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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page 3949 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of the Provincial

Secretary estimates.

On vote 212.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3949

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3949

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3950

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3950

On vote 213.

Mrs. Jordan — 3950

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3951

Mrs. Jordan — 3951

Ms. Brown — 3952

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3952

Mrs. Jordan — 3954

Ms. Brown — 3955

Mrs. Jordan — 3955

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3955

On vote 214.

Mr. Curtis — 3955

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3955

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3956

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3956

On vote 216.

Ms. Brown — 3956

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3957

Mr. McClelland — 3957

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3957

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3957

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3958

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3958

Mrs. Jordan — 3958

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3959

On vote 218.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3960

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3960

Ms. Brown — 3960

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3961

Mrs. Jordan — 3961

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3962

On vote 220.

Mr. Wallace — 3962

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3962

On vote 221.

Mr. Wallace — 3963

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3963

Mr. McClelland — 3963

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3963

On vote 222.

Mr. Wallace — 3964

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3964

Mr. Wallace — 3964

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3965

On vote 226.

Mr. Richter — 3965

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3966

On vote 229.

Mrs. Jordan — 3966

On vote 208.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3967

Mr. Wallace — 3967

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3967

Department of Travel Industry estimates.

On vote 263.

Mr. Phillips — 3967

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3967

Mr. Wallace — 3967

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF THE

PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

(continued)

Vote 211: metric conversion, $102,468 — approved.

On vote 212: British Columbia lottery branch, $10.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): No, no, no. We should not be

putting $10 into lotteries. We shouldn't be putting any money

at all into lotteries.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): We're going

to win!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You may win. Now, there's an example, you

see — the Consumer Affairs Minister — everything's a lottery.

You may buy something that's no good or you may buy something

that's a winning ticket — none of this idea of value for money.

She's got no concept of value for money. She doesn't understand

that those little bits of paper are the biggest fraud and

ripoff in the whole of British Columbia — those little tickets

sold for lotteries.

If we're going to accept lotteries, Mr. Minister of

Transport and Communications, why did you take the slot

machines out of the Stena Danica? Because if we are going to

accept government-approved gambling, why didn't you leave the

slot machines in the ferry?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and

Communications) : The federal government doesn't allow it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, otherwise you would have done it?

You'd have had it in, otherwise. You've got them locked up

already to go as soon as the law is changed, is that it? Well,

this gambling government….

Mr. Chairman, if I can return to the vote on provincial

lotteries or the Western Canada Lotteries, I'd like to know

what revenue is raised for the government. What is this as a

percentage of the overall contributions and purchases of

tickets?

Lotteries, as far as I'm concerned, are the worst possible way of

raising revenue for government. I don't believe the. government should

be involved in them at all. When you see down here $509,496 which is

the

cost of running the operation — it's not $10; it's over a half

million — and you compare that to the figures of the money

coming in, I think we'll find that it's very, very high

cost.

I'd also like to know how much money you've spent on

advertising the lotteries. I'd like to know how much this is as

a percentage. I just feel that this idea of the Minister of

Consumer Affairs getting so enthusiastic about little pieces of

paper that are ripoffs on the public is wrong. I think we

should have not a penny given to the lottery branch. I think,

indeed, the government should get entirely out of the

business.

I know the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) is away. He

supports me on this, but he doesn't come in to vote on this

one. He supported me when we opposed lotteries at the first

instance when the Provincial Secretary brought them in. I

wonder whether those questions could be answered by the

Provincial Secretary.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Chairman, I have

some sympathy with the Member in the fact that maybe there shouldn't be

$10 — maybe the lottery branch should be entirely and utterly

self-supporting, even to the extent of $10. That, I think, is the usual

Finance department way of indicating it's a self-sustaining operation.

So if the Member is offended by the $10, I hope he will realize that

there is no basic governmental principle involved in the placing of $10

in the vote. It's the financial ukase to just simply indicate that it's

self-sustaining.

The budget is there before the Member. As he can see, we

anticipate that it is self-sustaining and the profit is

distributed along the lines of the statements made in the House

when we passed the bill that allowed us to have a co-operative

agreement with the Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and

Manitoba. I think the Member should realize that behind the

government's thinking in 1974, when we did enter into that, was

that all the four western provinces had realized that a great

deal of money was going out of the provinces — out of western

Canada into eastern Canada, into the States, into the U.K. and

other areas — that we felt should rightfully stay in British

Columbia and in western Canada. It was therefore agreed in the

House, by an overwhelming majority that passed the bill, to

allow the establishment of the Western Canadian Lottery

Foundation to maximize the financial return to the province

through controlled lottery sales.

That process, which the Member objects to, is going on.

Whether or not he likes it, it's going on. And the government

felt that it should, in its wisdom, control lotteries, disallow

the proliferation of lotteries, disallow even the entry of the

Olympic Lottery until such time as the Olympic Lottery

[ Page 3950 ]

people conform to our basic rules and regulations.

I think, therefore, that if the Member wants to have the

moral principle debate that he seems anxious to have, so be it.

That's for the chairman to decide, not me.

The net proceeds of the fund will be used toward the

development of sports, recreation and culture within the

province. The branch, in addition to its control of lottery

sales, is also the licensing authority for bingo and other

forms of gambling which have been going on here for years and

years and years. And there was a licensing authority — the very

thing the Member's talking about — under the previous

administration, in the Attorney-General's Department. We've

transferred that aspect, that money, those people right into

this branch.

AN HON. MEMBER: Power mad.

HON. MR. HALL: Power mad, that's right. I am power mad: this

is "gamblers anonymous" of British Columbia.

I can give the Member the figures on the first two draws — the

first two statements of revenue expenditure on the first

two lotteries of the Western Canada Lottery Foundation.

Basically they are: Series AA — receipts from ticket sales were

$1,526,714; total expenses were $843,127. The costs included

commissions to selling agencies and to the Western Canadian

Lottery Foundation, our assessments, leaving an excess of

revenue over expenditure of $683,587. In the second series — similar

figures were $1,422,000; expenses $937,000; profit

roughly $485,000.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, this is beginning to prove my

point. These figures show that when the thing was novel and new

we made a fair chunk of money. We made approximately a little

over one-third, getting on for 40 per cent or so of the total

$1,526,714. When the second series came up, the revenue went

down and the expenditure went up and we made substantially

less. We made only $485,000 out of $1,422,000. I think this

trend is continuing whereby this becomes less and less useful

as time goes an, as the enthusiasm of the Consumer Services

Minister (Hon. Ms. Young) and others wane and they stop buying

tickets because it's no longer novel.

As far as the comment of the Minister that this is

self-sustaining and if we don't like it this way they'll simply

lift it out of the estimates and not have that $10 in there,

well, I think that's a pretty specious argument. We should be

entitled to look at things such as this and we certainly should

check fairly closely.

It appears to me that the Minister is absolutely correct where he

says: "There's no basic principle involved." It's an unprincipled thing

to do. We are doing it apparently for expediency to prevent "a great

deal of money going out of the province."

HON. MR. HALL: I don't mind you twisting some of my words,

but all of them is a bit much.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, which do you object to?

HON. MR. HALL: I didn't say that there wasn't a basic

principle involved in the lottery thing. I said there's no

basic principle involved in putting $10 in the book, and you

know it.

MR. D ' A. ANDERSON: Well, $10 in the book. The basic

principle then is that we should have an opportunity to examine

these things.

HON. MR. HALL: All right, don't complain about it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I still think it's unprincipled of

the government to get involved in lotteries. I'm afraid my

opinions haven't changed from the time that I objected to this

when it first came in. I don't think we should be involved. It

appears the practical reason given about a great deal of money

is not that convincing. The amount of money is not great and

it's declining as expenses increase. I would simply urge the

Provincial Secretary to consider bringing in legislation to

change the B.C. lottery branch, to wipe it out and put us back

to where we were previously.

HON. MR. HALL: The answer is no.

Vote 212 approved.

On vote 213: status of women, $200,000.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Glad to see you're awake this morning and on your toes.

I would like to address my comments, which are very few but

I think important, to the Hon. Minister. I would commend the

government for setting aside these funds — $200,000 — in order

to assist the responsible achievement by women of greater

opportunity in many aspects of our lives in the province.

I know that he is a very open-minded man, that he believes that

government responsibility to a large degree lies in the realm of being

non-partisan. It's in this context that I'd like to just address my

remarks and caution him with good intent to not let this vote and this

service become a matter of political manipulation. I'm sure he doesn't

want this to happen. He has hired, I'm sure, a very capable lady to

carry

[ Page 3951 ]

out the responsibilities under this vote, but it's

common knowledge

that there is very strong partisan support on her part for this

government.

I think that if we are to really, as we all want to I'm

sure, see this money and this effort truly help women, then we

have to approach it from a non-partisan basis. The first thing

I'd like to do is ask him to consider utilizing the services of

many of the good women across this province regardless of what

their political affiliations might be. I think it's essential

that this vote and those working under this vote adopt a

non-partisan approach.

