacking Mr.

Brothers or the Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter)

at the time, but I don't think I'm getting after my friend from

the Kootenay (Hon. Mr. Nimsick). I'm saying that it's

inevitable, given the kind of facilities, the kind of province

we live in, world travel, a disposable income, the shrinking

globe, that tourism will inevitably, in my mind, replace mining

as the second industry of the province.

At the time we had to give the figures to make up the throne

speech, we thought it was $700 million worth of business in

this province. We've rechecked the figures, and it's $859

million worth of business in 1974. I'm looking seriously, in

view of the predictions from the departments, at closing in on

that magic figure, the big chunk — the billion. And we're going

to get somewhere in that neighbourhood.

Travel in terms of recreation. No question about it, one of

the biggest problems in our department, both Travel Industry

and Provincial Secretary, has been the request for people to go

from place to place. We've had a hard line out: if you're a

championship team you're representing the province, you're

doing something of real significance and we'll find the money

somehow. Most of it came from that discretionary grant vote

that you were asking questions about in a question that I'll

come to in a few seconds.

That's not good enough, because it means that if you're not

careful, you serve the kind of elitism that only the winners

travel, and only the hot shots get anywhere. There's no reason

why good participants in some leisure activity from the Queen

Charlotte Islands or from the flood plains shouldn't go

somewhere, even though they may not be wearing the gold medal

on their chests.

What I've been able to do is to develop now — and we're just

at the final stage of it — a formula approach with the money

that is being generated by the lottery fund. What I promised

and what I'm committed to is that lottery money would be split

three ways: one for culture leaning towards fine arts, one for

recreation leading to what you've been talking about, and a

middle for heritage and those kinds of developments.

Yale: We're looking at it generally. Yale is a very

important part of British Columbia's history and we'd be very

foolish if we were not on top of the job and watched what is

going on in Yale. We're not making any hassles. If anybody

tries to give us a bad time in terms of money, we just

withdraw. We're not being whipsawed up or anything like that.

But we don't intend to see an opportunity pass by. No matter

which government is in power, we have a responsibility to the

future generations to make sure the past is enshrined, and

that's what we're trying to do at Yale.

Horses — Clydesdales. The Provincial Secretary of the

previous government, Wes Black, took these beasts when nobody

else would touch them. You and the Member for Kootenay (Hon.

Mr. Nimsick) no

[ Page 1677 ]

doubt — I remember the debate — both thought they would be

an attraction. You were right, and the other Ministers in

your old government should have been more alert. My predecessor decided to put them at Fort

Steele and they went there.

As you know, there's been some reproduction going on at Fort

Steele and we've got a more numerous group of horses — letting

nature take its course. Some of them now are at Cottonwood. The

reason they are at Cottonwood and not at Barkerville is that

we're trying to really mirror-image what happened. You

weren't around at the time, I'm sure — although sometimes you

tell me that you've been around long enough for me to believe

you were there.

Cottonwood historically was the place where the food was

produced for Barkerville, so it makes sense to get those beasts

there and try and see if we can develop that kind of mirroring

of the past, as we've done with the Royal Hudson and some

nostalgia over the Princess Marguerite and so on and so

forth.

Okay, now back into the Department of the Provincial

Secretary — historic sites — Fort Steele and Barkerville, the

details you were asking about. We've just continued the levels

of operation. We're making good progress — they're very

popular. The actual details: $440,000 will be expended in

Barkerville/Cottonwood; $350,000 will be expended in Fort

Steele. So this year you're beating your opponent from the

Kootenays by about $90,000.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: Let me just finish this sheet off; I'll be up

and down all afternoon.

The First Citizens' Fund. Frankly, I'm not happy with all

that I see and observe about the First Citizens' Fund. I'd like

to spend a second talking about it, if I may. The trouble with

the First Citizens' Fund — and this bedevilled the previous

government, as it's troubling us — is that when you get a fund

which is so closely identified with a group of people, there is

an inevitable tendency among the decision-makers — and that

starts at some level in the bureaucracy and finishes up on my

colleague's desk, that when an application comes in that has

something to do with, in this case, Indians, there is a

tendency to look at it: "Oh, well, there's a fund for Indians — off you trot."

The First Citizens' Fund is receiving requests for

assistance which I maintain should legitimately go to some of

my colleagues. I'm having, as you all realize — and this is

what the business of government is about — difficulties from

time to time in trying to ensure that things are looked at on

their merits in a functional way rather than simply they happen

to be attached to the word "Indian." That's point one.

Point two is that there never have been first-class policy guidelines laid

down for this fund to support cultural activity. That's now taking place and

we're getting input.

The next thing is that when I first came into office wasn't

happy with the structure of the committee. We made rapid

changes. I should advise you that Mrs. Gottfriedson, Mr. Helin,

Mrs. Miller, Mr. Pierre, Mrs. Pearle Pearson and Mr. James

Sewid, from Kamloops, Nanaimo, Vancouver, Cranbrook, Queen

Charlotte City, Alert Bay, and so on, are active members of the

community to which the fund refers. They know the community

well. We're under some pressure from the organized groups that

they should be entitled to name committee members or directors,

if you would use the word in a descriptive way, of these funds.

I don't know whether that's the right way to go either.

But the First Citizens' Fund is an alive affair, and

discussions are going on. I met with the committee very, very

recently to develop some of those things hat you are talking

about. I don't think anybody can be absolutely 100 per cent

pleased with the activities in the sense that we should all be

doing better and making sure that we don't get these awkward

things.

For instance, I think it was at Burns Lake, or some area like

that, where they wanted industrial support for an industry that

only by longest stretch of the imagination could you describe

as really being cultural. I can stretch it a bit in terms of

trying to get on with the job and trying to get some

achievement going.

The question about the First Citizens' Fund is timely. I

think I'm reporting good progress, but I'm still not totally

satisfied by any stretch of the imagination.

Next, the question about vote 191: planning adviser to the

cabinet. You were right in naming the gentleman, colloquially

called "the Exorcist." Mr. Eliesen is paid at the level of a

Deputy Minister. He has supporting him two or three senior

officers, a research officer, a secretary and a clerk. The

total vote for the operation is $276,000. I don't, frankly,

think we're overpaying anybody in terms of getting that kind of

cabinet infrastructure together in this day and age.

We established the positions; their tasks are policy

analysis, the research and co-ordination of expenditures,

advising us on federal-provincial things and other

intergovernmental things. But more importantly, in my view,

they are assisting cabinet committees, which we're now,

frankly, restructuring and redefining all the time so that we

can do our business in a co-ordinated way.

You asked specifically, however, what the area of contact

and responsibility was vis-à-vis the Deputy Minister of

Finance.

I think it's fair to say that Mr. Eliesen attends committee

meetings with the Deputy Minister of Finance. Mr. Bryson gives

us the facts, the numbers, and Mr. Eliesen assists us in

determining the impact

[ Page 1678 ]

of those numbers on our past or future policies. There is no

conflict. They come from two different areas of endeavour to

give us a joint submission so that we, as the Treasury Board —

and I happen to be on the Treasury Board, as you know — can

make some solution. I think it is working very well and I think

that the apparatus that we have assembled over two and a half

years is now starting.... There has obviously been comment

about that, and I would be foolish to ignore it, but the

Liberal Party and others have made mention of it. It's working

much better than it was when there was simple on-the-job

training in the first month of our office. Anybody is going to

find that out, wherever it is and in whatever jurisdiction. I

am not suggesting that there is any other method of getting on

these benches but getting elected and then going through a

period of on-the-job training either. There is nothing wrong

with that as far as our system is concerned, Your first question to me was about the library service.

That is a continuing problem in your area, Mr. Member, but I

think I should spend a little time discussing what has

happened, if I may, on the development of library services

because I haven't really spoken about it for quite some time.

If I can find the right vote, I will take you through the

history. I think it's vote 196 and it goes thusly.

