1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd 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)

MONDAY, MAY 4, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5363 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Northeast coal development. Mr. Leggatt –– 5363

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

Jurisdiction of ombudsman. Mr. Macdonald –– 5365

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

On vote 173: Government Employee Relations Bureau –– 5365

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Howard

Mr. Levi

Mr. King

Division on an amendment

On vote 174: Public Service Commission administration –– 5370

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Hanson

Ms. Brown

Mr. Barber

On vote 176: superannuation branch –– 5376

Mrs. Dailly

On the amendment to vote 176 –– 5376

Mr. Levi

On vote 176: superannuation branch –– 5376

Mr. Levi

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

Mr. Lea

On vote 180: government information services –– 5377

Mr. Lea

Hon. Mr. McClelland

Mr. Barnes

Mrs. Dailly

Division on an amendment

On vote 181: building occupancy charges –– 5379

Mrs. Dailly

Division on an amendment

On vote 182: computer and consulting charges –– 5380

Mr. Barnes

Hon. Mr. Chabot

Mr. Nicolson

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. Lauk

Hon. Mr. McClelland

Mrs. Dailly

On the amendment to vote 182 –– 5382

Mr. Lauk

Division on the amendment

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

Hyndman)

On vote 44: minister's office –– 5382

Hon. Mr. Hyndman

Mr. Levi

Tabling Documents

Trade Practice Act annual report, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 5386

Appendix –– 5386

MONDAY, MAY 4, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. ROGERS: This morning I had

a meeting with mayors from Tsawwassen to Hope, including Mayor Burnett

from Delta, discussing the floodplain problems and floodplain

management proposals for the province of British Columbia. A number of

the mayors have had the opportunity to stay over, and I see some of

them in the gallery now. It would be a very lengthy list if I were to

introduce them all, so I would ask the House to make welcome all those

mayors who came to meet with me and officials of the Ministry of

Environment this morning.

MRS. WALLACE: In the

gallery today we have visitors from Alberta — a couple who farmed for

many years some 20 miles from where my father had his homestead. They

are now retired and living in Red Deer, Alberta. I would like the House

to join me in welcoming June and Cecil Wade.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Following, in a general way, the Minister of Environment's introduction

of the mayors, I would like to acknowledge the presence of the mayor of

Richmond, His Worship Gil Blair, who is part of the delegation here

discussing the floodplain situation in the province. It is of interest

that Mayor Blair's grandfather was an early member of the Legislative

Assembly.

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

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

In the gallery visiting us today is a group of grade 6 and 7 students

from Marion Schilling School in Kamloops. I ask the House to please

make them welcome.

MR. LEGGATT: I ask the House to

welcome Mr. Larivée and his class of Mary Hill Junior Secondary School

pupils, who have with them some very special Quebec visitors. I'd like

you to make them welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm

pleased to tell you that we have visitors from Vancouver in the gallery

this afternoon. They are Mrs. Ethel Ferguson, Mrs. Howard, Mrs. Jessie

Cunliffe, Mrs. Peggy Lee and her daughter Kathy. I'd like to ask the

House to welcome them.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I have two

introductions. First, there are two local residents with a very keen

interest in public affairs, Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd Walters. Second, in the

gallery are a number of very interested students from Thompson

Secondary School in Vancouver South, with their teacher, Mr. Sandhu.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today is a visitor from the city of

Penticton, Mr. Jim Dewdney. If the name Dewdney doesn't mean anything to

you, it should, because his forefathers were involved in Fort Steele, the Dewdney

Trail, etc. He is the son of Edgar Dewdney, a prominent lawyer in the city of

Penticton. With Jim is Connie Squizotto. They are finishing up their first year

of university and are heading back to Penticton. I'd like the House to bid

them welcome.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like the House to welcome the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mr. Wolfe'

s) brother in law, Mayor George Preston of Langley.

Oral Questions

NORTHEAST COAL DEVELOPMENT

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development. The minister stated on March

26 of this year that the cost-benefit analysis of the northeast coal

project was still in progress. Can the minister advise whether he is

now able to table the cost-benefit analysis, or is that analysis still

incomplete?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer

to the member's question I would like to inform him and the House that

great progress is being made on this cost-benefit analysis study, and

when it is complete, I'll be happy not only to table it in the House

but to make it available to every man, woman and child in this great

province of ours, if they so desire.

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

second question is this: in view of the $1 per tonne reduction in the

BCR freight rates, has he decided how this is going to be financed? Is

it going to be financed by the province directly, by B.C. Rail, or by

some other device he has in mind?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, I think I have to draw the member for Coquitlam-Moody a

picture, because as I explained to him several times in this House

before and again last Thursday, the negotiations between the coal

companies and the railway companies — both the Canadian National

Railway and the British Columbia Railway — were carried on on a

commercial basis. The $1 reduction is not necessarily what the member

is trying to paint, because it was evident from the negotiations that

went on that the railway companies, in dealing with the coal companies,

naturally started off negotiating on a high freight rate — normal

commercial negotiations — and when they went back to the bargaining

table again, they found that they could indeed reduce the freight rate

and still have a commercial and viable operation, whereby the freight

rate then negotiated would indeed give both railways a profit for the

movement of that coal from Tumbler Ridge to the port of Prince Rupert.

Mr.

Speaker. I do hope that the member will get that firmly entrenched in

his mind so that he understands that indeed these were commercial

negotiations. I'd be happy to explain it to him again if the member so

desires.

MR. LEGGATT: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that

the incompleted cost-benefit analysis didn't deal at all with any

projected losses for the BCR as a result of this. Did it deal with it?

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

[ Page 5364 ]

negotiations

took place between the coal companies and the British Columbia Railway

and the Canadian National Railway. In those negotiations it was the

responsibility of the railway negotiating team, both for the British

Columbia Railway and the Canadian National Railway, to set a freight

rate which would indeed pay for the cost of moving the coal and return

a profit. That's what took place. That really has nothing to do with

the provision of infrastructure. I hope the member understands that.

Those are commercial negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, I don't wish

to take up all the time in the Legislature this afternoon, so I won't

get into talking about the surcharge and the cost of the Tumbler Ridge

line. In history it's unheard of that we have a surcharge on a

development railway line, but we have certainly negotiated that for the

people of British Columbia so that the cost of that Tumbler Ridge

branch line, which is a development railway to open up a vast new

inland empire, is indeed going to be paid back by surcharge on the

movement of coal — unheard of in the history of Canada and this

province.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, now I'd like to

ask the minister a question dealing directly with that and take him

away from the freight rates for a minute and on to the question of the

surcharge. The surcharge will generate revenues of $22.25 million a

year based upon the contracted coal sales. In the government's own

figures the capital cost of the Anzac spur line will be about $500

million. That requires an annual debt service payment of $75 million.

Can the minister explain how the government is going to finance the

annual gap of more than $50 million between the income from the

surcharge and the debt service payment? Now that we're onto the

railroad, tell us how you're going to find that $50 million a year.

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

First of all, let me tell you that the cost of building the Tumbler

Ridge branch line — which it is now called because in railway terms it

has to be called, at the destinations to the Anzac line.... I want to

inform all members of the House that so far as I am concerned, it is

indeed a good estimate because we have employed the best engineering

brains that we could find in Canada.

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

If the member for Prince Rupert wishes to put down the engineering

skills that we have in this country when we export them to everywhere

in the world to assist with major projects, let that be on that

member's head. I know there was a great exodus of engineering skill

when they were government because there was nothing to do in this

province, and our engineers had to go elsewhere to seek employment.

Starting

off from a base that we have indeed employed the best engineering

skills we can find, the cost of the railway spur line in 1980 dollars

is $310 million. It's anticipated that the government will put that

money in, so we're not talking about interest. It shall be capitalized,

my friend, Again, this member sitting opposite is talking about trying

to have the developmental line paid for by the first two contracts. As

I have explained before, at the present time there are other

negotiations underway to sell additional tonnages from that area. It

will be on that member and that party's heads when we show the true

figures. History will prove that this is the greatest deal. There has

been no other deal ever put together in the history of Canada or

British Columbia where there have been so many guarantees and payback

clauses, not only for the Anzac line but for all the infrastructure

that we're building.

MR. LEGGATT: This question isn't

about all those pie-in-the-sky contracts that are in the future. I want

to ask the minister about the present contracts with Teck and Denison.

Regarding those contracts — we're not sure they are contracts yet —

what legal commitment has the minister received from Teck and Denison

by the placing of a bond or by a firm written agreement — not by this

exchange of valentines that he's had, but by a firm legal agreement —

that Teck and Denison are going to commit their capital prior to the

government making massive expenditures on the tunnel and the Anzac line?

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

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

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

MR. LEGGATT: That was not the question.

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

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

MR. LEGGATT:

My question was: will the minister now table these legal documents that

he says commit Teck and Denison to their expenditures in the coalfields

so the rest of the House can examine them?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I want to answer the member by saying that there is nothing to hide in

this deal. All the documents will be tabled in due course.

APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT

DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL

MR. MACDONALD: I have a

question for the Attorney-General. Has the Attorney-General engaged the

services of an Ian L. Jessiman, a lawyer with a practice of law in the

city of Winnipeg in the province of Manitoba, to be assistant deputy

minister in his department?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Jessiman was engaged to head the civil law

section of the ministry many months ago.

MR. MACDONALD:

Does Mr. Jessiman still have a law practice in Manitoba, and does he go

back and forth to attend to that law practice while he's carrying out

this work for the government of British Columbia?

[ Page

5365 ]

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

MR. MACDONALD:

Do I take it the Attorney-General has told the House Mr. Jessiman is

not going back and forth to Winnipeg to attend to that practice?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I'm not telling the House that Mr. Jessiman does go back and forth to

Winnipeg from time to time. His wife has been there. He was back just

last week for the purpose of closing up his home before bringing his

family to this province.

MR. MACDONALD: Will the

Attorney-General advise the House what the terms of employment are, and

whether there are any special allowances for relocation or travel

expenses? Will he table the agreement with the House?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I'll be happy to take the question as notice and make inquiries as to

whether there are any special allowances. There are always allowances

for relocation of employees.

JURISDICTION OF OMBUDSMAN

MR. MACDONALD:

A different question to the Attorney-General, who on April 1, April

Fool's Day, informed the House that the ombudsman had approached him

and said that it wasn't his responsibility or jurisdiction to dictate

to that honourable figure. When asked whether he had offered any

opinion to the ombudsman as to whether the investigation into Gracie's

Finger should proceed, he said no. When did the Attorney-General notify

the ombudsman that he is in fact going to offer him legal opinions from

his department?

