1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2063 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act for the Restriction of the Use of Spring Traps (Bill

No. 171)

Mr. Gardom. Introduction and first reading — 2063

Oral Questions

Mincome payments to old age pensioners. Mr. Chabot —

Changes in Real Estate Act. Mrs. Jordan — 2064

Negotiations re elevator strike. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2064

Reduction of ferry rates. Mr. Morrison — 2064

Pollution standards for government pulp mills. Mr. Smith — 2065

Operating losses of Columbia Cellulose. Mr. McGeer — 2065

Insurance agents' commissions. Mr. Gardom — 2065

Two-price system for lumber. Mr. Chabot — 2065

Pollution in Semiahmoo Bay. Mr. McClelland — 2066

New ferry design for Gulf Islands. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2066

Sale of meat containing D.E.S. Mrs. Jordan — 2066

Purchase of private hospitals. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2066

Committee of supply: Department of Public Works estimates.

Mr. Fraser — 2067

Mr. Gardom — 2068

Mr. Chabot — 2069

Mr. McGeer — 2070

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2071

Mr. Chabot — 2074

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2075

Mr. Curtis — 2075

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2076

Mr. Morrison — 2076

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2076

Mr. Gardom — 2077

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2077

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2078

Mr. Gardom — 2078

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2079

Mr. Chabot — 2079

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2081

Mr. Smith — 2081

Mr. Chabot — 2082

Mr. Phillips — 2082

Mr. Williams — 2082

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2083

Mr. Morrison — 2083

Mr. Williams — 2083

Mr. Chabot — 2083

Mr. Phillips — 2083

Mr. Morrison — 2083

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2084

Mr. McClelland — 2084

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2084

Mr. McClelland — 2085

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2085

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2086

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2086

Mr. Phillips — 2086

Mr. Chabot — 2087

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2088

Mr. Chabot — 2088

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2088

Mr. Wallace — 2089

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2089

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2089

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2089

Mr. Phillips — 2090

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2090

Mr. Phillips — 2090

Mr. Cummings — 2091

Mr. Smith — 2091

Mr. Fraser — 2092

Mr. Kelly — 2092

Mr. Phillips — 2092

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2093

Mr. Phillips — 2094

Mr. Williams — 2094

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2095

Mr. Phillips — 2096

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2096

Mrs. Jordan — 2096

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2098

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2098

Mrs. Jordan — 2098

Mr. McGeer — 2098

Mr. Williams — 2099

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2099

Mr. Williams — 2099

Mr. Wallace — 2099

Mr. Smith — 2099

Mrs. Jordan — 2100

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to ask the House to join me in welcoming a group of

students from Templeton High School and their teacher, Mr. Gary

Sanders. I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is

one of the more refreshing moments in my day — you might call

it the pause that refreshes. This afternoon I had an

opportunity to speak to these students and I think it is

something that we should do a lot of. I felt really good; there

were about 50 of them and they were excited about looking at

what was going on. I hope the House will be on its best

behaviour to give them some political knowledge, so they will

get somewhat of a false impression of how it is in the House.

(Laughter). Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Omineca.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, I have three

residents from Omineca in the House today. I believe they are

here somewhere. Canada's finest. They are Lazare Pius, the

chief of the Necoslie Indian band at Fort St. James, Peter

Prince, one of the band members, and Ray Prince, a resident of

Fort St. James. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming

them here.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT FOR THE RESTRICTION OF THE

USE OF SPRING TRAPS

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

171 intituled

An Act for the Restriction of the Use of Spring

Traps .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 171 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

House after today.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): The Hon. Member just

asked me if I knew the difference between a spring trap and a

fall trap, Mr. Speaker. I'm not going to answer that

question.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MINCOME PAYMENTS

TO OLD AGE PENSIONERS

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Minister

of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement. On February 23, 1973,

the Minister reported to this House that 11,575 persons over

the age of 65 were in receipt of less than $20 per month by way

of Mincome payments. Would the Minister inform this House that,

as a result of the federal pension increase of $17.12 on April

1, as of that date 11,575 old age pensioners in British

Columbia will, in fact, now be cut from the Mincome plan?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): I

can't comment, Mr. Speaker, on the figures but for about the fifth time I have

announced that we are not going to give the increase that the federal government

is giving. It is going to remain at $200. Nobody is going to be cut from the

plan in essence — it is just that we are not going to add to the $200.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question: this was in reply to a written question placed on the order paper — these figures that

I am quoting at the moment. I don't want to get into a debate

on the matter, but I am wondering whether the Minister will

tell us whether these people that received $20 or less — 11,575

old age pensions — will be cut from the Mincome rolls.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that question has been answered several

times. Not in the specific terms of the numbers …

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the Member I'll

take it as notice and I'll answer it tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think I have heard the question three

times in here already this session.

The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I am wondering

whether the Minister would inform the House when the

adjustments for inflation which he promised both last fall and

again this spring will be permitted to allow the $200 figure to

be exceeded.

HON. MR. LEVI: We are not doing any adjustments until the

fall, Mr. Speaker — that's when we go into making

adjustments.

MR. SPEAKER: That question was also asked

[ Page 2064 ]

before.

The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

FORTHCOMING QUESTIONS TO

HON. MR. TRUDEAU BY

WESTERN PREMIERS

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the

Premier, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the meeting of the

western Premiers last weekend and our Premier's statement that

they would be asking questions of the Prime Minister to which

they want "yes" or "no" answers: will the Prime Minister

receive advance notice of those questions and would the Premier

be prepared to tell the House what they are?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Yes; no.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for North Okanagan.

CHANGES IN REAL ESTATE ACT

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

would like to address my question to the Hon. Attorney General.

Has the Minister had any discussions with representatives of

Block Bros. Industries in contemplation of a change in the Real

Estate Act which would limit a bona fide real estate agent in

British Columbia to the employment of 15 salesmen?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): No discussions, but

I expect to have discussions with the real estate industry

generally, in line with comments I made earlier in this session

of the Legislature about the whole question, including the

matter of amount of commissions and some other things. So we

are going to have those discussions following this session in

May or June.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Moving into July 3.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: July.

AN HON. MEMBER: What year?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same subject?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes. Am I to understand from the Attorney

General's statement that he has had no discussions with Block

Bros. Industries or any member?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's correct.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

NEGOTIATIONS RE ELEVATOR STRIKE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like to ask the Minister of

Labour, Mr. Speaker, whether the negotiations he had this

morning regarding the elevator strike were successful and

whether he can report to the House progress in this matter?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, there were

no negotiations this morning. I presume the Hon. leader of the

Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) is referring to a meeting I

had this morning in my office with representatives of the

elevator constructors and union people.

I can report that the union has instructed their members to

return to work this morning and that meetings have been

arranged between the parties with a mediator from my

department. The first meeting will be held at 3 o'clock this

afternoon and I expect that meetings will continue, hopefully

until a contract is arrived at.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to

know whether the Minister could report further on the question

of damage suits and whether or not this subject was discussed

at the meeting he had this morning — whether or not damage

suits against union members will be dropped.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I believe that's a matter that

still is before the courts. I don't think it would be proper to

comment on that at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: Please don't. The Hon. First Member for

Victoria.

REDUCTION OF FERRY RATES

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I'd like to address my

question to the Premier. Did the Premier over an open-line

programme through Powell River announce that ferry rates for

highway ferries operating in Discovery Passage were going to be

reduced?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I discussed the ferry rates. I was asked a

question about ferry rates. A request was made about reduction

in ferry rates and I said all these matters are under review —

just like the former administration.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

POLLUTION STANDARDS FOR

GOVERNMENT PULP MILLS

[ Page 2065 ]

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A question to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

Now that the Government has taken over two of the coastal

pulp mills, both of which have severe pollution problems, has

the Minister made an estimate of the capital requirements for

these two particular pulp mills to clear up the pollution

problem?

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

I'd like to say, (1) that these were negotiated purchases by the Government

of British Columbia and,

(2) I am most pleased that the Hon. Member has suddenly

developed an interest in pollution standards in the public sector. These are

part of an ongoing review with respect to these new corporations.

MR. SMITH:

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is it then a fact that the deal to take over these

two particular pulp mills was completed without the benefit of an expert's advice

on the capital that would be required to bring them up to the pollution control

standards that we wish to observe in the province? Have you no indication of

the amount of money that would be required in that respect prior to making a

deal to take these two particular pulp mills over?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The pollution standards of 20 years of

the former administration is something you were happy to live

with, Mr. Member. The whole question is under review in terms

of future capital expenditures of these new corporations.

MR. SPEAKER: The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey,

followed by the Second Member.

OPERATING LOSSES OF

COLUMBIA CELLULOSE

MR. McGEER: I have a question for the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources. What are the operating losses of

Columbia Cellulose for the past five years? Does the Minister

have that information?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think it's public knowledge. The annual

reports are available, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well then, it's not a question for this House.

It's a matter of public knowledge. It's not a question …

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I might point out, however, Mr. Speaker, that it's

very, very clear that the existing situation with respect to this major complex

is healthier than it's ever been.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out that under (

f) of the

Beauchesne, p. 148, "seeking information set forth in documents

equally accessible to the questioner." The Hon. Second Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey, followed by the Hon. Member for

Columbia River.

INSURANCE AGENTS' COMMISSIONS

MR. GARDOM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This question is to the

Minister of Highways. It deals with something that is not a

negotiated purchase. I would ask the Minister of Highways if

he's had any discussions with the insurance agents in the

Province of British Columbia or has given any indication to

them as to what their scale of commission will be for

processing government car insurance?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Yes, I have had

meetings with the insurance agents' representatives of the

Province of British Columbia. I am having further meetings with

them this week. No indication has yet been given to them as to

what the commission will be. As I say we are having further

meetings — I think it's this afternoon, as a matter of fact.

But this week anyway.

MR. GARDOM: One supplemental on that point. Is the Hon.

Minister able to inform the House today as to when he will be

able to afford us with information as to the scale of

commission?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I couldn't give you any indication as

to when that information will be available?

MR. GARDOM: Six months?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Certainly before the plans go into

operation next March 1.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

TWO-PRICE SYSTEM FOR LUMBER

MR. CHABOT: A question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources. In view of the statements made by the Minister

of Highways that the increase in lumber prices on the domestic

market on the part of the lumber firms in the province were

"criminally irresponsible," and in view of that harsh

reaction to the increase in the price of lumber at the domestic

level, now that the government is in the lumber business in

northern British Columbia, are they considering establishing a

two-price system for

[ Page 2066 ]

lumber? One for the domestic market in British Columbia and

one for the export trade.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We're not yet in the business, Mr.

Speaker. June 29 is the date.