First of all there was a five-year programme developed by

the Library Development Commission which never really received

the endorsation of anybody — it just lay around. I asked for

that to be retooled and represented, discussed, and I

eventually adopted and announced its adoption as government

policy. It seeks to provide library services on a province-wide

basis using 10 integrated library systems, and that embraces

the total area of 27 regional districts and the Stikine area

plus one federated library system in greater Vancouver and a

provincial resource centre to give backup service to those 11

systems.

We are not starting from scratch. Library service for years

has been organized at the municipal level, to a very

sophisticated degree in some areas. There have been three

regional library services operating for almost 40 years. We

have nearly 50 smaller libraries, half of which have been

working cooperatively under the commissions and the staff

since the '40s. This programme — and we give it the name "the"

programme, the definite

article — offers a greater degree of

cooperative service to everybody in the province. We've

guaranteed substantial financial support from the province as

well as from the local authorities.

Now once you develop a system like that and you say, "These are the

ground rules for getting in," if somebody comes to you first time off

and says, "Look, I like the system, but I don't like the ground rules —

change them and we'll join," the results are chaos. You have to stick

with it. You have got to say, "Now, look, if you want to join those are

the rules, and you must obey the rules," not in a dictatorial,

fist-slamming way, but that was the policy that was adopted and

accepted by lots of areas.

Now one new system has been established since I came to

office, and it is working very well in the Thompson-Nicola

Regional District. We are hopeful it is going to operate in the

near future in the Cariboo as well, because that's the way it

should have gone in the first place. The blueprint is ready as

soon as the day of local decision takes place. I should advise

the House that the regional group in the Cariboo, in the

Member's area — and I want to publicly again record my thanks

to the Member for sticking with it on our side of this

argument, that is, the Library Development Commission's side of

the argument — by one vote defeated the idea of having a public

vote. Now I think that's pretty grim and I wasn't prepared to

move that by one vote...

MR. FRASER: The regional directors.

HON. MR. HALL: ...of the regional directors, by a.

difference of one vote, the whole of the area was disallowed to

express its opinion. Now they have come to us with all sorts of

proposals as to how they want to get back in on the deal but

with certain changes. One of the changes that the Hon. Member's

area wants is to develop, and to have as a condition of entry,

a user charge. Now we've nailed down whether there is a user

charge for libraries a long, long time ago, and there is no

question in my mind that their brief failed on that one account

alone, let alone anything else.

Now I understand that the Member has been active and busy

and he's been doing a little massage here and there. I have

been sending a few messages down the pipe and I think they're

going to have a vote, and I think we are going to see a good,

integrated library system in the Cariboo, Thompson, Nicola

areas.

The next system is likely to the southeast which will serve

the regional districts of East Kootenay, Central Kootenay and

Kootenay-Boundary, where we are presently doing the field work.

Local interest is growing in the Okanagan, the north-central

area east and west of Prince George, and the north coast,

including the Queen Charlottes and the Peace River. I think,

frankly, that's the only way to go.

I will end this first round of answers to the Member by just

commenting on what is now becoming a sort of by rote remark

when they open estimates. You said, Mr. Member, that we were

going to expend this money at $25 million an hour. I don't want

to get involved in the argument today about estimates and the

rules of the House, but may I tell you that if you expend the

money at $25 million an hour today, you will slow down your

rate of

[ Page

1679 ]

expenditure in my two departments by about 1,000 per

cent.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I don't

precisely know what the Provincial Secretary meant by the

financial juggling that went on just at the end of his speech.

Perhaps I will take my $12.5 million worth of time, if that is

the way it is to be calculated. I'm not exactly sure. I would

like to take a little less than 30 minutes, as I have done with

every other Minister, so perhaps we can deal with some of the

actual totals.

Mr. Chairman, before I start, may I thank you for your

change of policy which allowed the Provincial Secretary to

refer to a specific vote under his heading in his salary vote.

The previous practice would have made the estimates debate even

more unworkable than it is at the present time or has been. To

allow the Provincial Secretary to do this and to allow us to do

this will at least make it possible to simply do a bad job

instead of a terrible job in the estimates debate.

The Provincial Secretary, having used up, I guess, about

half a million dollars worth of time, is responsible for a very

large number of things. He gets the grab bag, the odds and ends

that come up. I would like to start off, as I normally do, by

congratulating Ministers where they deserve praise, and

congratulate him for the appointment of Mr. Marc Eliesen and

the planning division which we find here in one of the

Provincial Secretary's votes — if only I can find it. I think

it's....

AN HON. MEMBER: It's 191.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Ah, 191. Thanks very much.

I think it's a very, very important thing that we have a

gentleman to do this job. I've no wish to comment on the civil

servant's position one way or another, but I think it is

important that the job is occupied and the government realizes

the need for a planning and co-ordination division within the

Provincial Secretary's department.

Again, naming no names, it is well known that this job was

previously handled entirely by one man who was responsible for

just about everything that went on in the province, namely the

Deputy to the Provincial Secretary. I think it is a recognition

of the increasing need for some co-ordination at the cabinet

level and perhaps a recognition of the enormous competence of

the Deputy Provincial Secretary (Mr. Wallace) that for so long

he was able to carry this burden single-handed.

I think the government should have this division. Again, no comments as to

who is in it, no comments as to how much it cost, but certainly when the government

spends $3.22 billion, when the government has had reverses, to-ing and fro-ing,

and backing and filling, which this Minister last year at this very time over

daylight saving gave us such a stirring and classic example, I think it is very

necessary to have a planning division, a group of people who take a hard, cold

look, perhaps, and restrain the enthusiasm of the politicians in cabinet. So

let me congratulate the Minister for setting this up. That cost another half-million.

Let me now deal with another subject for which this Minister

is responsible, namely negotiations. I raised a question

earlier this week with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke).

I actually raised it with him because the Provincial Secretary

was out of the chamber that particular day. I raised it

concerning technicians being paid more than the supervisory,

personnel who oversee the work of the technicians, The Minister

of Health came back with an answer today which, while it may —

and I'm not convinced of this — solve the specific case within

his department, really does not detract at all from the'

general problem which I raised and of which I am sure the

Provincial Secretary is fully aware. We do have situations

where the person being supervised is paid substantially more

than the supervisor.

Let me give you an example in the engineering, technical and

inspection group. The ETI 1 is $816 per month; 4 is $933; ETI

12 is $2,205. Engineer 1 is $860, some $44 more than the

starting salary for the technician, for the university graduate

engineer. Engineer 6, the upper level, is $1,907. So without

going into the ins and outs of the Health department, we have

there a pretty good example of supervisory personnel in a

situation where they can be overseeing the work of the people

below them and who are paid less.

I know this can happen in government services. I remember a

good case at the airport, in — the federal service, which I took

up at the time I was a federal Member. It does happen, and I

would like to know what the Minister is doing to make sure this

does not become a real bone of contention. It is all very well

for me to tell him that it happens, and for him to say', "Yes,

I agree. It happens." But the fact of the matter is that it

does affect the morale. It seriously affects the happiness on

the job of these particular people. I would like him to tell us

what steps he is taking to make sure this doesn't happen on a

continuing basis and that these grievances are only fleeting

and temporary.

While I am on the subject of professional employees, I would

ask the Provincial Secretary to give us some explanation of the

incredible performance of the government with relation to the

B.C. Government Professional Employees Association. To refresh

the minds of other Members as well as of the Minister, we know

that the bargaining group of the government and the

[ Page 1680 ]

bargaining group of this association got together and

hammered out some sort of agreement. It went to cabinet for

ratification — if I can deal with it as briefly as I can — and

it was rejected. So the poor union found itself defending

clauses which it originally objected to but had accepted in a

spirit of goodwill. It found it then had to go out and try to

defend those clauses, put in by the government, against an

attack by the government at a later time. It was a really weird

situation. There were 90 clauses affected, so I'm told.