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

MR. MACDONALD:

Has the Attorney-General advised the ombudsman that he is in fact going

to have an opinion prepared by officials in his department and that he

will make that available to the ombudsman?

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

MR. MACDONALD:

Is the Attorney-General obtaining legal opinions from his department

with respect to the jurisdiction of the ombudsman in this matter?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

With respect to the jurisdiction of the ombudsman, he having advised me

that he proposed to embark upon this inquiry, I am seeking opinions as

to whether or not that is within his jurisdiction.

MR. MACDONALD: Why did the Attorney-General not come back to the House

and inform us? So you're not going to offer these opinions to him at all,

eh? Let me just ask you this. Why didn't you tell the ombudsman to get

on with an investigation which was requested last summer, in 1980? Why

are you looking for legal opinions on a matter which is solely within his jurisdiction?

Are you not trying to stall the ombudsman?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The answer to the last part of the member's question is absolutely no.

As the member well knows, the ombudsman will proceed upon such

investigations as are before him, based upon such advice as he obtains.

It is not the responsibility of the Attorney-General to give any advice

to the ombudsman in this respect, and I don't intend to do so.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF THE

PROVINCIAL SECRETARY AND

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

(continued)

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

MRS. DAILLY:

Just before we adjourned the House on Friday, we had just come to this

vote. It is a vitally important vote, with a lot of questions to be

answered by the minister. In the official opposition we call this "the

brass handshake vote." Never before have we seen government which has

eliminated so many senior civil servants during their tenure of office.

Top senior civil servants have disappeared. If that doesn't raise

questions as to the competence of some of these cabinet ministers who

are eliminating their senior civil servants right and left, the next

question which comes to our mind is — and we have a responsibility on

behalf of the taxpayers to ask this question — how much money and how

many payoffs has this government made quietly in order to keep these

people who leave from criticizing perhaps their ministers or the

government per se?

One just has to look at some of the lists

of the people who have gone. In the Ministry of Energy and the

Utilities Commission, the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

removed two top people from very important positions. We would like to

know how much money this cost the taxpayer. Now I'm not asking the

minister to say to us that this is the responsibility of each minister,

because he is the Provincial Secretary. According to vote 173, there is

a sum here of $9 million for other expenditures, so just to get the

debate going today, I have two specific questions for that minister.

First of all, would he tell us if the $9,300,000-odd which lists other

expenditures has been used to create money to pay off some of these

public servants? Secondly, would he give us some idea of the total sum

of money that has gone through his ministry to reimburse these civil

servants for whom — for whatever reason, possibly basic incompetence on

the part of the different ministers in government — he has had to be

responsible for seeing that they receive a sum of money; and without

making any aspersions on the character of the people who have left, I

want to simply ask the minister why so many people in top positions

have left his government. Number two, how much money has been expended

just in the last year alone on these settlements?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

The major part of the code 90 or other expenditure appropriation in

that vote is $9,363,000 to provide for the cost of benefits for

licensed professionals, management appointments and other employees not

covered

[ Page 5366 ]

under

collective agreement. In other words, we have the established benefit

program for management, for deputy ministers, for order-in-council

appointments, and in addition to that, there is a small amount which is

strictly contingency, to take care of other severances. I think the

amount that you requested in this past year would be approximately

$300,000 all told, including certain bargaining employees, including

certain employees of the Energy Commission, and several others. In

other words, I think it's to be expected when for one reason or another

an employee is to leave early, that severance arrangements are only

fair and reasonable, and that part of this arises due to reorganization

— changes in policy where ministries are reorganized. So the answer to

your question is: approximately $300,000 in the past year, and a small

amount is provided in this $9 million figure I just mentioned for the

coming year.

MR. MACDONALD: The chief coroner of the

province of British Columbia was summarily fired — not requested to

leave early, but summarily fired. So would this vote look after

whatever lump sum will be paid to him? He was asked to go within a year

of his appointment. Will this vote look after any lump-sum payment to

Dr. William McArthur, the chief coroner who was given his walking

papers?

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

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

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, I'm advised there is a figure which was arrived at, which

included back pay as well as a severance arrangement for his departure.

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

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

MR. MACDONALD:

So the chief coroner was presumably paid up to date and whatever.... I

don't suppose he would have any pension by that time; he was in office

for less than a year, I think. Would he have a pension in addition to

that? Well, he may or may not have had a pension. What the minister is

telling the House is that it cost the taxpayers of the province $59,000

to....

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

MR. MACDONALD: For back pay?

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

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

HON. MR. WOLFE: Without the documents before me it's difficult to

give this kind of information. What I mean by back pay is that the matter

of his adjustment at a prior period had not been addressed, and that is included

in this arrangement. In other words, he was due for an adjustment in pay at

a prior date; that was incorporated in this final arrangement.

MR. MACDONALD:

Well, can the minister say what the cost of the golden handshake was?

How much did it cost to fire him? Was it $50,000? Maybe the $9,000

represented some adjustment that was still coming to him.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, it would be difficult to answer a question of that kind.

On departure, anyone is owed what is normally viewed as so much time in

lieu of severance, and that would be so many months at so much per

month, I presume, depending on the term of his employment. There are

certain rules that are followed in that regard, in addition to which

there would be moneys owing to a particular employee due, as I

explained, to an adjustment owed to him for a prior management

adjustment which occurred on a certain date. So it would be difficult

to answer the specific question you asked, except to say that a payment

of $59,000-odd was made in this connection.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, I don't understand why it should be difficult for the

taxpayers to find out how much it cost for the blunder of either

employing Dr. William McArthur in the first place, or firing him

without any explanation being given as to why he was let go. Now I

realize that it's not this minister's responsibility to explain why he

was dismissed, but we've had a whole series of these senior civil

servants who have been appointed and discharged. And that, you know, is

a record of blundering in terms of proper management of the taxpayer's

dollar. I can't believe, if $59,000 was presented in a cheque to Dr.

William McArthur instead of the handshake or.... What do they usually

get — a gold watch or something of that kind? I don't understand why

the minister can't tell us what the lump-sum settlement was, because

the fellow unquestionably said to the government: "I can't do anything

about you firing me, but I've been wrongly fired and I want some money

— a lump-sum settlement." Now how much was it?

This is only

one in a whole series of people who've been ejected from the government

and have come out and said: "You've treated me badly and I want a

lump-sum settlement" — not something that he is entitled to in terms of

severance pay or pension allowances or back adjustment on what he

should have been receiving while he was working. What was the lump-sum

settlement to Dr. McArthur? It sounds to me as if it was at least

$50,000. But the minister should know, because that's the money of the

province that we're paying for a blunder. It must be, when you hire

somebody for less than a year for such a responsible job and then he

comes in one day and finds somebody is in his office; he isn't even

told beforehand that Mr. Galbraith is now occupying his office. That

could happen to any of the ministers over there under this Premier —

don't laugh — but that's a separate point. The point is that there was

a lump sum settlement to Dr. William McArthur. I would like to know

what it was.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I indicated the amount

to the member. After all, one should appreciate that these amounts are

sometimes arrived at between counsel for the parties, and my ministry

is simply requested to disburse certain funds. It might be appropriate

for you to ask such a question to the minister responsible. I could

take direction from him on the matter. That is the amount we were

requested to disburse. I

[ Page

5367 ]

might say as well that there are a number of

amounts in this total code which are not for senior employees; they're

more intermediate-level employees.

MR. HOWARD: It

would seem to me, with respect, that the minister is coming to the

committee and saying: "I want $9,360,000 this year to pay for a variety

of things." Included therein is the question of severance pay for

people who are fired. It should be incumbent on the minister having

responsibility for this money — he's the one coming for the money, not

the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) or any other minister — to

have that information available to tell the general public what he, the

minister, has been doing with that money. What's the breakdown of it?

Can the minister give us the commitment that he'll find out how much

the severance pay settlement was, how much the retroactive wages were

and how much is in whatever other categories there are, so the general

public will know what it cost them in settlement money to get rid of

Dr. McArthur? If the minister doesn't have that at his fingertips, will

he make a commitment to get it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 173 pass?

MR. HOWARD:

Could I pose that question to the minister again? Will he make a

commitment to the House that he'll find that information and that

breakdown of what it costs and come back at a later date and tell us?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I seek your direction on this matter.

With respect, Mr. Member, the reason I have difficulty with the question is

that these matters are arrived at, as I say, between counsel. Weighing three

or four different adjustments in the process, they arrive at a final figure.

To state that so much was for back pay and so much was for forward pay or other

particular adjustments is difficult. My ministry is simply directed to disburse

the funds. I would presume that your question is more appropriately addressed

to the Attorney-General. As I say, it is a consolidation of the factors I mentioned

to arrive at the figure.

MR. HOWARD:

I can't accept that. This minister is asking for the money. This

ministry has paid out the money. It's like a blank cheque. I'll tell

you what the Attorney-General will answer if we wait until that period

of time. He'll say: "Oh, that's a private matter" — as he said publicly

— "and nothing to do with the general public's interest." Obviously the

minister just isn't interested enough in the affairs of his department

to question when somebody comes along to him and says he wants $59,000

because he's getting rid of somebody who shouldn't have been there in

the first place or is being fired for whatever reason. The minister

should not ask this House for the authority to write cheques without

questioning the reason.

With respect to the former

comptroller-general who was squeezed out of office — Lionel Bonnell —

could the minister tell us what settlement was made?

HON. MR. WOLFE: That particular item is not included in this vote. Being

a so-called consent judgment, it would be in another ministry, namely the Attorney-General's.

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

HON. MR. WOLFE: By court judgment.

MR. HOWARD:

In any event the money to pay them comes from somebody else. That's

what I'm getting at. How about Harry Swain, the B.C. energy policy

planner, who was let go as well? Was any money paid to him, and how

much?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, we have no record of a settlement in terms

of that particular name during the past year. I am referring to those disbursements

made during the year 1980-81.

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

HON. MR. WOLFE:

It might be more beneficial to the committee were the member to put a

question of that kind in the order paper, but I have an amount of

$48,000 disbursed on behalf of Mr. Gish during the past year.

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

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

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

MR. HOWARD:

Do I understand the minister to say that he doesn't know anything about

John Kelly, the former head of Treasury Board staff, either?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

No. I can only respond by saying that there was no disbursement in the

particular vote that you're referring to on behalf of that employee.