Just today, where there is a world conference sponsored by

the United Nations taking place on women, we see that it is

being warped through politics, partisan politics. The whole

point of any exercise in trying to help people and provide an

environment of equal opportunities for people will be defeated

if politics and partisan politics become a manipulating force,

and this is what has happened.

I'm not suggesting that I would take a position on either

side. I'm not that deeply involved. But I suggest that it is a

tragedy for women today when this international conference is

being destroyed because of the manipulation of some people for

partisan political purposes of what could be a very open-minded

and very objective conference.

It would also be a tragedy if those women who, for one

reason or another, haven't the opportunity or the personal

ability to speak for themselves or to take the steps that do

require a good deal of courage, depending on one's conditioning

in life, found themselves part of the manipulation for

political purposes and in essence changing one master for the

other.

If one adopts the position that men have ruled the world,

which I think is subject to considerable discussion which I am

not prepared to go into today, then if those women who need the

assistance in terms of developing confidence in themselves and

having the opportunity within the system to meet their own

objectives are to have this opportunity, they mustn't become

any more dependent on other women, political parties or any

other form of unconscious or conscious control.

So I would urge the Minister in this context to take this money, to

take these services that are already offered and to utilize the

services of other women and other men around the province on a

non-partisan basis and to make the recommendations brought in by this

committee available to the public, to all Members of the Legislature,

and when there are conferences held under the auspices of this vote,

assure that they are open and that the invitation is open to all women

and all men in this province.

We see under the federal programme a great effort being made to try

and offer women an opportunity to get together. Finance is often a

problem. But there is a tendency under that vote and under the federal

auspices

again to channel it through partisan channels. I believe this

is wrong. I believe the Minister will agree with me that it is

wrong, and I ask him to do his bit through his authority to see

that it doesn't happen.

Certainly I am sure that on this basis our party and myself

would offer every support to any effort that was made under,

this vote to provide women with a more equal opportunity in our

province.

HON. MR. HALL: I thank the Member for those comments. I do

share her concern. If indeed any partisan support or any

political coloration or configuration of any of the groups of

people working in the groups would render the work of this

programme or the aims and ambitions of the programme useless or

not successful, I share that concern, We have just started. The first

few months have been spent

looking at programmes, looking at governmental effort — starting at

home, as it were, with equal opportunities in the

government service. There is a whole list of things that we

have been doing right here in the seat of government. Economic

Development, Attorney-General, Labour, Health, Highways,

Transport and Communications, Education and others have been

getting into particular programmes sparked off by the arrival

on the scene of a co-coordinator. I think it is in the second

area that your words are particularly appropriate, which is

being tackled right now, and it will be redoubled in effort as

soon as this conference is over. The one in Mexico, I presume,

is the one you are talking of.

The second level of responsibility of the status of women

co-coordinator is to work closely with the appropriate

community groups throughout the province with respect to women,

to assist those groups in the development of their own

programmes and to assist in the co-ordination of community and

government programmes. It is that area that I think should be

stressed now. We've got some of the high profile stuff and some

of the more dramatic things launched. We've done the granting

mechanism; it's all been gone through. The budget is just about

committed, believe it or not. But the second responsibility, I

think, is the one where your point is well taken. I will stress

that point to them.

MRS. JORDAN: I have just one more point. I hesitate to touch

on it, Mr. Minister, and I thank you for your words and I also

reaffirm that my own assistance is available at any time if I

can be helpful.

I have a resolution on the order paper — upon which I don't

wish to transgress, Mr. Chairman — and I know it isn't

specifically your vote. But I think the matter of community

property should just be

[ Page 3952 ]

touched on, because this involves all people, men

and women

and children. It is highly complex, as everyone now

appreciates.

I believe that the majority of the people feel that this

principle must be adopted and is acceptable to all fair-minded,

thinking people. But I fear that this may be shunted aside too

much into the legal hands of our province and into the

bureaucracy. I would urge the Minister to utilize again this

vote, or perhaps other portions of his office, to see that

there is wide and responsible public discussion on this

subject, and that the lay people, the average people, the

people who are going to be affected most by this legislation

have an opportunity and a good opportunity to have their input

into any policies that might be developed.

I would also urge the Minister and the government not to shy away

from this subject because of impending elections or anything else. It's

an area that needs vast analysis; it's an area that needs rapid action.

I hope that the Minister would give me a commitment that he is prepared

to be aggressive in this area and to see that we have an opportunity

for women and men all over the province to have their input and not get

hung up on all the legal technicalities. I'm sure that adjustments of

various Acts can be made when the responsible recommendations are in.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I, too, would like to

congratulate the Minister on the setting up of this office and in

particular to congratulate him on the person whom he appointed to be

the co-coordinator. I don't think there is any question about the fact

that Jean Errington, the woman appointed, is partisan. She has

demonstrated over the years that she is very partisan on behalf of

women. She certainly demonstrated her partisanship, if it can be called

that, during the years that she operated as ombudswoman for the Status

of Women Council in this province. Certainly the office of ombudsperson

under her leadership did more on behalf of women in this province than

it ever had either before or probably ever since. Certainly his

appointment of her is one of the very good things that has come out of

this office. I congratulate her on her partisanship on behalf of women.

I am also pleased that under her leadership this office has

not seen fit to spend the $200,000 issuing buttons or radio

commercials or TV commercials or any kind of publicity in the

way that the federal government has seen to celebrate this

1975, designated International Women's Year by the United

Nations.

I think this is certainly one of the great ways in which this

government has seen fit to celebrate International Women's Year. It's

not the only way, but certainly it's one of the good ways in which it

has seen fit to celebrate this year. I am pleased that this office is

dealing with programmes, not just with the granting of money from

groups around the province who are asking for it — women's groups of

all political stripes around the province. Also, this office has the

right to instigate or to start studies in various areas or to look into

specific areas where it recognizes that there is a need for a programme

to be introduced or some kind of study to be done. I think those are

two very good things that this office is doing as well as

co-coordinating its activities and the activities of all the other

departments working on behalf of women this year.

I always find it very strange when people stand up and tell

women that they shouldn't be partisan. This is a country in

which everyone is political; this is a world in which everyone

is political. Yet we're always being told, us woman, that we

shouldn't be political and we shouldn't be partisan. I think

that's utter nonsense, The sooner we realize that the political

process is one of the tools we have to use in order to

recognize and to fight for our liberation, I think the better

it will be for all of us concerned. I'm totally against women

not being partisan.

The other thing I want to say is that I hope that, although

this office was brought into being to celebrate International

Women's Year, the Minister at the end of the year will take a

good solid look at what it's done and have a real appraisal of

its job and see whether it is not an office that should remain

in existence after this year is over; whether, in fact, the

funds should not be increased; whether, in fact, some of the

programmes started this year are not worthy of continual

support by this and any other government in the future.

So I would like to ask the Minister seriously to make some

kind of commitment to looking at the work of this office at the

end of this year with a view to, not seeing it die but

certainly with a view to seeing it continue in the future. Let

this just be the beginning.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, this vote is something that

we certainly approve of. It comes in a very bald fashion — just

$200,000 and no indication of anything in the way it is

spent.

I would like to say a word or two, though, about this

government's improvement of record in terms of equal pay for

equal work. I remember that back in 1973 I asked this particular

Minister about a job at the Queen's Printer being classified

"men" and "women." He explained that in actual fact there was

no discrimination because the women couldn't do the work the

men were being hired for, which added insult to injury. But it

has improved enormously since.

Interjection.

[ Page 3953 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I can give you a Hansard if you

like. You said that there was no discrimination because the men

and the women were being hired for different things. Later on

you changed that, Mr. Provincial Secretary, once you realized

how foolish that first reply had been. That's a fact; there are

people here who will vouch for that.

The fact is that the government's record has improved. When

the question was raised just recently about B.C. Ferries and

job discrimination there by the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), the problem was rectified at

once. I would like to congratulate the government on improving

their record when it comes to equal pay for equal work.

I might add that there's still a way to go, as the Member

who spoke previously to me has indicated but I would like to

say that you are improving. If the Provincial Secretary objects

to that, well, that's tough lines. Maybe he's not improving,

but the government is.

There are a few other things I'd like to comment upon.

Unfortunately, status of women questions are scattered

throughout all government departments. I know the previous

speaker restrained herself in talking about having a Ministry

of women's affairs, or at least a focal point. She did talk

about this office continuing, but, as she has indicated, this

should be the focal point. I think it would be in order,

perhaps, for me to say a word or two about the general

programmes dealing with the status of women and the problems

that women face in our economic society, as well as the

political society which was talked about by the previous

speaker.

I was surprised that she did not mention the Royal

Commission on the Status of Women and the 49 recommendations

directed toward provincial governments. In British Columbia,

according to my précis here, we have started or implemented 15

out of those 49 recommendations. Not started or not begun are

22 of the recommendations; questionable are 10, and partially

are two, according to my breakdown. People may dispute whether

it's 10 or 11 or 12 or 9, or what-have-you, but basically we

have not really got very far.