I wonder whether the Provincial Secretary would perhaps at

this stage like to start off by reaffirming his statement,

which I find in the November 6, 1973, Hansard , page

1318, dealing with collective bargaining. The Minister will

recall with, of course, crystal clarity that he and I at that

time were discussing the question of who should be included in

groups for bargaining within the civil service. I raised the

point that there were a certain number of groups in

confidential positions, and others who should be excluded. The

Hon. Mr. Hall talked about: "In fact the Premier is often on

record as saying that everyone should be in the union, right up

to the Deputy Minister." Well, we've not gone that far;

hopefully he's out, but we won't tell him at the moment.

This is a little garbled. He was interrupted, I understand.

But the fact of the matter was that he was telling me how far

they wanted to go. And it appears to me now that he has backed

off, substantially backed off the position he took in 1973. 1

felt at that time that he had not understood some of the

difficulties he was talking about.

I think it's time for another clarification of government

position because the professional employees association took

the government at its word then, and the professional employees

certainly did. They then went into collective bargaining. They

hammered out a tentative agreement. They got it thrown back at

them and they're now, as I said, in that weird position where

they are now trying to defend government-proposed clauses,

which they didn't particularly want, from the government

itself, which has now changed its mind as to what it wants.

I would like in particular to have the Provincial Secretary

talk about the loyalty clause to the government. He knows what

I'm referring to. It was in the original agreement, and perhaps

he would like to say a word about the government's attitude

towards that loyalty clause or loyalty statement. Obviously,

provincial civil servants should be loyal to their employer,

just as indeed all should. Perhaps you'd like to say a word on

that particular situation.

Now another subject I'd like to raise is the question of

superannuating in the civil service which is, again, under the

Provincial Secretary's vote. I would like to plead the case for

those civil servants who retired some years ago. I've done this

before, and I do it again. It's great to work out new systems of

pension, new systems of salary with existing civil servants.

But in my view the government has a very, very real

responsibility to people who have worked for the government for

many years. I have in my hand a letter; I'd like to read part

of it; I've been unable to check the figures in this, but I

would like to point out the difficulties that some of these

people are running into by way of quoting someone who is in

that position.

"Dear Sir: I am writing this letter on the futility of

contributory pensions. My husband and I worked for the B.C.

government for 36 years between us. We retired early last year

and find that owing to inflation our pension is inadequate. On

writing to Ernest Hall, Minister of government pensions, to

inquire if the retired employees' pensions would be raised, the

answer was: not at this time. I understand that there has been

no change since '71, when they received a 3.5 per cent...."

Now that, of course, I believe is not correct in terms of

detail, but it is indicative of the problems facing these

people. I would like to know what formula the government and

the Provincial Secretary will be using to make sure that the

retired, former civil servants get cost of living increases,

get increases in their pensions, so that they, at least, do not

fall further behind the civil servants who retire at the

present time.

Mr. Chairman, I just would like to interrupt my speech. As

there are no Members for Vancouver Centre in the room, I'd like

to introduce to the House Evan Wolfe, a former Member for

Vancouver Centre, who is sitting up there. If we don't get

better attendance from the Members for Vancouver Centre, no

doubt he will find his way back to the floor.

Now a word or two about another subject. We realize that the

Minister of Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is itching to

get his teeth into his job in London as agent-general. I wonder

whether the really substantial increases for representation,

for a new car and these things for the agent-general in London

are related to this particular gentleman. It seems that we're

having an enormous increase in the agent-general's costs. It's

not the first year this has happened, It's happened every year

this government has been in. I wonder whether or not the

agent-general is entering into new responsibilities, or whether

it's just the inflation in Britain, or whether or not we're

having any real analysis of the importance of that job.

Mr. Provincial Secretary, the agent-general's office was set

up many, many years ago when the provinces were looking for

capital abroad. It may be that it fulfils that function well

now. It may be that it doesn't. But I would like to know

whether or not we are analyzing it in terms of its function and

the role

[ Page 1681 ]

and the duties that it carries out and whether or not we are

getting our money's worth.

So many of these things simply continue to exist, as the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) found when he went down

to San Francisco. He came back saying that the office was just

there and it wasn't doing anything. I wonder whether we are

doing any study of the London office along that line. It is now

becoming a very expensive office, and I wonder whether it is

really needed. I would like to know what studies are being

undertaken to determine this.

The place may well be prepared for the Hon. Member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan), who is in the House

today. We appreciate his company. But is he just enjoying his

last hours here, and is he then off to London?

Mr. Chairman, vote 196, the Library Development Commission,

was touched on by the Minister, but I would like to use this as

an example of a problem we face in terms of the government

increases in expenditure.

You have here a very substantial increase in expenditure.

Under salaries, four more people were hired, bringing the

number from 42 to 46. But salaries have gone up at an enormous

rate in this particular vote from $392,602 to S614,3 11 — a

very, very substantial increase here. Yet, Mr. Chairman, when

we come down to the guts of the library work, what I would

think it would be — namely, the books, the bindings the

periodicals, the printing and the publication under code vote

numbers 013 and 018 — we discover that these are unchanged at

$305,000. We have enormous increases in the amount of money for

people; very little, indeed nothing here, in the actual

product, if I could use that term somewhat loosely. The fact is

that with inflation there will be less.

It is the type of thing that gives us concern. I would

appreciate some words by the Provincial Secretary on this,

because in dealing with that library vote as he did, he did not

in any way touch on this particular problem. We seem to be

getting more people, we seem to be paying them more, but the

amount of money going out in actual services, the amount

delivered to the public, appears to be declining.

Mr. Chairman, the vote of the Minister is very high under the heading of Public

Service Commission. Last year, $1,714,000; this year, $8,722,000 — a 400 or

500 per cent increase. Much of this is explicable in terms of the public service

grievance board and things, of that nature, the public service benefits trust.

But the fact is that when you get down to the grievance board, we have had,

so far as I know, no appointments. Thus, when Mr. Stanley Knight and his friends

were unceremoniously fired, when they had their probationary period terminated

in a way which was well against the standard procedure of the civil service,

there were no grievance board appointments under the legislation that we ourselves

passed in this House. We are using the old legislation because no appointments

have been made. I would like to know when those appointments are coming forward.

It is great to listen to Ministers recount the virtues of

the legislation they are presenting to the House, but when they

don't implement it, when they don't make the appointments that

bring that legislation into force, you wonder whether or not we

were discussing the proverbial $4 bill. I suspect that there

has been something similar in this instance.

The public service grievance board is important. The

appointments to it are important. Just to say, "well, we are

using the old procedure," doesn't make any sense,

because people are now being appointed under the new Act. It

just seems that we are going to have to clear up this business

and get on to the new system as soon as we can.

As I mentioned before in this House, there is no question in

my mind that the procedures for the hiring as well as the

firing of Stanley Knight and his friends were irregular. There

is no question that they were not given the opportunity of

seeing their assessments done on them, the assessment forms of

the Public Service Commission. There is no question that all of

them who were considered unsatisfactory were not given the

opportunity of taking the three-month period to pull up their

socks, a right granted to civil servants generally. There is no

question that none of that took place. Then, when I looked into

the matter to have these people go to the public service

grievance board, I discovered no appointments under the new

legislation.

That is simply not good enough. We can understand the

Minister of Education's (Hon. Mrs. Dailly'

s) desire to get some

people out of her hair whom she didn't particularly like. We

can understand her personal feelings, because it was, I think,

a personal matter. But in terms of the civil service, in terms

of the structure of the civil service and the fairness of the

government in treating civil servants, this has been a very,

very shabby business indeed.

I'm sure the Minister won't want to comment upon the firings

done by his colleague which were, no question about it, against

all the practices of the civil service commission. He won't

want to comment on that aspect, but perhaps he will tell us

when we are going to get appointments to that grievance

board.