MR. CHABOT: Supplementary question. Will the Minister, at

the time in which the government takes over the lumber mills in

northern British Columbia of Columbia Cellulose, consider

establishing a special price for domestic lumber sales in

British Columbia?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Many beneficial policies for British

Columbians will evolve after that date, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHABOT: Rubbish.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order, please. The Hon. Member for

Langley.

POLLUTION IN SEMIAHMOO BAY

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

also addressed to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources. I would ask if he's aware that the shellfish

harvesting in Semiahmoo Bay has been closed down because of

pollution in that area. In the light of his comments earlier

that he would ask for public hearing on a sewage outfall there,

this new development would seem to make that a more urgent

problem in the area. Is the Minister aware and does the

Minister plan to take any extra action in that regard?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I wasn't aware of the fact, Mr. Speaker,

and we'll certainly take the matter up with the Deputy in terms

of the hearing.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

NEW FERRY DESIGN

FOR GULF ISLANDS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This question to the Minister of

Highways. May I ask him whether the new ferry that he's calling

tenders for, for the Gulf Islands between Gabriola and Nanaimo,

will be a repeat of existing inter-island ferry plans or

whether it will be a new design?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It will be similar to other ferries, but each ferry

is designed individually. Some of the problems that are always out of the original

ferry which was met for Denman Island, incidentally, have been overcome through

the new procedures. One of important factors related to this new design is

that it works well in other places. With the change that's been made

in it, I'm sure it will be successful.

It's not just for Gabriola Island by the way; it's the kind

of ferry we can use to fill in. It's important that the major

part of the engines are made in British Columbia, not imported.

That's a major factor in our consideration too.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The major factor being that they operate

and the others have had great difficulty. So I understand the

Minister is saying that it's a tender for construction and not

a tender for new design. It's a tender for construction on

existing plans.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's a tender for construction on designs

for that particular ferry. When you say these ferries don't

work, that's completely untrue. There hasn't been a bit of

trouble on the one to Thetis Island. Just go up and try it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

SALE OF MEAT CONTAINING DES

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

address my question to the Hon. Minister of Agriculture. Has

any meat, either on hoof, carcass or processed from the United

States or any other country, containing the growth hormone DES,

been sold to British Columbia consumers in British Columbia

since January 1, 1973?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Well, Mr.

Speaker, to the best of my knowledge this is all controlled by

the federal authorities. Now, we can seek that information

MR. SPEAKER: Well then, it's not within the jurisdiction of

this House.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I would ask

the Minister to at least examine the situation on whether or

not this meat is being sold in British Columbia. I would ask

him for his commitment; it's just not sufficient to suggest

this is a federal responsibility.

MR. SPEAKER: This is not the time for speeches, Hon. Member.

It's not within the jurisdiction of this Minister. Would the

Hon. Member be seated, please? The Second Member for

Victoria.

PURCHASE OF PRIVATE HOSPITALS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like to ask the Minister of

Health Services when he intends to take

[ Page 2067 ]

action on a request of 22 out of the 60-odd private

hospitals in this area for purchase by the government, or

whether or not these people will continue to remain uncertain

as to the future operations of their hospitals.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

I'm not sure that I caught the first part of that, Mr. Speaker. Did you say

the 60-odd?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The 22-odd that requested government

purchase.

HON. MR. COCKE: Twenty-two have requested; I haven't

announced that. We are negotiating with a great number of

hospitals, Mr. Speaker. We're quite prepared to continue

negotiations. We're negotiating with five locally and a number

in other areas.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could you give me an example, Mr.

Minister, of the date on which these negotiations might

possibly come to some fruition?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that's the problem. The

negotiations are terminated at the time that a mutually

satisfactory agreement is arrived upon.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is totally hypothetical.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

On vote 216: Minister's office, $58,976.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a

few questions for the new Minister. First of all, I imagine

that he's enjoying his new role. He certainly seems to be

getting around the country. I see he's the number one occupant

of the Government airplane.

AN HON. MEMBER: Flying Bill.

MR. FRASER: I guess the best way to describe it is that we

had Flying Phil and now you, Mr. Premier, have Bill.

(Laughter).

Getting into your department, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Chairman, I would

like to know what new provincial buildings are under

construction at the present time, if they've been let since September 1, as

well as the ones that are ongoing. Are you planning any new ones and, if so,

where?

Mr. Chairman, I'd specifically like to know about the

Vancouver situation. I think everything was stopped there.

We're wondering now what is taking place in that area, but also

in the rest of the province as well. I note in your estimates

that you intend to cut back. In the construction of new

buildings last year, the vote was $18 million. It's $18 million

again this year. With inflation, we can only assume from that

that you're going to cut back even further.

I'd now like to go into the parliament buildings, Mr.

Chairman. First of all, I feel that the public galleries here

are most inadequate. It's difficult for citizens to get in

here, particularly at 2 o'clock in the afternoon on a great

many days. I was wondering if your department was considering

upgrading, improving and enlarging the public galleries in the

building. Not only that, but I think the Press facilities are

completely inadequate.

There is a lot of talk going on about contracts being let

and changes taking place in here. I think it's about time that

the Minister told us what changes are going on and to what

final conclusion they are leading.

Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, I would like to

bring up another thing that takes us out of the general

Victorian area. I refer to office space to be provided for MLAs

in their ridings. None of them have it. In some ridings

provincial buildings are available; in some they are not. I

don't think that should be any reason why MLAs are not provided

with office space in their ridings, whether the government owns

the building or has to rent it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Permanent?

MR. FRASER: Well, I would say on a permanent basis.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): In existing buildings?

MR. FRASER: Yes, in the existing buildings. If the

facilities aren't available in the existing buildings that the

government owns, they'd have to be uniform with all MLAs and

rent. That's the only assumption I could come to, Mr.

Chairman.

For this type of accommodation, the public servants are

looked after better than MLAs are. All I'm saying, Mr.

Chairman, is that maybe the MLAs could be looked after on the

same basis as public servants. With those few remarks, I'd like

to get a few answers now from the Minister, if I may, Mr.

Chairman.

[ Page 2068 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Well, it's nice to be able to

have a few questions on this lively spring afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I see the

Minister is continuing to sit tight. He's waited a long time for his estimates

to come up. This is very much his day.

I don't intend to ask him the very embarrassing question as

to how the Government's car insurance scheme didn't fall into

his lap. You would obviously rule that question out of order.

Perhaps he might have had a little too much heart for the very

radical steps that appear to have been taken by the Minister of

Highways, Hon. Mr. Strachan.

But I do want to ask the Minister a few questions about his

concept of the automobile, vis-à-vis its very unsightly

and, I think unnecessary prominence in being parked outside

government buildings. For example, I refer to the Vancouver

court house and also to these very lovely legislative buildings

here.

I indeed appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that it's not possible

for this Minister to look to the former administration for any

kind of aesthetic guidance. Notwithstanding the fact that they

were rather horse-and-buggy in many ways, they certainly seemed

to revere the parked car.

We find the parked car has become a distinctive feature

outside of pretty well every government building. In the City

of Vancouver, we find that out went the grass and geraniums and

so forth. Whereupon one time we had a lovely lawn, magnolia

trees, charming flowers and a historically recorded and

distinctively put together fountain: out that went and in went

the asphalt, blacktop and white lines. Suddenly, presto,

overnight we had something that looked like a truck route and

used car lot.

In the City of Vancouver, they're still there in front of

the court house. This is the last tiny bit of garden-like calm

and intelligent bit of nature and green. Indeed, you could call

it the one remaining oasis amount the coal-black and grey walls

of the high-rises and hotels and that sort of prison-like

setting of Eaton's that surround it. Still, we find

parked cars there. If the Hon. Minister would give me the green

light, I'd be happy to go in there with a jackhammer myself and

start tearing up those parking stalls. They're the very kind of

monuments we do not need.

In front of these buildings, I would congratulate whoever in

the government was responsible for at least taking out the

parking down the curved approaches to the Legislative Assembly. But I would again

advocate that there not be any parking at all within the

perimeter of the grounds in which these buildings stand.

Maybe a little bit more exercise might not do some of the Members of the cabinet

any harm at all. It might even cut down on some of their newly-found opulence.

It would certainly provide them with an extra breath or two of our very fresh,

clean spring air. Then, maybe when they attended cabinet meetings, Mr. Chairman,

they might arrive there in more of an individualistic frame of mind, rather

than in the collectivistic attitude that seems to be helping their decisions

at the present time.

There's no question, Mr. Chairman, that when Mr. Rattenbury

designed these buildings, it was not on the basis or intention

to sanctify or deify the disciples of Detroit. I would say,

"Out the automobiles and fast." The Member for Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) made quite a talk about smoking and I'm making quite a

talk about parking here. He said, "No smoking," and I'm

saying, "No parking." Let's just start eliminating that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get a chauffeur.

MR. GARDOM: Have you got a chauffeur, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No.

MR., GARDOM: Well, that's a cautious step on your part.

Now, I'd also like to have a couple of words about the

construction of public buildings. These definitely fall within

the competence of the Minister, as do their standards of

safety. Hopefully, Mr. Chairman, by virtue of his position in

the Government, the Minister would be able to advance policies

that would improve the standards of safety in their private

sector as well. I'm speaking now of private structures and

private buildings.

I'm talking, Mr. Chairman, about crowd control, fire

protection, the very great difficulties that exist today with

the electric automatic elevators; I'm talking about emergency

lighting, sprinkling systems, disaster drills. Unfortunately,

all these problems are problems seen to increase in direct

proportion to the height of the building.

The situation in the province today is indeed frightening,

Mr. Chairman. In most cases, what is constructed ends up being

nothing more than a glorified furnace. These steel and glass

buildings are structurally able to contain a fire almost

indefinitely without collapsing. They're full of combustible

materials, furnishings, equipment and so forth. They're also

full of people. A writer recently stated this: 'A modern

skyscraper is a perfect incinerator.' That's certainly a pretty

alarming description and there could, indeed, be ghastly

consequences.

I am asking the Hon. Minister, when we're going to be

talking about the construction of new buildings in the Province

of B.C. — would he please give the very

[ Page

2069 ]

closest of consideration to these suggestions which I'm

going to make?

We could find, indeed, a probability of hundreds of people

being trapped, extensive damage being sustained with a high

degree of personal injury and loss of life; people being

burned, being asphyxiated, jumping to their deaths, falling in

the dark or being trampled through the stampede of panic.

Because when a fire starts, Mr. Chairman, maybe there's no

sprinkling system, or it is malfunctioning, or it's inadequate,

or there is not a sufficient number of them, or they're not

sufficiently placed to do the job Automatic elevators today have the wont to stop at fire

floors and, being without any form of manual closing

whatsoever, in rush the flames and poisonous gases and people

die. The lights go out — there's no auxiliary power, and then

we find a pitch black situation with the resulting panic,.