Some of the recommendations put forward by the royal

commission which have not been worked on are

recommendation:

No. 56: establishment of household workers' bureaus;

No. 58: the establishment of agencies or co-operatives for

household workers;

No. 72: a committee to review government publications to

ensure that women are represented in various occupations — nothing done

there;

No. 73: introduce co-educational guidance classes in

schools, and encourage girls to consider all occupational

fields;

No. 77: equal opportunities for girls in sports;

No. 87: more adequate educational programmes for women in

rural areas;

No. 92: adult education for Indian women to prepare them to

work in northern communities;

No. 93: the recommendations dealing with education for

Indians;

No. 107 is changing matrimonial law to provide equal sharing

by husband and wife in property accumulated during marriage.

The Berger Commission has reported on that and I personally

believe that is most important.

I wish to stress that the last time I spoke on this I was

accused of assuming that all marriages would break up. That's

not the case. Some marriages, however, break up and we have to

realize that. In that case, in that situation, it is quite

inequitable for the wife, the woman involved, to be treated as

she has been in the past whereby she may get absolutely nothing

despite many years of contributing to the joint economic state

of the partners. It is quite unjust and I trust there will be

changes there.

Child-care centres. I'd like to say a word on that, Mr.

Minister, under this co-coordinating vote. We really don't have

very much done at the present time. Certainly there is a minor

amount of provincial funding, but it is not enough. The

previous Member, I know, agrees with me that more could be done

in this area and more encouragement could be given to groups

trying to set up child-care centres. There is a bureaucratic

morass which prevents many groups of women from getting going.

I think the province could do a lot more in straightening that

out.

The Human Rights Act, under Ms. Kathleen Ruff, is working I

think as well as they can. But I do not believe that they are

either adequately staffed or adequately funded. I have had a

number of cases which have come to my attention, and which I

have tried to work out with the Human Rights people, and they

have worked effectively. But they are clearly hampered by

simply being too few and too poorly funded to deal with the

enormous problem which involves not only cases of

discrimination against women, but also involve all other cases

of discrimination as well.

So I think, in actual fact, if we gave the government a mark

on this, Mr. Chairman, it would have to be, at the very best,

just a passing mark, probably somewhat below.

The Premier has indicated that he does not regard women….

I think his quote some time ago, was that women are not a

priority. He then won the male chauvinist award of the year. I

think it is time for the government to get out of doing the

minimum and get into doing the maximum in this area.

I have said this before in this House, but it is the

appropriate place to say it, the province has had, in the past,

an excellent record. The first woman cabinet

[ Page 3954 ]

Minister in the British Empire was Mary Ellen Smith

who sat

right in this very chamber. People used to come over from

Vancouver on the night boat in those days just to hear her

speak in the House. She was a mover and a shaker. She was a

very, very effective person. That's over half a century ago. A

quarter of a century ago, more than that, we had a women

Speaker of the House — again, the first one in the British

Commonwealth.

We've had a number of firsts in British Columbia, and I

think that it would be a very good thing for this government to

make sure that the firsts that we've had in the past are

matched by action now in the status of women so that again

British Columbia could be the lead province rather than one of

the following provinces in this whole area.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, referring to the comments made by

the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), he is quite

right that British Columbia has historically consistently led

Canada in legislation and opportunities for women.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): The most women

without portfolio.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, that just shows the mentality of some of

the cabinet Ministers over there — picayune. We are concerned

with the broad issue of women, not the partisan issue.

That Member is quite right, British Columbia has led in

legislation. Now that you have brought up the partisan

approach, it was the British Columbia Social Credit government

that led in the development of the Act for equal pay for women.

It wasn't perfect…

AN HON. MEMBER: Rubbish!

MRS. JORDAN: …and neither are the Acts brought in by this

government perfect. But it certainly helps.

I would point out that the Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms.

Brown) just can't get off the fact that she's on a leadership

kick and that she knows about how you manipulate people into

politics. But again she twisted the context and I don't feel

that's helpful to women. I think this is one of the weaknesses

in the Member for Vancouver-Burrard's approach.

We, as women, should be adamant in our position that benefits to

women, developing better opportunities for women, should not be used as

a manipulation for partisan political purposes. I oppose that Member in

that context and I believe she is wrong. I believe she is guilty of it

and I believe she should change her attitude if she is really concerned

about people and our country and our province. You simply cannot ask

women to change one so-called master for another.

I believe that we should use whatever process we can to

encourage women to step forward, but I don't believe any party

should be guilty of manipulating women who obviously have had

problems and have problems today in standing up for themselves

to manipulate them for party partisan purposes.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would say further that British Columbia

has led, along with Prince Edward Island, in maternity leave

and maternity benefits for women. In 1966 only British Columbia

and New Brunswick had legislation for maternity leave for women

who were working, and that involved a six-week period, and

people were not allowed to be fired for getting pregnant.

Today British Columbia under the NDP government is at the

bottom of the heap, Madam Member. Did you know that? Why aren't

you standing up championing that? Let's get down to some of the

basics. British Columbia today, Mr. Minister — I don't know

whether you are aware — is at the bottom of the heap in

maternity leave.

You now require two doctors' certificates for qualification

under UIC, and at the federal level there's a possible maximum

of 16 weeks allowed for maternity leave. But this is not so in

British Columbia. We have fallen behind badly in this area. I

appeal to the Minister under this vote to take his colleague

aside — the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) — and set him

straight on the facts of life regarding this legislation,

because that Minister told a women's group some weeks ago that

he had no intention of bringing in legislation to protect women

in maternity leave and that they could appeal to the human

rights branch if they wanted to. I believe this is the wrong

approach.

I would ask this Minister to charge Miss Errington and this

group to see that British Columbia has at the next session of

this Legislature up-to-date maternity legislation, legislation

that will not infringe on the rights of the lady employee.

I would suggest that a close examination of the federal

legislation would be in order. I won't go into the details now

but I would be glad to assist the Minister. There are some

changes in that legislation which I believe would be fair to

both sides and would offer women the protection they need but

without abusing the other responsibilities.

I hope, Madam Member, that this is the type of thing that

you'll get up and champion, and this is what I mean about being

non-partisan. Let's not play one woman against the other. Let's

deal with the issues. Certainly the maternity leave Act in

British Columbia, which is now on the bottom of the heap with

Prince Edward Island at this time in Canada, should be upgraded

immediately.

[ Page 3955 ]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the Member

for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) that I appreciate the wisdom

of her superior years and superior experience in the political

arena…

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: …which she has chosen to share with me. She is

quite right about our maternity leave legislation. There is no

question about that. Maternity leave legislation has to be

improved and has to be brought up to date. I was not aware that

this was supposed to be the responsibility of the Provincial

Secretary, however. That's the reason why it was not debated

under this vote. But I think that she would be doing a

disservice to all the women of this province if she, with her

superior years and experience in politics, would demand that

other women not also use the political arena in terms of

fighting for the kinds of things that all of know that we

need.

No one is saying that it's the only arena. Sure, there's

education. Sure, there is the church. Sure, there are other

arenas in which one can fight. But please, because you have

made it, Madam Member, do not try to prevent other women from

using the same arena that you've used — probably not as

effectively as you could have used it — in order to fight for

other women.

MRS. JORDAN: I have one last comment (laughter), but I think

that her twisting and turning is classic of the problem she

faces.

Certainly I have tried to encourage any women to use the

political arena. What I object to is politicians, Madam, who

use women for their own partisan purposes. My approach is to

encourage women to run for any party. It was not me that got

involved with the status of women group in Vancouver to provide

funds supposedly for every candidate, but in fact only for NDP

and Liberal candidates.

I think this is something, in all good faith, that we

shouldn't do. I think we should encourage women to run for the

part of their conviction. I'm not going to encourage them or

particularly try to manipulate them into the Social Credit

group. I believe that if they're committed to British Columbia

and a better life and a better way and a responsible government

and lack of mismanagement and waste of taxpayers' dollars,

they'll automatically come to the Social Credit. So let's not

twist the facts.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that

both these women Members could do a lot to improve the

participation of their own sex…

MS. BROWN: There's a man telling us what to do again.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …in their own political parties. I

take pride in the fact that in our convention, 47 per cent of

the delegates were female. In the other two party conventions — the

other two parties represented — I believe the figures were

34 and 32, very, very low. The figures came from a study by a

University of Victoria professor who was interested in

participation of women in politics, and it's a very good study.

I would urge you to look at it, Madam Member, and made sure

that women do take a stronger

part in politics, because I agree

with you entirely.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, we run them and they don't win. You

have more success. I can assure you that we'll be running more.

And when you go on, if you win your leadership race, despite

the objections of the Premier and all the others who are

supporting Broadbent, and people running out — a shameful

practice…. They should be supporting you. When you win that,

despite their efforts, and your seat comes vacant, there will

be, who knows, a woman running for that seat from other parties

as well as perhaps from your own party.

Vote 213 approved.

On vote 2114: public information, $250,000.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, one

would have to view this vote in company with the next one, 214

and 215. I would look to the Minister then to elaborate on the

very extensive information which is provided for vote 214.