The grievance board and the proper functioning of the

government, when handling things like termination of probation

or firing, becomes increasingly important as we get a more and

more professional civil service. The retrogressive step for

essentially political reasons of the Minister of Education

should, in my mind, have been vigorously criticized by the

Minister responsible for the morale of the civil service and

for what goes on in those

[ Page 1682 ]

many thousand people who make the backbone of the Province

of British Columbia's public service.

These are a few questions, Mr. Chairman. I'm well within my

time limit. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on

them.

HON. MR. HALL: May I explain to the Member, who didn't seem

to appreciate my point when I closed the previous round of

answers, that you can talk all you like about how much money

you're spending as each minute goes past, but in terms of

scrutiny of my estimates and the terms of the length of time

given to the scrutiny of those estimates, you'll have to speak

about 10 minutes longer than you've ever spoken before to fill

the time that has been allocated you today. Normally you've

looked at my estimates, in one year, for seven and a half

minutes, so it seems to come passing strange that a lot of time

is spent discussing how much time is available to you when

you've been content to see the kind of rates of expenditure in

this department without so much as a raised eyebrow before.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: I just wanted to get that on the record

because you like to make a few political points and so do I.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HALL: I listened to you in silence. Don't start all

over again.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: The Member congratulated me because I was

going to answer questions and he was all very nice and

encouraging. He congratulated me, and then he spent 10 of his

minutes, completely out of order, discussing the conduct of

another Minister and trying to tease this House as to whether I

should make any comment about the firing of somebody, and 0 the

rest of it. If that's the kind of double standard you set for

yourself, Mr. Member, don't expect me to follow.

The second thing is about the Public Service Commission and

the grievance board. The Member didn't even read the material.

He keeps on saying that Dr. Knight and his friends have to go

before the public service grievance board. Mr. Member, you are

wrong, wrong, wrong. You're wrong every time you talk about

it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: Now, just listen and you'll learn something.

The five members, apart from Dr. Knight, who have been dismissed from the service in terms of

probationary period do not have to go before the public service

grievance board.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have to.

HON. MR. HALL: They do not, sir. They are covered by the

collective agreement and they have a grievance procedure laid

down in the Act. I advise you to ask your researcher to work it

out for you.

Dr. Knight does have to go before some sort of tribunal. We

have not appointed a public service grievance board. In every

piece of legislation passed by this House that takes a length

of time to come into operation, there is a transitional

section. If any one of the steps has not yet come to pass....

The Member says he's a parliamentarian; he's always lecturing

us about what happens in other places. I advise you to read the

Act again. Justice will be served. Dr. Knight will have his

hearing, as laid down by statutes of....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Law.

HON. MR. HALL: ...this government, of this province, that

your party has supported year in and year out.

Now, your specific question was: when will the public

service grievance board be appointed? My answer to you is: in

the fulness of time. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The fullest time we've got.

HON. MR. HALL: The next question had to deal with library

development in the province. The Member looked at the two votes

and he made a cursory examination, obviously, of the details. I

wish they would get a critic established on that side of the

House for this department. He just looked casually at the

incremental increases.

The Library Development Commission's job is not to provide

books, in the main. The Library Development Commission's job is

to nurture, to persuade, to set down standards, to help to

develop, to encourage the development of standards. At the same

time, it provides a level of service in terms of grants on

periodicals and things like that. But its main job is work —

work and suasion. I think it's doing a successful job and is,

as far as my intelligence tells me — and I travel around the

province a great deal; I talk to the library people all over

the province — it's being received with a great deal of

enthusiasm. I notice by the support that the previous

questioner gave to this whole idea, it is doing fairly

well.

The next question deals with the agent-general. Again, I

will refer you, Mr. Chairman, to the kind of remarks that were

passed about who might fill that

[ Page 1683 ]

post and that kind of political showmanship. If we want to

get answers to these departments, I suggest we get down to our

work the way we should do.

The agent-general is a position in London, U.K. There's no

resemblance at all to anything that was in San Francisco or

California. My colleagues visited down there in 1972 to examine

what was happening in the trade development office or the

tourist development office. It had nothing at all to do with

the question of a B.C. House or a question of an agent-general

in London.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: I will answer the questions. Don't get into

an uproar.

The first thing we had to do, when we looked at the budget

this year, was to look at the incredible rate of inflation that

is taking place in Europe. Let me advise you of the figures.

For instance, postage rates in the U.K. Increased 50 per cent;

telephone charges up 30 per cent; stationery and printing

charges — the sharpest increase of all in that office — increasing from 40 to 100 per cent. Maintenance charges on

office equipment: we've looked at the whole gamut of the basic

operational expenses there, and that reflects inflationary

costs.

Secondly, we have now completed a thorough study of the

wages,, the working conditions — a policy which has never been

done before by the previous government — in terms of offshore

personnel work, in terms of how they're protected against

illness, in terms of how we can effectively deal with those

people who work out of this country. The Member knows well that

the federal government has to grapple with the same problem.

We've used the federal government formula in many instances to

try and establish base rates.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Did you table that report?

HON. MR. HALL: I'll certainly search the files and put all

the stuff I can put down for you, and I'll certainly file

copies of the policy statement.

We then looked at the U.K. nationals that happen to work

here, because of trade qualifications and other requirements

that are necessary, and we found out that their wages had

fallen further behind even in comparison to the way we've

fallen behind here in our public service. So all those had to

be adjusted.

Similarly, we found that the previous policy was to encourage or to persuade,

or to post the vacancy for an offshore position in the public service in Victoria,

or elsewhere, calmly accept the applications and put the guy on the plane with

his wife and children and say goodbye. No basic plan, no policy for his return,

for indoctrination, for reorientation, for familiarization, no guarantee he'd

ever seen in the public service at anything like the same level of activity.

All that had to be taken care of.

Now then, an evaluation of the function of the office was

the second part of the question. We've evaluated the function

of the office and we maintain, in view of the economic

opportunities and the tourism opportunities, that that office

is a must as a base for Europe. I have a note given to me, for

instance, that the tourism from the United Kingdom was up 31

per cent since we've come to office in 1972-73. It looks like a

33 per cent increase in 1974. That's one of the functions of

one of the desks in that office.

Secondly, it's always used as a base when the Premier and

Minister of Finance, Deputy Minister of Finance and others go

to the U.K. to the money markets and do that kind of work. As a

matter of fact, the other part about it.... I cannot give you

the figure, but I certainly will get the figure if you're

interested, because it shows up on the revenue side. There's a

great deal of revenue, as it happens. I don't say that that's

justification for continuing the operation, but as it happens

there's a great deal of revenue from 1 Regent Street. As a

matter of fact, I think, if you work it out in rough dollars,

that it's not that far from really being self-supporting.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: Quite, I agree. That's not a reason for

keeping it there, but I thought it would be of some passing

interest to the Members that we are in a reasonably sawn-off

position there.

The loyalty statement that the Member referred to is part of

the three previous questions about negotiations and licensed

pros and so on. Let me deal with them in a piece if I may. The

first specific question was: am I going to allow to be

continued the disparity between technicians and supervisors?

Well, the disparity is not one of my making, not one of the

government's making. The disparity exists because the contract

that applies to most of the people you are talking about is

signed and the contract — this is my understanding, which I'll

have to double-check, and if I mislead the House I will

certainly apologize tomorrow.... My understanding is that

we're dealing here with a situation of a signed contract and

dealing in the second instance with negotiations that are

currently going on. Obviously the pitch will be, and the Member

in effect is making it, I suppose, inadvertently, for the lower persons to get a wage increase,

at least getting over the figure that was first mentioned.

That's, as I understand, the situation.