No drills. The only drills that I know of that are carried

on today in the Province of B.C. In public buildings are in

hospitals and in schools.

We've also got to consider the very stacking effect of smoke

without detectors or smokeproof stairs. I think we've got a

tinderbox situation.

I mention this to the Hon. Minister. There's no question in

my view but that we need more effective controls and we need,

indeed, a universal enforcement of better standards.

Several of the new buildings in the United States are

demonstrating the new fire safety consciousness that I'm

talking about. They include these things: a complete sprinkling

system; smoke detection devices; a number of sealed-off fire

zones as the building would increase in height; emergency power

for lighting the interior stairs and escapes and elevators;

elevator systems which can be converted to manual operation;

smoke-free passages and exits; reserve water storage tanks for

sprinkling and standpipes. All of these systems are monitored

and controlled and furthermore there are some effective

drills.

I would ask the Hon. Minister if we can have his assurance

today that he will agree to prescribe for all B.C. government

structures the measures that I've been talking about and,

further, whether or not he will agree that all future B.C.

government structures will fall within the provisions of the

National Building Code.

Secondly, I would ask the Hon. Minister if he will accept as

a policy and as a direction the need to make the National

Building Code provisions a matter of province-wide jurisdiction

and acceptance, particularly, Mr. Chairman, insofar as

highrises are concerned. Because the National Building Code is

no code today unless it happens to be accepted by a

municipality, but by far they don't all follow it. It certainly

doesn't catch the number of earlier constructed buildings.

Right now, safety-wise, Mr. Chairman, highrises in British Columbia have caught

the enforcers of building standards with their trousers down. If there is really

an existing, ever present danger situation, it's this. I'd like to see it cured

and I certainly do not wish to see it aggravated.

What brought this to my attention was a personal situation

not too long ago. In the fall of last year a couple of

generators in the B.C. Hydro station at Nelson and Burrard went

out, Mr. Chairman, with the net result that some of the major

highrises in the vicinity of the Hotel Vancouver were without

power. The moment they became without power, in some of them

there was absolutely no light whatsoever for people to go

downstairs. It's just a godsend that people were not injured

and were not hurt. I think that we have a very dangerous and

very perilous situation existing in the province. This surely

can fall within the purview of this Minister — at least for

policy direction if not for cure.

The third and last question: The Hon. Minister has been

almost as silent as Smith as his predecessor (Mr. W.N Chant)

when it comes to talking about what's going to happen to that

hopefully magnificent part of Vancouver which is to the south

of the courthouse and bounded by Howe Street and Hornby Street.

After about six years of questioning on my part to the former

Minister, about the only conclusive answer that I was able to

get out of him was that it was more likely to be built from the

bottom up than from the top down. Now, I do hope that the

present Minister can perhaps be a little more edifying and

inform us if a policy has been formulated, inform us if plans

are underway, inform us if contracts are prepared to be let,

inform us if he has had total and complete consultation with

the City of Vancouver — when I say "the City" I am referring to

the elected representatives in the city. Over and above that,

has he requested any briefs or received any information and

(it's now a very popular word over here) input from the members

of the community of Vancouver as to the direction of that

area?

Personally I hope that it would be moved, whatever it is,

one block farther to the south, and that we have something that

is interesting, something that is terraced, something where

green space can continue to form a major part, and something

that is today planned as a part of, as opposed to an impediment

to, the future transit needs of the City of Vancouver.

I would most appreciate it if the Minister would let me have

his answers to these questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman. Just a few brief questions to the Minister.

I have been attempting to seek information from

[ Page 2070 ]

the Minister from the opening of this session through the

posing of written questions, oral questions, by discussing it

during the budget debate and now we've reached the stage, I

hope, in which we can get answers from that Minister on very

important public affairs of his department.

He has given nothing but a series of facetious answers, Mr.

Chairman …

MR. GARDOM: He hasn't said a word.

MR. CHABOT: … relative to … I'm talking in the past.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, well we're talking in the present.

MR. CHABOT: You weren't in the House yesterday. Mr.

Chairman, would you please excuse that Member? He wasn't in the

House yesterday. He was looking after his law profession in

Vancouver. He's here every other day only.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Let's return to the estimates, Mr.

Member.

MR. GARDOM: If I may, Mr. Chairman …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Does the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey have a point of order?

MR. GARDOM: Yes, indeed I do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you state your point of order?

MR. GARDOM: My point of order is this: whatever I was

looking after yesterday is my business and not the Hon.

Member's. (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. Would the Hon.

Member continue, please?

MR. CHABOT: I am rising to find out from the Minister of

Public Works, for the third time, what price he paid for the

Glenshiel Hotel. He had an elaborate press conference on

December 15, telling everyone that this property had been

acquired in order to control development in the precincts of

the parliament buildings — I presume that's the reason. He

hasn't really indicated what he intends for this building,

whether the building is going to continue and, if so, whether

it is going to continue as a hotel, whether it is going to be

converted to a series of suites for cabinet Ministers, whether

it is going to be torn down for additional parking space. You

haven't really answered that question.

But I think the most important question is, and this

information I have been attempting to secure from the Minister:

what did the provincial government pay for that building? On

December 15 you said it had been purchased. This is four months

later. Certainly there must be some answers now.

Also, I've asked a series of questions relative to your

department, Mr. Chairman, renting office space throughout the

City of Victoria. I am wondering whether the Minister is

willing to tell us just how much office space has been leased

and under what conditions, what price and what services will be

provided in those buildings which are being leased by the

Department of Public Works, and where the location is of these

buildings.

They are very simple questions. I don't think the Minister

under the circumstances should have any difficulty in answering

these questions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They come from a pretty simple guy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman the

Minister has had a number of opportunities to rise and shine

this afternoon. He is apparently saving the best for last.

As I recall, Mr. Chairman, the sort of tradition of the

Government is that Public Works in the past never used to get

into any trouble unless he did something — which was fairly

rare.

Nevertheless, the largest and most spectacular move that the

former Minister of Public Works (Mr. W.N. Chant) was going to

make was with the skyscraper in the City of Vancouver. It would

have been the last and greatest of the former government's

grotesqueries.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister a somewhat

larger question but perhaps along the same lines as those asked

by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot); that is, what

are we doing regarding the development of a master plan for a

government precinct here in Victoria? I think there has been

nothing but regression since the days of Rattenbury, who gave

the Parliament Buildings a grandeur. I am not sure the active

politicians have added to that one little bit over the

years.

Some dreadful buildings have been built. The Douglas

building, Mr. Chairman, in my view is a monstrosity and should

be torn down at the earliest opportunity. The museum and new

buildings that have been built across the way are a little bit

better, but they won't win any architectural prizes.

As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, the Government is

enlarging the bureaucracy here. It is going to require many

more buildings to house all the

[ Page 2071 ]

additional civil servants that are being hired and we are

going to have big corporation offices before long with the

insurance corporation and B.C. Cellulose Corporation and all

the private enterprise moves that the Government is making. So

there is going to be tremendous need for government office

buildings.

With the expansion, some kind of a master architectural plan

is required for this general area. I would just like to know

whether the Government is giving any consideration to that. If

they are, would they perhaps be prepared to open this up to

architectural competition as was done originally for these

Parliament Buildings, for Simon Fraser University, for UBC? I

think our experience with these architectural competitions in

the past has been a good one. Or are we going to continue to

drift as we have done for two-thirds of a century with the odd

building put up here or there as the demand arose, but with the

disastrous cumulative results that have been the history for

the past 40 or 50 years.

Now, I too, Mr. Chairman, would like to ask the Minister

precisely what is intended for the City of Vancouver? I want to

congratulate the Minister and the Government for canceling the

rather grotesque plan that was devised by the former government

for the downtown heart. It would have been extremely harmful to

add the pressure of still another skyscraper to a system of

city streets and parking and transportation that is totally

inadequate for that kind of a building.

Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, the government is the landlord of

a very slummy area in the heart of Vancouver. Even if there is

no intention to move immediately to a building, the Government,

in my view, is under some obligation to provide aesthetic

qualities to the area over which it has jurisdiction. For the

government for so many years to have held that key block in

downtown Vancouver and left it in the disgraceful state it has

been left in — just an ugly acre of blacktop …

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Black acres.

MR. McGEER: Black acres. It isn't good enough. What we

really should be doing with government property anywhere is

providing a little bit of taste, even if it is only planting

some flowers. Could the Minister give some hope to the City of

Vancouver, not just for a satisfactory government building but

to do something about the downtown ugliness?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Public

Works.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be able to report to

the assembly that I was very fortunate in inheriting a well-run department,

a credit to the previous Minister. I think it is fair for me

to say that he was one of the very few that was not defeated.

MR. McGEER: Will you know when to quit too? (Laughter).

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Well, I'll at least let you have your say,

I was fortunate too, or the department was, in having the

previous Deputy that I believe understood organization and the

ability to have people work with and for him. Arnold Webb and

the Hon. Mr. Chant, I refer to. Mr. Webb saw fit to resign —

his resignation was on my desk when I walked in. He did carry

on until we chose a successor and I would like to introduce Mr.

George Giles, the Deputy, and Mr. Al Rhodes, the

Comptroller.

Now, we have very definite ideas about public buildings, not

just in block 61 in Vancouver — we have definite ideas there

too — but throughout the province. We believe that public

buildings should be designed to serve people and to serve the

needs of people, not built as monuments to men or women.

In the designing of our buildings we hope to be able to

build in and out and about as much open space as possible with

care, as my friend the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. McGeer) stated, to the aesthetic values of the community

into which we are building. I think this is only right; I think

the provincial government should attempt to set good standards

and we should plan our buildings to serve people. After all, if

we are an open government, which we are, then we should try and

plan our buildings so that they will be open to serve the

public. The public can come in and communicate.

Now, with regard to courthouses: where possible we would

like to see them set off the beaten track, a little bit away

from the hustle and bustle, the rat race, the business world so

that they will be helping to create a proper climate for

meditation, consideration, deep thought, with regard to the

problems of the people coming before them. In this way, we will

be doing our part to make it appear that justice is being

done.

Now, maybe that is about as far as we can go. I'm speaking

with regard to the physical aspects. If we are going to have

judges that tell welfare recipients they can eat out of the

garbage cans then that is a problem for this assembly and a

problem for the Attorney General.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's going to take over the Attorney

General's department.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, well I say we have no control over

such intemperate outbursts. We can do what we can to improve

the architectural beauty and

[ Page 2072 ]

we will.