MR. HOWARD:

I suppose there is no sense in going any further. You know, the pattern

is clear. People are removed from office for incompetence — assumed

incompetence on the part of whatever ministry it is: perhaps some are

removed from office for political reasons. It costs the taxpayers who

knows how much money because of inappropriate action on the part of a

particular ministry. The minister comes forward to us and says he wants

$9 million as a total lump sum for "others," whatever "others" is. It

apparently encompasses everything. Ninety percent of this vote is in

this "others" category for such things as "grievance settlements,"

"grievance arbitration," "rights disputes," "severance pay," and other

personnel related settlement issues. He is not able to provide the

general public with any indication — except in a few instances, as he

did with Dr. McArthur — of a breakdown as to what happened to the money

in the past and what he is going to do with it in the future. I think

that's a very inappropriate way to approach the estimates — asking the

general public for a blank cheque to the extent of some $9 million,

being virtually 90 percent of the total budgetary item for the

Government Employee Relations Bureau.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I think the member is misunderstanding

what I explained earlier. The amount provided in code 90, which amounts to $9.3

million, for "severance payments" is roughly $300,000. I've answered

the questions you've asked with regard to the amounts for individual employees.

I'm trying to be helpful to the member. The balance of that appropriation,

which is the major

[ Page 5368 ]

reason

for it, is to provide for the cost of benefits for licensed

professionals, management appointments and other employees who are not

covered by the collective agreement. These include, for instance, the

licensed professionals benefit plan, which provides for 7 percent of

their salary in lieu of overtime and other matters; the established

benefit plan for some 2,257 management employees, which provides for an

average of 10 percent; the policy for deputy ministers is the same,

with the extra-benefit provision at 15 percent; and order-in-council

have an average of 10 percent. The net total of those amounts and the

provisions I've mentioned is somewhere in the area of $9 million. The

severance provision, which is an estimate and a contingency, is

provided for in addition to that included in the vote.

MR. HOWARD:

I didn't misunderstand what the minister said in the first instance. In

fact I wrote down the $300,000 as encompassing these other items. What

I'm getting at is that it seems inappropriate to lump all this together

in an amount of $9 million. That's all I'm getting at. You could find

some other code. You know you can separate office furniture and

equipment, for argument's sake, quite readily. In a vote of this

magnitude and nature, can't you separate it into its component parts?

If you need to set up another code, set up another code.

What

the minister really is doing is coming and saying: "I want a blank

cheque for $9 million, and I'll give you some general information as to

what it's going to be used for." It'll be used for extraordinary

benefits to guys like Doug Heal and fellows like him. He's an

order-in-council appointment. He's a deputy minister. He's not in the

collective agreement structure. We may find out a year and a half from

now, after the public accounts for that year are settled.

Going

to the year 1980-81, I ask the minister how much of the amount asked

for last year out of the vote for the Government Employee Relations

Bureau has been expended to the end of the fiscal year of March 31,

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

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

HON. MR. WOLFE:

We do not have that figure at this time. The year end is, of course,

March 31. The close-off figures for the year end for any given vote

wouldn't be available to us at this point.

MR. HOWARD:

The Ministry of Agriculture had the year-end figures of March 31, 1981,

with respect to items under his vote. Do you mean that you're less

efficient than the Ministry of Agriculture? He dragged them out and

told us what the year-end expenditures were to the end of March 31,

1981. I assumed that all ministries were operating at the same speed.

Obviously not.

For the ten months ending January 31, 1981 —

those were the figures which were provided to the public — out of the

vote last year of $10,331,745, the expenditure was $4,900,000. There

were two months left in the fiscal year — February and March. If the

minister expected to reach the allocation — I'm not trying to suggest

that he be a spendthrift in this regard just to do it — he'd have to

have spent more in the last two months of the fiscal year than was

spent in the previous ten months of that fiscal year. That's all I'm

trying to get to. Can one normally take that ten-month figure, take

one-fifth of it, add that to it and get what might be an expected

year-end expenditure?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm told that

the cash flow on that vote, in particular the one having to do with

other expenditures, takes place largely between November and March. It

doesn't flow in the earlier months of the year. The payments are for

concluding arrangements for employee benefits and so on. You understand

that in the case of management employees, the established

benefit-package plan is a cafeteria-style purchase that the employee

makes with certain options. If I'm correctly advised, he chooses this

option and the arrangement is finalized once a year. Those three plans

I referred to earlier are finalized between the months of November and

March. That is why cash flow appears low through the first ten months

of the year.

MR. HOWARD: "Cafeteria style" is a

beautiful way to put it forward. There's a lump sum of money — take it

whichever way you want. I can understand that.

If the

minister would take this as a thought and suggestion — you can't do it

now as you obviously haven't got your figures or the breakdown

available and other ministers don't tell you what they're doing; they

just want lump sum money — I think it would be most appropriate for the

minister who has to pay the money out to ask for an accounting from

those other ministries of what the lump sum payment is, just to protect

himself. So the general public will be able to find out from one source

what the $59,000 to Dr. McArthur means. His salary was $47,000 a year,

and he got a settlement package of $59,000. Even if you take $12,000

off that for retroactive wages and whatever, the settlement with him

was for a full year's salary, all because the Attorney-General doesn't

know how to handle affairs in his department. This minister is stuck

with that and being unable to provide adequate information to the

committee. I would suggest that you do that in the future.

I'd

also suggest that you take another look at that code 90 thing and have

a bit better breakdown of it than just the bald figure here of $9

million for something called "other expenditure," regardless of the

fact that the rationale and explanation for it may make sense. It

doesn't make sense when you look at it and read it.

MR. LEVI: In the 1979-80 Public Accounts

there is an item on page 266 which reads: "Advanced Management Research

International Inc." — AMR — and the amount of money attached to it as

an expenditure is $23,645. In this vote the description part of the

estimates book says: "This vote provides for staff support to the

Treasury Board by developing personnel management policies and

practices." This group, Advanced Management Research, is a company

which operates out of the United States, and they come to British

Columbia and run a number of courses. For instance, in 1978 they ran a

course called "strategies for preserving non-union status."

guess the first thing I should find out is: did this expenditure take

place within your ministry? If it didn't, then we'll have to ask

somebody else. Can the minister assist me, Mr. Chairman?

[ Page

5369 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm advised that that expenditure did not

take place under vote 173. I could make an effort to advise the member

where expenditure took place. I presume he's referring to a list of

expenditures made in the alphabetical listings of Public Accounts. But

it's not in this vote, and I'm not able to inform him where it did take

place.

MR. LEVI: Is the minister suggesting that he

did engage this corporation but he's not sure how it was paid, or that

he didn't engage them? That's one of the things we need to find out,

because if he didn't deal with it, then presumably we'll have to go to

another ministry.

The kind of work the group does is very

much related to personnel matters. It also has a reputation as being a

union-busting operation. They advise people how to stay non-union, and

they also offer other advice about the problems that you have with

unions.

Because we're dealing with the vote for GERB — the

Government Employee Relations Bureau — which deals with all those kinds

of matters, I would remind the minister that about two years ago we had

some problem with the former Minister of Labour, who was soliciting

information about right-to-work legislation. I recall he wrote a number

of letters which were made available and read in this House.

This

is not a small amount of money, and it's not an insignificant project.

I'm sure the minister or his staff would remember, because this group

is a little bit controversial. They're not by any means your average

management consultant firm; they specialize in something very specific.

If we can be reasonably sure it's not under this vote, then we'll leave

it.

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

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

MR. KING:

Further to this issue, Mr. Chairman, you can appreciate that the

opposition has a problem. Unless we receive some advice from the

Provincial Secretary as to precisely which ministry or agency of

government made this expenditure, we have no way of knowing under whose

aegis to raise it in the estimates. I'm very concerned about this

particular expenditure, and I wish to devote some time to examining the

kind of services this particular company puts forward. I would think

the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) would be particularly

interested too, because on the basis of the documents I have at hand

advertising the services this particular company offers, I suggest that

if they do not breach the unfair practices

section of the Labour Code,

they certainly come perilously close to it. Perusal of the language

used indicates very clearly that it's in conflict with the unfair

labour practices

section of the Labour Code of British Columbia.

I think the opposition has a right to know what agency of government retained

this corporation, and for what precise purpose. The expenditure is in the neighbourhood

of $23,000, and I'm very concerned. Before I let the Provincial Secretary

off the hook, I want to know precisely where we're turning to. I have to

assume, since the Provincial Secretary is responsible for industrial relations

within the government apparatus, that it must be in some way related to either

his ministry or one of the agencies functioning under the authority of his

ministry. Was it GERB that retained this corporation? Can the minister

indicate that?

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

MR. KING: It's definitely not GERB?

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's right.

MR. KING:

Are you sure that it was no other agency dealing with the relationship

between the government employees' union and any agency of government?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I'd like to be helpful to the member. What I have said is that there is

no expenditure in this vote for that firm or whatever service was being

rendered. I have no information on what it was spent for, or anything

else in order to assist you. I just want to be clear. In other words,

there has been no expenditure under GERB for this particular service,

whatever it may be. It might be appropriate to suggest to this member,

Mr. Chairman, that he direct this question to the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis), who has responsibility to the comptroller in the

allocation of accounts and who might give him information on where the

expenditures were made. I presume the expenditure in Public Accounts

would also relate to the previous year, would it not?

MR. LEVI: To 1979-80.

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's right.

MR. KING:

I thank the minister for his advice. As I understand it, the Minister

of Finance would be responsible for the total vouchers paid out. In

that sense, it could be raised under consideration of his estimates,

rather than the opposition having to get up and raise this with every

ministry until by a process of elimination we come up with the culprit,

as it were. If we can defer this until the estimates of the Minister of

Finance, which presumably might come up sometime, then we'll get at it.

Thank you so much.

MRS. DAILLY: Just before we wind

up discussion on this particular vote, I want to recap for the

opposition that we're not satisfied with answers on the tremendous

number of settlements that have been made through that minister's

office to make payments to senior civil servants who have been relieved

of their positions with no explanation given to the public, unless it

was a political move, which the Minister of Energy (Hon. McClelland)

obviously indulged in — if he was responsible at the time for being

minister; I'm not sure — when the Energy Commission people were

removed. We have no explanation. The people of B.C. don't know why

these people — many of them esteemed senior civil servants — were

removed. I can think of Dr. Bonham, whom I had the pleasure of working

with when I was on the Metropolitan Board of Health for the

metropolitan area. He's a very respected man. Suddenly we find out that

he's removed from his position.