HON. MR. HALL: The first vote, the one we're discussing now:

the public information programme is the one in which all the

political speeches should be made. The next one, the

distribution of government documents, is the one in which no

speeches were ever made for years and years, and that really is

part of the Queen's Printer operation. It's technical

gazetting, you know, the sort of bric-a-brac of government. So

please make the political speeches on this vote.

MR. CURTIS: A political speech? Just so I have the

understanding of the Minister…a political speech with

regard to the B.C. Government News ?

Well, others have spoken

about it. I didn't particularly care for it under the former

government and I certainly don't care for it under the present

government. But that is solely this vote? Is this $250,000

worth of material or, again I ask the Minister, is there other

propaganda that's covered

[ Page 3956 ]

with this quarter of a million dollars?

HON. MR. HALL: This vote is to provide government

information service to the public of British Columbia. The

starting point of that information programme was B.C.

Government News . The next project is the telephone inquiry

system, and the third element of it is the staff for those two

functions, those two programmes. That's what we envisage,

$250,000. I wish it was more detailed but when we decided to do

this, we were in the formative stage of the estimates. Later on

in the fall I can give a listing of staff or whatever you want

to do. I've answered a couple of questions on the order paper

already from the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

Essentially, this programme is government information.

You're going to call it propaganda and we're going to call it

information. You're going to say it's wasteful; we're going to

say it's needed — and that's estimates.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that some of

the information won't be available until later this year, but

could he indicate an approximate cost as of now for B.C.

Government News in this fiscal year? Does he have a

breakout?

HON. MR. HALL: It's already been answered on the order

paper, Mr. Member. I don't have it with me…

MR. CURTIS: Some time ago.

HON. MR. HALL: …but if you want to put it on again, I'll

answer it before the end of the session.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I want to ask the Minister a question on

Hansard . One of the things which should be distributed as

widely as possible for we politicians and for the purposes of

politics in the province is the provincial Hansard . At the

present time, I understand, only about 1,000 subscriptions have

been taken out and we….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I think you're on vote 215.

HON. MR. HALL: It may be vote 1. I have no objections to

listening to your point, but I think Hansard

is vote 1; I'm

not sure.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I'm sorry about that. I just looked

under distribution of government publications. And if I could just

finish the plea, then, and that is this: the price for Hansard ,

Mr. Chairman, is $15 a session. That's very, very high in comparison

with the federal Hansard

which comes out more frequently, in two

languages, et cetera, et cetera, which is $3. Now maybe the Member is

right to call for order, but the fact is that if we're to put so much

money into publications like B.C.

Government News and advertising by

the government — the total bill is something like $6 million or $7

million — surely we can afford to divert some of the advertising money

to subsidize Hansard

subscriptions.

It's an excellent tool for students who can't come to the

galleries, because they live too far away, to learn something

about the political process. I may be out of order, but I just

urge the Provincial Secretary to consider giving us a cheap

Hansard so that more people

can benefit from the words of

wisdom that fall from his lips in this Legislature.

HON. MR. HALL: I think we can answer that. I agree, probably

the actual money provided for the Hansard

service is in vote 1.

It's under the control of the Speaker.

I would share this with the Member: while not rejecting his

overture at all, I share with the Member my fear or my caution

at not getting involved with Hansard . You know, it's been for

all those hundreds of years not part of the government system,

and I'd ask for the Member's advice and assistance in how we

should, as a Legislature, deal with the fact he brings up. A

record of our debates may be too expensive; I'm not the person

who really sets it in that sense of the word. Maybe we could

look at that as legislators.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I think the Minister has given me….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has been somewhat

tolerant. It has been indicated that this is not under this

vote, and I think to be correct, that we should not discuss it

here.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, the Chair is extremely tolerant. I

have lots of bright ideas of how to get Hansard into doctors'

waiting rooms, how to get Hansards

into schools and how to get

Hansards onto aircraft. I'll

be delighted to give him some

ideas.

Vote 214 approved.

Vote 215: distribution of government publications, $250,000 —

approved.

On vote 216: British Columbia culture, $575,000.

MS. BROWN: This, again, is another vote under the Minister's

department that I would like to congratulate him on. As you

know, a lot of careful study went into trying to design a

cultural policy for this province, and get it off its feet.

I would just like very briefly to ask a couple of questions.

One of them has to do with the regional

[ Page 3957 ]

arts boards that were supposed to have been

established

under this vote. Have these arts boards actually been elected?

Have there actually been elections for membership on these

boards? Are these boards presently operating? Is it becoming an

involvement on the part of all the people in the various

regions about the cultural direction of that particular region,

or are we still sort of in the formative stages?

The second question I want to ask has to do with a problem

in the interior and in the northern parts of the province. When

we travelled with the education committee we found that the

difficulty with getting teachers and other professional groups

into the north has to do with the fact that there was so little

in terms of recreation and culture, so little in terms of

crafts and handicrafts for these people to do and for their

families to do after work was over.

In terms of developing the north and in opening up other

areas, has there been any specific and special thrust on the

part of the department to take into account the cultural needs

of the people whom we're encouraging to move into these areas?

Are their cultural needs are being taken into account? If so,

at what level do they have an input into the decisions about

developments in these areas? To what extent are they being

met?

HON. MR. HALL: The first thing that happened at the

beginning of the year was the establishment of the interim arts

board on the provincial basis. Their first three jobs were,

first of all, to examine the various documents that were the

subjects of all the meetings, all the studies, and the

government's response and basic policy paper. The second one

was to deal with the budget and the granting mechanisms that

they have now taken over. Thirdly, was to make a priority list

of activities.

The first one is accomplished. On the second one, the budget

is being worked out. And if I may add, in that budget is some

assistance for your second question, that is, travelling. We've

been aided and abetted in that because of the money that's

coming from the lottery foundation.

The regional panels, which is the most important part of our

work — and you put your finger right on the nub of the

situation — they're in the formative stages. It's a No. 1

priority with the arts boards. It's a No. 1 priority with Mr.

Tom Fielding who's now on staff. His budget will see arts

panels set up, if not all over the province, over a great deal

of the province this year, and in the way in which you've

described.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I don't know

whether I can ask this question in this vote or not. I'm

looking for some advice on a sports matter. I know that the

Provincial Secretary is in charge….

HON. MR. HALL: Community recreation branch, Department of

Travel Industry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Under Travel Industry would be the proper

place.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister has talked about the interim

arts board, and I wonder why this board has not been elected,

as was the original intention of the Minister, and the

expectation of the people who were involved. It appears to me

that the arts access conference — and I have some information

here on that from the arts access executive committee…. The

impression was left that there would be an elected board, and

that this board was meant to be in operation by the fall of

1974. We still have an appointed chairperson, I understand, an

appointed cultural amateur and an appointed interim board. In

fact, the suggestion of this committee, this executive

committee of the arts access group, is that there is no real

change from the old B.C. Cultural Fund Advisory Committee,

excepting in the name.

So I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary what

happened to the concept of an elected body? What happened to

the timetable he indicated? Why is the executive secretary a

straight civil servant, hired in accordance with the civil

service regulations, instead of having the arts board hiring

its own director? Perhaps the Minister could start on those

particular points.

HON. MR. HALL: I suspect the Member is quoting from a

document that's being sent around the province by the old arts

access committee. It contains a number of very gross errors in

fact — a number of deliberate misleading statements. Frankly,

with respect to the Member, I don't intend to get into a debate

based on what arts access says about this programme at all.

It was my commitment that there would have to be an interim

arts board. There was no electoral mechanism possible because

we didn't have the panels to which the Member for Vancouver

Burrard (Ms. Brown) has just made mention. When those panels

are set up, there will be an elective process and there will be

an elected board. That was my commitment all the way through.

Frankly, we have decided not to rush headlong in a madcap dash

towards a cultural nirvana. We decided to go with some

caution.

I've learned my lesson over rushing in the years that I have

already been on this side of the House. I trust that people

appreciate that things as sensitive as culture aren't going to

be Stalinist in nature or anything else; they are going to

have to be created by people involved in the projects. If the

Member wants to take advantage of the information that has been

sent to him by arts access, he must feel free. But I

[ Page 3958 ]

don't really intend to get into a debate or even to

give

that the courtesy of much of a reply.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Those are fairly harsh words. This

information did come to me from the arts access executive

committee; they do raise a number of questions. Could I ask one

or two more? What is the relationship between this particular

vote and the Public Works arts policy? Is there an advisory

role played by the British Columbia culture executive director

there? How about the Broom report? Are we going to have any

supplement to it? Those are two questions which come out of

their two-page mimeographed newsletter. While the Minister

clearly is not very fond of the people concerned, they have

raised some questions which perhaps could be answered.

HON. MR. HALL: As far as the question on the Broom report, I

think the government's actions in appointing Eric Broom as an

Associate Deputy Minister indicates that we've got not only

faith in his recommendations, but also faith in his capacity to

carry them out. Not only as Associate Deputy Minister for

leisure services, he will also have some overriding

responsibilities in the field of culture, heritage and

recreation. I feel that the reaction from both the artistic

community and the recreational community on his appointment

speaks loudly in support of what we have attempted to do.