Communications have become a major involvement of the

Department of Public Works under the new administration. We

have met with the Ministers and representatives from the other

provinces. As a matter of fact one of our first meetings was

back in Quebec. It was rather interesting when Prime Minister

Bourassa came forward and welcomed British Columbia. He said,

"I am pleased to understand that British Columbia is now

reconsidering joining confederation."

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Why don't you answer

the question?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Certainly, we always answer the questions.

You ask short questions and we will give short answers.

We will be meeting again with the provincial Ministers in

communications and Gerard Pelletier, the federal Minister, has

invited us to a federal-provincial conference on

communications.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I suppose if I were to follow in true

form, I would get up and give you a two-hour oration now on

socialism as compared to the A plus B theory and that is all

that would be expected or all that would be needed, but I made

note of your questions and we would be more than pleased to

answer them.

The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) asked about provincial

buildings under construction — when, where and so on. We have

three projects under construction in Abbotsford, one in Port

Alberni, one in Barrier, one in Bella Coola; in Nanaimo we have

Brannen Lake — two projects there; in Burnaby, three, six,

nine, 12, 13, under construction; one in Burns Lake, one in

Charlie Lake, one in Clinton, one in Cloverdale. There's a

remand centre for Coquitlam and a project in Courtenay. We've

purchased some property in Cranbrook with the idea of a

building there. In Creston we have a wildlife management area

centre.

Other projects are: one in Dawson Creek; one in Douglas; two

in Duncan; one in Elkford; one in Enderby; one in Essondale.

Twelve projects under construction in Riverview. In Valleyview

- hospital alteration. Colony Farm — three projects. Fort

Nelson two projects. Fort St. John — one project. Ganges one.

Golden — the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) should be

interested in this — four projects.

MR. CHABOT: That was started by the former government.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): They all

were.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Cariboo (Mr.

Fraser) asked to know what projects were under construction.

I'm telling you.

Interjections by some Hon, Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Grand Forks — one; Haig — one; Haney —

two, corrections institutes; Alouette River unit — two;

Kamloops — seven; Kimberley — one; Nanaimo — three; Nelson —

three; New Denver — two; New Haven — one; New Westminster — Woodlands, four projects, and an additional eight more.

North Vancouver — we've purchased some property. Penticton — we've

purchased property; highway establishment under

construction. Powell River — provincial building. Prince George — four

projects under construction. Regional corrections centre — Prince

George. Prince Rupert — court house heating system,

new court facilities and roof repairs in the old court house.

Quesnel — highways maintenance establishment. Revelstoke — court house

renovations. Salmon Arm — highways maintenance

establishment. Smithers — Department of Highways establishment

and two other projects. Stewart — highways maintenance. Surrey — motor

vehicle inspection. Terrace — Skeena View Hospital

alterations and renovations. Tete Jaune Cache — highway

maintenance. Trail — Tranquille: water supply and sewage

disposal; 104-bed unit; fire alarm system; fire escapes; east

pavilion alterations. Trout Lake — highways maintenance. Thousk

- ferryman's accommodation. Vancouver — 800 Cassiar Street,

Pearson TB hospital fire alarm system. Jericho Hill School

renovations — there's some 12 items here. Vernon — highways

maintenance, court house elevator and alterations, provincial

buildings, landscaping. Victoria: Vancouver Island unit

Regional Corrections Centre renovations; Victoria area purchase

of properties; alterations; Finance building; centre for

microfilming; motor vehicle inspection station; mobile home for

inspection services.

Purchase of property — Coquileetz: Department of Highways

yard site — Saanichton. Williams Lake: court house; highways

maintenance; B.C. Institute of technology; security buildings

and six other items. B.C. vocational school, Burnaby — seven

items. B.C. vocational school, Chilliwack — phase one,

preloading. B.C. vocational school, Dawson Creek — welding shop.

B.C. vocational school, Kamloops — stores building. B.C.

vocational school, Kelowna —

[ Page 2073 ]

classroom conversion to cafeteria. B.C. vocational school,

Nanaimo — fire alarm system, steam distribution system, welding

shed, workshop building. B.C. vocational school, Nelson —

Kootenay School of Art, central receiving and stores depot.

B.C. vocational school, Prince George — alterations. B.C.

vocational school, Terrace — workshop buildings, dormitory and

cafeteria. B.C. vocational school, Victoria — workshop and

cafeteria buildings.

For a total of just under $ 10 million.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: That was the weigh station.

Now, there were some questions with regard to the Parliament

Buildings — public galleries, Press galleries. We have plans to

rehabilitate the government into the main legislative building.

I understand that this is what Mr. Rattenbury had in mind, that

this was the home for the politicians. Over the years they have

been displaced. We have plans for Ministers' suites throughout

the building and for the MLAs.

There was a question asked further on, by the First Member

for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) I believe, with regard to the

precinct area. We had a preview of this plan last Friday. This

is an overall plan, so that as we need and plan new buildings,

they will be planned, designed and located in conjunction with

our planning department and the City of Victoria planning

department. We have met with the city. As a matter of fact,

there's a meeting going on right now in the city hall. As a

matter of fact, were it not for these estimates, I would be

there.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would ask the Hon. Members to keep

their questions until the Minister is finished. Then if they

wish to place their questions, do it in the proper way.

HON. MR.- HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate their

excitement. It's the first time they've had an opportunity to

get involved in Public Works like this. I'll answer their

questions as they come up.

As I indicated, the precinct plan is not ready for release.

We previewed it last week. We've asked for further information.

We hope that by Easter it should be pretty well ready for you

to have a look if you wish.

With regard to parking problems, we agree. Not only in the

precinct plan but also in greater Vancouver, one of the factors

that we are considering is modes of transportation. As you

know, Arthur Erickson is drawing up a plan and design for

Blocks 61, 51 and possibly 71. We've asked that this factor be

worked into the plan.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Well, if the Second Member for Point Grey

(Mr. Gardom) would cool it, I'm trying to tell him that we have

before us a loop system of transportation so that all persons

using these buildings can make use of public transit and leave

their vehicle possibly at home or some piece out of town.

Mention was made of the national building code and some of

the building standards in California in the United States.

They're really highrise buildings. Now that the B.C. building

is being considered on an entirely different basis, we really

do not have buildings of the stature that the Member for Point

Grey was referring to. I believe our national building code

compares with any building standards on the continent. We plan

to national building code standards. As far as having this

province-wide, I believe it's up to the municipalities that

have their own inspection to also accept national building code

standards.

A question was asked about the Glenshiel Hotel. There are

other properties in negotiation that we're planning on

acquiring in that area. In due course you'll be given the

price. You can get it through Public Accounts if nowhere else.

In due course it will be given. As I say, we are still

negotiating on other properties.

With regard to the Glenshiel, the present residents will be

allowed to live there so long as they desire. They will not be

turned out. The Minister of Rehabilitation (Hon. Mr. Levi) and

I met with them shortly after we purchased the building. We

gave them assurance that that was their home so long as they

needed it.

What is intended for the City of Vancouver? This was asked

by the First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). I cannot

answer that as yet. As you know, we have retained the

architectural firm of Arthur Erickson to draw up a plan and

design.

We're not committed to accepting this. We met with the

former mayor and council. We have met with the new mayor. We'll

be taking out all required city permits with regard to our

development in blocks 61 and 51.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): What development

have you contemplated?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, well that's a fair question. I took

it for granted. After all, we did have a meeting here in one of

the committee rooms a month or two ago to which all parties

were invited. Not too many attended. My Hon. friend attended

and I appreciate his interest.

We are planning a public service and administra-

[ Page 2074 ]

tion building for services that we feel must be available in

North Vancouver or in Richmond or in New Westminster; that is

where they will be. But services and administrative areas that

can best serve in downtown Vancouver will be located in this

public service building, along with court facilities.

Now, we hope to be able to combine an open design with as much open space as

possible. I'm not trying to be evasive by not going into more detail, but I

believe that when we have retained a firm of highly competent internationally-known

architects, then we have to at least give them an opportunity to present a plan.

When that plan is ready, we'll invite you all to give us further comment because,

after all, this is a public building. It's your building, it's the people's

building and we feel that you should all have some say.

MR. GARDOM: Those are the guidelines?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, those are the broad guidelines I have

given.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Members, I would point out

there are two reasons why I would ask you to follow the rules

of the House. One is that it is proper order, which I think we

can reasonably expect. Also, I would ask that we give some

consideration to Hansard because the Hansard staff are unable

to properly record proceedings when the mikes are not on.

Therefore I would ask that Members follow the rules. In that

way we can be sure that Hansard can do their job.

MR. GARDOM: We subscribe to your ruling. I'd like to …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I recognize the Hon. Member for

Columbia River.

MR. GARDOM: I thought you had. You were looking at me, Mr.

Chairman. (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. CHABOT: In listening to the reply from the Minister, I have to conclude

that the activities of the former government relative to the Department of Public

Works were spread out throughout the entire province. There appeared to be a

lot of activity in the various communities that the Minister has outlined. Many,

many government projects were undertaken. I wonder if the Minister would care

to comment on how many contracts have been called since he has taken over the

portfolio on September 15. Let's just see how much

activity there has been since he has come into government.

Now, the Minister has failed to reply to my question, a very

simple and straightforward question relative to the

government's plans — what space they have rented in the City of

Victoria, where these locations are, the square footage

involved in office space …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The particular question you

have asked is on the order paper and I would ask you not to ask

it at this time.

MR. CHABOT: Is it on the order paper?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That particular question is on the order

paper. It requests knowledge of the amount of square footage in

the City of Victoria.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thought in

view of the evasiveness of the Minister on previous written

questions and previous oral questions that it was only fair

that I have an opportunity at this particular time, during his

estimates, to ask that question. But if you believe that he'll

answer the question, I'll have to accept your wisdom and

judgment in that matter, Mr. Chairman. Nevertheless, maybe the

Minister, in view of the fact that I've made the point, will

want to comment on it now.

I hope the Minister will never stand in his place again in

this House or anywhere else and say that that Government is an

open government, because that Government is not an open

government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member please

address the Chair and keep his comments to the estimates before

us?

MR. CHABOT: I'm keeping my comments to the estimates, and if

you'll look back in Hansard — just run the tape back, Mr.

Chairman — you'll see that the Minister talked about open

government. He talked about open government. If you're going to

allow that kind of latitude to that Member, I should be allowed

the same kind of treatment in this House.

Now, the Minister indicated very clearly that four months

ago when he held that elaborate Press conference — he confirmed

it today, that four months ago they purchased the Glenshiel

Hotel. Yet he's unwilling to make this public information

available to the Members of this assembly. And then you talk

about open government, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman.

I think you have a responsibility to tell the Members of this

assembly what the purchase price of the Glenshiel Hotel is — what you paid for it. You've confirmed that you've bought it.