We can't hold that minister

responsible for their removal, but we have to hold him responsible for

paying out the money and not being able to tell this committee what he

actually paid out. When we take up the votes on the individual

ministers — some of whom have been known for eliminating some of their

top senior servants — we definitely intend to ask those ministers to

tell the public of B.C. why these people were removed. We do not

believe that there should be any behind the-doors, secret negotiations

and settlements. You're not dealing with your own money.

[ Page 5370 ]

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

MRS. DAILLY:

One thing about it, Mr. Chairman — I knew that the Minister of Energy

would like to get into this. At least the public of B.C. knew how much

money was expended by the NDP on that particular settlement.

Interjections.

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

The

point is that this government has a record of removing many respected

civil servants. What we're asking for is information. It hasn't come.

The minister in charge of the Provincial Secretary has said: "Ask the

minister, and he or she will tell you."

So, Mr. Chairman,

I'm going to leave it at that. We intend to take his advice and ask

those ministers who are responsible to give us the information. We hope

if — heaven forbid — we're all sitting in the same position next time

around that the Provincial Secretary will give us more definitive

answers on these questions. Therefore, because we do not have any

explanation of the actual amount of money paid, because in looking

through this vote we notice an unnecessary increase in travel and

office expenses and because we do not yet know the total sum of

taxpayers' dollars spent to make up for the blunders of some of the

Social Credit cabinet ministers — without meaning to reduce the normal

benefits that come to the civil servants — we are still not satisfied

with the final vote and travel expense increases. Therefore I move that

vote 173 be reduced by $1,072,664, because we feel that well over half

a million dollars has been spent this year in paying senior civil

servants who have been removed, and we have no idea how much was paid

in the past.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 26

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

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

Vote 173 approved.

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

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Chairman, before Social Credit assumed office in 1975, I recall

that one of the things they kept talking about during their campaign

was hitting on the fact that they would reduce the number of public

servants on the payroll. Despite the defence made by the member for

North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) in discussing and showing the

figures on public servants last Friday, it's very interesting to note

that the Social Credit government is following exactly what the old

Social Credit government did to make their figures of more employees

not look quite what is factual. They are once more following the policy

of keeping on auxiliary employees instead of putting them on as

full-time workers after six months. Because of this, in the last four

years the percentage of auxiliary employees under the Social Credit

government has more than doubled, from 13.2 percent to 26 percent.

Mr.

Chairman, that again is an attempt to fool the public of British

Columbia. They want to go out on the platform in the coming election

and suggest that they have kept the public servants down to a very

minimal level, not like that terrible NDP. The fact is, Mr. Chairman,

and I want to repeat this, that they have increased the number of

auxiliary employees on their payroll. It has more than doubled, from

13.2 percent to 26.5 percent, in the last four years.

These

are the facts and figures, Mr. Chairman, that will be brought out. I

don't think the public is going to be fooled by that attempt of the

Social Credit government to try to be hypocritical in their stance on

the number of public servants under their jurisdiction. This is a wide

area, and there are many things to discuss in it under public service.

I know that the minister has had a chance to meet with the union and

that they presented a brief, so I certainly am not going to go through

the details of that brief with him. I simply would like to know if he

is going to reconsider the present policy of keeping so many people who

have been on the job for six months, full-time public servants in this

province.... Is it your policy to continue the trend and keep them as

auxiliary instead of placing them as full-time?

I have one

more question to the minister in this particular area. I wonder if the

minister can tell us if he has a complete and full commitment to the

concept of equal pay for work of equal value. We know that there is one

area which can set the right precedent for the hiring of women without

any discrimination, and that is the public service. That minister can

do much for the women of B.C. If he gives this commitment. To date the

facts don't seem to show that the women of B.C. are getting too much

leadership, although I know the minister in his earlier statements did

say that he had an understanding of the need for equal pay for work of

equal value. I would like to know if the minister can really back it up

with some very specific facts since he assumed his portfolio. I think

the minister is aware that the current policy of posting government

jobs for out-of-service as well as in-service applicants tends to

effectively bypass many qualified female employees for the higher-paid

positions in favour of male applicants with less knowledge of the job.

That is a current policy which we feel tends to discriminate against

women who are quite capable of doing the work within the public

service. What we're saying is we'd like to hear from him and from his

[ Page

5371 ]

government. We'd like a full commitment to equality

of women in the public service. This commitment would include

provisions for training clerical employees who indicate an interest in

applying for entry-level positions in other classifications. I know the

minister knows what I'm talking about; he's met with the union with

their brief. I understand that the union has been asking for a reply no

later than April 30. My final question is: has the minister replied to

their brief?

HON. MR. WOLFE: In reply to the last

question concerning the recent brief from the B.C. Government Employees

Union, I have activated a committee having to do with that. I have

indicated as recently as this morning to Mr. Richards, president of the

union, that I will be responding to that brief later this week — as

soon as my estimates have been concluded. I did meet with the union in

receiving the brief and have gone over a number of other matters. I

have staff members of GERB and the Public Service Commission studying

it in the meantime. I have indicated to them that I will be responding

in the very near future.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member

brings up the question of growth in the public service and indicates

that we are trying to cloud this growth by having new employees hired

as temporaries and therefore not revealing the growth in the public

service. This distorts the picture, because in actual fact all of the

records of the Public Service Commission as reported through their

annual report include both permanent and temporaries. Also if the

member would study the answer to question 26 on the order paper of this

session, in which the member for North Vancouver–Seymour asks the

specific question of the total number of people in service of the

government plus the total number of people in service with the Crown

corporations, she will discover that the growth in a five-year period

in the total numbers of Crown corporation plus public service employees

is only 7.9 percent in five years. That's roughly an average of 1.5

percent growth in all of the Crown corporations plus public service

employees in that period of time. In the earlier period, as you well

know, this government placed a great deal of emphasis on the control of

the growth.

There was absolutely no growth in the first year

and very modest growth in the second year. With the advent of new

programs, it's literally impossible to have this happen and not have to

be providing staff backup in support of this. In comparison to any

other jurisdiction in Canada, you'll find that that degree of growth is

very modest. It indicates the control which Treasury Board and this

government have exercised in terms of growth in the public service

which is 7.9 percent of the total number in a five-year period. In 1976

there were 57,105 employees in Crown corporations and the government.

At the end of March 1981 that figure was 61,650 employees. That's an

increase of 4,545 employees in a five-year period, or 7.9 percent.

Does

the inclusion of temporaries have any impact on that? The answer is no.

In answer to that allegation, there has been an increase in the number

of temporaries in the most recent annual report. I recognize this. I'd

like to explain that Treasury Board, in two periods that I know of,

have placed a great deal of energy into analyzing, reviewing and

adjusting the number of temporaries, which would really be more

appropriately taken in as permanent. That particular process is taking

place right now, again. Periodically we do address that question.

It's

not possible to have no temporaries, There are many cases in the public

service with a need for temporary employees, yet there are other cases

where once having been here some length of time on a quasi-permanent

basis, they should be placed on the permanent establishment. That's

being recognized and studied by Treasury Board. This is not a case of

deluding anybody at all on the numbers. I think the member realizes

this. It's simply a case of the matter having to come under review of

Treasury Board periodically, which is being done now.

The

last question has to do with the advancement opportunities report — the

quality of opportunities for women and others in the public service. As

the members here in the committee at the moment will remember, that

report was generated through the B.C. Government Employees Union and

other organizations with the cooperation of the government. The cabinet

have endorsed that report and have introduced the major aspects of it.

Its

accent is on trying to provide better access to particular senior staff

positions for women and others in the public service through means of

education and training, the creation of bridge positions and exchange

programs, and basically through the improvement of recruitment and

selection methods. It's a fact of life that many women do not apply for

a great many positions, but there certainly is an apparent anomaly in

terms of the numbers in senior positions. We are in accord with the

report. We've acted on it. We're monitoring what the public service is

trying to do to try to implement the measures indicated.

MR. HANSON:

One of the Provincial Secretary's responsibilities is to preside over

the accident prevention branch of the provincial government. Some time

ago I pointed out that the accident severity rate amongst government

employees has increased markedly over the last year or so. The

government is a dangerous place to work. The minister stood up a little

later and gave a response that in actual fact committees had been set

up and many things were being undertaken to alleviate the problem. I

just want to pursue the matter a little further today.

The

Ministry of Transportation and Highways had a target of 638 for the

12-month period ending August 1979. The severity ended up at 1.643.

This is a formula where the Public Service Commission rates a severity

rate through the time loss and so on. The target was 638, and they

ended up with 1,643 — it deteriorated 157 percent. When the minister

responded, he said there had been a number of deaths in the public

service, which there have been. I would like to draw to the attention

of the House today the details of one of those incidents where a

government employee died, an employee on the centre-line crew for the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways in Fort St. John. The reason

I'm raising this is because I wanted to ask the Provincial Secretary to

take the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser)

aside and take the necessary action to make sure this kind of accident

never happens again.

At dusk on October 9, 1980, a young man

by the name of A.D. Brummer of Fort St. John is working on a

centre-line crew. They've finished painting the lines on the highway

and he's recovering the plastic cones that are left to point out to

drivers not to drive on the white line until it dries. He is lying on

the back of a flat-deck truck at dusk in the fall. The flatdeck truck

is rear-ended by an impaired driver and Mr. Brummer is thrown into the

oncoming lane, run over and

[ Page 5372 ]

killed.

My question to the minister is: why was this kind of activity being

done at night? Why was there not some kind of flagging car all lit up

like a Christmas tree following the centre-line crew? That's one of the

deaths that has resulted in the increase in the severity of the

highways death rate. Will the minister advise me when he will get back

to the House and advise us what steps the Minister of Transportation

and Highways will take to ensure that never again will a centre-line

crew have to pick up those plastic cones on a highway without a

follow-up car? That is outrageous.

Interjection.