As far as the Public Works arts policy is concerned, that

question must be directed to the Minister of Public Works (Hon.

Mr. Hartley). There is, however, a co-ordinating function

going on between Mr. Fielding and the staff of Public

Works.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I had to chuckle to myself when

the Minister said he learned his lesson, because I'm sure he

has. In part, I was referring to this type of thing with the

Hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard. There was strong feeling

when the Minister established that first meeting. Rather than

having a genuine interest in cultural development, he was

tending to have a genuine interest in partisan politics. If it

fell down, then I would suggest that that substantiates those

impressions that there were abroad. I think the general opinion

is that many very good people served at that arts access

conference, and they went about it in a serious way. But it

proved that the involvement of partisan politics in these

programmes can be very destructive, although the people who are

there in partisan view may be most competent in their

particular role — in this instance, speaking of culture.

I would only criticize the Minister in terms of what he has said in

that I hope he has learned his lesson, and I hope those people who

attended the arts access conference, who were part of this early group

and who were genuine in their commitment to cultural development in

British Columbia with an open mind, won't be cast aside, and that there

will be very opportunity for their input.

I would reaffirm — or perhaps not quite agree with the

Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) — that one of the most

serious concerns on the basis of the Minister's first action at

the local level of cultural interest was that, in fact, he was

going — to quote his own words just a few minutes ago — "take a

Stalinist approach." That is simply no way for a province or

a jurisdiction to develop a free, open and expressive cultural

programme, and attitude and fibre within its province.

There is concern, Mr. Minister — or there has been concern — that,

in fact, you were going to take a very hard line and

impose regional arts boards. What people at the local levels

who are interested in the development of culture are concerned

about is that this type of top imposition will fail. The people

within the region will be able to work out a very acceptable

means of overall voice for a region.

I would cite the Okanagan Valley as one of the outstanding

examples in this province, where because of the interest of

local people and because of their dedication none of it with

any pay, we have one of the finest overall cultural development

and opportunity programmes in the province. I won't go into the

details now, but I'm sure the Minister is aware of them. They

were afraid that what they had developed on a voluntary and

commitment basis would be destroyed from above.

I hope the Minister will assure these people in his reply to

my comments that this is not the case, and that there will be

ample opportunity.

We all, Mr. Minister, believe that there must be greater

opportunity to create excellence — this must be available in

our province. This is in terms of more assistance available to

promising students to expand their educational opportunities so

that no one who has a genuine talent in the arts — be it music

or painting or whatever — who is young and who wants to

dedicate themselves to a productive career in this area,

shouldn't be hampered grossly by a lack of funds. Everyone

can't have everything, and I think there is a lot of feeling

that there must be a lot of personal input.

But there are still young people in this province, and

perhaps some people who are in their 20s, who could go on to

very promising and contributing careers in the arts, that are

still hampered by lack of funds. I know funds are hard to come

by, but I would hope that there would be more opportunity and

emphasis on this opportunity.

I also would hope that at no time would anybody be

authorized to sit in adjudication as to what is in fact quality

culture in the main means in any area. In other words, let us

provide the avenue for excellence.

[ Page 3959 ]

Let us provide the avenue for experimentation and

fresh

approaches and new ideas, but also let us leave room for

self-expression of any individual who wants to take part and

can contribute.

I speak in terms of the Hon. Member who was talking about

other areas of the province. It was very exciting to me, after

the cultural fund was brought in, and I'm sure the Member would

agree this was a good move, to go to areas like Pouce Coupe, to

go out to the isolated areas like Tofino, to go to Quesnel and

to see, in their community halls, to see in their public

buildings, local cultural displays, local pottery, local

painting, where you might find a logger who was cutting trees,

a faller all day, having interest.

Because there was a little bit of seed money to get them

going and there was encouragement, he was able to take part

without any severe adjudication of what his work was. What was

important was that he wanted to do it, and he had an

opportunity to do it, and there were people to do it with.

I think we must never lose sight of that very simple

approach which is, I hope, the opportunity and the right of

everyone in British Columbia to utilize and take

part in, and

that they would never be excluded, never be put down by anyone

who might be a world authority in art, but perhaps couldn't

quite appreciate that art and culture, apart from excellence

and the other matters, are a matter of human expression, and

that is expression of the time.

It is only if we take this broad approach and a fairly loose

approach, Mr. Minister, that we in British Columbia will have

the courage and the ability and provide the opportunity to

develop the mosaic of culture which is so much a part of our

life.

People from all countries and from all "cultures" have come

here, and together we live, together we express. I hope that

this, along with the opportunity for excellence would be one of

the main objectives of this programme.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I would like to just go over

briefly what has happened here, because I think if we are not

careful we may get some misleading ideas. Words are being

either misunderstood or are not being used correctly.

When I said that I had learned my lesson in terms of rushing

programmes, I meant to say that…what I want to re-emphasize

is that there is no point in anybody trying to develop an

activity on the regional level in either sports, or culture or

health care or anything else to simply say, "I know the

answers. It is going to be this." Even though they may be

correct, they have got to let the public worry the problem

out.

I think if any lessons are to be learned by this Minister it is that

on occasion we have tended, in our department, to not worry the problem

long enough and to allow the public to catch up, in effect, with the

activists that are making the pace.

If you will, contrast the expectational timetable on

cultural development with that of the recreational programme,

and we find we've got a much better timetable, a much more

concerted effort that will culminate in a programme. A year and

a half ago 1,000 people started to put a programme of culture

together. It was a year and a half ago, and in no time in any

of my words, or any of my statements, or any documents that

have gone out under my name, have we ever suggested for one

second that there would be any laying on of a heavy message to

anybody.

In fact, the record in 1974 shows that we have supported to

the tune of well over $.25 million, 59 community arts councils,

the very groups that the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan) was talking about, 67 non-profit cultural

organizations. We've had scholarships, conferences,

acquisitions, all totalling well over $1.5 million in the

cultural field.

The areas of concern that were delineated at Simon Fraser

University at the arts access conference, were responded to by

this government, where a continuing dialogue went around, all

over the province, with Nini Baird, whom we put on staff as a

consultant, by order-in-council for a certain period of time,

and I think we have now got a programme which is far-reaching

and which will ensure the very things that the Members are

worried about.

MRS. JORDAN: Would the Minister break down in percentage

points what he proposes for the budget this year in relation to

the amount of money going for administration, the amount of

money going to regional grants and the amount of money going to

scholarships and the amount of money being used for general

recommendations?

HON. MR. HALL: I haven't got it in percentage points but I

can tell you that the administration cost expressed as a

percentage of the money that is going out in the cultural

programme is so small as to be almost non-significant.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, if you could file those figures, Mr.

Minister, I'd appreciate it and also if you could give us a

commitment that one of the major efforts will be to keep

administration costs to a minimum and keep the money flowing

where it's going to do the most good because it's always a

problem.

HON. MR. HALL: I agree with you on that provided you're

talking about central administration costs. But if you're

talking about the administration costs that we are going to

support in the regions, that is that a regional arts panel in

the Okanagan Valley say, if that is what happens, for us to

provide that arts council with one person to co-ordinate all

that

[ Page 3960 ]

activity I think, is essential if we're going to

have an

alive cultural programme.

Vote 216 approved.

Vote 217: Salary Contingencies, $1,785,811 — approved.

On vote 218: Public Service Commission Administration,

$3,023,301.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I raised with the

Provincial Secretary the question of the government, by way of

Order-in-Council — two Order-in-Councils, 147 of January 16 and

542 of February 6 — simply giving ranges of salaries for the

people who are not covered by collective bargaining.

Our efforts in my office to find out the details of what

salary levels had been granted within those ranges, and by the

way some of these ranges are from $39,000 to $48,000 a year — $9,000

difference between lowest and highest figures — were

unsuccessful on the grounds that only a directive from the

Provincial Secretary's office could release the

information.

So I have taken this up with the Provincial Secretary. I've

gone over with him the two Orders-in-Council which I have in my

hand here. I believe this is the right vote, after all it talks

about the Public Service Act and they are signed by the

Chairman of the Public Service Commission and I wonder whether

the Provincial Secretary could indicate whether he will make

public the actual amount paid to the people excluded from

collective bargaining.

The reason for this, of course, is that it's now possible to

make variations in pay of the non-union people, and the people

who are in the collective bargaining units would not

necessarily know that until public accounts come out in a

succeeding year.

I think it's important for this information to be made

public because we have no way in the House of knowing what the

differential is between different appointees and we don't know

when a pay increase is given or how much it might be. So I

wonder if the Provincial Secretary could answer who is being

given these increases. Perhaps he could do that by memorandum

or something. How much have these increases been and who is

being excluded from increases and why?

HON. MR. HALL: I'll make a commitment to the Member to table

the salaries of that particular group of personnel in the department

which would include Deputy Ministers, Associate Deputy Ministers and

other excluded personnel. I'll table it in the form of a return. If I'm

unable to get all the information together before we may adjourn for a

week or two, I will make sure it's deposited in the Clerk's office and

copies are sent to the leader's offices.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you.