Why don't you fulfill the pledge you've

[ Page 2075 ]

made to the people of this province of being an open

government, and tell us what you paid for the property called

the Glenshiel Hotel?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Public

Works.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Well, Mr. Chairman, my friend for Columbia

River (Mr. Chabot) is still playing his role as a

representative of the real estate industry. If, in the best

interests …

MR. CHABOT: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would you state your point of order?

Would the Hon. Minister be seated?

MR. CHABOT: I don't want that Minister making accusations

about my representing any real estate interests. I don't know

any real estate people, and I wish he'd stop the nonsense and

answer the question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Member denies this connection that

will be acceptable. Will the Hon. Minister proceed?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, in our good judgment there

are other properties that we are acquiring and we feel that at

this time …

MR. CHABOT: Nowhere!

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Well, in your opinion it doesn't happen,

but in our opinion, it does. Now we've answered the questions

with regard to Glenshiel Hotel — what the purpose is. We feel

that we have to acquire various properties in the precinct area

so that we can preserve this area for the original purpose, so

that the main buildings here and the grounds will not be

overshadowed by great highrise apartments and highrise office

buildings. This is why we have been buying and will be buying

other properties.

Now as far as open government is concerned, Mr. Chairman,

the fact that this Government is designing buildings to meet

people, so people can come in and ask questions which we will

try and answer, the fact that we have a daily question period,

opening the door of access from you to us …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HARTLEY: Yes. Now, Mr. Chairman, the fact that the

ex-Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) and the ex-Minister of Labour

(Mr. Chabot) can lay on their couches in their offices and

listen to what's going on here and now and then jump to their

feet and come running in — this is open government.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Members to

continue the discussion on the estimates. I recognize the Hon.

Member for Saanich and the Islands.

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

First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) spoke about

the precinct for the parliament buildings, for the centre of

government here, and I really feel that the Minister should

outline in a little more detail his thoughts with respect to

the long-term future of the precinct. If I may make a point.

Mr. Chairman, I really feel that there is a danger that the

provincial government, regardless of what party may be in

power, will, over the next decade or 15 years, tend to keep the

precinct area too small.

Just what is the precinct in terms of boundary streets in

the view of the present Minister, Mr. Chairman? Is there not

some very real merit in considering the location of additional

buildings some distance from where we are today? Elsewhere in

the City of Victoria, possibly in Victoria West — I identify

this as an area which would benefit greatly, Mr. Chairman, from

the injection of …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CURTIS: No, not necessarily Saanich — I was hoping some

Member would rise to that bait. I'm not speaking parochially, I

am speaking about elsewhere in Victoria, Victoria West,

possibly Esquimalt, perhaps even the Oak Bay area, so that we

don't have this morning rush to a relatively small part of

Victoria city and then extremely heavy traffic going home, much

of it generated by the people who are in the civil service. How

much better it would be to move some facilities to other areas

which have not yet been considered, as far as we can determine,

for government buildings in the urban part of Greater

Victoria.

I would like the Minister to touch on that, Mr. Chairman,

because we are so close to the Strait of Juan de Fuca at this

location that we are really at the bottom of a funnel, or the

bottom of a jar, if you will, with most people coming to the

parliamentary precinct, whether it's two blocks wide or four

blocks wide, having to fight their way through a great deal of

residential and commercial development in order to get here. If

this were the centre of the city in the true sense of the word,

with residential areas to the south and to the west as well as

to the north-cast, then it would be much easier.

Hopefully the Minister will comment on this and hopefully

his department will consider what I consider to be the

importance of diversification, as

[ Page 2076 ]

far as locating public buildings is concerned and moving

them around in the urban part of this Greater Victoria capital

city area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Public

Works.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I think this is a very good question that

the Member for Saanich and the Islands has raised. Of course

this is the very purpose of our precinct plan. In this plan I

think one of the factors that we have to consider is how one

department can work with the other in interdepartmental

relations and also government-city relations with the surrounding

municipalities.

At this point in time I am not prepared to say that this

precinct area would be bounded by this street or that street,

but we do have holdings throughout the lower island —

substantial holdings as large as a city block, where the public

works warehouses are at Cloverdale Avenue. Our plan and study

is so that we can decide where future buildings should go. For

instance, if there is to be a separate building for car

insurance, should that be located here or could it just as well

be integrated with the business community uptown? The same

applies to other buildings that we will be considering.

Certainly if we can have them handy here, it's very well.

Also, I believe we have to be involved in a certain amount

of construction, because this is the only way we can feel

certain that a certain type of style of design would complement

the present main building. If we do this and put buildings on

the property that we own, this is the only way we can make

certain that that is the way it will be. A future

administration could come in and dispose of some of this

property and sell it off for some purpose that might not

complement the overall precinct area.

I think it's important that we do plan this, because I

believe this is a major tourist attraction — people come from

all parts of the world to view our Legislature and the City of

Victoria. It's for this reason that we are attempting to sit

down and work with the city planning and with the city mayor

and any person, certainly such as the Member for Saanich and

the Islands, who holds other responsible offices in this

immediate area. We'd be pleased to have their input and their

suggestions.

When the precinct plan is ready — and I hope it will be

ready very shortly — we would welcome anyone who wishes to see

it and has input.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I am most

interested in this precinct area. I wonder if I could make one

or two suggestions.

In any new buildings which are built in this area I think we

should seriously consider the underground parking under each of

them adequate to handle the number of employees who might be in

that building.

For the time being I wonder if we couldn't seriously

consider perhaps having a park-and-ride situation where

employees could park their cars on property which is now

already owned by the government — I am referring to the

ex-Hudson's Bay warehouse area. There is ample parking in that

area. We could use a commuter type bus to bring people in in

the morning and take them back again at night.

One of the major problems in this city is the amount of

traffic that originates in this area, traffic that goes through

the core of the city and creates a rather serious traffic jam.

I appreciate that it's not of long duration, but it can be most

annoying for people in the centre of town. One or two of these

new buses which we have acquired I think we could perhaps use

on that type of run.

I also think that some of the buildings which are proposed

for this area — I concur that a design contest of having

someone give an overall design would be an excellent idea for

this area. I wonder if he would care to comment on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Public

Works.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I think we're in agreement certainly with

the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) that there are two

problems. I think I did indicate that a loop transit system was

being considered so that a person using the legislative

buildings, for instance, if he had to nip uptown to the

insurance office or to any other government facility, would

find this handy. I just used that as an example.

One of the decisions that we will have to make very early

whether is we should spend money in underground parking or~

parking as such about any building that we should plan, or

whether we would be farther ahead to use those dollars in a

modern improved transit system so that, as my friend from

Victoria suggests, you could park your car somewhere on the

outskirts and then get onto a quick bus and ride into the

centre. I personally favour this.

Some planners say that Victoria really doesn't have that bad

a traffic problem at this point in time. But I think we have to

look ahead and try and plan so that that type of transit

problem or that type of traffic congestion just doesn't build

up in Victoria.

I believe there's a great deal to be said for pedestrian malls in

and about the Empress Hotel and in the precinct area — at least some

"people" spaces so that people could move about freely.

These are basic decisions and we are thinking of them. Mr.

Member for Victoria, we'd certainly like to

[ Page

2077 ]

have your input.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: On this same point, Mr. Chairman, we've aft got

the most admirable respect for Mr. Erickson and his renowned

capabilities. But I don't think we need the expertise of Mr.

Erickson to reach the conclusion that it's totally unnecessary

to have any parking whatsoever around this building and around

the courthouse in Vancouver. You've just got to snap your

fingers and they will go out. You should do it tout de suite .

Because insofar as this building is concerned the parking is

primarily for the benefit of cabinet and some deputy Ministers

and so forth and so on.

I'm not knocking the cabinet or the deputy Ministers, but

there's no need for it. This particular building provides one

of the most distinctive and world-renowned views of British

Columbia. Make no mistake of that. The cars should not be

there. We're not advertising Detroit. Get the stupid

putrefactions out of there, is my view.

Secondly, I was interested to hear of the Hon. Minister's

desire for ethereal calm in the hearing of court cases. He

talked a little bit about the contemplated new building in

Vancouver. I would like to ask him whether it is contemplated —

and this question was not answered by you — that the court

facilities will totally go into the new structure. Or is it

contemplated that the existing court facility will continue as

a courthouse? Now that's a pretty simple question.

I would also ask the Minister to amplify certain remarks

when he said that there were some changes, I think, planned for

the Press gallery. Does this mean new quarters, more light,

more air, a little bit of food under the door and that type of

thing — Roman baths or saunas — "squash courts," says

the Hon. Member from Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) — washrooms,

other useful and needful facilities, or are they going to

continue on in their sort of semi- but very historic and

interesting dungeon?

The last question that I'd like to ask the Hon. Minister is

to whether or not he agrees that in all public buildings access

should be provided for handicapped people. I am not going to

speak any more about that because, as the Minister knows, I

have Bill No. 97 on the order paper dealing with that very

aspect.

I would appreciate the Minister's answers to those four

questions:

(1) will the cars be totally removed from the precincts of

these legislative buildings and from the courthouse in the City

of Vancouver? Get them out completely. Let's go back to the

grass and the flowers.

(2) Will the court facilities only be in the newly

contemplated building, or will the existing court facilities in

Vancouver continue as the courthouse?

(3) Exactly what does the Minister intend to do with the

Press gallery facilities?

(4) Will the Minister comment concerning access to public

buildings for handicapped people?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Further on this

question of Victoria, I am not clear from the Minister's

statements. I understood originally that we had a precinct plan

and we were not thinking of moving buildings outside, in

particular moving any buildings past Blanshard Street, which I

understand to be the boundary line which has always been

considered to be in existence for any government buildings.

I checked with the dictionary as to what "precinct" means

and I am even more confused as to what's in the mind of the

Minister. Are we having a precinct around this area which is

going to house the government buildings or are we going to

scatter them in the town? Or I guess you could have both — precincts immediately around this building and other

government buildings scattered out.

At the moment I am not too sure from what the Minister has

said this afternoon as to what is in his mind as far as this

goes.

The parking and traffic questions around these buildings

have always been a problem to Victorians. The question has been

raised already, but the suggestion of staggering the hours has

not, and this solves the problem completely. There is no

problem as far as rush hour traffic for civil servants is

concerned if the hours of leaving and arriving at work are

staggered. I wonder whether the Minister would like to say how

far he's progressing on this.

Before we get into such expensive and unnecessary things as

underground parking and things of that nature, I think we

should at least attempt to have a decent system of staggering

hours. We legislators, of course, leave this place at about

11:00 at night or sometimes later and we don't confuse too many

people or get in their way — unfortunately perhaps. But others

could certainly leave at more reasonable hours during the day.

I think this would solve many of the problems of underground

parking, park-and-ride and the traffic terminals that we have

been talking of.