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

There

is a policy of the provincial government. I stand on the side of

safety, Mr. Member. In the provincial government there appears to be a

policy which may be contributing to a lack of safety in the air

transport policy. The air transport policy is that when the provincial

government wants passengers, employees or goods delivered to a

particular location to perform a job, the government will only pay upon

delivery of those people or goods. There are many small airlines in

British Columbia that, when faced with the prospect of flying and

delivering personnel or goods where the weather conditions involve an

element of risk, are sometimes motivated to fly when they probably

shouldn't be. In other words, what I'm saying to you, Mr. Minister,

through you, Mr. Chairman, is that the policy should be that if the

weather conditions are such that in the pilot's judgment it is unsafe

to deliver those public employees or goods to their destination, there

should be some payment made to the airline — in other words, a

disincentive to take a risk. There have been a number of government

employees killed in air crashes in the last year. My information is

that some of these small airlines are flying when the weather

conditions involve some risk. I would ask the Provincial Secretary to

meet with the Minister of Transportation and Highways and discuss the

general policy of air transport, the way contracts are let for the

delivery of personnel, and to review any coroner's reports with

recommendations vis-à-vis airport transport policy and the movement of

government employees in this province.

I mention to the

member for North Peace River that we want government employees' working

conditions to be safe. We don't want the provincial government and the

Crown corporations to have to spend $7.3 million a year in compensation

payments for injuries.

I have another proposal. The

provincial government enjoys a different status from any private sector

company as it relates to compensation and its role with the WCB. For

example, in the private sector private companies pay according to the

penalty assigned to their particular sector category. The provincial

government is in a pay-as-you-go situation. They pay for specific

injuries, and for time loss for individual employees according to each

accident. They are not assessed according to a sector assessment where

there is an incentive to make the conditions safer under which

provincial employees work. My proposal to the minister is that the

provincial government should have a rating just the same as any private

sector category in the WCB schedule. They should be assessed a penalty

based on the previous year's performance. In other words, there would

be an incentive to make the situation safer for individual ministries

and Crown corporations. It is not fair to go on a pay-as-you-go basis

for health care. There must be plans to make the workplace safe.

don't expect the minister to stand in his place today and give me

reports on individual ministries that he is not familiar with on a

day-to-day basis, but I would like him to take under advisement my

suggestions: (1) on the Highways policy as it relates to centre-line

crew safety; (2) that the air policy be assessed as it relates to small

air carriers; (3) that the assessment for government be the same as it

is in the private sector; and (4) for review of hospitals.

Many

people would be shocked to know that there are as many back injuries in

hospitals in British Columbia as there are in sawmills. A hospital is a

very dangerous place to work in terms of back injuries. There is

nothing more difficult for a person to lift than another human being,

particularly in the institutions that the provincial government is

involved with regarding people who are retarded, disabled, injured and

so on. There is nothing more unpredictable for a person to lift than

another individual, particularly a person who is ill. So I would like

the minister to take under advisement the terrible situation that we

have in the hospitals where they have an extremely high rate of

injuries to backs. As the employees in those hospitals get older, they

obviously become less able to lift other people. As we get older, we

are less able to do heavy work lifting human beings. There has to be

increased staffing. There has to be rotation on the wards so that

younger people can assist the older employees in the lifting,

Those

are constructive, positive suggestions to the minister regarding a very

serious situation of accident rates in the public service. I would like

some advisement from him on that.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr.

Chairman, I can only say to the member that I appreciate his research,

observations and input in terms of safety improvements. The ministry

will address ourselves to that. We raised the matter of the most

unfortunate Ministry of Highways accident before. At that time there

was concern over the variance requests by ministries having to do with

Workers' Compensation Board regulations. I indicated that these

variance requests are few in number and undergo the scrutiny of the

compensation board and consultation with union and management

representatives before they are considered. Notwithstanding this, I am

in the process of asking that variance requests to the Workers'

Compensation Board by any ministry be submitted to me so that I may be

kept up to date and informed on such requests.

I'm sure the

member means well in these observations he's making. In terms of air

transport, as he is aware, in flying under hazardous conditions pilots

make the decision on when they're able or not able to fly and whether

they're below or above ceiling. It's inevitably a pilot's decision at

any given point in time. He suggests that there should be some

disincentive to sending material of this kind when the weather is

inappropriate.

His observation on the experience rating that

should be adopted for workers' compensation and the way in which the

government pays its premium for workers' compensation is rather

interesting. I can certainly look into some of these requests.

MS. BROWN:

I want to go back to the minister's statement about having implemented

some of the recommendations in the equal employment opportunities

committee report and ask him a couple of specific questions about these

implementations. First of all, when the first report came out in 1977

we were told that there was going to be a regular

[ Page 5373 ]

monitoring

and updating of the public service. The last one that we received was

in 1979. I wonder if the minister would let us know approximately when

we can anticipate receiving the latest update. Or is there one? The

last one that I have is 1979, but possibly there has been one since

then. If so, I would appreciate if the minister would share the latest

information with me.

However, in the event that there has

not been a report since then, I want to ask the minister a number of

specific questions. I would appreciate specific rather than general

replies. The first question that I would like to ask the minister is:

is it still true that most of the females in the civil service are

still concentrated in the ministries of Human Resources, Health, and

Consumer and Corporate Affairs? Can he answer yes or no? Also, are

something between 60 percent to 70 percent of the women employed in the

civil service still in these three ministries?

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

MS. BROWN:

Human Resources, Health, and Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I know

that the Attorney-General was included in 1977, but I don't know if

that's still true in 1979.

The second question is: is it

still true that there are occupational group categories in which there

are no females employed whatsoever, as was the case in 1979? They

included things like operational services, equipment maintenance,

stationary engineers, firefighting, general labour, marine services,

ship's officers and that kind of thing. Does that category still exist?

Are there still areas in the civil service in which there are no female

employees?

The third question I'd like to ask is: are the

statistics pretty much the same as they were in 1979 for the executive

occupational category, which was males 83.3 percent and females 16.6

percent; management, 83.7 percent in one instance, 98.9 percent in the

other instance; 93.0 percent for males and 16.2 percent, 1 percent and

6.9 percent for females? If the government has been implementing the

recommendations of the report, as the minister assured us, these

statistics should have altered by now. Is it still true that only in

five ministries are there women employed at the management level?

fourth question is: is it still true that among deputy ministers,

associate deputies and assistant deputies there are still only two

females employed, one the Auditor-General and the other a public

service commissioner? Or has that situation been altered?

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

MS. BROWN:

I'm asking these questions because I have not received the latest

up-to-date audit. That's why I'm asking the minister if he would

respond. Is it still true, Mr. Minister, that 83 percent of the people

earning over $15,000 are male, which means that something in the area

of 17 percent of civil servants would be female? The minister spoke

about dealing with the barriers to upward mobility, and I wonder

whether he would elaborate on that. A major recommendation of this

report was that there would be a need to examine, define and remove the

barriers to upward mobility of women in the public service, and a need

for greater representation for qualified women at the decision-making

level. I wonder if the minister would elaborate, because he said that

that was one of the recommendations which the government had

implemented.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The member asked a

number of detailed questions having to do with the present status of

the information provided in a 1979 report. There is no new report or

update on that at this moment, although it is presently being updated.

What I would undertake to do is to examine the specific questions —

such as whether there is any group or category with no female employees

or whether it is still the case that most of the female employees are

presently employed in Human Resources, Health, and Consumer and

Corporate Affairs, and other questions such as these — and perhaps I

could get back to her later, I will have a record of these questions

here, and I will endeavour to provide the information if I can. She

wanted further elaboration on the barrier to advancement which might

exist. I think the best answer I can give to that would be that what we

are really talking about here are primarily attitudinal barriers

primarily, and the provision of proper training, because there are a

great many jobs that women and other employees simply do not aspire to

or are not interested in. So in any given case of a position being

open, there are sometimes very few female applicants. I don't know what

the member has in mind with that other question, but perhaps she would

like to elaborate on it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, maybe I could assist the minister. If he would

be willing to share the computer printout on the civil service with me, I would

be able to do the research myself. I can find it.

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

MS. BROWN:

Well, how about if the minister gives me a chance to, look for it? If

the minister is willing to share the computer printout on the civil

service with me, I can pull out of it the answers to these questions

which I have put to him. It is possible to do it if one has the

computer printout. Now I don't know whether that printout is

confidential or not, but if the minister wants to do the research for

me, that's fine. In the spirit of assisting, I would be very happy to

do it myself, if he is willing to share the computer printout with me.

The other statement about the attitude of the women themselves in the

civil service is not a correct one. As a matter of fact, the report

stated that it was the attitude of the civil service towards....

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

MS. BROWN:

It's not the women themselves not applying. Okay, fair enough. but I

would appreciate getting the 1979 computer printout, and I can do the

research myself.

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

MS. BROWN: Thank you.

MR. BARBER:

In 1976 and 1977, I was involved in organizing what became the

first-ever conference on industrial democracy in British Columbia. We

invited approximately 150 persons to attend this conference. We held it

at the University of Victoria, and it ran almost three days. We had

roughly 50 persons each from management and from labour, and the

remaining 50-odd seats were reserved for the general public. We were

supported in this financially by the

[ Page 5374 ]

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

One

of the important conclusions reached at this seminar was the necessity

to experiment in the public service with the forms and features of

industrial democracy or worker participation or code-determinism. The

label varies from place to place, the label varies from experience to

experience, but by and large the principle is the same, and it is this:

workers have a right to be heard and respected and to have a voice in

the administration of their own affairs at the workplace, as much as

they do at the ballot box. What our seminar concluded in part was that

there are a number of specific and historical reasons why private

enterprise and private enterprise unions are skeptical and suspicious

and concerned about the introduction of industrial democracy in their

sector of the economy. Those reasons include such matters as

monopolies, patents, licences, and trade and business secrets. They

include such concerns on the part of management as that a trade

unionist who sits on the board of directors of two competing companies

representing the same union might in some fashion be indiscreet.

Management and labour both — concerned, I suppose, about some kind of

co-option, some form of undermining of their traditional authority —

have been deeply skeptical and, to say the least, not terribly

supportive in most sectors save one — and that is the forest industry

in British Columbia — in experimenting in worker participation.

However, it's different in the public sector, and it's this specific

address that I put to the Provincial Secretary.

It's

different in the public sector because it's a bit hard, I think, to

plausibly and credibly make the case that the demon capitalists are out

to get you, if you decide to participate with the bosses in running the

company, when the company is after all owned by the workers. I'm

referring, of course, to Crown corporations and the several agencies of

the government administered indirectly by vote 174. It's a bit

difficult to believe in the usual and I think not very helpful

ideologies of the past that blind and blinker us and deny the

possibility of original thinking, when you realize that the owners of

these Crown corporations and agencies of the government are, of course,

the workers themselves. It could not rationally be argued that they are

in danger of co-opting themselves.