MS. BROWN: I have a question, but I don't know whether this

is the vote under which to talk about the equal opportunities

commission or not, is it, Mr. Provincial Secretary?

HON. MR. HALL: I guess that you could talk about almost

anything in the government on the Public Service

Commission.

MS. BROWN: There was a statement made that the government

was looking at the setting up of an equal opportunities

commission and I wonder if the Minister would be able to give

us any information as to whether this equal opportunities

committee is already in operation and if so what kinds of

decision is it making, and what kinds of matters is it dealing

with. Is it really coining to grips with the whole business of

the fact that most of the women in the civil service are in the

bottom and in the low-paying jobs and very few of them seem to

be able to certainly get past the Associate Minister, Deputy

Minister, even Directors level? We still have not got in this

government even one women, certainly at the level of Deputy

Minister …

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got a Minister.

MS. BROWN: No, we've got a couple of Ministers and they have

a portfolio, unlike that great government of yours….

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, but they get the rough cut….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MS. BROWN: But, however, I would still like to have some

kind of report on this committee.

The other thing I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary

is about the whole business of affirmative action in the civil

service. A number of times I've spoken on this in the House and

exhorted this government to become a model employer that in

fact, even before the Private Member's Bills which I keep

introducing on this matter, before they even should be accepted

as law and forced on other employers, that we should first of

all set our own house in order.

We should set the example, we should, in fact be the model

to try out affirmative action, so we can work out the kinks in

it, and we can see where it works and where it doesn't

work.

Out of this experience we can guide and help other employers

who might want to introduce this kind of

[ Page 3961 ]

thing in their offices voluntarily even before it

becomes

law.

I want to know whether the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Hall) can tell me whether there is any serious consideration of

the institution of affirmative action in the civil service or

not. Has it been discussed by the BCGEU? Is it something that

has been taken into account at bargaining time? Is it something

that the equal opportunities commission is talking about? Is it

something that anybody in the government is talking about? Are

we really going to try to do something about redistribution of

jobs as it applies to women in the civil service? That is what

I'd like him to tell me.

HON. MR. HALL: The equal employment opportunities office is

being set up now. Part of it is in operation.

Frankly, one of our problems has been staffing levels just

on new programmes these last two or three months. As the

Members are aware, the Treasury Board have had some

restrictions on hiring in new departments, new programmes. But

the office is partially set up in terms of equal employment

opportunities.

As far as affirmative action is concerned, I have no

comments to make on that. I can't comment on whether the BCGEU

is going to use it as part of its bargaining technique or

anything else. That would be, I think, incorrect of me. Also I

understand there is a bill on the order paper about it and I'd

be out of order to discuss it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhhh!

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to

speak long but speaking of equal opportunity I must bring up

too points.

The first one is in response to the Member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), speaking of equal opportunity

and fair treatment of women and affirmative action. I would

remind her that it was the lady Minister within her government

that had the ankles cut off her by her Premier and Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett). I'm speaking of the Hon. lady

Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) who had her leader and

her boss fire one of her chief appointees while she was in the

east and she knew nothing about it.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

So I hope that the Hon. Member for Burrard will support the Minister

of Education from these chauvinist attacks by the Premier of this

province, We want the Premier of this province to practice what the

government is preaching. Actually, come to think of it, too, he only

attacks minorities because it was the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr.

Calder), who was the Minister without Portfolio who also got the chop

in an unseemly manner.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, don't you like us all to talk about the

same thing — equal opportunity?

AN HON. MEMBER: The leadership candidate.

MRS. JORDAN: But I feel the equal opportunity extends not

only to women but to men. Once again, Mr. Provincial Secretary….

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: I wonder if the plots against women that are

going on there could be set aside because I have brought this

matter up before, Mr. Minister, and I must bring it back again

because there has been no action.

That is this matter of the negotiations that went on between

the government and the government employees' union in regards

to last year. It appears that the government set out playing a

number game and said to those behind the scenes that: "We will

go for these raises providing you keep the numbers in each

classification limited."

This can be the only reason that there was such rank

discrimination as a result of some of those negotiations where

in the one example which I have used and which still exists

that people who are in a department who were permanent

employees — and this was the Highways department — some with

long-standing excellent records up to 20 years who had received

their promotions and classifications by appointment, through

merit, were reclassified and were told that this wouldn't

affect them in any way other than just a matter of numbers.

It was indeed a numbers game because in the reclassification

these people had a down-graded effect. They lost in terms of

their pension benefits. They lost in terms of their

compensation benefits. They lost in terms of their holiday pay.

And they lost in terms of their over-all pay.

If they are operating in the former classification they are

indeed paid on an hourly basis of that classification. But if

they get hurt while operating on that basis their compensation

benefits are as their labour as classification.

These people were reduced from motor operators at the

various levels to labourers with all the same requirements and

benefits that go with labouring as opposed to those increased

benefits that they had earned and would have in their other

classifications.

Mr. Minister, I appeal to you again to investigate this case

because the contract is coming up for

[ Page 3962 ]

renegotiation. The union has not come up with a

satisfactory

answer. These people have been rankly discriminated against in

these negotiations and I'm sure the union and no one else would

want this to happen. I urge you to investigate it. I urge you

to allow these people to have their former classifications that

they had won and the benefits that go with it.

As the last point I would point out that if they were a

motor operator in their highway district and they were

reclassified down to a labourer their opportunities, even

though they may have 10 years or 15 years of responsible and

respected service, their chance of getting back up to their

former classification is drastically cut down now that those

positions are open for bids all around the province. So

basically a lot of these people have been cut off at the pass,

and there's no chance for them to gain their former

classification. I hope the Minister will stand up and assure me

that he will review this case and call for an inquiry into this

case. It doesn't have to be public. All I ask is that they get

the equal treatment that everybody else got, that they get the

increased benefits that everybody else got and that they

participate in a programme — or an attitude that is supposed to

exist within this province — where there is equal opportunity

and no discrimination. They were cut off and they were

discriminated against, and they're paying dearly in terms of

income, mental attitude and the effect that this has on their

families and their future.

HON. MR. HALL: I don't object to looking into any complaint

by any Member about anything that affects the well-being of any

of our employees at all, provided the Members remember that

there is a collective bargaining agreement with all the

procedures that are required. I have no objection, but it does

tax one a little bit, when you ask for us to look into

something, by prefixing your remark that there was some

agreement that I would give the union all they wanted if they….

MRS. JORDAN: I didn't say all they wanted.

HON. MR. HALL: They would get what they wanted, were your

words, provided they kept their numbers down. That kind of

stuff put on the floor of this House is really not doing

anybody any service.

MRS. JORDAN: Just one last comment. If the Minister is so

concerned and wants to twist this around, why did you not in

the original agreement say to the union: "No one must suffer

declassification or any loss as a result of this readjustment

that is taking place"? That's all the Minister had to do. If

he had done that, if the agreement is to cut down the number of

motor operators 2 in a district, or any other

classification, that may well be the right thing to do. All you had to

was institute a grandfather clause, so that this would be the

objective, that in fact anyone who occupied those positions

through merit now wouldn't lose. It's just a matter that the

positions wouldn't be filled when they become vacant until the

required component was reached. It's a very simple thing, Mr.

Minister. I don't think that you should object to that. It

would have protected….

HON. MR. HALL: Your question shows a remarkable lack of

knowledge about the collective bargaining procedures. You are

hardly likely to be successful in a collective bargaining

procedure when you say that when management goes in to

negotiate a collective agreement its first item on the table

deals with the rights and the grievance procedures and the

classification procedures of people that are represented by

people on the other side of the table. It just shows you….

MRS. JORDAN: You don't care about people.

HON. MR. HALL: Of course I care about people, but that's the

kind of statement that really delays this debate, delays any

understanding that you and I might have about solving this

problem.

Vote 218 approved.

Vote 219; grants re public service — gratuities under

sec.

68 of Public Service Act and other government employees,

$300,000 — approved.

On vote 220, Retiring Allowances — Public Service Act,

sec.

64, and other government employees, $1,750,000.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'm just

interested in this item which is $1.2 million under the title,

pre-retirement leave. I guess that's a new item and it's a

substantial sum of money under code 040. Could the Minister

just explain that item?

HON. MR. HALL: That's the amount of money that's going to be

required to service part of the master agreement when people

take up their accumulated credits in terms of not being sick

and not having days off. It's a standard procedure of the

agreement.

MR. WALLACE: But why is this a new item? It's not listed

under the 1975 column on the left. It seems to be a new item.

If it's a standard part of this contract, how come it wasn't…?

HON. MR. HALL: It is now; it wasn't then. Before it was just

a gratuity.

[ Page 3963 ]

MR. WALLACE: By gratuity, you mean it was at the whim of the

government,

whereas now it's written in? Where was that

equivalent sum of money listed in the estimates last year then?

It's just that it's a substantial sum of money. I'm not trying

to split hairs.

HON. MR. HALL: Can I get that information for you as to what

that amount of money was last year specifically?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, that's what I'm trying to find out.