Secondly, that opens up the whole question of where we are

with the licensed pros. You may criticize me for this, but I

don't want to get into some of the detail the Member asked me

to do for

[ Page 1684 ]

this simple reason: we are at a very crucial point today and

the rest of this week and next week. We are about that far away

from signing the contract. I would hate to get involved in

anything in my specific position that would tend to rock that

boat at all. Now you may say that I'm running for cover. Well,

say that if you want. The fact of the matter is that the

December 11 proposal made by the licensed pros to the Public

Service Commission was not supported by the Public Service

Commission. They would not recommend it to Treasury Board.

Therefore it was impossible to recommend it anywhere else or

sign it. The genesis of the clauses the Member makes reference

to is interesting, but perhaps irrelevant when one decides that

the package is just....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What went wrong with your negotiating

committee?

HON. MR. HALL: Ah, well that's a, subjective matter that I

don't think I'm going to discuss. Obviously a man's career is

involved and personal deportment is concerned. Because a thing

breaks down do you nail somebody down? I don't want to get into

that, if you don't mind.

All I'm saying is that what was a proposal — I don't deny

that — through the membership of the union and through the

Treasury Board to the Public Service Commission of this

government was not accepted by, in effect, the employer group;

so you're back to the table.

Now some of the things that happened since then, I agree,

were not as smooth and as successful and as good as I would

have liked. However, we then got an understanding with the

Licensed Professional Government Employees Union, went back to

the bargaining table, negotiated a core agreement, et

cetera.

Now the Member talked about exclusion when he made reference

to my speeches. Exclusions were not part of the December 11

proposal. We didn't deal with them. We're only talking about

the....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Do you still stand by what you said?

HON. MR. HALL: I'm saying that everybody should be in a

union except those members who are required to administer the

contract. If I'm guilty of omitting that clause, then I plead

guilty. But obviously you've got to have somebody at some desk

somewhere on one side of the table who's in charge of that

contract, who's performing, as the Labour Relations Board lays

down, the function of labour-management relations.

On the level of exclusions — I stand proudly on my record. I've been congratulated

by most of the people in this province that the record of exclusions in the

B.C. Government Employees Union, which is the general group, and the nursing

group, is second to none in the country. I think that my statement in hand is

totally vindicated by the master agreement with the 13 components, in terms

of exclusions, that was laid down on the table the other day.

By having a committee to pursue collective bargaining, as I

did in the other two instance, I had hoped to be able to get

the question of exclusions settled very early on in the

process. I was not successful. I was doing it as a committee,

not at the negotiating table. We developed a system called a

"committee to pursue collective bargaining" upon which two

commissioners sat with two representatives from the work force.

We tried to grapple with problems before they became an issue,

and we were successful. The beauty of that system is, I

suppose, that when you're successful you can stand tall, but

you have to run for cover and disappear from the scene

immediately if you're not successful because you will get in

the way of the negotiating process. That's what happened,

unfortunately, in my view. We were not able to get the degree

of success generated when we were meeting at the committee

because exclusions were on the table. We just couldn't come to

any terms.

I'll be making a speech in the supper break tonight to the

first convention of the Licensed Professional Government

Employees Association. I am advised now that we're very close

together on not only the core agreement but also on the

question of exclusion. I think you will observe and I will be

able to report some success in that.

Lastly, I think you made some comments about the planning

adviser to the cabinet and the necessity of that operation. You

passed some nice remarks about the staff that I have a great

deal of pleasure working with. I want to endorse those remarks

and tell you that I feel very fortunate that I've got two

first-class Deputy Ministers in the Deputy Provincial Secretary

and the. Deputy Minister of Travel Industry and my

commissioners as well.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, I'm

going to be very brief. On previous occasions I have enjoyed

participating in the discussion of the estimates of this

particular Minister, the Provincial Secretary. I also would

like to say that, by and large, I think he's most helpful in

his answers; I trust that he will be so again today.

A couple of points, really, and they are in no particular

order. My colleague, the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), spoke

earlier about the First Citizens' Fund. I note from

Hansard in May of last year, page 3205, that the

Provincial Secretary was quite frank in speaking to the

committee with respect to the Indian Advisory Act. He said in

part:

...I would like to see this Act rescinded. I don't

[ Page

1685 ]

think it serves any real, useful purpose other than that

which we may do — such as looking after the First Citizens'

Fund and some community development projects. I don't like the

Indian Advisory Act. I don't like the concept. As soon as my

colleague, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) and

the cabinet get the final approach and policies worked out, I

hope that we will see the end of that Act.

I notice it's in the estimates again this year, with a

slight increase, so one can presume that the Minister's opinion

of this particular point has not prevailed, or matters of

greater priority have.... A most disarming smile from the

Minister; I'll look forward to his answer. I do remind him of

the view he expressed, again, quite frankly, not quite a year

ago. The Capital Improvement District Commission: I'm afraid

that I will want to refer in this context, Mr. Chairman, to the

points I raised at length with the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) earlier this week when we were

discussing his departmental spending for 1975-76.

It is my continuing concern that notwithstanding — I

underline that word — the excellent projects which have been

undertaken by the CIDC, under the former administration and the

present administration, and the fine works that are within a

stone's throw of where we stand today, I still fear that it is

possible that the CIDC, the Department of Public Works, the

Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, the

municipalities, the regional district, the many agencies which,

on behalf of the public, are spending public dollars in and

around the capital region and particularly in the Inner Harbour

area, the core of the capital city, may not be working in as

much cooperation as we would all like to see.

Again, I won't quote at length from Hansard but I

note in the estimates discussion one year ago, Mr., Chairman,

the Minister also agreed on that particular point in reference

to a communications gap. I am very happy to see that the vote

for the CIDC has been increased from $250,000 to $400,000 for

the fiscal year now started, and I emphasize for the Minister

and for those who are interested in the comment.... I am not

being critical of what the CIDC has achieved, but I wonder if

the dollars could not be put to even better use — and I state

it positively — if the CIDC was brought more into the ongoing

discussions not only of provincial government, but regional and

municipal government. And I recognize that there is municipal

representation on the CIDC.

I would also like to ask the Minister on that point if there

is any possibility of the functioning area of the Capital

Improvement District Commission being expanded. Again, we

talked about this briefly in 1974. The capital region really

should include not just the four core municipalities of

Victoria, Oak Bay, Esquimalt and Saanich, but, in my view,

should extend into the so-called electoral areas of

Colwood, Langford and View Royal in particular, and further out the

peninsula to take in the three northern municipalities out to

the Swartz Bay ferry terminal. It is at Swartz Bay where so

many visitors have their first glimpse of the capital region

and the capital city of British Columbia. The Minister may care

to speak about that.

I also would not want to let this opportunity pass as I

don't know if I will be recognized again, this afternoon or

not, but I want to congratulate the Minister and all concerned

with the Provincial Museum which just has to be a source of

tremendous pride to all of us, regardless of where we sit in

this House. Repeatedly, we encounter — I encounter, certainly —

individuals who have paid their first visit to the facility or

perhaps their 2ist visit. We do have a museum which should be a

source of pride to all of us, and I just wanted to make brief

mention on that point.

Now the Provincial Archives has come to public attention in

recent days with respect to the late Emily Carr and some of her

now very valuable works. I hope the Minister will take just a

few moments also to tell us about inventory control in the

Archives. The case of the missing painting being offered for

sale a short while ago raised a number of eyebrows, and then

the more recent story, if the newspaper story is correct,

suggests that there may, indeed, be four more works by Emily

Carr which are missing from the Provincial Archives. It is also

made clear that at least one of the paintings has been missing

since 1968. Indeed, perhaps the case of the missing artwork

could go back a number of years prior to that, but again

understanding and attempting to appreciate the tremendous

amount of archival material which is presented to the

Provincial Archives officials, the material which they have in

their care, is there some step being taken to improve inventory

control to determine that what we think we have we indeed do

have? I look forward to the Minister's comments on that

point.