Similarly, in the

instance of the public sector, management has some difficulty

maintaining that it has trade secrets to protect and therefore can't

trust trade unionists on its board of directors. It is equally

difficult for management to argue that they have some position in the

marketplace that has to be protected against those dangerous trade

unionists, who might spill some beans.

Clearly, Mr.

Chairman, precisely because those historical preconditions do not exist

and cannot apply in the public sector, it seems opportune to use the

public sector as the first testing ground for the new forms and

features of worker participation in management in British Columbia. At

that conference we looked, for instance, at the possibility of

approaching the provincial and the municipal governments of this

province and making specific proposals to them. One of them had a very

happy and direct result, at least in some measure. The then Minister of

Health frowned on it, but happily the board of directors of Victoria

General Hospital proposed to include workers on the board in any case.

They established a committee to meet with the Hospital Employees Union

and other organized representatives of working persons in the employ of

Victoria General Hospital, and they sat down and between them hammered

out an agreement for worker participation on the board. Now, it's

regretful that the Minister of Health decided against the whole of the

proposal made by the board, but nonetheless it was a useful precedent;

it was an important illustration and a clear demonstration of the way

in which in this particular sector of the public economy — to wit, a

public hospital — workers and management together realized that it

might be possible to run the institution in a more humane and efficient

manner if they met under the same roof for the same and common

purposes. They further argued that if they met away from the heat,

duress and conflict of the usual process of labour management

bargaining, and instead met year-round on the other equally important

issues of decent and civil hospital administration, it might turn out

to be a better deal for all concerned — not the least of which, of

course, is the patient.

The board of directors of Victoria

General took an important step forward, and I congratulate them; I

observed that it was a direct result of their individual participation

at this conference. I think it is now time to call on the Public

Service Commission to consider the same responsible role. It's time to

argue in this Legislature that the government has a role to take the

initiative, to brave the fire, to tough it out and to be willing to

experiment in the public sector in new forms, new aspects and new

regimes of worker participation.

Most people in British

Columbia are sick and tired of strikes and lockouts; most people in

this province understand the necessity for them but regret the fact of

them. Most people in this province would be delighted to develop a more

mature and sophisticated system of resolving labour management disputes

than the one currently in place. That certainly applies in the public

sector as well.

I mentioned before, Mr. Chairman, that there

is one private enterprise sector of our economy where significant

interest has been shown by both principal partners in developing new

forms of worker participation year-round — away from the bargaining

table, directed toward new and more mature approaches. It is the forest

industry, which, starting at meetings three years ago, began to hammer

out between forest industrial relations and the IWA the possibility of

a jointly funded study, within the forest industry of this province, of

such new mechanisms and systems of worker participation as might

benefit both parties without compromising either. If the forest

industry, to its credit — union and management both — is prepared to

have the guts, do the thinking and assume the responsibility to

consider that just maybe we've got something to learn from the clearly

more successful experience in Western Europe of industrial democracy,

then it's long overdue that the provincial government assume the same

courage and accept the same duty here in this province. It's in the

interests of every citizen that ways be found to reduce the necessity

for lockouts and strikes and, especially in the public sector, that we

can demonstrate to the taxpayers that we in this House are taking such

steps to guarantee the most efficient, fair, decent and humane use of

all the instruments, attributes and programs of public enterprise as

administered by the Crown.

Today I specifically ask the

Public Service Commission to hold an inquiry of its own into the new

forms and features of industrial democracy as they might come to apply

within the public service of British Columbia. I ask the minister to

accept responsibility to direct the Public Service Commission to

commence such a study at the earliest opportunity. I advise him that

there are many people both in labour and management, and many more

people in the academic world,

[ Page 5375 ]

well, who would, I am certain, be willing to assist and participate in

such a study as much as they possibly could. As I say, we have the

names of 150-plus people who attended our seminar and called upon the

committee which organized it to continue its work across British

Columbia as best it could. As one of the organizers of that committee,

I do so today. I ask the minister to be prepared to commit some of the

staff time, research, homework and documentation necessary, and

principally the example requisite to start considering the possibility

that workers in British Columbia's public service have a right and a

role in the administration of the public service itself.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

Let

me offer a very practical and simple example. I recall that in 1977 the

then Minister of Transportation, Mr. Davis, when organizing the B.C.

Ferry Corporation, announced that two places would be left vacant on

the board of directors in order that workers themselves might occupy

those places whenever that might be arranged. I remember standing up in

the Legislature and giving him credit for doing that, because it's a

hard thing to do. It has not yet come to pass. There are a number of

reasons for that, and I won't go into them at the moment. I will

observe, though, that at least one member of the cabinet then had the

courage to realize that in this particular Crown corporation, with its

simply dreadful history of bad labour-management relations, it might be

possible to strike out for some new beginning by including workers on

the board of directors. Worker participation means a great deal more

than simply putting workers on the board. It is far more subtle,

sophisticated, elaborate and difficult then simply putting workers on

the board of directors; but that is one of the steps and symbols.

Again,

I call on the Provincial Secretary not simply to initiate a study

within the Public Service Commission of ways in which the government of

British Columbia might come to grips with this issue and possibility,

but also to consult with his colleagues who are responsible for Crown

corporations, including B.C. Rail, B.C. Ferries and eventually B.C.

Place, and any number of the other two dozen-odd Crown corporations in

this province that have administrative and practical functions. I'm not

talking about the Crown corporations that have very narrow and specific

nonhuman-service functions, but those which, like, say, Kootenay Forest

Products — thanks to the now member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson),

to Bob Williams and the then Premier, Mr. Barrett — were willing to say

to both union and management: "This company's only chance of survival

is if the workers themselves help turn it around; otherwise it's going

down the drain, so we'll give you a couple of places on the board of

directors as one means of doing so."

Similarly, the

Provincial Secretary could, if he wished, set an important new

precedent by agreeing, if he will, to my proposal to initiate a study

within the Public Service Commission to find out how it's done

elsewhere and whether or riot it can be done here, to find out how you

might open up the public service to participation on the part of

workers themselves in more than just the standard issues of job

security, pay and worker safety. They are all important issues, and I

don't deny it for a second. But I observe as well that there are other

enduring and important issues that should and could be negotiated

year-round among equals with respect — on the parts of both labour and

management — in some new form of public service administration.

know from the experience and precedent in western Europe that it works.

It works by their standards and according to our own. It clearly works

more successfully. We know it works within the industrial sectors of

western Europe and within certain specific examples that we can find in

North America. be it Kootenay Forest Products, Amana Corp. or the

aluminum corporation in Ontario — the name of which slips me for a

moment — that's been operating on this basis for 40 years. We know

these things can operate when both sides wish them to. I urge the

Provincial Secretary to recognize the possibility that it is now time

for the Public Service Commission to come to grips with the issue

within the realm of its own authority.

I conclude by asking

the Provincial Secretary to consider two specific proposals. Firstly, I

ask for the establishment within the Public Service Commission of an

inquiry into the forms, aspects and feasibility of introducing new

principles of worker participation within the public service of British

Columbia. Secondly. I ask the minister to call upon his colleagues who

have direct responsibility for the operation of Crown corporations to

consider whether or not within those agencies — I specifically think of

B.C. Ferries and B.C. Rail — it is also possible to contemplate worker

participation and a level of industrial democracy and mutual respect

that has not heretofore existed but which is most certainly long

overdue.

MS. BROWN: I have a brief comment about the

International Year of the Disabled. In his opening remarks the minister

stated that a goal has been established for hiring more disabled people

in the civil service this year. I suggest to him that that is not

enough. What the minister should be looking at is an affirmative action

program to ensure that the hiring of disabled people is on an ongoing

basis. It's not the sort of thing that the government should look at

just for one year. In fact, the disabled people have said over and over

again that the only handicap they have is the attitude of people

towards them. Since the government, to its credit, is going to some

expense to make government buildings more accessible, certainly the

hiring of the disabled is easier for the government as a result of this

than it is for many companies in the private sector. In any event, the

government has to set the example. It has to be in the forefront in

this particular area.

What I would like to have from the

minister, Mr. Chairman, is a commitment that this is not just a

one-year, one-shot goal which the government has set for itself, but

that in fact it is prepared to embark on an ongoing affirmative

action program, giving priority to a group of people in our community

who have made it absolutely clear that what they want is not pensions,

not subsidies and not welfare. What they want is employment. They're

willing to work and want to work. As I said before, the government

should have a commitment to embark on an affirmative action program on

an ongoing basis to ensure that the workforce opens up for this

particular group in our community.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In

answer to the last question, we most certainly do riot intend. In

indicating a goal for this coming year of 300 placements of disabled

applicants. that that was at all temporary. That's simply upgrading it

by almost double what the previous experience has been. Certainly we

want to be ongoing in that process.

Vote 174 approved.

[ Page 5376 ]

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

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 166 was passed on Friday.

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

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes.

MR. BARNES:

That's okay. Mr. Provincial Secretary and I are very good friends. I'm

sure he will appreciate the need for us to debate this section, because

it's important to the community. Is that right, Mr. Provincial

Secretary?

I ask leave that we go back to vote 166.

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

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

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

MR. BARNES:

This is a very serious vote, as you know, Mr. Chairman — culture,

recreation and heritage. I'll accept the will of the House, as long as

I'm told unanimously that it's not permitted.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The committee, under our standing orders, cannot discuss a vote that

has already been brought forward or has not yet been brought forward.

We are required at this time by leave of the House to, in fact, discuss

vote 175. We must be relevant to the vote before us and that is vote

MR. BARNES: Perhaps I could impose upon the

Chair to indicate when an appropriate time might be to raise a question

on this very important subject.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Next year.

MR. BARNES:

"Next year." That's what you think of the culture in British Columbia.

That's what you have to say about the cultural services branch. Leave

it alone. Let it rip the people off and take all the money. Let it

centralize and do everything. We're interested in arts in this

province. I would just like to ask a few questions, and I'm not being

given an opportunity. That's okay, though, Mr. Chairman. I accept your

decision. The people of British Columbia will just have to wait until

next year. I shall try one more time. I think there may be some hope

under one of the other votes. You haven't heard the last of me yet.

Vote 175 approved.

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

MRS. DAILLY:

This vote has to do with the superannuation branch itself, its

administration, etc. I am concerned, so I am going to move a vote to

reduce a certain item of expenditure here. It has nothing to do with

the pensions of the people of B.C. I want that made clear.