As far as the main buildings themselves are concerned, I am

glad that the Minister — and I quote his own words — is

"interested in the rehabilitation of politicians." We think

that's great. We're glad that it's under his department instead

of the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon.

Mr.

[ Page 2078 ]

Levi) sitting down the road.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That comes later? Not too much later; if

things carry on the way we are now we'll probably be under his

charge, or that of the Minister of Health Services and Hospital

Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) — I am not sure which.

In any event he mentioned suites for MLAs and cabinet

Ministers. We'll certainly forgo the suites if we would

occasionally get the odd office. At the moment the office space

for MLAs is not adequate and I think the Minister is fully

aware of this. He has certainly shown sympathy for my remarks

in previous months.

I wonder whether he can give this House and the Members here

more indication of how fast he intends to move on getting new

office space, rearranging things so that, as he said, these

buildings can be used by legislators.

I mention this because I understood in the fall session that

the Liberal caucus would shortly get changes in their

facilities. It so happened that nothing happened until two days

before this new spring session. I trust the same experience

will not befall us in the future. The actual alterations — and

we appreciate the Minister's concern — unfortunately took place

during the session and we had to send our secretaries home for

some days while they took place. While the workmen worked very

efficiently and effectively and the alterations were well done,

nevertheless it was of considerable inconvenience to our

constituents and to ourselves.

So perhaps the Minister would like to tell us when we might

expect these new parliament buildings devoted not to civil

servants and, in particular, Ministerial aides, but devoted to

MLAs and servicing their constituents. This is particularly

important for myself, the Hon. First Member for Victoria (Mr.

Morrison) and the other local MLAs. We find that we have many

visitors who want to come in. They sit in the galleries here

and look down at the floor and then they come and tell us how

terrible it is immediately afterwards in our offices. We would

like to make sure they have at least some opportunity to sit

and be comfortable during those discussions.

To sum up: could the Minister indicate what he is doing

about the question of staggered hours? What precisely is the

objective as far as the precinct is concerned and as far as

other buildings are concerned? In particular, how about the

so-called Blanshard Street boundary? Is that still in existence

as a limit for any Government expansion? What is going to be

done for legislators in this building to make sure we have

adequate office facilities?

Finally, Mr. Minister, neither I nor the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison)

has seen the precinct plan. We appreciate your idea

that we should provide suggestions here and now, but perhaps it might have been

a little more useful had we been involved a little earlier. The only way I can

find out what's happening in this regard is to get my own brother elected an

alderman in Victoria and he tells me what's happening from city hall and that's

great.

But it might be better, as we are the Members for this area,

for us to be involved so that we have some idea before the

final plan is unveiled so that we can have some input — and

that's the very word that the Minister used. It's no good

getting input too late.

We would like to know why we have been excluded in this

process by this so-called "open" Government and what steps are

going to be taken to rectify it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Public

Works.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Well, you certainly haven't been excluded.

As yet the cabinet hasn't seen the plans. We just really took a

check on it last Friday to see how things were coming, and

that's why I say it was a preview.

When there is a little more definition to the plan, we would

be pleased to have you and any other Members who are interested

look into it.

As far as a definitive line about the precinct area, as far

as streets, I don't see that we can really say, "here, here and

here." I believe we have to have some involvement certainly in

the whole James Bay area so that we can get some direction into

the whole style here. That's what we're trying to do.

There will be buildings uptown, possibly as far out as the

old Hudson's Bay Company property on Cloverdale Avenue. We have

certain facilities there now. It just may be a point where we

should have a parking lot or a point where people could walk in

and hop onto a loop-transit system or some form of public

transit.

On the point of staggering hours, I think this has to be

considered too. I think this can have quite a bearing. I notice

when I drive in in the morning if you're here a few minutes

earlier or a few minutes later it does make a fantastic

difference in congestion. So I think this is a very good

suggestion.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Would you give them to me again? Which

were those?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey, just to repeat the questions.

MR. GARDOM: Yes. I asked you four questions. I asked you the

question whether you would definitely

[ Page 2079 ]

favour the abolition of parking around the legislative

buildings and around the courthouse in Vancouver. I am speaking

of the respective blocks only.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: As of tomorrow.

MR. GARDOM: As of tomorrow. There's no need for it.

The second question was whether or not you will be phasing

out the court facility in the existing courthouse in Vancouver

and including it in the new structure which you have been

talking about earlier today. That was the second question.

The third question: are you able to furnish details or at

least let us know what the guidelines are of what you have in

mind for the Press gallery? You just said the word "changes."

That's rather an anomalous word — maybe — depending upon from

where it's delivered, I suppose.

The fourth question was whether or not you are in favour of

providing access to handicapped people to all government

buildings.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The last question is out of

order.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: On the three questions, I am in favour of

the removal of parking …

AN HON. MEMBER: Do it!

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Well, of course as you say you can do it

with a snap of your finger. But if it throws certain problems

on the existing — or nonexistent — transportation system or if

there are not adequate parking facilities to take up the gap,

all right. But basically I agree that this is a beautiful

building and having vehicles parked about it adds nothing to

it.

With regard to the court facilities, we have asked Mr.

Erickson to work this into his design — a new court facility

for Vancouver.

When I referred to the Press gallery, I was referring not to

this podium here but to their offices. We are planning certain

changes in the building and there will be changes in the space

that the Press is currently occupying as their offices. This is

something, as you may or may not know, that was not planned in

the original assembly. It was forgotten. The original

architects forgot about the Press. So this had to be more or

less superimposed. Because of that, it's …

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes. It's not easy to make too great a

change. At the moment there is nothing planned with regard to

the Press gallery in the assembly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, on the question of the Glenshiel

Hotel, I am rather surprised that the Minister really refuses

to release to the House …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. The Hon. Member has mentioned this

question several times. I would point out that he may not

demand an answer from a Minister. The Minister is under no

obligation to give any other answer than that which he has

already given.

MR. CHABOT: I've got 65 more times, the Member says

here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Therefore I would ask him to move to another

subject.

MR. CHABOT: I don't intend moving to another subject,

because I am going to pursue it in a different way, Mr.

Chairman.

The Minister really in effect has refused to give the

Members of this assembly what is in effect public information.

After four months of the purchase of a hotel he's unwilling to

give us that information.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I just ruled the Hon. Member out of

order.

MR. CHABOT: Upon pursuing the matter …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I have asked the Hon. Member not to pursue this subject further and to move to another

subject. If he continues to pursue it I'll ask the Hon. Member to be

seated.

MR. CHABOT: (Mike not on)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member going to

pursue the subject? If so, I would ask him to sit down.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, you should be fair! You're denying

me the right to stand in this assembly and speak.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've ordered under standing order No. 43 that

you may not continue to pursue this subject because it's

already been exhausted.

MR. CHABOT: The subject that I pursued in the original

instance was the attempt to establish from the Minister the

price they paid for that hotel. I'm no longer pursuing that

matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon.

[ Page 2080 ]

Member be seated?

MR. CHABOT: I'm no longer pursuing that matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member may continue his speech,

providing that he moves to another subject. If he challenges my

ruling, I would ask him to do it in the formal way rather than

to argue with me. So would the Hon. Member continue on another

subject?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Challenge him.

MR. CHABOT: I'm not going to challenge him because they have

38 Members over there.

I'm not pursuing the original question that I pursued

before. I am talking on the same subject, the Glenshiel Hotel,

but I'm not pursuing the question that I posed to the Minister — that he won't release public information. What I am going to

say now is on the question of the Glenshiel Hotel on matters

that I have not discussed previously.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would so rule that the Hon. Member

may proceed on this subject, providing it's some new matter

concerning this …

MR. CHABOT: Absolutely. That's the point I've been trying to

make with you all along, Mr. Chairman.

Upon an examination of the title at land registry, we find

that the Glenshiel Hotel is lot No. 1,

section 6, plan 12078.

The declared value was $580,000. That's the information that

comes from land registry. I'm wondering whether this sum has

been paid by the department or a government department — the

amount that has been declared. No doubt it has been.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe that the Hon. Member

is posing the same question, which I asked him not to repeat.

That is, he is asking the Hon. Minister whether or not a

certain fixed sum of money was paid. The Hon. Member has

already dealt with this question.

MR. CHABOT: No, the original question posed, Mr. Chairman,

was just what price has been paid. Now I'm stating that the

declared value at land registry was $580,000. I'm wondering

whether the Minister wants to confirm that that is the figure

that has been paid for the Glenshiel Hotel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member either be

seated or move to a different subject entirely, other than

dealing with the price of this place.

MR. CHABOT: In the original instance, Mr. Chairman, I was

attempting to establish the price that was paid. Now I'm

stating that land registry … it's a completely different

topic.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, the matter still concerns

something to do with the price of this place. I would ask you

not to deal with that matter again but rather move to another

subject. Otherwise, I'll ask you to be seated.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I wonder on what basis the $580,000

declared value was established. On what basis did you establish

the $580,000 valuation for the building? Has the sum been paid

to the owners of the hotel? I wonder if the Minister would want

to comment on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River. Would the Hon. Member for Columbia River be seated,

please?

MR. CHABOT: He's yielding to me, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon Member for Columbia River will

proceed onto another subject, then I'll recognize him.

Otherwise, I'll recognize the Member for Saanich and the

Islands.

MR. CHABOT: I want to discuss it further in a different

vein. I haven't fully discussed the subject matter. I've

discussed certain facets of the subject matter. The declared

value of the property was $580,000. I think we've established

that. The Glenshiel Hotel….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated, please.

MR. CHABOT: Why, Mr. Chairman?

MR, CHAIRMAN: Because I asked the Hon. Member not to discuss

again anything concerning the price of this place, which has

already been dealt with at length.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: It's an important matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Member would like

to challenge my ruling, he may do so, but I would ask him to be

seated.

MR. CHABOT: No, it's information I'm discussing …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be

seated?

[ Page 2081 ]

MR. CHABOT: I'm suggesting that there have been public funds

squandered, Mr. Chairman. You're denying me the right to speak

in this assembly, are you? What a shocking example of a

chairman! We should have you removed from the chair, Mr.

Chairman. You don't know what fair play is. You have no

semblance of fair play. You don't understand the word. Will you

be reasonable for a change?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member be seated? I recognize

the Hon. Member …

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The next

question I want to ask …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member …

MR. CHABOT: … has to do with the squandering of public

funds on the purchase of the Glenshiel Hotel. The squandering

of public funds, Mr. Chairman — is that why you want to seat me

down? Is that why you want me to sit down, because I'm raising

a question of squandering the public funds? Is that what you're

against? Do you want to be partisan now, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: They're hiding something.