HON. MR. HALL: I'll get it for you.

Vote 220 approved.

On vote 221; public service grievance board, $80,000.

MR: WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if the Minister

could tell us whether that grievance board has been set up and

who the Members are.

HON. MR. HALL: No, it's not been set up yet.

MR. WALLACE: Does the Minister have some idea as to when it

will be set up? I think he's well aware of the fact that there

are certain staff members no longer employed by the government

who wish to have access to that grievance board. I wonder if

the Minister could tell us when he anticipates it will be

constituted.

HON. MR. HALL: I know of only one staff member who is no

longer with us who wants access to the grievance board — only

one. Frankly, there is no real problem there, because in the

repeal and transition

section of the Public Service Act and the

Public Service Labour Relations Act, we said that until these

devices are established, the old methods will be followed.

There's a full appeal procedure, a full grievance procedure and

a procedure that anybody can take. That's in line with the

questions regarding the one person that you have a mind to ask

about.

The second point you mention is when it will be set up. As

soon as I can assure myself and my colleagues that I've got

adequate competent people to do it.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I realize that maybe there is only Dr.

Knight who wants to come before this board, but it is in the

budget…we're allowing $80,000. The Minister's answer is a bit vague

in saying that it will be set up when he's satisfied that he's got the

right people. Could I be more specific and ask whether there are

certain names being considered who

have been approached, or is it simply at the pondering

stage?

HON. MR. HALL: To reveal my state of mind on this might take

a long time. I'm pondering; I've got some names; I've talked to

a couple of people about it. It's an important position.

I don't want, by the way, Mr. Chairman, to allow the thought

to go past that there is only one person who wants to go before

the board. There may be more than one person who wants to go

before the board; there is only one person, however, who has

been dismissed who wants to go before the board. So I hope you

don't think that I am trying to mislead you.

MR. WALLACE: I accept that.

HON. MR. HALL: There are, I know, some cases. In fact, I had

occasion to be interviewed by one on Saturday in my

constituency clinic in Surrey, who probably would like to go

before the board on another…. That person is still employed

by the government.

We're looking at names; I'm pondering. It will be announced

just as soon as I am ready.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I just thank the Minister,

because I think he has cleared the matter up in his last

comment. I think there would be lots of people who want to come

before this board.

When we talked about the Workers' Compensation Board

recently, the Minister told us that the new appeal procedures

in that board were dealing with a lot of items which were very

old items but which hadn't been resolved — some of which are

getting resolved after many years, in some instances. Do you

expect that this might happen with the new grievance board as

well? Will you consider cases which may be very retroactive — 10 years,

5 years, 3 years old — but in which the prevailing

appeal procedures just haven't worked? There may be cases where

the person may have got the tough end of the stick

unjustifiably.

HON. MR. HALL: I'd have to consider that. I make no

commitment about retroactivity. The Act is fairly specific on

that.

The one thing you must remember is that there was a very

elaborate appeal procedure for civil servants under the old

Civil Service Act — a very elaborate one. I was one who stood

on that side of the House and criticized the previous

administration for a lousy labour policy. But I will say this:

most grievance procedures from the civil service that went

through grievance were found in favour of the applicant. That

was the time-honoured, paternal civil service ending. There

were a few who were got rid of,

[ Page 3964 ]

a few who left. I know a couple of people who still

write to

me complaining of a grievance of 10 years ago. But they've had

avenues right through to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

So I'm not going to make a commitment that this public service

grievance board will open up that long ago.

In answer to the first part of your question, I am concerned

that it is likely that the longer I delay there is more likely

to be some backlog to look into. I'm conscious of that

pressure. I can assure you that both the Public Service

Commission and the BCGEU are frequently after me about getting

on with appointing.

Vote 221 approved.

On vote 222: public service benefits trust, $3,000,000.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this is an item that is not

listed on the left-hand side; it's $3 million on the right-hand

column. Could the Minister explain that item?

HON. MR. HALL: It's the extended programme effective

October, 1974, for dental and extended health benefits that

came out of the master agreement. It covers public servants,

MLAs and excluded groups. It's a group benefit; there's a

management committee of people and they are covering those

extended dental-care benefits that you have had information

about. Nothing last year at all.

MR. WALLACE: I gather from the application forms which we

have received as MLAs that there is no contribution as a

premium required by the employees or by the MLAs. In other

words, the government as the employer is providing the total

cost of these extended benefits.

HON. MR. HALL: At this time. It's new and it's in the nature

of an experiment. We're keeping solid cost analyses on it. For

the time being, as we are only paying X per cent of the bill,

we are not requiring a contribution at this time. The trust is

very cognizant of the escalating cost in benefit plans. That

will be part of our continuing agreements and negotiations.

MR. WALLACE: Just a quick final question. In other words, Mr.

Chairman, the concept that there is no contribution by the recipient at

the moment is a very flexible approach that the Minister is not

committed to maintaining. As he well knows, I feel that the $1 a day

for the hospitals, for example, was started years ago on a certain

basis. Here we are starting a new programme where the recipient of the

service contributes no premium towards the cost of the programme. I

think the Minister would be fair enough to admit that once you've

established that kind of precedent, particularly in the

employer-employee relationship, it's very difficult if costs escalate —

it's very difficult politically — for the government to turn round a

year or two years from now and say to the employees and the MLAs:

"Look, fellas, it's been a real good free ride. You haven't been paying

for certain benefits, dental care and physiotherapy and what not. But

now we find the costs are rising and we think you should pay 20 per

cent of the costs." Now that has not applied in other programmes,

either in this province or elsewhere, in which the start is made with a

minimal or nil contribution by the recipient of the service, and where

the costs rise the recipient is then asked to contribute. I wonder if

the Minister could just comment briefly on the precedent that's being

set in embarking upon potentially very expensive programmes where the

individual receiving the service is not making a financial contribution

towards its cost.

HON. MR. HALL: I think first of all, let's get our

principles delineated, First of all, you are using the

hospital-care programme, or something of that order, as a

comparison to this programme. First of all, one is a universal

programme. This one is employee related, a benefit related to

the question of employment. So there isn't the universality

principle involved in that, which I think makes a big

difference.

While I might tend to agree with some of your remarks on the

universal programme, you must remember that in an

employee-related benefit it is part of the package, part of the

business of working. In other words, if I work for a week I can

get $300 in money, or I can get $150 in money and $150 in cloth — now

you and I remember the debates in our school days on the

truck Acts and things like that — or I may get $150 in

benefits, i.e. time off, pensions, low-cost loans, you name it.

There is a multiplicity of benefits available to people who

work for other people — from stock options at the top, to where

the employee pays all of the pension plan. That's where we are.

It's in those areas.

I agree that once you've got a deal going where there's no

basic money changing hands, you have some problems changing the

formula. But we might look at, and what we have looked at in

other areas, is that when these costs reach a certain

percentage of payroll then somebody has to put a buck or two

in. Those are the options that are open to you in

negotiation.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I accept the Minister's argument up to a

point. But I think I would like to go on record as saying that

he may be overlooking the unique nature of this particular

employer.

I agree that my analogy between a universal

[ Page 3965 ]

programme and an employer-employee situation,

perhaps, was

stretching things a bit. But in this particular case the

employer-employee relationship is between government and

employee — the government depending on the taxpayer for their

revenue to pay the employee in the package deal.

If I run a plant and I decide that I'm making thumbtacks or

peanuts or whatever, then I come to that agreement with my

employees, well, that is on my head to raise the revenue from

my business to give them that kind of benefit.

But where it's the government whose only revenue source is

the taxpayer by one way or another, it bothers me just a little

bit to see the government embark upon a programme of this

nature. As the Minister well knows and as has just been

demonstrated nationally by the budget two days ago, the federal

government is turning the thumb screws on cost-sharing for

hospitals and medicare because it's escalating at between 15 to

20 per cent per year. Here we are with the government,

dependent on the taxpayer for revenue, embarking upon what

could be a very expensive series of benefits where, at the

moment, at the inception of the programme, there is no

financial input by the person who's getting the benefit.

I'm very much in favour of trying to give employees the

widest range of health benefits. But I wonder if our enthusiasm

might not be running away with our economic good sense by

starting off on this basis. I am pleased the Minister gives the

taxpayer of British Columbia the reassurance that if the costs

exceed a certain percentage of the payroll, then the method of

financing will be reviewed.

HON. MR. HALL: Don't take that as an assurance, Mr. Member.

All I'm saying is that those are the possibilities available to

the negotiating team. Now I'm not negotiating at this distance,

at this point in time, with our employees, 34,000 in number.

I'm saying that when you get into this situation there is a

cost when you're trying to look at other methods of protecting

the work force against the ravages of inflation and others,

trying to do bottom-end loading in the work force, social

progress and good labour-management ideas. There is a different

style. I agree that when we do those things we must remember

we're not a factory; we are wearing the two hats of a

government and an employer. We try and do that. I think I've

tried to accomplish that. That's why I get, perhaps, a little

bit cross at times when I think political debate takes place on

things that are sometimes careless and would spoil that

situation we are trying to develop.