Office

furniture and equipment under this vote has gone up from $18,300 last

year to $266,200 this year. Travel expense has gone up from $29,000 to

$36,000. Listen to this one. Last year rentals were $6,000 and this

year they're $50,000. We consider that this government is out of

control. It's wasteful. This kind of money could be better spent for

the people's basic services, not for this kind of nonsense.

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

On the amendment.

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

Interjection.

MR. LEVI:

I think we should throw out that unruly Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). He's just like a little kid. "He did it,

not me."

Has the minister's superannuation branch come up

yet with recommendations about any — you've got to be careful here —

pension benefit legislation? Two years ago they announced a study that

was done. They spent about $14,000 on that study. What has happened to

the study? Is the study available? This is in respect to the

superannuation branch. Is it complete? What's happened to it?

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

MR. CHAIRMAN:

A couple of good points are raised, hon. member. We are, in fact, on a

specific amendment. The vote has not yet passed. The member has

referred to the need for legislation, which cannot be discussed in

committee. However, the member also referred to a study, which of

course could be referred to in committee.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, the amendment would reduce vote 176, the superannuation

branch, by $304,000. I believe it is addressed primarily to the

increase in the amount for office furniture and equipment. I would like

to go on record very definitely as being opposed to that amendment.

Members

here are well aware of the facilities being used by the Public Service

Commission on the street behind the buildings and how ancient they are.

This is a one-time, all time provision of $200,000 for new furniture

required in conjunction with the renovation of those premises. We have

over 100 employees involved in keeping records and addressing

themselves to all the superannuation problems, and they are working in

facilities that badly need this improvement. In addition it provides

for the lease of word processing equipment and the replacement of

certain furniture that is involved.

If a person took the

trouble to go through those facilities, he would well appreciate the

need for this particular appropriation. So I am definitely opposed to

that amendment.

[ Page 5377 ]

Amendment negatived.

MR. LEVI:

I'll try again. I guess we can direct the minister to a specific

subvote in here: subvote (20), professional and special services. Can

the minister tell us about a study that was done, I think, in respect

to proposals about pension standards? Has it been completed? Is it now

available for the members to look at?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, the consideration of pension standards legislation is

raised by the member. Without commenting on the legislative aspects, I

can say that there has been a lot of consideration of this matter. As

recently as last month a conference took place in Ottawa, called by the

Hon. Monique Bégin. Our ministry had two representatives at it, who

brought back a full report. We have the matter under consideration. It

is currently very much under review. That's about all I could indicate

to the member.

As you know, the national conference, in

addressing itself to the effects of inflation on the pension problems

across Canada and to the fact that a considerable degree of the private

sector currently do not have pension plans, is trying to weigh whether

this can be answered through the Canada Pension Plan of the national

government or whether it should be addressed in some other manner. We

do have the matter under review. There is no report that I can supply

the member with at the moment.

MR. LEVI: Did the

commissioner who attended the conference make a submission on behalf of

the provincial government? If he did, can the minister table it for the

benefit of the members?

HON. MR. WOLFE: There was no

submission on behalf of the provincial government. We're monitoring the

conference and therefore have the matter under consideration.

Vote 176 approved.

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

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

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

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

Vote 178 approved.

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

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

MR. LEA:

Mr. Chairman, if I could take the Legislature back to three weeks ago,

at that time I asked the Provincial Secretary whether within the

information services they were making a number of films that would be

shown to the public of British Columbia. I asked whether the first film

was going to be one starring the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), and whether it would be

shown during the Kamloops by-election. All of the questions I asked, of

course, have now been answered in that regard. Indeed they were making

a film, it did star the minister, and it was shown during the Kamloops

by-election for strictly political purposes.

The question

I'd like to ask is a follow-up to that. I'd like the minister to think

carefully before he answers this, because I was absolutely correct on

all of the questions that I asked — absolutely correct. I'd like to ask

at this time whether the government has made a decision to now pay

taxpayers money out to do an audience reaction survey to the program —

whether Goldfarb, in fact, has been hired to do an audience reaction to

"The Bob McClelland Show." This is a serious question, and I'd like the

minister to consider it seriously before he answers. Has the government

made a decision to hire a public relations firm or a polling firm —

Goldfarb or some other company — and has the decision in fact already

been carried out that there's going to be taxpayers' money spent to

find out from the people of this province what the reaction was to "The

Bob McClelland Story"?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr.

Chairman, in supporting this vote for the minister, I'd just like to

set one thing straight in the record. First of all, neither government

information services nor the government media centre had anything to do

with the film which was produced for the Ministry of Energy. It has

been under production for at least a year through the Ministry of

Energy, by itself. I'd like also to say that that film was put together

because of the concern that the ministry and the public have about the

energy problems which are facing us in the future.

I would

welcome any criticism or critiques of the film, but I can tell you that

it laid out a series of situations which we face today, it laid out

some options for the people of British Columbia, and it asked some

questions. As far as the Minister of Energy being in the film, the

Minister of Energy was in that film for one and a half minutes out of

the total of 30 minutes. I defy any member on the opposite side of the

House to find anything biased or slanted about that film. It was not a

political film; it was a firm which asked some serious questions of the

people of B.C. about how we protect our energy future.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. minister, the committee accepts the statement that in fact you

were discussing an the item that is not under this vote. I found that

we were entering into debate that was out of order, If all hon. members

could remember that, we are dealing with vote 180.

The hon. member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA:

Are you saying that the money that's going to be paid out for Goldfarb

by this government to check public reaction to "The Bob McClelland

Story" wouldn't be under this vote?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No,

but it's been brought to the attention of the committee that the film

on energy is not in fact covered under this vote. My further ruling was

that in fact the minister himself strayed in presenting that to the

committee.

MR. LEA: Okay, leave that aside. I would

imagine that if Goldfarb has been hired, Goldfarb would have been hired

probably directly through the Provincial Secretary to get audience

reaction to the energy film.

[ Page 5378 ]

What

I'm asking now is whether there has been a decision made within the

Provincial Secretary ministry; or is in fact the decision made and the

operation started to be carried out? My information, by the way, is

that it has been, that they're already out on the doorstep. Immediately

after the film, starting today, the government is going to be spending

taxpayers' money to check out what the people thought of the film. Of

course there's nothing political. They just want to see if people like

the series. If they don't, possibly they'll try to sell out at a cheap

rate to ABC or NBC or CTV. Who knows what they're going to do. Maybe

we'll see it on pay television in the future. I just wonder why it is,

if it isn't political, that the government has to go out now and take a

survey to see what the reaction was to the film — to see how the old

image is improving.

The minister is doing some checking now,

Mr. Chairman. Whether we get it under this vote, whether it's in

question period or in some other vote, we're going to find out. The

minister knows that eventually the truth will out; we do find out. So

does the minister have any knowledge of a survey that has either begun

already or is about to begin at the behest of the government to check

the reaction to the Bob McClelland film?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

There is one more item, hon. members. There has been reference to the

name of a member of this Legislative Assembly. Of course, we are bound

to refer to ourselves by the ridings we come from, or the ministries

that are represented.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The answer to

the member's question is no. I'd like to go on from there and say that

in reference to the media centre, which had no input or was not used in

the instance of the film that he named, we now know the film was being

produced by the media centre and so on. He was not correct. I'd like to

say that there is an upcoming film that he will be interested in, and

may be asked to star in, in the near future. Actually it's going to be

dealing with all of the members of the NDP. It's called the "The Good,

The Bad and The Ugly." You may have an opportunity to star in this. I

want you to keep that in mind.

MR. LEA: If the

taxpayers are going to pay for it, we decline. I would imagine that's

the next step. It was just like the offer we had from the Deputy

Minister after he'd been to Harrison Hot Springs: "Now we've been

caught. I offer it to you too." The answer is no. The minister is

saying that to his knowledge....

HON. MR. WOLFE: I have no knowledge.

MR. LEA:

I know that. Let's try it a different way. The minister has no

information. Let's leave knowledge right out of it, at his request.

According to the minister's information, neither Goldfarb nor any other

polling institution has been hired by his department to check and see

what public reaction was to the very political film put together at

taxpayers' expense specifically to be shown during the Kamloops

by-election. The minister is saying that his information is that nobody

that he knows about within government, especially not under his

ministry, is now spending further taxpayers' money to find out how

everybody liked Bob. You have no answer to that, eh?

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

Apropos

the questioning, I wonder if the minister could indicate whether Mr.

Cecil B. Achilles Heal, the czar of Social Credit productions, has now

decided to hire additional administrative, assistants — people who

might possibly carry out some of the concerns that the hon. member just

commented on. For instance, will they be hiring high-class, first-class

experts from other places to do the sampling and testing of marketing

techniques, to determine whether or not this project you're currently

involved in is going to get the desired effect? In other words, how

much larger will this organization become under Mr. Achilles Heal?

Mr.

Chairman, I believe what I'm asking is only realistic. If you spend the

kind of money that the government is spending — $10,000 for each

production, with a $62,000 retainer for someone who is of dubious value

with respect to salvaging the government's image — I think that it's

only reasonable to expect that if he recommends that he requires

additional administrative assistants with special skills in certain

categories in order to fulfill his duties, he may well get it. Does his

budget allow for additional hiring of experts who would be skilled in

the carrying on of that very ambitious project? It's not a facetious

question, nor was the question of the member for Prince Rupert. Let's

face it. If you're in the business of image-making and want to know

whether or not your dollars are being well spent, you're going to have

surveys. We're quite sincere when we ask if you have any plan such as

that. I'd appreciate it if we could get a response from the Provincial

Secretary.

HON. MR. WOLFE: We're debating vote 180,

government information services. As the member can see, it provides for

the establishment of 11 permanent positions, plus an amount for

temporary salaries, plus an amount of professional and special

services. I think that's about the only answer I can give him.

MR. BARNES: Has the minister any knowledge that Mr. Heal has already

assigned people, or is in the process of negotiating with experts to fill those

capacities that I just mentioned — in other words, executive assistants and

people with special skills? Are there any people currently being negotiated

with with respect to this project?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the major acquisitions have been Mr.

Chazottes, who is executive director, a secretary and, I believe, one

other employee in Vancouver. I could get a further update on that, but

there have not been a lot of hirings at this point. Naturally, there is

a need to upgrade this office, because it had been reduced considerably

since the former manager was in charge and left us, you see. That's

about the only thing I could provide the member with at this point.