I think that's it for the moment, Mr. Chairman. Hopefully I

can participate later in the debate.

HON. MR. HALL: Thank you, Mr. Member. You will appreciate

that I was expecting a question about the great art mystery. I

don't want to lurch into what I was just critical about the

Member for but the fact was that we didn't have a list to begin

with in 1972. Let that just lie there and examine it if you

like, We have inventory control now. We have got security.

Frankly, the missing watercolor wasn't on the catalogue list

in 1971. It was carded by a Mrs. Keir, circa 1962, but I

suppose one could argue that there could have been a couple

more hanging around somewhere that no one ever knew about. I

don't want to get into any apportionment of direct

responsibility. It was just one of those things. We

[ Page 1686 ]

have now remedied the situation.

In passing, may I tell you, because I know you are

interested, the total number of Emily Carr works — because we

talk about Emily Carr a lot. The Newcombe collection has 226

works and the May collection has 26 works, for a total of 252.

The Vancouver Art Gallery has the largest collection of

finished works of Emily Car; however, the collection in the

archives is more extensive in its sketches, its notes, and the

memorabilia.

Acquisition since September, 1972: in October, two oils were

auctioned; in September, 1973, a sketchbook and some other

sketches from a Mr. Ohler; some other sketches at the same time

were purchased by other museums. In October, two oils from the

Flora Burns collection; in 1974, the donation of "Kispiox," which is a large charcoal donated by Alistar-Bell in

Vancouver. We expended about $86,000 very selectively and well

on Emily Carr. We've also got letters which have been acquired

and we are presently negotiating about other letters and

sketches.

We loan Emily Carr works to established art galleries and

museums. At the present time, the archives are exhibiting

"Emily Carr in the Queen Charlottes." And, of course, we are

studying the Emily Carr home on Government Street to display

the works. We will get a report very shortly in that

regard.

CIDC. The answer to your comments is: "I agree, yes." I've

not seen quite the restoration of communications I wanted to,

although they are better than they were in a couple of periods

of hiatus. But that's politics being what they are and

activities being what they are. I am telling you, if I may

announce, that I am expecting to introduce legislation on the

CIDC this session. The area will be redefined. I don't think I

should say any more than that at this point.

The First Citizens' Fund. You were quite right in drawing my

attention to the fact that the Indian Advisory Act is still in

the estimates. I've got to keep it in the estimates for part of

the reason that we have to show what we did last year. Your

query is: why is it in this year? The reason is really

staff.

It is my hope that you will see in the omnibus thing at the

end of the session a simple line doing in the Indian Advisory

Act. That doesn't mean to say we must do in the people who have

been supporting the committee, offering the secretarial

services and so on. They will be transferred to some other

vote. They will continue to be involved with this kind of work

but not under that heading. I just won't have anything more to

do with that any longer.

May I just for the record answer a question which I omitted to answer to the

leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) on pensions? I suppose that

is what raised my temperature a second. The Member is now back in. He asked

me what we are doing about increasing pensions. He voted for legislation that

increased pensions. He has voted for legislation that increased the pensions

he is talking about every time we've had a session. We've now got an adjusted

formula for pensions. They go up now with the cost of living. He said: can you

tell me what you are thinking about doing? We've done it. He voted for it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: Everybody on pension gets an increase in his

pension if the cost of living goes up. That is as simple as

A-B-C — 3 per cent, 6 per cent, or 8 per cent. In May, 1973, it

was 12 per cent. On July 1, 1974, it was 12.4 per cent.

Effective April 1, 1975, it scheduled; it just regularly goes

up.

If you are talking about the level of pension, the base

rate, it is the old story. It is a combination over the history

of money purchase plans, cash distribution plans and so on.

Recalculation of pensions is a subject we've gone into over and

over again.

I am now in possession of a report commissioned for $5,000

by the B.C. Teachers Federation, who have been the most

vociferous about this and who asked for an actuary. His name is

Mr. Wiggins. He presented a report. If you are interested in

seeing it, you can have a copy or I'll table a copy, if you

like. He says what I have been saying on my feet in the House

now for three years: the recalculation of pensions is not

feasible. It is not feasible.

Now we are going to look at some other methods; maybe we can

do something to assist. But I wanted to get that nailed down.

As I say, Mr. Member — because I omitted to answer you off my

list — by way of information, the total, bill right now, the

total monthly pension roll going out of this department, is $50

million.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: For financial reasons is it not

feasible?

HON. MR. HALL: It's not feasible to what?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: For financial reasons. You said it is not

feasible.

AN HON. MEMBER: To recalculate.

HON. MR. HALL: There is a 20-page report. I will table it in

the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A computer should be able to recalculate

in a flash.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister commented that perhaps in this

session we are spending more time on

[ Page 1687 ]

his estimates than we have done in the past. I think when

the Minister has just negotiated an increase of $60 million in

wages — I'm not necessarily saying that is too much or too

little or whatever, but it is a pile of money — we are agreed

that maybe we should look at it.

Just as an observer and a listener in the community, I find

that the people in the community have been wondering just what

kind of new manoeuvre this all is of having 13 components and a

great aura of secrecy around negotiations. You don't want one

group to know what the other 12 are doing or vice-versa.

Earlier this afternoon the Minister hedged, and admitted

hedging, on an answer to a former question, because apparently

we are very close to some agreement with the professional

employees' section.

I'm not unaware of the Minister's practical difficulty in

avoiding the answer for that reason. But more and more it seems

to me in this House that our capacity to debate some of the

more important public issues is progressively obstructed by

this same kind of situation. We find that we can't debate a

principle because somebody has presently got a grievance before

some board or other. We can't even debate the underlying

principles in good hiring and employment practices. We find

that we can't talk about the municipalities or education

because the school boards are in a strike — a whole variety of

obstructive reasons why when we get up in the House, and we

only have a limited time.... I think it is regrettable that

this is the trend which is. developing in the House, that so

often we can't get to the nuts and bolts of the problem because

it will intimately affect some group of negotiations or some

other procedure elsewhere outside the House.

I wonder if the Minister has any thoughts. I know we are in

a relatively new area with the contracts which have been

brought under the new legislation, but at this point in the

Minister's experience, has he got any suggestions or any

changes of policy which might be useful for the opposition and

the public to know?

For example, what about this component strategy of having 13

components where there is all this uncertainty and attempt at

secrecy and so on, while they are all going about the business

of negotiating? I just pinpoint, for example, the fact that

when the employees in the liquor stores negotiated their

increase, the report talked about the still secret

negotiations, but it was quite an increase. It says: "Liquor

store employees win $245 a month pay boost." It goes on to say

that some 2,200 employees of the liquor administration branch

have won a $245 monthly pay boost in one of the still secret

contracts negotiated by the provincial government with various

components of the B.C. Government Employees Union.

I'm not specifically picking on these employees, Mr.

Chairman, in trying to make the point. I'm just saying that

over a long period of time we've had intermittent semi-secret,

semi-official, perhaps unreliable, inaccurate figures being

bandied around by whatever component seems to be coming close

to a decision. The Minister and others have stated that an

attempt was made to keep it secret so it will not unduly

influence the others.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: As the Member behind me says, they all really

know what is going on. This particular increase, I think, must

have been quite significant in its impact on other

non-government employees busily negotiating wages at the same

time, because it went on to state that the basic wage increase

for the LCB workers is $175 from last October — with a

cost-of-living allowance clause adding at least $70 per month

come July 1. These are very substantial increases. I presume,

from what the Minister said earlier, that some of the

lower-paid workers received 56 per cent.

While the Minister is quite accurate in saying that it would

be wrong to pick a minority group and bandy a figure around,

the length of time over which all these negotiations have been

going on, with this interspersed practice of percentages, COLA

clauses, the time it will apply and so on, I think in itself,

while perhaps well-intended, has a damaging affect. Certainly,

I hear many complaints from the private sector which now finds

that the government, in promoting the idea of catch-up, appears

to be trying to catch-tip what may have been a shortcoming over

many years, all in one step. The sudden and dramatic impact on

the economy is something that many employers are expressing

great concern about.