MR. CHABOT: That's right. You'd better believe they're

covering up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. CHABOT: Closure because they want to hide.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member for

Langley be seated. I would caution the Hon. Member for Columbia

River that if he does not obey my ruling, I will be forced to

take the necessary action under standing order 43.

MR. CHABOT: I was suggesting that the Glenshiel Hotel was

for sale for some considerable time, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: Why can't you bring up business of the

Department of Public Works? What have you got to hide?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have made a ruling.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): A point of order,

Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I have made a ruling. If the Hon.

Member does not agree with my ruling, he may challenge the

ruling in the formal way. Otherwise, I will ask him to obey the

Chair. I will recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

MR. SMITH: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. You have sat

the Member for Columbia River down on the basis of standing

order No. 43. That would be a proper procedure provided the

Member was engaging in tedious or repetitious debate. I submit

to you, Mr. Chairman, that there is nothing repetitious about

the debate that was taking place in this House. We were trying

to elicit answers from the Minister. What you're suggesting is

that that Minister does not have to answer the questions …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: He's perfectly entitled to bring that up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I made a ruling that the Hon. Member

move to another subject. If anyone on the opposition side

wishes to challenge my ruling, they may do so in the formal

way. Otherwise I would ask them not to discuss the subject

further. I recognize the Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Just speaking to the

point of order, it seems to me that the Minister is justified

in refusing to answer this question on grounds of public

policy.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's not a point of order. Are you on a

point of order?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But it seems to me that the Hon. Member

opposite from Columbia River has the right to discuss whatever

inferences he can draw from the fact that apparently in the

land registry, the declared value at a certain date was stated

to be $580,000. Now, if he has a point to make in connection

with that, I would think that he should be allowed to make

it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I have ruled, and I will continue to

rule unless somebody challenges my ruling, that he may not

discuss further the price that the Department of Public Works

has paid for this place. If he wishes to discuss something else

to do with the value that was recorded in the land registry

office, he may do so as long as he does not ask him whether

this was the price. That is the part that I ruled out of

order.

[ Page 2082 ]

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I want to

thank the Attorney General as well for considering that fair

play should take place in this assembly.

Now, the point that I'm going to make is the fact that the

hotel has been for sale for some considerable time — for

several months prior to the purchase by the provincial

government — by National Trust Company Limited of Victoria.

They issued a brochure that this building, the Glenshiel Hotel,

was for sale "in evergreen Victoria; an 80-room hotel;

unbeatable location in the heart of Victoria; close to CPR and

Blackball ferries, airline terminal and bus depot, Beacon Hill

Park, Parliament Buildings, Undersea Gardens, Wax Museum and

other leading tourist attractions within two blocks." it's

offered at $470,000.

We've established the declared value as $580,000. The Hotel

was on the public block really, for sale to any taker at

$470,000. We find that it has been purchased by the provincial

government at $110,000 more than was originally offered to the

public. I'm wondering why this hotel was bought at more than

the advertised price. I have to suggest that it appears to me

that there has been a squandering of public funds in the

purchase of this hotel.

I think that there should be an investigation into the

purchase of this hotel, in view of the discrepancy of the

original sale price and the price paid for it by the provincial

government. I think the investigation should look into the

disposition of the funds that were given by the provincial

government to the owners. I don't know.

On the original "for sale" sign there was a down payment of

$150,000. I am wondering whether the provincial government made

a down payment or whether they paid the $580,000 in full.

There's a very serious discrepancy here. I think there should

be a complete and thorough examination of what actually has

taken place. I think there should be a full search of the

disposition of the funds that were paid for the purchase of

this hotel. Unless this investigation takes place, people will

assume probably the wrong thing relative to the additional $110,000.

It appears on the surface to be, in my opinion, a scandalous

situation — an overpayment of $110,000. I think we as Members

of this Legislative Assembly should know just what the disposition of the

$580,000 was.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, on the same subject. If we're going to

run it I think the accounts for that hotel for the last 12 months should be

brought before the Public Accounts Committee. We should be told here this afternoon

who's going to be responsible for running this hotel, because I don't think

the Department of Public Works has been in the hotel business. We'd like to

know how much insurance is going to be paid, who pays the taxes, who they're

going to pay the taxes to and who's going to look after the hiring and firing?

Where are the profits going to go? If there's a loss, who's going to make up

the loss? How long a period of time do you intend to keep the hotel going? When

you answer the other questions, would you answer those, Mr. Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. I'm surprised that the Minister hasn't risen to

his feet and responded to the very serious charge which the

Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) has laid before this

committee.

The Minister earlier, Mr. Chairman, suggested that he

couldn't answer the questions because there were negotiations

going on for the acquisition of other properties in the

immediate area. As I listened to that answer, I considered it

to be responsible on the part of the Minster. But, here

apparently it's a matter of public record in the Land Registry

Office as to what the declared value of the property is —

$580,000. It's also a matter of record available to anyone who

would seek the answers that the property was listed for

$110,000 less than that. That discrepancy is one that the

Minister cannot allow to pass unnoticed.

If this is the way negotiations are being carried on for the

acquisition of other properties within these precincts, then I

would think the owners of these properties, recognizing what

has happened at the Glenshiel Hotel, would very quickly be

recalculating any prices that they were discussing with the

Minister of Public Works. To leave this unanswered is very

serious.

The Member has talked about "squandering money". He says

it's a "scandalous situation". Is the Minister going to allow

this to remain unanswered?

I had some other questions that I wanted to pose in another

area, but in the circumstances I'll give the Minister the

chance to rise on this matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Public

Works.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, let me assure you no public

funds have been squandered. The statement that I made …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 2083 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: … there are other negotiations going on

and this will be laid as public information in due course. We

are the Government and I believe we are responsible. As for my

friend from Columbia River attempting to work up a tempest in a

teapot — well, he's good at that.

We feel because of certain other interests at this point,

it's just not in the overall interest to give that information.

It will be public information.

As far as management — these are fair questions. They were certainly looked

into and have been looked after. For the former government Members, this isn't

the only operation of this type that we are managing. We have been operating

others for some time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman: I find the answer a little bit

strange. I am sure that anyone who is negotiating for the

purchase of other buildings in that area … that the owners of

those buildings have done precisely what the Member for

Columbia River has done, and that is checked Land Registry to

see what the property has been valued at. Any prudent

individuals would have done precisely that to see what the area

had gone for.

One other question which I would like to ask: since the

Government is in the hotel business, does the City of Victoria

receive the taxes in the same manner as they previously did

from the former owner, or are they paid now on a 15 mill basis

as other government buildings would be?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: One supplemental question, dealing with this

question, Mr. Chairman. If the Minister's concern about other

negotiations is so great — can he tell us, simply, was he aware

that the Glenshiel Hotel had been offered for sale through one

of the real estate agents in this province at the price of

$470,000 and did he have this information in his possession at

the time that he concluded negotiations for the Glenshiel

Hotel?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Public

Works.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I wasn't aware of this advertisement that

the Member has been reading. We were aware that it was for

sale, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for

Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you. It's a fairly large brochure that's

been circulated all over the country no doubt — by National

Trust: "For sale, 80 room hotel. Price $470,000." What I really

can't understand is the serious discrepancy between what the

provincial government has paid for the hotel and what it was

originally for sale for.

Really, what has happened to the additional $110,000? 1

think that unless the Minister clears that up on the floor of

this House, I think we should have a public inquiry into the

disposition of the funds that were paid for that hotel. It's a

very simple question. I know that the Minister of Highways has

just given you the answer. I hope it's a reasonable answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. PHILLIPS: On the same subject, Mr. Chairman, I would

like to ask the Minister of Public Works if before purchasing

this hotel, since it's been purchased as a going concern —

there's bed linen — I presume that it's going to remain a going

concern and all of the assets and all of the liabilities of

this hotel would be purchased — was there an independent

appraisal done of this operation? You can hire independent

appraisals for insurance purposes and you can also, if you're

buying a going concern, have an independent appraisal firm come

in and appraise all the assets of the building, appraise what

their future value is going to be in 5, 10 and 20 years. You

can appraise what the profit or loss of that operation will be,

based on past financial statements. Was this done?

Have the other properties that you are considering

purchasing — the apartment building and I presume the motel on

the corner — have independent appraisals been run on these? If

you buy them are they going to continue to be run as a motel

and as an apartment building? Are you planning on having

independent appraisals made?

After all, you're spending the public's money on these

enterprises and you may have some going at the present time,

but not here in the City of Victoria. You're not in the motel

business as such and you're not in the hotel business as such

and you're not in the apartment block business as such. Would

the Minister answer those questions, please?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, again I find it a bit surprising

that they were not aware that this building had been for sale.

It was certainly very common knowledge in the business

community in the

[ Page 2084 ]

City of Victoria that the Glenshiel Hotel was for sale and

the price was certainly very widely spread. It seems rather

surprising that the Minister was not aware that this building

had been on the market for some time and what the price

was.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Public

Works.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Of course we were aware that the hotel was

for sale. If we weren't aware, we wouldn't have put in a bid to

buy it. We are also aware that it has been sold several times

over the years.

Now, before we made any serious offer in negotiations, we

had the firm that has done appraisals for the former government

for several years, we had them appraise it. And then we had an

independent appraisal. And I can tell you that we paid

something in the neighbourhood of $50,000 less than the

appraisal made by the appraiser of the former government.

MR. CHABOT: And $110,000 more than the offered price.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: No, we got it for considerably less than

the offered price.

There were two appraisals. We haven't a thing to hide. We're

an open government. But we also know something about doing

business. You people are just trying to blow it …

MR. PHILLIPS: Blow it?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: … for mischievous advantage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, again, if that is correct, then

why does the Land Registry …

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): What do you mean,

"if that's correct"?

MR. MORRISON: I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying that if

that is correct, why does the Land Registry not then record the

correct price and why is it listed in Land Registry today at

$580,000?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, just one quick question to the

Minister of Public Works. I would like to comment that some of

the Ministers should learn that off-the-cuff statements can

perhaps be very damaging to the community in which we live. We

have heard a number of them dealing with everything from

takeover of British Columbia Telephone to takeover of

Transmission Pipelines and everything else.

I would just like to suggest that these kinds of

off-the-cuff remarks are often taken seriously, particularly

among the business community. It has a rather disastrous effect

on the economy and I would like to suggest that the Minister

not indulge in these off-the-cuff remarks such as his comments

about the takeover — if that is what they were about — of the

telecommunication systems in British Columbia recently and

further remarks in the Press about the takeover of telephone

systems in the province.

I think it is time this House got a clearly-defined

statement from the Minister, first of all, telling us whether

he was enunciating Government policy when he was talking about

the takeover of these kinds of communication systems; whether

or not the Government policy is to continue or to begin to

intrude upon, first of all the telephone system, that part of

the system over which the provincial government has some

control.