MRS. DAILLY:

Well, Mr. Chairman, we find it very interesting that 15 were estimated

for this office last year — and from what the minister is saying they

weren't all used — and now there are to be 11 people involved in

Government Services. Yet when we hear of the plans for all these films

and building up the images of the cabinet ministers, we understand

there are going to be a number of freelancers hired. As a matter of

fact, Mr. Chairman, the number that we have heard

[ Page 5379 ]

up to the sum of 30 freelancers. The minister is not able to dispute

that, I don't think, because he doesn't seem to know, but this is the

whole object of our debate over this vote. The minister himself doesn't

seem to be quite aware of how many people are going to be hired. The

minister professes that....

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

MRS. DAILLY:

Yes, it's in the vote, but I want to know about the freelancers, as did

the former speaker. Our understanding is that under Mr. Heal there are

going to be a considerable number of freelancers hired. It's very easy

to put down a slim staff here, and then find at the end of the year

that there is a huge staff of people who aren't necessarily on the

permanent staff, but again, like the Public Service Commission in some

areas, could be working full-time on a consultancy basis. So we're just

asking the minister if he's aware of that. Are you aware of that?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Yes. I could further explain, Mr. Chairman, that the figure of 11

includes five existing employees at the audio-visual centre plus six

who will be incorporated under Mr. Heal's office in the information

services, for a total of 11.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr.

Chairman, we have canvassed this considerably, but I want to assure the

people of British Columbia who are concerned about the spending of this

money that we intend not to let it go just because this particular vote

is going by. We intend to keep a close watch on the government

propaganda machine.

Mr. Chairman, there is one other

specific question to the minister. Can you explain to me why the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

would use whatever sources his ministry did for a very slick film, and

why you have allowed the establishment and the takeover of the

Blanshard Street health audio-visual, centre, when at the same time we

have an under-utilized BCIT media centre?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 180 pass?

MRS. DAILLY:

Well, silence is the answer, Mr. Chairman. This government once again

is being absolutely wasteful. They have an under-utilized centre at

BCIT, and then they've established this new centre picked up from

Health. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, under

his auspices, has come out with a slick film; we don't know who was

used for that. Talk about wasteful redundancy in any government, the

Social Credit government typifies this. We don't intend to let this go;

we intend to keep questioning. We're quite aware that once this

Legislature folds up, the machinery will get moving. Right now we don't

think too much is going on because of the eye of the opposition and the

public on this propaganda machine of the Socreds. But I can assure you

that our eye will be constantly on it, Mr. Chairman, and so will the

public's.

We can't get any definite answers, and advertising

and publications is the only place I can see all this money to come

from for Mr. Heal. It has moved from $8,000 to $403,000. Plus there are

some other items there which we consider wasteful. I therefore move

that vote 180 be reduced by $476,500.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Macdonald

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Mussallem

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

Vote 180 approved.

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

MRS. DAILLY:

Once again we think we have before us a very spendthrift government.

The vote has gone up over $2.5 million. I therefore move that vote 181

be reduced by $2,484,600.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Macdonald

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Mussallem

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

Vote 181 approved.

[ Page 5380 ]

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

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

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

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Chairman, please permit me to make my introduction. I'll explain.

I'm concerned about consulting charges that may have related to the

cultural services branch, if you would permit me to complete my

question.

You're spending $1.8 million and you have no

consultation? This is not involving the computer? Is that what you're

saying, Mr. Chairman? I ask the minister if he would explain what

portion of that $1.8 million was used for consulting charges for the

cultural services branch.

The reason I want to know,

obviously — as I tried to indicate earlier to the House — is that the

cultural services branch has tripled its budget from 1980-81 and is now

spending so much money that it's probably one of the largest

bureaucracies in this country with respect to cultural services. I'm

wondering if the minister could indicate whether or not any of the

funds were used to consult with the arts community — that is, the arts

councils — throughout this province, rather than using its own

politically appointed Arts Board made up of 15 volunteers who only meet

about five or six times a year and have absolutely no power whatsoever

to carry out their duties. I would appreciate it if the minister would

indicate to what extent the arts community has been involved in

consultation with respect to the ridiculous expansion of the cultural

services branch. It looks as though the minister is becoming a culture

vulture himself. He's holding the line on everything and not allowing

any information to flow except in one direction — into himself.

Mr.

Chairman, I don't wish to make a speech at this point. I really wanted

to get some information. Is the minister paying attention or is he

engaged in something else?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

While

the minister is trying to decide whether or not any funds were used to

consult with artists throughout this province, to involve them and to

give them a feeling that they have some say in the cultural heritage of

this province....

That 7.5 percent increase they received in

their operating budget — the funds used for cultural activities in this

province — is really not as bad as it seems, although the minister has

increased the cultural services branch by 300 percent, compared to 7.5

percent for the artists in this province.

Mr. Chairman, I

would like to ask the minister why the Arts Board is still not a legal

entity in this province. Why is it still a voluntary organization,

solely for the purpose of the minister's personal manipulation, to be

used in ways to which he may be so inclined from time to time? In other

words, is there no guarantee that arts and culture in this province

will be free from political influence, blackmail, and also — for the

benefit of the politicians, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair has been listening very attentively

to what the member has been saying and is having some difficulty relating the

member's comments to the vote before us, vote 182, which says: "This

vote provides for payments to the British Columbia Systems Corporation for data-processing

and management-consulting services." I would appreciate it if the hon.

member would relate a little bit more to....

The minister.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, the member asked what the costs of computing services

were in the vote for the cultural service. The answer is that no

computer services are being provided to the cultural branch.

MR. BARNES:

This is scandalous! You mean you're spending $1.8 million and not a

dime for computer services? What are you doing with all that money?

What are you doing with $1.8 million? I was giving you a break. Do you

mean to tell me you are not even using it for that? What's going on?

Mr. Chairman, I beg the minister to please explain what in God's name

he could be using $1.8 million for if he's not spending it on artists.

Who's getting all that money? Do we have some kind of a bureaucracy

going on under your wing? You really are a culture vulture after all. I

was being facetious at first, but what's going on?

The

artists of British Columbia are not receiving their fair share. They

are being manipulated politically. You have an arts board that is

appointed by the minister, doing his bidding. They have absolutely no

power whatsoever; it's a creature of the government. The British

Columbia government has taken over the arts community; the British

Columbia government controls the arts community.

I'm asking

the minister if he would assure the House that those implications are

not accurate. This member requires some

interpretation. That's what I'm

asking. I'd like the minister to explain to me just how that $1.8

million under consulting charges is being spent.

I don't

want to make a speech, Mr. Chairman, because I realize vote 166 passed

a long time ago. Unfortunately, I didn't get leave of the House, so I

won't make a speech on that matter, but I think that this is an

important subject and that we should at least deal with it under vote

182 with respect to the costs for consulting charges.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the minister could let us know what is

happening to that $900,000 worth of garbage art that was bought between

1972 and 1975. Is it merely gathering dust in the vault? I want to

suggest to the minister that he not participate in buying more of that

junk art.

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

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to answer the member for Columbia River's

question. I don't want to embarrass that minister, but one of those

pieces of so-called garbage art was a Toni Onley original. Anybody who

would call that "garbage art" deserves to go back to making mud pies,

and had better start all over again. Such a shocking display of

ignorance in this House, Mr. Chairman!

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

[ Page 5381 ]

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

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, I would just comment that I wish to be conciliatory on

this subject, because art is in the eye of the beholder. On behalf of

the government, I dedicate that we will put on display in front of the

Legislature, with the prices paid, all of the art bought during that

time, to let the public decide.

MR. LAUK: Mr.

Chairman, the opposition will accept that challenge only if the

government prints the appraised value of the art as it is today. It's

almost twice — and for some pieces, ten times — the amount paid by the

government of the day. This government has no business sense. They are

business dumb-dumbs. For the minister of lands, parks, housing and

gravel pits to stand up in the committee here today and attack that art

as garbage art.... The only garbage art in the government today is

sitting in the cabinet; they're all garbage art.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, we have allowed a full canvass.... [Laughter.] We have

allowed a full pursuit of the subject on both sides. At this time I

feel that we should get back to vote 182.

MR. KING:

On a point of order, I think the Chair might examine whether or not the

minister's categorization of the art as garbage is a personal affront

to the Speaker of the House, who has one of the Kazumi paintings that

was purchased at that time hanging on the wall of his office, proudly

displayed to the public.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman,

the hon. Housing minister referred to the collections that were brought

into government when the NDP was in office — 1973, I believe. For the

first time in this province we had access to the arts programs that was

very successful. A lot of art was accumulated, giving people an

opportunity to be known and encouraging them to do something that was

at arm's length from the government. Now this minister has the gall to

call it garbage. Those are fellow British Columbians you are referring

to, who have been denied an opportunity to express themselves in this

province. You should be ashamed of yourself What do you know about art?

What does it matter what you know? The point is that we're politicians

and we should leave the art to the arts community. This is what I've

been trying to say about that government all the time. It's not up to

us to make determinations about what is culture, heritage and art.

That's my whole point to that minister. He should be arm's length.

Politicians should leave politics up to themselves and they should

leave art to the artists.

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

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

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Chairman, with respect, I appreciate that we've had a lot of fun

this afternoon, but quite seriously I don't think that it's a very

funny situation when the minister has been charged with becoming the

arts vulture of the province. Quite clearly, $1.8 million being used

for administrative costs in a simple little department that should only

be assisting the arts community.... It should be just the reverse. I

think that's a crime. That's the wrong direction. We don't need

centralization in the arts and cultural field; we need decentralization

to involve the people in the community. They have a right to

participate and share in the economy of this province and the industry

that is so important to us.

So I'm quite sincere when I say

that the government should take another look at the B.C. Arts Board as

it is presently constituted. It is a handcuffed group of 15 or so

individuals, with virtually no power. They have no power whatsoever. I

think it's a shame that they should have that status. The B.C. Arts

Board has no power to help the people we are expecting it to help. This

is a sobering time; it's not a time for jokes. It's been going on for

too long in this province. I feel that if the minister were listening

to the artists, he would have to admit that when you increase

administration spending 300 percent in one year and direct grants to

artists 7.5 percent, that doesn't reflect that we're going in the right

direction. Would you like to comment on that?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say that the answers to the member's

questions were given the other day when he was not in the House. We

debated th e matter of the cultural

service s branch and the increase in their vote. For the member's

information, there is over a $1 million increase in grants to museums,

archives and art galleries. The whole new grant policy associated with

granting for private and public museums has been