I had the advantage of talking to Evan Wolfe, for example,

who is a former Member introduced from the gallery today, and

he was just talking exactly about the psychology which now

applies in all bargaining. Everybody just starts talking about

the 20 per cent level. It seems to be accepted that everybody

who has any part to play in negotiating their own wage

increases just starts thinking at somewhere around 20 per cent

or higher, plus COLA. I just wonder if the Minister would care

to comment — I don't want to belabour the point unduly —

whether, in the light of experience and some of the points I

have made, he thinks there might be a faster way to do it. Or

should we reduce the number of components? Is there not a

better way which would have less impact and a more desirable

air of public awareness as to what negotiations are going on

and what kind of figures are being discussed, rather than the

unfortunate effect of so many unofficial figures and rumours,

plus the odd grain of truth? I guess this

[ Page 1688 ]

premature announcement about the LCB employees was

accurate.

I want to touch a moment on Point Ellice House. It seems to

be my week for buildings, Mr. Chairman. I went through Point

Ellice House today because I've been really interested to know

whether the $455,000 that was paid for Point Ellice House was

reasonable spending of taxpayers' money.

Point Ellice House, Mr. Chairman, is a house that was built

in 1861 in Esquimalt. It is the original home of Peter

O'Reilly, who was a gold commissioner, a judge and a Member of

this Legislature, and it's certainly an historic building.

Being that age, it's like the old gray mare — it ain't what it

used to be. Nevertheless, the concept of preserving that kind

of building, I think, is sound. It's on two acres of land and

has the O'Reilly collection of many very interesting fragments

of history — furniture, clothing and many of the period

elements of that time.

I just wish the lady Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms.

Brown) were here, because yesterday she was discussing in the

estimates of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) what slow

progress we are making in improving the lot of women, the

status of women. One of the interesting items — perhaps I can

call it an appliance — which was shown to me in Point Ellice

House today was a chastity belt. The thought went through my

mind that at least we're moving a little along the way in our

attitude towards the female sex.

Anyway, in passing, I wonder if the Minister could tell us

two or three things about the Point Ellice House project. First

of all, it appears to me, from looking at the grounds and from

looking at the building, that it really does require a great

deal of money to be spent bringing it up to some kind of

standard that would be reasonable if we are to encourage

visitors, both Canadian and those from outside our borders, to

visit the place. I wonder if, for example, the tremendous

potential in the gardens, which I believe were once very well

known throughout the province if not the nation, have obviously

been allowed to deteriorate because of the obvious upkeep

costs. At the moment I understand that the charge to see

through the house and to look at the collection is 25 cents. I

wonder if, since we are going to have to spend quite a bit of

money, it would be reasonable — if not to make it

self-sustaining, to bring up the standard — to charge a more

reasonable fee to visit the building.

There are a whole lot of other questions I am sure I could

ask. But, basically, it seems to me that the acquisition has

already cost close to $500,000. The potential to make it a very

attractive tourist spot is there. Maybe the Minister could tell

us what his longer-term plans are for Point Ellice House.

To go back to the whole question of bargaining for a moment,

I just want to make it plain that....

Quoting the Minister of Labour, yesterday he said, and I

quote from the Blues : "I would think that that would be the

objective of most governments which believe in the right of the

working people to make their own decision as to

representation." I certainly subscribe to that approach.

I am referring back to the professional group and

particularly the salaried physicians in the government

employment who all along have certainly been under the

impression that they could continue to be represented by the

B.C. Medical Association and that it has never been their wish,

and it isn't their wish now, to be in any way compelled to be

represented by the professional group. I think that Mr.

Richardson of the Public Service Commission made a statement in

January, I believe, or February, perhaps, that we could

anticipate amendments to legislation this session to exclude

the salaried physicians from the government professional group

in order that they could continue by their own wish to....

I shouldn't be mentioning names; I am sorry...the chairman

of the Public Service Commission. I don't even know Mr.

Richardson, and if that's him sitting behind here, I apologize

for mentioning names of civil servants, which we don't normally

do.

At any rate, the point I am trying to make is that if the

government really believes and follows through on the kind of

statement that we had from the Minister of Labour that the

wishes of groups are respected as to the method of their

representation, then I think there could be no doubt, and I am

really confident that there could be no doubt, that the

salaried physicians who have unanimously chosen to be

represented by the B.C. Medical Association will be given that

opportunity, which is certainly the majority wish if not the

unanimous wish.

[Mr. Lockstead in the chair]

There are one or two other points I would like to raise and I have to refer

back to some of the Minister's chagrin in regard to the Liberal Leader. I do

feel, without referring to any specific individual, that it's quite legitimate

in this debate, I think, to ask the Minister certain questions, since he is

responsible for the hiring. and dismissal procedures and practices, or at least

in seeing that they are obeyed. We've heard a lot in this House in recent sessions

about "collegial" decisions — the whole question of share decision-making.

I wonder what the official policy of the civil service is on

the so-called collegial approach. In other words, can a group

of people be given the opportunity collectively to make the

decision, or is the civil service really no different from the

image we all have, I think, that there's always one person up

the line who brings down the hammer regardless of

[ Page 1689 ]

what the collegial decision and feeling might be at the

lower level?

What about the hiring policy itself? Could the Minister tell

us what the current procedure is in regard to applications by

non-Canadians? Has it changed at all? I understood that last

year, when I asked this year, the person had to be in this

province one year before they could be employed unless there

was no Canadian person available to fill the job. I'd like to

know to what degree that policy is the same or whether it's

been changed to any degree.

We've heard the Minister talk about the public service

grievance board. I think he was being a little less than fair

to say that it would be set up in the fullness of time. That

could be one month or one year or 50 years; well, it wouldn't

be 50 years because none of us will be here in 50 years.

But I wonder if the Minister couldn't be more specific,

because I believe that one of the individuals who wants to go

before the board has named his nominee and he's waiting for the

government to....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Look, we've agreed that we're not going to

mention names; I'm just talking principle again.

I just want to get on with what I think is another very

important point. I often hear comments made — I hope they're

made loosely and without real thought — that wiretapping is

indulged in in these parliament buildings. Comments are made to

me that secrecy is very difficult to maintain in parliament

buildings. Judging by some of the questions that have been

asked across the floor recently, I confess that I have to

wonder where some of the opposition Members get their

information.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I'm not suggesting for a moment that they

indulge in wiretapping. I'm just saying that various people

within the ranks of the civil service make comments off and on

or talk to me on the phone and say: "Maybe we should be careful

what you're saying because you're on a government phone."

That's a terrible implication to exist. I read with interest

the report by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) on

wiretapping giving the details. He tabled the report just a

little while ago.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: For the period July, 1974, to December,

I think it would be very useful publicly and in this House for the Minister

to clear the air completely on any kind of implication not based on evidence

that anything such as wiretapping goes on within the parliament buildings. Maybe

once and for all we can stop this very unhealthy and damaging kind of suspicion,

which is not based on evidence but based only on suspicion. I hope the Minister

could perhaps touch upon that.

I had a few comments I wished to make about the planning

adviser to the cabinet, but I think the Minister has answered

most of it, except that I'm not quite sure just exactly who Mr.

Eliesen is responsible to. Is he responsible to this Minister,

to the Premier or to cabinet? It doesn't seem quite clear to

me. The Premier and Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) is

presumably the No. I man in cabinet. That being the case, I

wondered why Mr. Eliesen's position isn't listed in the

Minister of Finance's or the Premier's office. Perhaps the

Minister could explain this. I'm still not clear to whom Mr.

Eliesen's direct responsibility is, or is it collectively to

the cabinet, or is it directly to the Premier or to this

Minister?

Of course, the question comes to mind as to what degree — I

think the Minister was asked this question, but I'd like to get

it very clear — the basic method of cabinet functioning is

being altered by the greater use of cabinet committees and the

insertion of an individual, however skilled, into a position of

high authority in advising the cabinet, which would appear to

short-circuit senior members of the civil service who have been

spending many years in government service. I would ask the

question: is there nobody within the government civil service

of the calibre or capacity or experience to have filled the

position which was filled by someone else? What was the exact

method by which Mr. Eliesen was selected for the position? Was

it an advertised position which went through the usual Public

Service Commission procedure, or w as it an appointment by

order-in-council?

These are some of the questions. It's a substantial sum of

money within this new group in which there are nine other

people involved in addition to the adviser himself.

I did want to talk for a moment, too, about the Public

Inquiries Act which had its budget increased by 50 per cent. Is

this in any way related to some inquiry which the government

intends to hold, or is it just trying to make provision against

the possibility of this inquiry into the Columbia River figures

and all the public debates we've had? The Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) has said there

will be a public inquiry. Is this extra $50,000 earmarked for

that inquiry or is there some other kind of inquiry?

I'd like to ask about three particular items which add up to

three-quarters of a million dollars, namely public information — $250,000; distribution of government publications — $250,000;

and the status of women — $200,000. We're all in favour of fair

play

[ Page 1690 ]

and reaching a better equality for women in employment and

in the public service, but I wonder about that other

half-million. How much of that half-million is incurred in

publishing B.C. Government News ? How many editions of

B.C. Government News can we expect? Is it a monthly, or

is there no set frequency? Regardless of that, out of the

$500,000 for public information and distribution of government

publications, I wonder if the Minister could give us some idea

how much is spent on the B.C. Government News and what

other government publications incur this kind of cost.

Lastly, I would like to ask the Minister if morale among

public service employees is not somewhat impaired by recent

events where, indeed, some of the practices which have been

demonstrated, particularly in the Department of Education. Do

these practices not leave the Minister with some real concern

that the usual established procedures, particularly for

probationary appointments, are being followed? The information

I have is that there is quite a bit of concern in the civil

service because of some of the techniques recently

developed.

For example, to be more specific, is it normal for an

employee to be dismissed by a letter delivered by the deputy

sheriff? This happened to one of the research officers of the

research and development department of education. I'm not

wishing to intrude into the area that would compromise any

grievance procedure that's going to be held in regard to one

specific person, but I think that many of these practices — and

that's perhaps one of the more blatant ones....

On the whole question of the appraisal of a probationary

appointee during his period of probation, can the Minister tell

us if he's made any inquiries into departments to find out if

in fact the normal procedure is being followed? I understand

that even after the six months are terminated, the general

procedure is to give a person three months under terms of

reference as to why they should improve their performance or,

at the end of the three months, they may be dismissed. The

whole question of evaluation of the work shouldn't take place a

day or two before the six months expire. Has the Minister

initiated any investigation in the civil service to see if this

rather loose approach to the rules is being used and whether,

in fact, he's carrying out any studies or actions to make sure

that the morale in the civil service doesn't fall? Other

probationary appointees, I presume, after what happened in the

example I quoted, are probably wondering if the same very

inadequate kind of attitude might be taken towards them.

Two points arise out of this: I wonder if the Minister could give us some idea

what the words "just cause" mean to him and mean in general terms. It's such

a delightfully vague phrase, "just cause." What may seem a just cause to one

employer or one individual supervisor may be far from just in the eyes of many

other people. I think that individuals either seeking government employment

or who are presently employed by government might be interested to know the

Minister's view on what dismissal for just cause generally implies.

What about the oath of office? The Liberal leader talked

about loyalty, and I wonder how long the oath of office is

regarded to be applicable by this Minister. We've heard some

discussion already that individuals, once they're dismissed

from government service, prejudice their future by commenting

publicly on what they believe to have been unfair cause for

dismissal or unfair dismissal practices. Does the oath of

office end the day you're fired or are you tied down by the

oath of office until the day you die?

HON. MR. HALL: Which oath are you talking about?

MR. WALLACE: The oath of office taken when one becomes

employed by the public service.

HON. MR. HALL: There are three different oaths.

MR. WALLACE: Well, maybe the Minister can tell me about the

three different oaths. I thought an oath was an oath was an

oath — you either agreed to secrecy and so on, or.... Maybe

the Minister can enlarge on that.

A lot of the work of civil servants involves involvement

with the community, whether it is in Human Resources or Health

or Education or whatever. I wonder if we could have some

indication from the Minister as to how you can encourage

collegial decisions by the community and the professionals

together if the professional employee employed by government

has some real doubt as to how much he or she can discuss

publicly the policy matters relating to whatever issue they are

involved in.

If the government wants to involve the community,

particularly in the field of education, what kind of guidelines

might it be wise for the Department of Education to spell out

for the professional employees as to the degree to which they

can take the public into confidence on certain information and

certain government policies?

From what has happened recently, it seems that maybe the

time is now. When bargaining is such a hot issue and so

prominent within this Minister's department, it might be very

advisable to have his department spell out for the use of

employees a more up-to-date and useful outline of what their

responsibilities are in regard to discussion with the

public.

[ Page 1691 ]

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, first of all may I deal with

the question the Member raised? I was alarmed, and I welcome

the opportunity to put at rest and demolish any suggestion for

one second that eavesdropping, wiretapping and those kinds of

things are happening. I know of none. I can't imagine any set

of circumstances that would ever see them installed,

instituted, except for the most grievous of conditions in terms

of the activities of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald)

in matters affecting security of the state and criminal

activities and so on, which are laid down in the Act.

I've heard those jokes, too, and I hope I am describing them

accurately, that they are lighthearted remarks. If I ever found

out that there was that kind of activity — and I was one of the

main speakers on the Privacy Act when Robert Bonner introduced

it in this House, I wasn't satisfied with it and I'm still not

satisfied with it — I would be the first to report to the

House, regardless of an oath of office of anything I've ever

heard of. I would think that would supercede anything with

which I've ever had to deal before. I can only utter in the

loudest and clearest terms that that is a comment that couldn't

possibly receive my support and it wouldn't receive, I'm sure,

the support of any one of the 55 Members in this House. If I've

seized the opportunity to do that, I would thank the Member for

his question. I hope that he will join me in saying that as

often as we can, if the occasion is that bad.

Point Ellice House. Well, it is a deal we've got going here.

It's an historic site. We've got a tremendous collection of

material, of things of nostalgic value, things of very

intrinsic value, and others that are in the general area of

memorabilia. There could be an argument about value. If you put

the whole thing together, take into account that the City of

Victoria is going to be a partner with us in terms of giving us

some land if we are able to get the intervening stuff, and we

have some assurances from the private sector of industry who

have some working rights in the waterfront, we can see

developed here a park. And I use the word "park" in its widest

possible sense. I don't just mean a grass field; I mean an

area, the centre of which will be Point Ellice House. I agree

with the Member that it needs better upkeep. That is one of the

reasons it was bought. It was getting beyond the possibilities

of the owners. Public Works will look after the grounds. There

is extra land involved.

The charges are the same as Helmcken House and Craigflower

Manor, but I agree with the Member that 25 cents doesn't seem

very much. It seems to me when you get down to thinking about

that, it should either be nothing or something. It may be that

it costs more than 25 cents to actually pick up the 25-cent

coin. I think that is worth looking at and we certainly will

live a look at it.

As far as the negotiations are concerned, I think I could

best respond this way: no act of this government, I am sure, is

forever written in stone. It doesn't say 13 components in the

Act, it just says "components" and then describes what the

components seek to serve.

But I want you to remember that it was the first year. The

union didn't even have trained negotiators, and they will tell

you this. There is a problem