To what extent, if any, does the Government intend to

control or operate community-based antenna systems? If they

don't intend to infringe on the currently operating

community-based antenna systems, do they have plans for

community-based antenna systems operated by the provincial

government on a channel applied for by the provincial

government? To what extent, if any, is the Government seeking

to intrude into the area of local community radio stations, if

any? And does the Minister have any idea of what kind of

capital commitments are necessary for the operation of these

kinds of systems?

Most important, Mr. Chairman, I think we need some kind of a

definitive statement from the Minister to carry over from his

statements in the Press with regard to these community antenna

systems and telephone systems particularly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Public

Works.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, at no time have I stated

that we would take over any of the

[ Page 2085 ]

Communication systems in this province — at no time as Minister.

I did issue a statement last Friday with regard to

regulations — the need for provincial regulation and control.

As I mentioned in my preliminary statement, Gerard Pelletier

has invited the various representatives of communications from

all the 10 provinces to meet with him. Mr. Pelletier has

indicated that they are prepared to discuss and enter into

agreements with the provinces so that the provinces will have

more say and control.

With regard to our telephone system and with regard to

communications we find, in our studies across Canada, the

provinces whose communications systems are under federal

control have the highest rates and poorest services. The

provinces that have provincial control and regulation have the

lowest rates and highest quality service. At no time did I say

that we would be taking over this sector or that sector; but I

believe that if we are going to be masters of our own house, we

do have to have some control and regulation over

communications.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A supplementary by the Member for Langley

providing it is relevant to the same …

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to

ask the Minister then if he could elaborate a little further.

We got the distinct impression that the Minister was anxious to

get into the communications business. If the Minister, Mr.

Chairman, isn't interested in taking over, then is the

Government interested in trying to get a channel of its own for

either radio or a community-based antenna system?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Minister of Public Works.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Well, of course, it is very easy for some

people to get impressions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria. I would ask the Hon. Members, if they are continuing

to pursue this subject, if they would relate it to the

Minister's estimates, not merely the statements the Minister

may make — and to his areas of responsibility under this

department.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister issues statements which

are described as Government policy statements, I would think — and perhaps you

will correct me if I am wrong — that it would somehow come under his jurisdiction

and responsibility. I noticed he has shown no hesitation in

replying to this. We on the opposition side appreciate his acknowledged

paternity of that document that came out last Friday. Surely we can question

him on this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would point out, if the Hon. Minister is

willing to answer the questions as they are put, yes, but he

may not be pressed to answer the questions inasmuch as they

don't apply to this particular department. I would oppose the

question.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, just on a point of order:

whether the Minister is willing or not is really irrelevant.

The Government put him on an interprovincial committee to deal

with this type of thing and surely Members of this House should

have an opportunity to question him on this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, in that case, it is up to the Minister

as to whether he will answer.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right. I asked the Minister some

questions in the House, I believe on Monday, on this very

subject, regarding the policy statement that he made. He stated

at that time that we would be getting a later policy statement.

We were told that it might or might not be in the House and I

just wonder when we are going to get it, if not perhaps under

this discussion we are having now.

I asked that question, Mr. Chairman, because a great deal of

concern was generated by the same type of off-hand remarks the

Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) mentioned by the Hon.

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) in his speech, I believe,

at Harrison. He was talking to broadcasters and he stated

that the Press was not doing a very good job in publicizing

Government Press releases.

The people at that time were concerned that there was an

indication of Government displeasure which tied in with the

statement made last Friday. It might indicate we are entering

into an era of communications control and control of not only

community television but other forms by the state as well,

which might well be very adverse to the open and free Press and

other media in this province.

We are particularly concerned that this statement has been

made and yet has not been elaborated on further. It is a very

curious and sketchy statement.

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I can't quote your own Press release but

I see your assistant beside you putting it on your desk, Mr.

Minister, and perhaps …

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps you were kind

[ Page 2086 ]

enough to send a copy around to me but I didn't receive it

in my office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would recognize …

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman; these people

are admitting now that they don't know what they are talking

about. I am asking them what statement they are referring to;

to make a direct quote from it and they say that if I will send

them a copy of my statement of last Friday, they will

comment.

Now, they have been making a lot of comment and apparently

they do not know what they are talking about. My statement was

merely with relation to the regulation and control …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Second Member for Victoria be

seated please. Would the Hon. Minister …

HON. MR. HARTLEY: … with regard to provincial or federal

regulation and control. We have had provincial Ministers'

meetings; we will be having another provincial Ministers'

meeting and we hope to accept the Hon. Gerard Pelletier, the

federal Minister of Communication's, invitation to meet with

the federal government. Now, my statement was merely stating

our position that we favoured provincial regulations and

control. I made no statement whatsoever with regard to the

provincial acquisition of any of our communications

institutions in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We appreciate the Minister's remarks.

However, statements were made, for example, referring to excess

profits and no definition of that was given. That is the type

of thing we are a little alarmed about. As I said, when read in

conjunction with the statement of another Minister the week

before, which again may have been off-the-cuff remarks, I am

concerned that the Press, the media in this province, might

well be leaned on by a combination of the Provincial Secretary

and Minister of Public Works.

Turning to the earlier question, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask on: if we are

getting such a fine price for the hotel, it strikes me as very, very curious,

that we wouldn't want to make it public so that the other people with whom you

are dealing know what a shrewd businessman you are, Mr. Minister. I can see

a good reason for concealing the price if you think you had to pay a little

more or if you think there was something special about this deal which didn't

apply to the others but the others would pretend that it did.

If, in fact, we got a hell of a good deal, please brag about

it because, so far, your Hon. friends further down the row,

especially the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. Mr. Williams), have been quite happy to brag about the

great deals they are getting.

They are getting a $70 million debt for nothing. If you are

getting something equally as good, please let us know what it

is. Our caucus has decided it is the type of Government that

would rush to purchase shares in the Titanic shortly after it

struck the iceberg. We want to know whether the Glenshiel Hotel

was another of these "failing" problems or whether indeed it

might be a good purchase.

If it was a good purchase, as the Minister has said, surely

he would like to tell the world about it so that the other

people who are dealing with him know full well that the reason

for concealing the information was not because the price was

too high, but because it was substantially low. If it is the

case that it was substantially low, as you indicated, Mr.

Minister, then surely releasing this information will speed up

the negotiations and will result in the government getting the

other properties at a better price.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister

a question on the same subject, going back to another

conference on communications with the other Ministers in charge

of communications for the other provinces.

Certainly at these conferences, cable television is point B"

on his Press release when he comes back. So it is very

important that the Minister is talking about cable television —

even to the point where there was a resolution passed at this

convention, with regard to cable television, and it's dated

November 21, 1972 — "Conference Interprovincial de Ministres

des Communications, Resolution on cable television:

"The Ministers agree that an ad hoc committee of provincial communications officials be established to

discuss the very important cultural, economic and legal issues

surrounding cable television, which are central to the future

development of communications in the provinces."

Now that is what the Minister said last November. So then

when he makes this statement in Harrison Hot Springs that he is

unhappy with the way the present media are delivering the

message from his great government to the people of this

province — he is unsatisfied — this brings up the very question

that

[ Page

2087 ]

we are pursuing this afternoon.

I'd like the Minister to explain his position on cable

television, because the resolution states that officials

exchange views and seek agreement on a set of principles

governing provincial action on cable television, and that the

committee report back to the next conference of the

Ministers.

Well, the Minister just stood on his feet a few moments ago,

and he said this next conference is going to be in April. Yes,

he said this month; and I asked him across the floor, "What day

in April?" But that is not the significant part, Mr. Chairman,

and I want the Minister to answer this question. When he

arrived at the interprovincial conference of communications

Ministers last November, he brought greetings from the Premier

and the new Government of British Columbia. And he said:

"May I take this opportunity to say thank you, Monsieur

l'Orateur, for the very warm hospitality that has been extended

to us during this visit to Quebec City and La Belle Province.

In British Columbia, Columbia Brittanique, we do not have a

department of communications as such, but the Premier has

requested that I attend this conference and report to him on

our deliberations. Our role in this conference will be mainly

to listen and gain a fuller knowledge of the problems and

potentialities of modern communications in our province."

Now just what does he mean by the potentialities? Is he

going to go out and buy all the existing cable communications

systems in this province? I want an answer, Mr. Chairman. I

want him to stand up and answer, because here is the

significant part of this, Mr. Chairman; that the Minister of

Public Works says, "Because of the monopolistic nature of

communications, we feel there is need for government

involvement in this field."

Now I ask you, Mr. Chairman, is the Minister of Public

Works, in view of this statement he made at Harrison, going to

set up cable television in this province as a propaganda

machine for his Government? That is the question that is here

today.

He has already said, Mr. Chairman, that he is unhappy with

what is presently happening, and he has already expressed views

that he would like to get into the cable television business.

And he has already said here that there is a need for

government involvement in this field. I ask the Minister of

Public Works, is he going to set up his own propaganda machine,

because that is about the first step in communist

takeover.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I recognize the Hon. Member for

Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The Minister

said a few moments ago that he was aware that the Glenshiel

Hotel was for sale, that they had two appraisals of the

property to justify the sale price. The for sale price was

$470,000. If the appraisal indicated that it was worth more, I

want to know why you are willing to pay $110,000 more than the

for sale price. I want to know, even though the Minister of

Highways has given you information as to the answers you should

give me, Mr. Chairman, I want to know the disposition of that

$110,000 overpayment.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much was that?

MR. CHABOT: What has been the disposition of that $110,000?

1 think it is a very serious question, and I think that we need

an investigation. Unless the Minister is willing to give us

clearcut answers on the question of the overpayment of $110,000

for the Glenshiel Hotel, we should have an investigation, a

public enquiry to see where those funds have gone.

Has the NDP received any of those funds? Unless you are

willing to answer that, one has to assume that a certain

portion of those funds went to your campaign headquarters, or

whatever you want to call it. Because there has been an

overpayment, a very serious overpayment here …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Point of order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that Member to

withdraw that statement, that inference — a very clear

inference — of wrongdoing, right now. Right now! Withdraw that

inference.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, please, there was no inference of

wrongdoing. All I'm suggesting here is that the …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated for a moment

and give the Chair a chance to speak. I would ask the Hon.

Member if he would withdraw the imputation of wrongdoing on the

part of the Minister, or on the part of the Government.

MR. CHABOT: I never suggested that there was any wrongdoing

on the part of …

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: Never at any time did I suggest that. The point

that I am making, Mr. Chairman, is this …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I asked the Hon.

[ Page 2088 ]

Member to withdraw the imputation that there was

misappropriation of funds in any way or wrongdoing on