Vote 222 approved.

Vote 223: Public Service Commission salary contingencies, $569,315 —

approved.

Vote 224: Superannuation Branch, administration, $873,100 — approved.

Vote 225: Superannuation Branch, civil service

superannuation and retirement benefits, $39,690,000 — approved.

On vote 226: Superannuation Branch, Members of the

Legislative Assembly Superannuation Act, $150,000.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I have been warned that….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I don't mind deferring to the Hon. Member for

Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): My mike didn't seem

to be working. It does, now.

Mr. Chairman, in reference to the Members of the Legislative

Assembly Superannuation Act, this particular vote, which is the

contribution of the government towards the superannuation of

Members of the Legislative Assembly, heretofore any Member who

spoke on this seemed to speak with some trepidation. I don't

know why they should. I don't think there is anything to be

ashamed of in the fact that you earn a superannuation by being

a servant of the public through the elected office of MLA. The

Members also make contributions by way of deductions from their

various remunerations which they receive by way of indemnity

and allowances for sitting on various committees and other work

that is done on behalf of the government.

When this Act was enacted it was considered one of the best

in Canada, that is, pension plans for MLAs, but time and change

has altered the situation very considerably.

Now only a year ago, as of June 18, the Provincial Secretary

pointed out quite plainly to us in a letter, each MLA, the fact

that through changes in the Constitution Act in the spring

session of 1972, without changes in the Members of the

Legislative Assembly Superannuation Act, had made the latter

Act inoperative by the fact that we are paid on a different

basis now. In view of this, Members have given little or no

consideration to this matter which is serious and in our

interests.

To show the hazards to an MLA, both physically and in the

realm of going to election, from the time the Act was

introduced in this House and brought into effect in 1955, there

are only three of those Members who were in the House at that

time here today. The role of an MLA, his occupation, is

very

[ Page 3966 ]

hazardous. For an example, let us use the

independent

Members who formerly were Liberals. If you look at them, as I

saw them in my eyes when they came into this House, they were a

handsome, strong, athletic-looking group, (laughter) some from

the legal profession and some from the teaching profession, and

here they have frost on the roof. It shows the hazards. Even my

good friend, the Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr.

Strachan), is getting thin on top, and my friend, the Member

for Kootenay (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), has now got a ski-run rather

than a head of hair. You can see the hazards that can take

place, so we have to be concerned about this.

In all seriousness, I am concerned. All Members should turn

their attention to the need to update and bring the Members'

superannuation Act into conformity to the Constitution Act that

was amended because we are in limbo at the present time. If

anyone was to decide not to continue, he might find that he was

in a difficult position in getting his pension until some

amendments are brought in.

Along with bringing the provisions of the Act at least in

line with the Public Service Superannuation Act in a number of

areas, and in all deference to the public service, they are the

administrators of the legislation that the MLAs draft and put

into effect in this House.

Presently, under the two Acts, the MLAs are second-class

citizens because they are not getting the benefits, for a

number of reasons, that they should be entitled to.

We've all been told that MLAs' jobs are full-time

occupations and let's give an example. For instance, a Member

at age 30 is elected and he can spend nine years in this House

covering two parliaments and be defeated. He would not be

eligible to receive pension under the present Act.

On the other hand, a Member — an MLA in more than two

parliaments within the same nine-year period could find that on

his defeat at 39 he would be eligible for superannuation but

not until he had reached 55 years under the present Act.

There's a 16-year drag in there in which he would not be able

to receive any benefits. In the meantime, because he has

reached his mid-forties or early forties, and the trend today

is that if you're forty you're over the hump and on the

downhill grade….

MS. BROWN: Speak for yourself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order! Order! (Laughter.)

MR. RICHTER: Well, some of us have it and some of us

haven't. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. RICHTER: In the meantime the need to start up in

business or find employment isn't really easy at that age. I

believe that attention should be given to bring the legislation

up-to-date — that is the Members of the Legislative Assembly

Superannuation Act should be brought up-to-date in line with

the Constitution Act and of the legislation such as the Public

Service Superannuation Act.

I'm thoroughly convinced that the averaging period should be

studied. I think the age qualification should be reduced to at

least 50. Surely the arithmetic should be brought into line

with the current dollar value, in view of inflation. The

cost-of-living clause should be incorporated into the Act.

I regret that action has not been taken at this session and

time is overdue for all Members of this Assembly to take

cognizance of what the future holds for then. Certainly this is

not unjustified and I appeal to the Minister to use his best

influence with his government to give very, very serious

consideration to bringing on the proper amendment in line with

the suggestions I have made.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the Member

by telling him that he's essentially correct in all his facts.

I am concerned about the various discrepancies that exist in

the plans. As you know, I stood on my feet here on at least…I think

we've had about 18 bills on pensions in 2½ years and

each time I've stood up and said we are moving together, lock

step, hand-in-hand, one plan to another and the one that's

never moved is the MLA pension plan. I am concerned about it.

The Member's correct in his details and I thank him for his

very sincere contribution.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Vote 226 approved.

Vote 227: Public Services Medical Plan Act, $1,550,000 — approved.

Vote 228: Public Services Group Insurance Act, $277,240 — approved.

On Vote 229: Municipal Superannuation Act, $58,000.

MRS. JORDAN: Just one quick comment and I don't wish to

transgress here if it's wrong. Mr. Minister, there is a

problem between the interchangeability of pension plans for

those who have worked with the federal government, the

municipal government and the provincial government and go to

work for a regional district. This pension, as I understand it,

is not transferable…. This is on the

[ Page 3967 ]

interchangeability of pension plans between the

federal

government, the provincial government, the municipal government

and the regional district.

I understand it's now to the point where they are all

interchangeable with the exception with regional districts and

there are a few people in British Columbia who've worked for

the federal government or another provincial government, in

terms of planning or other capacities, but they can't

interchange their pension with the regional district.

I believe that there has been a recommendation made by the

Union of B.C. Municipalities and it's now simply a matter of

the government acting on it and I fully believe the government

is quite willing. But it is causing problems because the

federal government is holding this reserve out of the kindness

of their hearts, and should they change their attitude, even

though you would change your legislation, just a few people

would be cut right out. If you could move on this as soon as

possible I know they'd appreciate it.

Vote 229 approved.

Vote 230: Salary Contingencies, $220,196 — approved.

On Vote 208: Provincial Emergency Programme, $1,305,634.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I have collected, since

yesterday afternoon, a great deal of information on the oil and

chemical spills. I see the Member who was asking the questions

is not here. I think we could pass the vote and I'll send the

material on to the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and the

Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), if they desire.

It is about the

schedule of meetings, who is on, what has

happened in the last 12 months.

MR. WALLACE: I appreciate the Minister's comments. I wasn't

so specifically concerned about the specific financial data in

the report that he has mentioned. I was just wondering if he

could tell us whether he does intend to proceed with redrafting

or rewriting of the modern concept of an emergency programme

Act, and can he tell us what the government intends to do in

light of recent statements that the Minister has made?

HON. MR. HALL: No, I am not prepared to do that at this

time.

Vote 208 approved.

ESTIMATES:

DEPARTMENT OF TRAVEL INDUSTRY

On vote 263: Minister's office, $22,430.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I would

just like to ask a couple of quick questions of the Minister

with regard to the Royal Hudson. I'd like to know first of all

how much it cost to restore the Royal Hudson, who did the work

on the Royal Hudson, and who owns the Royal Hudson. Maybe if we

get those three questions answered we can move on rapidly.

HON. MR. HALL: I think the questions have been answered

already on the order paper about the cost of the Royal Hudson.

Who owns the Royal Hudson? The Government of British Columbia

owns the Royal Hudson. Who did the work? A number of companies

did, including Canadian Pacific Rail and the companies…the

names of which I forget, but the ones I think you are asking

about, Mr. Swanson's company. One of his companies did work on

the Royal Hudson.

MR. PHILLIPS: What type of an arrangement do you have with

the British Columbia Railway? Do you pay them a stipend for the

use of the tracks? Who insures the Royal Hudson? If it is owned

by the Province of British Columbia, what actual department

owns it? Is it the Department of Travel Industry that owns the

Royal Hudson? What kind of a working arrangement do you have

with the BCR?

I'm particularly concerned about the insurance aspect of it

because if the Royal Hudson should go through a trestle or have

another accident or be involved with some of the employees….

What working arrangements do you have? Who carries the

insurance on it? What department actually owns it? From where

was it purchased?

HON. MR. HALL: I'm obviously getting a catalogue of

questions about the Royal Hudson and you want some answers.

Carry on asking questions about the Royal Hudson.

MR. WALLACE: I just want a brief question. Could the

Minister give us some approximate figures as to the revenue

which his department considers tourism has brought into the

province in the year ending March 31, 1975, compared to the

previous year? Is that some general figure he could give

us?

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution

and asks leave to sit again.

[ Page 3968 ]

Leave granted.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. King presented the annual report of the Department of

Labour for the year ended December 31, 1974, in manuscript form.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home

Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada