1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JULY 7, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3433 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An overdue Bill (Bill M 212) Mr. Gibson

Introduction and first reading –– 3433

Oral questions

Alleged censure of Dr. Clarke. Mr. Cocke –– 3434

Availability of infrared photographs. Mr. Wallace –– 3434

Federal payment for northern rail agreement. Mr. Stupich –– 3434

Consultation of labour minister in bill drafting. Mr. Gibson –– 3435

Functions of Dianne Hartwick. Mrs. Dailly –– 3435

Investigation of fishing industry. Mr. Lea –– 3436

Matter of privilege

Allegations by member for Prince Rupert. Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 3438

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Highways and Public Works estimates

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3440

Mr. Lauk –– 3440

Mrs. Jordan –– 3442

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3444

Mr. Barnes –– 3445

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3446

Mr. Gibson –– 3449

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3450

Mr. Lockstead –– 3450

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3452

Mrs. Wallace –– 3454

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3456

Mr. Skelly –– 3457

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3458

Mrs. Dailly –– 3459

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3460

Mr. Stupich –– 3460

Mr.Skelly –– 3462

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3462

Mr. Barnes –– 3462

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3465

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources) : Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of introducing to the House a lady visiting from Surrey who is very active in the community. We are very proud to have here Miss Doreen Tuckwood.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce to the House three young British Columbians who have a non-partisan interest in the politics in this province, and hopefully after today will want to be replacements for many of us here. Young Ian MacLean, Michael Kaplan and David Gordon are sitting in the gallery.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca) : Mr. Speaker, with us in the gallery this afternoon are two members of my constituency, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Palmer of Burns Lake. Richard is the co-ordinator of special services for School District 55, and I ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan) : Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the House would extend a welcome to Mr. Garth Brown, who is in the gallery today. Garth is a member of the IWA and an active party worker for the New Democratic Party of British Columbia.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan) : Mr. Speaker, you will be very pleased to know that in the gallery today is Mrs. Bate, from Qualicum. Mrs. Bate's late son, Tom Bate, sat in this House in the '50s and early '60s, and represented the Vancouver-Point Grey riding. I would ask the House to give her a very warm welcome.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay) : Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have Mr. Ed McGill and his wife. Mr. McGill is the member for Brandon West in the Manitoba Legislature. I just want to remind the House that they've got more than one Conservative in Manitoba. I'd like the House to welcome him.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre) : I thought that Mr. Bate was the member for Vancouver South but I may be mistaken there. Is it Point Grey?

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be on my special good behaviour today, which

should be very pleasing to you, because my constituency secretary, Mrs. Doris

Mutch, is now present in the gallery.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct my friend from Vancouver Centre. Tom Bate represented Point Grey. There wasn't a Vancouver South in those days.

I would like to ask the members to join me in welcoming John Le Sage from Kitimat.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Victoria) : I'd like to pay tribute today to the memory of a fine British Columbian who recently passed away. Mr. Ralph Edwards was a citizen referred to often as "the Crusoe of Lonesome Lake." He passed away at the age of 85 in Prince Rupert last Sunday.

Mr. Edwards moved into Lonesome Lake, near Bella Coola, in 1912 to homestead. In 1923 he began feeding a flock of trumpeter swans which were resident to the area and were subject to food shortages in the winter. In 1936 a landslide at the outlet of the lake raised the water level eliminating most of the natural feeding areas. At t~is point Mr. Edwards began a large feeding programme to support the swans. Up to 400 pounds of grain were brought in each year, at first by pack horse and eventually by air. He was appointed a migratory bird warden and was awarded the Medal of Service in the Order of Canada in recognition of his efforts.

The population of swans is still intact, the numbers fluctuating between 300 and 400. They migrate each spring to Alaska but return every winter to Lonesome Lake. Mr. Edwards was well known and respected by the members of the Canadian Wildlife Service and the fish and wildlife branch in my ministry and by many British Columbians and Canadians.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member, I'm sure that all of the members of the House are aware of the contribution of Mr. Edwards and would want your words, if you so desire, relayed to the family of Mr. Edwards.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary) : This afternoon in the gallery we have two very special guests. I would like the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Dick Mersman. I ask the House to give a very special welcome because Mr. and Mrs. Mersman are from St. Louis, Missouri, and like our own British Columbians, they extol the virtues of British Columbia daily and bring many, many people to British Columbia through tour visits that they bring to our province.

I would like to also suggest to you that all of us have to apologize for the salmon which Mr. Mersman caught in British Columbia - it was only 26 pounds! I would like the House to welcome them and tell them that the salmon catch will be better on their next trip.

[ Page 3434 ]

MR. BARRETT : As a former resident of the city of St. Louis, county area - Brentwood, Clayton - I would like to welcome the Mersmans to British Columbia. I have many friends still in St. Louis. I'll write back and apologize for the fact that you only caught a herring on this trip.

Introduction of bills.

AN OVERDUE BILL

On a motion by Mr. Gibson, Bill M 212, An Overdue Bill, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

ALLEGED CENSURE OF DR. CLARKE

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster) : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. I would like to take the Minister of Health back to Thursday, July 5. Reading the Blues, the minister says as follows: "I had hoped I wouldn't really need to say this but I can tell you that members of the Health Officers Council of B.C. have voted to censure that member." He was talking in terms of Dr. Clarke. I would like to ask the minister where he received this information.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health) : I don't think it matters where I received that information. I would like to say, however, that the word "censure" was improperly used by myself and should not have been used. In answer to the question from the member for New Westminster, on that day that he mentions I had some information to that effect.

I have subsequently discovered, at least in the words of the senior health officer in that organization, that in fact Dr. Clarke was not censured. What happened was that the health officers voted in a large majority to support, as I mentioned before, the experimental programme of the government. Mr. Speaker, I used that word incorrectly and if I have caused any problems I apologize for that. Once in a while we goof in the terms that we use. I did on this occasion and I'll take the responsibility for that.

AVAILABILITY OF INFRARED

PHOTOGRAPHS

MR. WALLACE : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy,

Transport and Communications. Does the minister still consider that a man's

home is his castle in regard to the B.C. Hydro proposal and its Big Brother

approach to determine heat loss from British Columbia homes by sending a U2

spy plane to take infrared photographs? Since this appears to be an invasion

of privacy, can the minister tell the House how readily the photographs will

be available to real estate salesmen and companies involved in the selling of

insulation materials?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications) : Mr. Speaker, as I understand it this is an experimental programme and could be useful in the first instance in determining what large commercial and industrial installations are losing energy - wasting heat, in other words. Whether or not this technique could be applied to individual homes is something for the much longer-term future.

MR. LAUK : Is nothing sacred?

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano) : It sure isn't Socred!

MR. WALLACE : I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since readings are to be taken during the hours of darkness when most people are in bed ...

AN HON. MEMBER : Shame! (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE : ... has B.C. Hydro considered asking for the co-operation of the Kinsey research institute? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. DAVIS : I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR

NORTHERN RAIL AGREEMENT

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo) : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

of Finance. We've previously established that the government has received

$54 million from the federal government in connection with the northern railway

agreement. I did give the minister notice that I would be asking precisely what

date that money was received.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for giving me notice of his question. The financial agreement that he refers to was entered into on March 31 of this year between the governments of Canada and British Columbia regarding the settlement on B.C. Railway capital expenditures on the Dease Lake line and the CNR capital expenditure on the proposed other line to December 31,1977.

It provides for a federal payment to the B.C. government of up to $81 million. The $54 million

[ Page

3435 ]

MR. STUPICH : A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I know that the books are kept open for a few days after the end of the fiscal year. I wonder whether that $54 million will be included as an item of non-budgetary revenue in the fiscal accounts for the year ended March 31,1977.

HON. MR. WOLFE : No, Mr. Speaker. The item, having been received on April 1, will show as a non-budgetary revenue item in the current fiscal year ending March 31,1978. The bill before the House at this time is associated with the payment of that over to B.C. Rail and covers the expenditure for the same.

MR. STUPICH : Well, Mr. Speaker, I suppose this question could have been avoided had we had the fourth-quarter report that was going to come out. I wonder whether the government has any intention of bringing forth the fourth quarterly report, or does it intend to wait until the abridged public accounts are ready?

HON. MR. WOLFE : No, Mr. Speaker. We've already established that we will be tendering only the abridged public accounts. They will be released, I believe, some time in early August.

Incidentally, the payment to which the member refers has been recorded in the Ministry of Finance expense accounts and the funds invested in short-term bank deposits.

CONSULTATION OF LABOUR MINISTER

IN BILL DRAFTING

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the great concern of the B.C. Federation of Labour and others over the bargaining unit decertification provisions of Bill 65 and Bill 68, could the Minister of Labour say if he was consulted in their drafting?

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour) : Improper!

MR. SPEAKER : Well, I'm sorry, hon. members. I could rule on the question if I had heard it fully. I'm sorry but I didn't catch the full import of the question because I was distracted by something else, hon. member.

MR. GIBSON : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I asked the minister if he was consulted

in the drafting of certain sections of Bills 65 and 68.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education) : It's a message bill, Mr. Speaker; it's clearly out of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT : Oh, Dr. Pat, let him answer.

FUNCTIONS OF DIANNE HARTWICK

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North) : I have a question for the hon. Provincial Secretary. In August, 1976, her executive assistant, Dianne Hartwick, defeated candidate for the Social Credit Party presidency, was appointed her executive assistant.

My question to the Provincial Secretary is: why is Ms. Hartwick's name not listed along with all the other ministerial executive assistants in The British Columbia Gazette quarterly instalment?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Speaker, Ms. Hartwick's responsibilities cross four social services portfolios with responsibility to the Provincial Secretary. As such, she isn't listed under my directory as Provincial Secretary because she doesn't report directly to me but through the four social services committees which she liaises among.

MRS. DAILLY : She is appointed as your executive assistant at the salary other executive assistants receive, I believe. Yet I understand what you're saying is she is primarily doing work with Human Resources. If this is so, why is she not put through the public service to work in Human Resources as anyone else would be?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Well, the responsibility which Ms. Hartwick undertakes is one which covers four portfolios, as I have outlined and as was outlined in the press release which accompanied her appointment.

As to the deletion from The Gazette, I would not have knowledge of that but I can certainly inquire after it. I'm sorry, I just don't have that knowledge. I don't have the knowledge that she was deleted from the list, but I will find out why and how and so on for the hon. member.

MR. LAUK : Are we to understand that Ms. Hartwick, although she is employed or working in the Ministry of Human Resources, reports to the Provincial Secretary? Is that what the minister has said?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Yes.

MR. LAUK : Would the hon. minister indicate whether she has received any complaints about this from the minister of Human Resources?

[ Page 3436 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : No.

MR. BARRETT : Mr. Speaker, could the Provincial Secretary explain to this House as to the legal authority of Ms. Hartwick being with the ministry of Human Resources when indeed the only record that is public as to her responsibility is an order-in-council dated August 13,1976, wherein Donna Dianne Hartwick is appointed executive assistant to the Provincial Secretary at the annual salary of $19,500? Clearly that is the legal authority for you to hire a political assistant. We do not have a copy of any authority transferring her. On top of that, Mr. Speaker, we find that her name does not exist, as is required by law, in The Gazette.

I ask the Provincial Secretary: if she is no longer working for the Provincial Secretary and if this order-in-council has been rescinded, who is paying her and under what authority?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Speaker, I'm not so sure in my own mind if the question is even in order, but I'll take the question as notice and pursue it.

MR. BARRETT : Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. There are no supplemental questions to a question taken on notice, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT : Well, I have a new question. I ask the Provincial Secretary....

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member, you sought to gain the floor on the basis of a supplemental question, which I have said is not in order when a question has been taken as notice.

MR. BARRETT : The question is in order that I gave - is that it? She said it might not be in order.

MR. SPEAKER : She's taking the question as notice, hon. member.

INVESTIGATION OF FISHING INDUSTRY

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert) : I have a question, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Minister of Economic Development. Could the minister tell me whether or not there has been initiated within the government a review of the fishing industry in all aspects?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development) : Mr. Speaker,

I'm glad the member asked that question, because the other day the member

made certain allegations in this House about the fishing industry and about

a certain industry which we were endeavouring to help - statements, Mr. Speaker,

which I'm surprised to learn were completely unfounded. I've done a

little bit of research on the completely unfounded allegations made by the member,

and erroneous statements they were....

MR. LAUK : Did Arthur do it for you?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS : I'd be most pleased to relay to the House the facts of the fishing industry. I must say I'm indebted to the member for asking this question on this particular date.

There was a statement, Mr. Speaker, attributed to the member for Prince Rupert regarding the fishing industry, where he stated that independent canneries are being wiped out in a single season....

MR. LEA : Point of order!

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please! Would both the member for Prince Rupert and the hon. minister take their seats for just one moment?

There is some direction with respect to the asking of questions and the giving of answers in this House.

One of the things , that comes up and that I have reviewed just today is that no debate shall be allowed during questions. Now it seems to me that to interrupt an answer or to interrupt a question with a point of order would be very incorrect. I would like it, if anyone can show me any specific reason or any rule or order or any reference that says the Speaker should allow interruptions in the question period, either in the stating of questions or the answers by points of order, if they would please bring it to my attention.

MR. LEA : Point of order. Mr. Speaker, if I ask you what time it is and you tell me it's Friday....

MR. SPEAKER : The hon. member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LEA : Yes, the point is that the minister was not answering the question. If he wants leave of the House to make a statement, I, for one, would be glad to give it to him after question period.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please! It seems to me that in question period, in recent days particularly, there's been an attempt by those people stating questions to do anything but ask a question or a supplemental question. They skated all the way around the issue, made political statements and then, when political statements are given in retaliation, there seems to be a feeling that the member who is answering the question is abusing the members. If in fact you wish to state questions and supplementals, and allow the same courtesy in that respect as in the answering of

[ Page

3437 ]

questions, I'm sure we'll get far more questions into the question period and far more answers.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS : I'll be most happy, because I understand the member.... (Laughter.)

Point of order, Mr. Speaker: Can the bell interrupt a member when he's answering his question? I've never....

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS : I'd ask leave to give the answer though. Yes. I'd ask leave to give the answer. Do you want the answers? Mr. Speaker, I ask them: do they want the answers to their questions? I ask leave to give the answers.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please!

MR. LEA : If the minister has a statement to make about the fishing industry, I would ask leave of the House to allow the minister to do that.

MR. SPEAKER : Unfortunately, hon. member, it's not your position to ask leave on behalf of some other member. Does the hon. minister ask leave?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS : Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm asking leave.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS : Yes, Mr. Speaker. Pardon me for that interruption.

Now I presume that the member for Prince Rupert was asking if I had started a study of the fishing industry based on allegations which he made in this House a few short days ago about there being a secret cartel in the fishing industry.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to state that to back up his statement - I attribute this to a statement in The Vancouver Sun which he made in this House; unfortunately I wasn't here and didn't hear it - he said independent canneries are being wiped out in a single season. Another statement attributed to the member was that Francis Millerd and Sons, Nishi Industries and Queen Charlotte Fisheries were all hit.

The facts, Mr. Speaker, and the reasons we haven't conducted that study, are: No. 1, Francis Millerd and Sons is not out of business. The company will operate this season under the name of Millerd Fisheries Ltd. and the changes in the name are due to deaths in the Millerd family. There was no loss whatsoever.

Nishi Industries Ltd. is out of business. Nishi was a very small operator who

priced himself out of the market largely by paying very high prices for salmon.

No. 3: Oakland Industries is operating under new financing in the name of Oakland

Fisheries Ltd. As for Queen Charlotte Fisheries Ltd., the Prince Rupert plant

was sold to J.S. Millen Fisheries Ltd. and is now operating with a full complement

of employees.

The Richmond plant - you know what has happened there. We did, as you know, everything possible and made an offer to keep that plant operating. As a matter of fact, I just wrote a letter yesterday to the chairman of the board of the British Columbia Development Corporation thanking them for the hours that they put in in that particular.... They certainly went beyond the call of duty.

Here is another statement which I presume the member is asking us questions about. It says: "B.C. Packers has signed a first-ever contract for export of eight million pounds of sockeye salmon representing the bulk of an average year's pack to Japan." I'm still quoting the member. "The situation demands an immediate government response and a public inquiry to determine if British Columbia's small independent firms and workers in the fishing industry are being sacrificed to help bring about a secret international cartel."

Now the fact is, from informed opinions, that there are probably half a dozen such contracts between B.C. companies and Japanese trading companies. Japanese companies will write such contracts in the hope of securing supplies. They are usually written to indicate willingness to purchase up to a certain quantity, knowing full well that supplies cannot be acquired. In fact, if there were 10 million pounds of sockeye available, B.C. Packers may secure one-half of that total; 78 to 80 per cent of that amount would be canned - that is, of canning quality. At the very outside, then, B.C.

Packers may be able to export one million pounds of sockeye. Export regulations allow for export of only the very highest quality fish, appropriate, of course, for freezing. Most of the B.C. catch is of canning quality.

There is a significant degree of competition between B.C. companies to secure salmon, herring and other species which are in short supply. There is no evidence of a cartel. About 59 companies participated in the herring fishery last year, the highest number ever.

Mr. Speaker, I just have to say that this is another instance of an uninformed member who hasn't done his homework throwing allegations across the floor to mislead the people of this province.

MR. LEA : I ask leave to make a statement in reply.

Leave granted.

MR. LEA : Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is obvious to

[ Page 3438 ]

me that the people who inform the minister haven't informed him of all the facts. For instance, he doesn't seem to know that the Millerd Fisheries no longer do any of their canning. That's one aspect of the B.C. fishing industry that's gone. They no longer do any of their canning. He obviously didn't know that.

But I believe that the most important thing the minister said is that because of last week's events they haven't had a chance to begin a study into the fishing industry. He should have checked with the Premier of this province, who, when the minister was away, said that the government had in a number of various departments. -

MR. LAUK : Was he telling the truth?

MR. LEA : Now I'd like to know which minister is levelling with this House. Is it the Premier, who said that the study and the review had begun, or the Minister of Economic Development, who just now stated that they haven't had a chance to begin the study?

It's almost, Mr. Speaker, the same as saying that there are no seatbelts in the car, and you look in the back and see with a television camera that there are obvious seatbelts.

Over and over and over again in this House we get conflicting statements from the ministers and from other people, and even conflicting statements among themselves. It's obvious to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier forgot to tell the minister what he said in the House so the minister didn't know what the Premier said. We now have the truth: no study is being done into the fishing industry in any department and the Premier did not level with this House when he said that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : One moment, please. If we're going to enter into a full-scale debate, that's one thing; but for anything other than that, there must be leave granted to make a statement.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier) : Well, Mr. Speaker, I asked leave on a question of privilege.

AN HON. MEMBER : There's no leave. You've had your statement.

HON. MR. BENNETT : This is leave on a question of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER : If there is a question of privilege before the House, then

the Speaker must listen to it. The Speaker will determine what he heard, and

I heard the hon. Premier say a question of privilege.

HON. MR. BENNETT : Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has made allegations as to the authenticity of statements I made to this House.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK : Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER : I'm listening at the moment, hon. members, to the Premier, who is on his feet on a question of privilege.

MR. LAUK : A point of order must be heard at any time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER : I must first deal, hon. members, with the question of privilege which has been raised by the Premier. I cannot deal with a point of order on a question of privilege or at a time the question of privilege is being stated to the House.

MR. LAUK : Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of privilege. That point of order is always in order. This is the most partial Chair I have seen in a long time -an absolute disgrace!

HON. MR. BENNETT : Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince Rupert made statements as to the accuracy - and, in fact, he questions the honesty - of the Premier of this province in this House. I wish to state that he has selective hearing. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) said he hadn't initiated an inquiry into his specific charges. I wish to reiterate that he is wrong when he makes those allegations against the Premier of this province, and that, indeed, an inquiry is going on into the fishing industry in the Recreation and Conservation branch of this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Order!

HON. MR. BENNETT : But nobody with the experience of having to deal with the member for Prince Rupert puts very much faith in the charges and statements he makes in this House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni) : There is no order in this House.

[Mr. Speaker rises. ]

MR. SPEAKER : The hon. member for Alberni will unequivocally withdraw the statement which I heard, which was to the effect that there is no order in this

[ Page

3439 ]

House. Withdraw that, hon. member.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat. ]

MR. SKELLY : I withdraw.

AN HON. MEMBER : Wrong again!

MR. SKELLY : I didn't say I was wrong. I just withdrew.

MR. LAUK : Mr. Speaker, with respect, on a question of privilege, if the matter is not a question of privilege, this is why I raised the point of order. The Premier quite often stands in his place and seeks out whatever comes to hand to interrupt the proceedings or to take an improper place of precedence in debate.

AN HON. MEMBER : Order!

MR. LAUK : He did so again, and I raise that as an important point of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT : You don't want to know.

MR. LAUK : In a question of privilege, if it's raised by a member of this House and it's not a question of privilege, a point of order should be raised by any member of this House. It's his right to bring it to the Speaker's attention. That's the first point of the point of order.

Secondly, the standing orders provide for any member to rise in his place to correct a statement. That's not a question of privilege, as the Premier stated. The Premier knows full well that that was not a question of privilege but used it to gain the floor. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, with respect, to have regard for the standing orders which allow for any member to stand in his place and correct a statement that directly concerns that member.

MR. SPEAKER : In reply to the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre, and for the benefit of all the members of this House, may I say this? I intend, within the next few days, to research thoroughly the matter of questions of privilege and points of order as they have been used, and often abused, by this entire assembly.

There's ample precedent in Beauchesne and May with respect to the device

which is used by members when they rise on a point of order to interrupt the

proceedings of the House in order to detract from a statement or a debate that

is taking place. It's called an abuse of the rules of the House when that

happens. Many abuses have occurred in the last few days. I give warning to all

sides of this House that this Chair does not intend to put up any longer with

the abuses which have occurred. I say that equally to all members of this House.

It is not the position of the Chair to allow the discourteous performance that

has taken place in this assembly to continue any longer.

MR. BARRETT : Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to call Motion 13 standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave not granted.

MR. BARRETT : Sorry, Mr. Speaker. Were there some noes? You don't want to discuss the very matter....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. It's the Speaker's place in the chair....

MR. BARRETT : I didn't hear noes.

MR. SPEAKER : I did, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was only asking for clarification.

MR. LAUK : I'm rising under standing order 42 (l) . During introductions, I was correct and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) was correct - the late Thomas Audley Bate served in Vancouver-Point Grey from 1953 right through to 1966, when he was elected in Vancouver South and then passed away. A by-election then occurred.

MR. SPEAKER : Thank you for the correction, hon. member.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HIGHWAYS

AND PUBLIC WORKS

(continued)

On vote 146: minister's office, $158,130 -

continued.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : The evening before last I heard from the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) , who is in his seat this afternoon, some allegations against my office and my ministry, which I investigated. I drew them to the attention of the House yesterday afternoon when the hon. member was not in his seat. It has reference to the estimates which are before the House at the present time, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask now, and I would like to ask

[ Page 3440 ]

through you, Mr. Chairman, to have it clearly established on the record, as clearly as it was established on the record that a misunderstanding by the Hon. member for Vancouver Centre was perpetrated the evening before last....

The allegation was that.1 authorized the removal of a brand new carpet in my office. The fact is that the Public Works department at the time removed a carpet that had been laid in 1965 at their initiation and according to the plan established by a former administration. So fact No. 1 is that it was not a brand new carpet.

The second allegation that was made was that the cost of the carpet now in my office was a cost that far exceeded that of the planned carpet which the Public Works department under this ministry wished to lay. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that the carpet installed in my office - the office of the Provincial Secretary -- is cheaper by more than $200 than the so-called Rattenbury carpet, and the Hon. member alleged in this House that it was a far costlier carpet.

Yesterday 1 asked for the Hon. member to apologize to the House, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say through you to the Hon. member that there are only two reasons why he would make those allegations on the floor of this House to this assembly: one is that he is ignorant of the facts - and 1 will accept that; I would like to accept his apology if he was ignorant of the facts; the other, and the only other

interpretation that can be taken, is that he is misleading the House. On either account, Mr. Chairman, I would like him to stand in his place and apologize to the House for the allegations which he made.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. I would remind the hon. Provincial Secretary that it is perfectly in order in committee to make a correction on a statement made by any member of the House. However, it is unparliamentary to say that another member misled the House, particularly if there is any deliberation to that particular phrase at all. Therefore I would ask the Hon. Provincial Secretary if she was imputing improper motive to the member, and, if so, she must withdraw.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Chairman, 1 would be pleased to withdraw the words "misleading the House" and I will leave it to the Hon. member for Vancouver Centre to correct the statements.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The statement stands corrected. Every member's word as an hon. member....

The first member for Vancouver Centre on the vote.

MR. LAUK : Mr. Chairman, I raised these remarks on this vote the other

day and this is what has encouraged the Provincial Secretary to take the unusual

step of entering the debate twice. The remarks of the Provincial Secretary were

drawn to my attention yesterday, so I double-checked and 1 found indeed that

this was the carpet the Provincial Secretary is having laid. Is that correct?

Is this it here?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : 1 didn't doubt the choice of carpet. Sure, anybody can get....

MR. LAUK : Now I ask all the people of British Columbia to have a look at this carpet. You tell me whether it's worth $200 less or more to lay this carpet in a Crown minister's office. It's Social Credit brown. I'm amazed that the Provincial Secretary, a day after the remarks were made, would rise in her place and ask me to apologize for her having such poor taste - with great respect. I do apologize to the people of British Columbia for having a Provincial Secretary with such poor taste.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, I think the member is aware that....

MR. LAUK : Now getting on with the vote....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. Hon. member, I think you are aware that statements can be corrected but a personal attack is not permissible in the House. 1 would ask the Hon. member to desist from attack.

MR. LAUK : I will desist from a personal attack, Mr. Chairman, and 1 won't breathe a word to the people of British Columbia about this carpet.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Chairman, 1 don't like his taste in parties, so I don't mind when he talks about my colour scheme.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. Now to vote 146.

MR. LAUK : On vote 146, 1 should remind the committee....

AN HON. MEMBER : Are you going to wear that?

MR. LAUK : No, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) has already bid on this carpet. 1 will. wear another one.

Mr. Chairman, the committee should be reminded that it was the Hon. Provincial Secretary who went across this province and claimed to the people of British Columbia ...

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Are you going to

[ Page

3441 ]

withdraw your remark?

MR. LAUK : ... that the NDP had a secret police force, and that was a lie.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : 1 didn't do it in this House. I'm asking you to withdraw that remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please.

MR. LAUK : That was not true.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please, hon. member. We are on vote 146.

MR. LAUK : She has not yet stood in this House as a Crown minister and apologized to both this party and the people of the province of British Columbia about lying to the people of the province! There was no secret police force!

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please, hon. member.

MR. LAUK : She knew it at the time but she went across this province and claimed that was so! Dr. Goebbels couldn't have done a better job.

[Mr. Chairman rises. ]

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. Vote 146, let me remind the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre, is the vote of the Minister of Highways and Public Works. It is for $158,130 and has to do with the administration of the Ministry of Highways and Public Works.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MRS. JORDAN : Mr. Chairman, 1 am pleased to speak on this vote. 1 certainly don't want to discuss carpets other than to say that ....

MR. LAUK : Mr. Chairman ...

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. Only one member may have the floor at one time. 1 recognize the hon. member for North Okanagan.

MR. LAUK : Mr. Chairman, you rose in your place and 1 took my scat. That does not relinquish my place in this debate.

MRS. JORDAN : I'll abide by your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LAUK : When the Speaker or Chairman rises in his place, all members

are to take their seats. 1 did so, and according to the standing orders 1 do

not relinquish my place in the debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Was the member rising to speak on vote 146? He did not state his intention to rise on a point of order.

MR. LAUK : No, 1 didn't.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Therefore you, had no precedence. If you are rising to speak on vote 146, then 1 will recognize the first member for Vancouver Centre if the member for North Okanagan defer.

MRS. JORDAN : Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd be pleased to.

MR. CHAIRMAN : On a point of order, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

MR. LAUK : If 1 take my scat will 1 relinquish... ?

HON. MR. BAWLF : Mr. Chairman, in his most recent remarks the member for Vancouver Centre made reference to the word "lie." 1 would like him to clarify to this House whether he was impugning the character of the hon. Provincial Secretary in implying that she was lying or extending a lie to British Columbians.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The Chair did not hear the remark. However, if the remark was made 1 must ask the member to withdraw. Please withdraw, hon. member, and we can continue.

MR. LAUK : 1 impugned no improper motive to any member of this House.

HON. MR. BAWLF : You said the word "lie." Withdraw!

MR. CHAIRMAN : Vote 146. First member, Vancouver Centre - may we proceed, please?

MR. LAUK : My complaint, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Minister of Highways and Public Works allowing his staff to pander to the tastes of ministers in decorating their offices is simply this: the carpet was ordered for that office and was on the way, if not already laid, when the minister chose a carpet from Eaton's - which is a lot better than the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , who has had his on order from Italy or something....

HON. MR. GARDOM : That's not true!

AN HON. MEMBER : Oh, Garde, it is so! It goes with your white shoes!

[ Page 3442 ]

MR. LAUK : I understand the Attorney-General wanted a carpet in cathedral purple or supreme court red, but I understand that, having regard for the recent comments of the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) , he has ordered orthopaedic purple, which would be very, very much in character with an Attorney-General who has back problems. I greatly sympathize with him, indeed.

Mr. Chairman, the cost per yard may well be slightly below the carpet that has been laid traditionally in these parliament buildings, but what I'm trying to protest in this committee is that ministers are being pandered to by the Ministry of Highways and Public Works.

I think it is appropriate for the Minister of Public Works, who is an honest man, to conduct the proper activities of the department in decorating the parliament buildings and precincts according to the proper design that has been established, and not cater to the panderings of a Provincial Secretary or anyone else. For heaven's sake! What is this going to do to the image of the province of British Columbia when the chief minister in charge of protocol, who invites consuls and ambassadors into her office, has Social Credit brown on her floor? That is very embarrassing and that is the point I wish to raise, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman - you having now assumed the chair - you are a gentleman of exquisite

taste! That taste, over the years, has been eroded. You were once a member of

the CCF. Nevertheless, I ask you: would you have this carpet on your office

floor?

MRS. JORDAN : Mr. Chairman, I don't really intend to discuss carpets but it is a little disturbing....

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre) : On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, could you explain to me the procedure for recognizing a member?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Yes, the procedure is that the Chairman has the right to recognize any member on the floor and the first member who stands is the one....

MR. BARNES : But you have that option -whether it's the first member or....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, would you kindly take your seat? I have recognized the member for North Okanagan.

MR. BARNES : You've answered my question, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. JORDAN : Perhaps the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, wasn't in his place but I was recognized by the Chair - or the member for North Okanagan was formally recognized by the Chair and deferred to the first member from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) . I'm sure the hon. member for Vancouver Centre would want to be very fair to all members of this House.

Mr. Chairman, as I say, I don't want to talk about carpets but I do become a little disturbed when I listen to this debate. The hon. member keeps waving that carpet around; it looks to be very much the same colour as the carpet we have in our family room. I'm beginning to wonder if I want to go home after this.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN : It's a good carpet. (Laughter.) We have horses, too.

My intention in rising in this debate is to discuss a matter of interest to the people in North Okanagan and one that is really rather sensitive. There would appear to be some concern on the part of the people about a highway development programme that has been initiated by the city and yet may not rest well with the people. There's also a danger that it may, in fact, be the only alternative open to both the regional district and the government. I refer directly, Mr. Chairman, to Highway 97 and the possible alternate which has been proposed.

I would like to read into the record at this time the fact that the original agreement between the Highways ministry of the government of British Columbia and the city of Vernon was that when 32nd Avenue was designated as Highway 97 through the community but did not complete its extension to Highway 97 north, it was agreed that when the city was ready, we would complete that extension.

In the ensuing time, the city has developed substantially and the proposed area for that extension joining Highway 97 south with 97 north is not really available any longer as a proper development link.

At the same time, Highway 6, which links into 97, has seen considerable development on its perimeter, both from the Lumby-Lavington-Coldstream area as well as on the outskirts and within the city of Vernon. What we have is a focal point of congested traffic with nowhere to go in any sense, whether to link with Highway 97 north or south or with Highway 6. At the time this agreement was made, Mr. Chairman - and I bring this in because it also affects the minister's vote - there was a linking street between Highways 6 and 97 north called 27th Street. This street is a people street. It was then and it still in large

part is now. It is a street bounded by a number of churches, schools and single-family dwellings. The planning for the area would indicate that there may be some multi-family developments within its perimeter that will be feeding onto this street. It is

[ Page

3443 ]

essentially a people street.

On this street is one of the historic buildings in the province of British Columbia, the Vernon courthouse. Its construction took place at the initiative of the Hon. Price Ellison, at that time Minister of Agriculture in the government of British Columbia. The courthouse is historic, not only in its time and because of the life that has gone on within it, but because of its architecture and the fact that it is constructed with native granite from the region.

HON. MR. BAWLF : It's Rattenbury architecture.

MRS. JORDAN : Yes, thank you, hon. minister. It is and I think it's unique, in part, in its structure.

The MLA for the area at the time became very much aware of the need to try and preserve this building, not only for its architecture and history but to make it more usable and to also face the problem of sound which was creating difficulties within the courts and offices.

With this in mind, a major portion of land in front of the building was purchased by the government of British Columbia and a unique park, representative of the times, was developed. Called Justice Courts, this park was created not only as an expression of the time of our day but as a means of helping to preserve the courthouse and its functions. It was planned at that time that 27th Street should be rerouted in front of the park, along with acquisition of more land to extend the park; and that 27th Street, now between the courthouse and the park, should be reduced to a service road.

In the meantime, other circumstances have taken place and we find ourselves

in the position where the city of Vernon is seeking to designate 27th Street

as a highway and link it to Highway 97 south with an extension called the Polson

extension which would border the new regional college site. I would like to

suggest that it may well be important to have the Polson extension linking up

27th Street, Highway 6 and the college in order to provide an eastern access

to the college, if in fact it is to be a community college. It demands that

there be access. But whether or not 27th Street should become the major highway

is the question. There is no question that the noise factor and the volume of

traffic is going to be disruptive to the churches, to the schools and to the

people who live along there.

Even more serious is the fact that the highway is going to erode some of the created Justice Court Park. This loss would be regrettable. Although it's minimal, it nonetheless defeats a lot of the purpose of the park's creation.

The other factor which is very significant to the region of the North Okanagan is that unless there is an alternative in terms of maintaining the courthouse's effectiveness, we are in grave danger of jeopardizing our regional provincial offices and the court systems that take place within that building. Those who work in the building have made it very clear.

Mr. Chairman, the debate over the last two or three weeks has been somewhat prolonged, somewhat acrimonious and somewhat dominated by some of the members who are now sitting in this House in the opposition. I would hope, if nothing else, they would extend government members at least the courtesy of reasonable quiet when they are taking a few moments to express their constituents' concerns.

Those who are currently working within the confines of this unique building - including the courts - have advised me as MLA, the city and others concerned that there is no way they can carry on court functions if the noise factor continues to exist. It also brings into serious question whether or not we should proceed with any type of further government office complex in that area, as originally planned. The matter of soundproofing the courthouse is certainly one of interest, but very questionable as to its success.

I have brought this up, Mr. Chairman, because, as I mentioned, it's a very sensitive question in our area and I think it should be aired. Frankly, I don't have all the answers, but I would request the minister at this time to take an unusual step and, before deciding to proceed with the city of Vernon's request, we immediately commission a study to look at any other alternative which might be available to the Highways ministry and the city of Vernon.

There's a serious problem in terms of local traffic coming in from Highway 6. It's heavy-duty traffic -it's logging traffic - and we don't want to deter it. It's very important to the economy of our area, but it is a problem. If the minister could give his assurance.... I realize it's asking a lot. It's in the middle of the year and I'm sure most of his estimates that haven't been passed yet are well spent. In fact, my own Highways engineer told me that he had a $350,000 deficit that he'd like to pay, and I said I was sure he could as soon as the estimates were through.

But this is such a serious thing for our community. It's a matter of great concern to our citizens. I think that even if we come up with a negative answer, they would like to be assured that we as a government are sensitive to their concerns. I know this Highways

[ Page 3444 ]

minister is.

I believe we're in agreement that the days when our much respected and very accomplished engineers can go in and say, "That's the way the traffic has to go; it doesn't matter what happens to the community or the people, " are gone. And I say this with the greatest respect to the engineering profession. We owe them a lot, but somehow we have to listen and we have to be sensitive to the community's reaction to highway development. I think we have to remember that parks and public lands that exist do have a place and, where possible, we must avoid trying to disrupt them.

This brings me to my next point, which is another serious and sensitive area. It relates again, Mr. Chairman, to Highway 6, as that traffic enters the easterly side of Vernon, proceeds beside a school on 25th Avenue, and turns left to Highway 97 south or proceeds down Okanagan Avenue to Okanagan Landing. There has been a design done and I regret that my request was not heeded - and perhaps not properly made - to have an alternate looked at before this design was done. But the design that has come up, that has been presented, allows for the widening of 25th Avenue and the removing of a small portion of the park area in order to allow for a lefthand turn slot.

If this was really going to accomplish something for the traffic congestion there I don't feel I would be so concerned, but when one examines the plan it would indicate that there will only be about four or five vehicle spaces in that lefthand turn slot. It really is not going to assist the traffic problem. It means that the congestion and noise within that area will grow increasingly, we will have lost some parkland, and the road is adjacent to a senior secondary school.

The city of Vernon has made it quite clear, both through their citizens and mostly through their engineer, that they don't want to impose one-way streets. I would suggest, Mr. Minister, a study to indicate whether a one-way traffic flow in this particular instance would not be more acceptable to the citizens of the area and, hopefully, to the city.

If we did this we could have a flow of traffic coming from Highway 6 further along and turning left on 28th Avenue. It would proceed down 28th Avenue and its direction would be either right or left on Highway 97 within the city. The incoming traffic down Highway 97 south would turn right on the existing 25th Avenue and all traffic which was going from Highway 6 to the Okanagan Landing area would go down 25th Avenue.

I suggest that while the solution would not be perfect, the saving of the parkland,

the diminishing of the noise factor for the school and an easier flow of traffic

would be well worth the effort. I would ask the minister to have this looked

into immediately before any irreversible steps have been taken.

Before I bring up the last two points, I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of the people of the North Okanagan to thank the minister, his staff, his executive assistants and all the engineers and people in the ministry for the courtesy and the effort they have made in our constituency and for the benefits that are now developing in the traffic area. We appreciate it very much. While we are asking for a few more, we understand you can't have everything.

At this point - maybe I should say "however" - the most welcome passing

lanes on Highway 97 are now in place and we're very grateful to have them.

But they are , causing some problems. For example, one ends on an outside curve on a corner, and within less than 100 yards there is a culvert overpass with a cement abutment. It's a very dangerous situation. I think some of the difficulties that are being caused in other areas are because the lines aren't on yet, but when one examines it - I took the time on the weekend to go over these both on foot and twice by car, and I'm certainly not an engineer - I think for the volume of traffic we have that we'd be wise to look at either extending these or at putting in two more to carry southbound traffic within the next year. I would leave this with the minister.

One last point I would like to bring up is the Oyama corner, which is a famous corner in the community of Oyama on Highway 97. There's a crossover between each side of the community and Highway 97; fruit flows, children flow senior citizens flow and traffic flows very heavily. We did have a plan some years ago to reroute one of these roads. I would like to revise this and bring it to the minister as soon as it has been approved by the regional district. The reason it was cancelled before was that there was a change of government and they didn't seem to feel that this was important in terms of priorities.

It may well have been, but at this time it is important and I believe the traffic volume is there. What is more serious is that the potential for a serious accident between vehicles and people is very great.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time. I realize these were very local issues, but the people of the North Okanagan like to know that some of their particular concerns are brought to the floor of the House. On their behalf again, I'd like to thank the minister and all his staff for what they've done for our area.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works) : I thank the member for North Okanagan for those kind remarks. I'm personally aware of some of the problems you brought up and we'll certainly look into them. I would suggest, though, going from back to front, that you get your opinions on the Oyama problem in to us because we'd like to continue on the upgrading in that general area of the North Okanagan.

[ Page

3445 ]

On the observation you made on the passing lane, the staff will immediately take a look. At least additional signing is maybe required there. The fact that the passing lane stops on an outside curve really shouldn't happen, so the deputy minister will look at that right away.

Regarding where Highway 6 junctions with Highway 97, I'm not sure where that is but I believe that is under design right now for a left-turn slot and so on. We'll have to look into your suggestion of going to one-way traffic. But I'm very aware of that intersection. It's a real mess around there and we'd like to get on with cleaning it up.

I think your major problem, really, is the alternate to Highway 97, which is pretty well plugged on 32nd Avenue; the alternate is 27th Avenue. I believe the status of 27th Avenue is a secondary highway. We have already helped upgrade it through contribution of funds to the city. But the immediate problem is the noise that ensues from the heavy traffic of the courthouse there. I'm pleased to tell you today that an acoustic engineer has been appointed to go up there and make a noise survey.

Now your remark was that it mightn't do any good, but at least we're going to take a look at that because I've had letters from judges regarding this, saying they can't hold court there any longer unless we do something about it. We have to get on top of it right away to see whether we can help the acoustics in that building. I believe we have July and August to do it because the courts won't sit. That's what we've done about that. I'm not sure whether the engineer is up there or not now but I believe he is or on his way right away. I think that pretty well covers the points you brought up.

- We'll have to look in a hurry at the junction of Highway 97 and Highway 6 because I think the designer is practically ready to go do the work.

While I'm on my feet, the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) asked some questions yesterday and I answered in part. I'd like to answer now for the record for that member. He's not here but I know he was here earlier. He was referring to the Blanshard Street extension. The total cost of properties purchased for this road extension was $3,696, 812. The number of property owners from whom property had been purchased to date is 62. The number of owners whose property right-of-way has been gazetted with no settlement to date is 10. These 10 have been gazetted under the Highway Development Act. To date we have indication that one property owner of these 10 will be proceeding to arbitration.

The other question that I answered partially last evening is regarding St.

Ann's Academy. In Victoria there are two parcels of land in question. The

first is the actual site of the building. The other is across academy Close,

which is commonly known as the annex. Assessed values are as follows: St. Ann's

Academy, land value - $609,820; improvements -$293,090; the annex, land value

- $49,670; and improvements - $56,010. 1 believe that answers the questions

the member had on that.

MRS. JORDAN : You're quite right - and this is what prompted me to bring this up in the House because your estimates are up and it's not always appropriate to contact you in your office because you're on the floor - the design for that intersection is not only completed, it's there now. I was quite disturbed and disappointed to find that the suggestion I had sent through to the department earlier hadn't been acted upon. The design that's in does allow only for the original suggestion.

I asked the engineer to phone me this morning but he hasn't had time. I believe I can confirm that there are only about five lefthand turning slots within the design, so the effort doesn't really seem to be worth the cost involved in terms of dollars or the cost involved in terms of loss of the park area. I would hope that perhaps this could be looked into immediately as an alternate.

MR. BARNES : We were speaking a few days ago about tendering, Mr. Chairman. I just want to ask the minister if he received a letter from the B.C. and Yukon Territory Building Construction Trades Council in the middle of last March. They were inquiring about the policy respecting the support for the trades in the province, namely the carpenters who were in the millwork trades. They mentioned the courthouse in Vancouver and the one in Burnaby and New Westminster hospital as examples of cases where the government had opted for jobbers outside the province. They were wondering what the policy was in light of the 28 per cent unemployment among carpenters in the province.

One of the things they mentioned that I suppose was a reply.... I don't know if this is just their suspicion or whether you replied to the effect that you were dealing with the lowest tenders. They were wondering if you would be following the concept of awarding contracts to the lowest tender , in which case, I suppose, they were being outbid. So please answer that one when you get an opportunity after I am through.

I am going to change the subject a bit. This is to do with the Glenshiel Hotel, which is owned by the government. It is a boarding hotel. I would like the minister to advise the House of the present status of this facility, which houses some 80 residents - senior citizens, by and large.

Could the minister indicate whether or not the government intends to retain this facility, as had been the intention of the previous government, for posterity? Will there be a continued low-cost facility for senior citizens, possibly in the future being

[ Page 3446 ]

incorporated in an expansion programme as part of this precinct? Or does the government intend to relinquish title and turn this back to the private sector, as was indicated by the minister earlier?

Also, could he comment on the occupancy level at the present time? I understand there are approximately 25 or so vacancies. There have been vacancies that have not been advertised, so there doesn't seem to be a policy of keeping the facility fully occupied.

I would also like to know a bit about the costs or the monthly rates paid by the residents. It was my understanding that they were paying something like $367 a month and that the increase was to $400 a month. That, I understand, would have exceeded the 10.6 per cent. Well, mind you, that's a boarding facility and I don't know if the AIB would include a boarding facility in any event, nor would the landlord and tenant legislation.

But the fact that you're dealing with people on fixed incomes and retired people, I'm wondering if it would not be consistent with the government's attempt to be of assistance to this category of people to not exceed the 10.6 per cent annual increase on costs - or at least the cost of living, which is less. So could you comment on that?

Also could you indicate the structural arrangement within the management of that facility? I understand it is managed by a private, not on a lease.... I'm not sure about this. I'd like to know if it's on lease, the conditions of the lease and how it is dealt with in terms of its accountability to the Ministry of Public Works. I would like you to comment on whether or not it is presently licensed to serve alcoholic beverages. If it licensed, what type of licence does it have? Could you verify if there have been some violations of this licence?

It is my understanding that licensed premises are required to purchase their

products from Liquor Control Board outlets by use of a special form - in other

words, all products that are going to be retailed at the liquor outlets excluding

the 7 per cent tax. That is paid when it's retailed across the counter.

My understanding is that this is not the case at the Glenshiel. What is happening

there is that they buy the product out of their pocket. People are going to

the liquor store the same as I would, buying a product, taking it to the shelf

and selling it in a licensed premise with no accountability in terms of a form

showing that they didn't pay the 7 per cent tax. So the Liquor Control Board

has no record of what alcohol was purchased by their facility. So when you buy

it across the counter and just put it on the shelf, there is no record. I could

be bringing in my booze from anywhere - selling bootleg or anything else. So

I just wondered if you could indicate whether or not that is happening at the

Glenshiel. If it is happening, the question of accountability in the present

operation would obviously be one which I'm sure you would be concerned about.

The other thing is, is there a manager? And if there is a manager, is this person full-time and is he under a contract? Do they have a lease type of arrangement whereby they not only receive a salary but have some kind of a profit-sharing potential under the terms of employment? I raise that because I had representations from some of the residents there that the particular manager, who receives a fairly substantial salary, works at another place full-time and is very rarely at the Glenshiel Hotel. So the tenants have no one to turn to.

I just wonder if this is the case; if you could indicate who this person is and how much the salary is; what the conditions of him employment are; and whether working somewhere else. Could you clarify some of these questions for me?

Now I would like to say in addition to this, just by way of philosophy: I would like you to clarify the status of the Glenshiel Hotel in terms of its value to the government. I've heard that if it were turned back to the private sector, as was indicated by yourself a little better than a year ago, that it wouldn't be a very good hotel in its present state and it would be prohibitive in terms of someone buying it and trying to use it as a hotel source of revenue. It would be quite a costly operation. So perhaps what someone may have in mind is buying it as a speculative venture and maybe planning to raze it.

If you were to sell it, would you have any riders on any conditions of its use, keeping in mind the precinct and the interest that it would have to the government?

HON. MR. FRASER : The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) has raised an interesting subject. I happen to know something about the Glenshiel Hotel. I did state that we would probably be disposing of it. We haven't taken any action along that line but we still feel the same way. It's a boarding hotel. You are correct that its occupancy maximum is around 72, and at the present time the occupancy is 52. So there are 20 vacancies. The rates, I am given to understand, are from $280 a month to $360. Further, I understand they're at the maximum that they could go under the law.

Regarding the facility itself, we understand that the building is very badly run down. A lot of upgrading would have to happen, electrical-wise, plumbing-wise and so on. That's one of the things they're looking at.

You ask if it is going to be expanded. I think I'd have to say I don't think it will be, because the basic unit is not in good condition and a lot of money would have to be spent upgrading it.

As far as the day-to-day operation is concerned, there is a manager in charge on a salary basis and on a full-time basis. He reports to a provincial government committee: the assistant deputy minister, Mr.

[ Page

3447 ]

Rhodes; and two other people of Public Works. They are the management committee that the manager reports to.

Regarding the alcoholic beverages, yes, they have a licence for wine and beer. You lost me a bit on the tax bit; I'm not just sure there.

Regarding the manager who is there and whether he has two jobs, I understand he only has the one full-time job but two nights a week he goes to the Empress Hotel for training as an innkeeper, but he doesn't get paid for that.

Evaluations. The price paid for the Glenshiel Hotel, whenever that was - I believe it was in 1974 -was $590,000. Recently an evaluation was made, I don't know who by. The evaluation is roughly $325,000 now, but I would point out that part of the land that went with the Glenshiel has been put over into the park that exists there. I haven't a value on the land that has been set aside in the park.

It seems there are a lot of problems there. I would just like to tell this House, Mr. Chairman, that I recently received a letter from a hotel owner in the city of Victoria wanting to know what the government was going to do about it. He'd gladly buy it and continue on with the operation under its present conditions and give lifetime occupancy to the 52 citizens that are there. We haven't taken any action on that. If we decide to dispose of it, it would be out in public tender; we would put it up to public tender but we haven't made that policy decision yet. I'm going to ask for some direction from the government on this shortly, but I haven't done so yet. We've had offers.

I want to emphasize the last time that I made remarks about the Glenshiel, it upset the residents there, and I have no intention of doing that. I'd like to make clear that anything that is done will be given full consideration. As I say, we already have an offer to purchase the property and give lifetime occupancy to the building, but I don't know how we handle a situation like that, because we would advertise it for public bidding and that could well happen.

The other thing that you didn't mention is that we are losing money on the operation. It is not a great deal, but we see that loss increasing due to repair work that is necessary and so on. So while we're not that concerned with the losses, I think at one time it was breaking even or making a few dollars; now we've gone the other way just slightly. The assistant deputy minister tells me that it will probably increase the losses because of the condition of the building generally.

Regarding the B.C. and Yukon Territories Building Construction Trades Council,

I recall getting a letter from them and they were concerned about their high

unemployment rate I'm not sure, but I believe they also came to see me -

or a delegation of tradesmen did - and were quite concerned about their problems.

We have always given the largest contracts to the lowest bidder. As a matter of fact, just recently a very large contract went to a British Columbia bidder. We ruled out a bidder from the province of Quebec on the basis that he thought he was low bidder but apparently he wasn't when the proper calculations were made.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair. ]

The government has recently announced that they will go up to 10 per cent to give the business to British Columbians, so we are very conscious of that fact. Some of the contracts we are letting are $4 million and $5 million each and if you have them in British Columbia, if the bids were, say, 20 per cent higher, we're talking about a lot of money. There is a tolerance there. As far as I know, the contracts that are currently underway there have practically all gone to British Columbian firms.

MR. BARNES : You don't like to debate, Mr. Attorney-General? Don't you think this is an important subject? You're sitting over there yelling: "Aye, aye!" You want to rush out of here. I thought we were here to do the people's business. You surprise me!

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General) : No wonder they put you on waivers, Emery!

MR. BARNES : Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for clearing up a number of questions that I had. I just have a few further remarks on those points that he made.

First of all, the occupancy. You suggested it was approximately 52, 1 think, and there are about 20 vacancies. You indicated that the Glenshiel was not breaking even, although the losses were minor. I would just like to ask if it would not be sound business to at least advertise those vacancies and keep them filled until such time as you have made your decision to submit the sale to the public on a competitive basis.

I know that many of the people in there realize that when they leave they will not be replaced by a policy decision that was made by the government some time ago not to replace those people, just to give them a guarantee that they would not be evicted. Perhaps there are people who would like to live there, even though they realize that they would have no guarantee that they would have the same privileges as the people who are there at the present time. This could be a source of revenue and I'm wondering why it is that the government doesn't at least find some way to utilize the space.

There have been a number of complaints about

[ Page 3448 ]

maintenance. You indicated yourself that the place is somewhat rundown and requires a fair amount of work in this area. I understand it is to the point now where even light fixtures aren't even 'replaced any more. This has been the case for some time. At what point do we make it comfortable for the people and at what point do we economize? There are some difficulties.

Back to the question of the purchase of the alcohol. You indicated that you didn't know for sure about the tax as far as purchasing alcohol. I think this is probably the one area that I would suggest you would want to find out about as quickly as possible. It has just come to my attention, and I'm only raising it. I'm not laying a charge, or suggesting that that is true even. But if it is true, I would think this would be in violation of liquor legislation in this province and it would be wide open, Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , for abuse.

I had a liquor licence at one time and I know that I used to purchase my alcohol with a special form without paying the tax because the Liquor Control Board knew at all times how much I had in storage.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES : Well, yes. Apple Jack and other things - Kelowna Red. I even imported some Henry's Lowball from Oregon, I think - 39 cents a gallon. You didn't know about that, did you? I had some stuff I used to use myself . . .

AN HON. MEMBER : Ooh! (Laughter.)

MR. BARNES : ... but that wasn't for sale, so you haven't got anything there.

Mind you, I will suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there is a possibility that someone. . . . -

HON. MR. GARDOM : You haven't got over it yet.

MR. BARNES : That minister must withdraw that remark, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.) He told me I haven't got over that yet. What are you suggesting by that? Those are aspersions being cast upon this hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Perhaps if we could get to vote 146 we would have fewer interruptions.

MR. BARNES : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I almost take offence at that, but not quite. With a big smile like that, how can you be offended?

I think this is a matter that should be investigated, Mr. Chairman. It could

be a serious problem. I'm not in a position to say whether it is happening,

but when it was raised I thought you would want to investigate it. Certainly

if a place is licensed to sell liquor in the province of British Columbia, there

are regulations that have to be followed. You have to go to the liquor store

and you have to see the vendor, fill out a form, you buy your stuff, and you

sign for it. They know how much you're buying under that number. You go

back, you put it in your stock and you sell it. When you sell, you charge 7

per cent tax on everything that you sell and it's recorded on a tape. The

liquor control guy can come in and take a look at any time and see what your

stocks are and see whether it all tallies. They know how many ounces you are

selling, right down the line.

Now if you have a situation, on the other hand, where you can reach in your pocket, take some money, go down and pay the 7 per cent tax, get a bottle of wine and go back and sell it without having to record this at the liquor control....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Is this under this minister's vote?

MR. BARNES : Yes, this is on the vote, very definitely. The Glenshiel Hotel has a licence to sell alcohol. I'm wondering whether or not they're operating within the regulations. Strange - Public Works is a very vast field. As you know, everything happens in Public Works.

In this particular situation, although it's a small operation - it's only a boarding hotel - it does cater to the public. People do go in for lunch and dinner and they have drinks. It's my understanding that the staff may go down to the liquor store, buy a bottle, put it on the shelf and sell it, and that bottle is not recorded anywhere in the records. To me that is not the way you operate under a liquor licence in this province. I may be wrong, but if that's happening I think the minister should want to look into it.

It's certainly open for abuse, because you don't have to ever go to the liquor store.... No one knows when you're going and when you're selling it. Just forget it. Sell it and put it in your pocket; there's no record. The liquor control board couldn't say: "We sold you so many bottles of booze last month; where are your receipts?" - because there's no record. I'm not going to belabour that. I raise it and I hope you'll look into it and assure the House that that's a false alarm.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES : The auditor-general could be interested in that, I know. I know this minister wants to get finished and I certainly feel that with his co-operation so far today, there's no doubt about it -we will probably move along very fast.

I want to make one other point, then I'm going to take a bit of a break and come back with some things on highways. You suggested the government

[ Page

3449 ]

shouldn't be in the business of running a hotel - that was your original statement a year ago about this particular facility - but is that in relation also to the future of this precinct? It's my understanding that the precinct is constantly being developed and refurbished and expanded. You've got a long-range plan as well as an immediate one. That hotel is in a strategic part of this complex. It's vital and certainly in future years it will be much more valuable than it is today as far as the people of British Columbia are concerned.

It seems to me that we're having it right now about as cheap as we're going to ever get it. If we can even make it pay for itself, not only are we providing a valuable service for the public, we are subsidizing a very worthy group - the pioneers of this province who are now retired and who certainly deserve any opportunity to get a bit of a break in their twilight years or towards the end of their lives. We should not be too concerned if we lose a few dollars. On the other hand, we're ensuring that we have control over a valuable piece of property for future consideration.

I just wonder about the economics in relinquishing this valuable piece of property on the corner of Douglas right across from the parking lot there. That might be a questionable move.

HON. MR. FRASER : I would like to deal with the member's further questions now, Mr. Chairman. First of all on the fact of the vacancies, I'm advised that we're already non-competitive with the private sector. In other words our rates are high, we're losing money and we can't get the business because we're not competitive. The other thing is that you're probably aware that of these 72 rooms only 14 of them have baths. Apparently that is another problem because of getting occupancy which is not too attractive.

The main things that are wrong with the building are the heating system and the water system. They have to be redone and the roof has to be replaced. So we're looking at major repairs.

We have another option here. Rather than selling it as a going concern, we could demolish the building after we phase out the 52 that are in there. So there are some options.

As far as keeping it in the precinct area, I would say that the precinct area, Mr. Chairman, now comes under my colleague, the Hon. Sam Bawlf, and we're going to have discussions on this subject. I'm going to take it up with him regarding the Glenshiel because that now really comes under his jurisdiction - the precinct area.

Regarding the sales tax, you raise a very interesting point there. It probably

should be brought up under the Minister of Consumer Affairs, but I understand

that in this operation we are paying the sales tax for the liquor that we purchase

from the liquor vendor and then in turn we retail it and we charge the sales

tax back out again. That's the way that operation is operating now, according

to information I have.

I think that probably cleans up your questions.

MR. GIBSON : I'll be very brief, because these estimates are going so well this afternoon. I don't want to repeat everything that has been said about the usefulness of encouraging people to take bicycles in our society, especially out of town, but the minister yesterday suggested that 0.5 per cent of the Highways budget was maybe too much. I just want to point out to him that in the state of Oregon they're using a full I per cent on the bicycle paths and trails vote and they're finding a usefulness for that amount of money. So I hope that he'll keep an open mind on that.

I would like to ask him to consider publishing for bicyclists either a map which indicates British Columbia highways which have suitable road shoulders for bicycle riding or, alternatively, a mimeographed list of mileages where it is possible. I found, for example, that riding up and down the Island Highway a person can go for 10 miles or so where there is a nice paved shoulder, and then they come to another five-mile stretch where there is not a paved shoulder. It would just be nice to have some visual indication where you're going to find good riding conditions.

Now I had mentioned to the minister earlier on -he wasn't able to answer it the other evening but he said he'd look into it - the question of sound baffles along the Upper Levels Highway in North Vancouver similar to what has been very well installed in West Vancouver. What I would like the minister to do, if he would be so kind, would be to assure the committee that he will ask his department to do a complete study of that portion of the Upper Levels Highway within North Vancouver to see where baffles might be effective and the cost economical.

Next I would draw to his attention again that problem at the end of George Street where it comes into the Upper Levels Highway just east of Lloyd and before Mackay Creek. There have been problems of rocks from passing cars and even one car going off the rails and into this particular dwelling. He has a representation on this on June 27. 1 don't expect him to be able to reply on that detail today; I just want to make the representation and ask him to look into it carefully.

Finally, before I sit down, one new subject: I would like to ask him something about general policy on the judging on bids. I have a case example here, Mr. Chairman, that relates to the construction of the curtain wall on the new government building in Vancouver. I'm told that there were two bidders. One was a firm called Zimmcor Aluminum, which I believe is a Montreal firm, and Central Glass, which I understand is a British Columbia firm. The bids, I

[ Page 3450 ]

understand, were roughly $1.3 million each, with Zimmcor underbidding Central Glass by about $8,000.

The account I have is that Public Works considered the two bids essentially equal and therefore sent them to Economic Development to get some kind of a recommendation as to which one would be best accepted in terms of benefiting the British Columbia economy. That's a reasonable procedure, and I don't argue with that. Now I understand that the advice they got back from Economic Development was such that they awarded the contract to Central Glass, which was the higher bidder by $8,000, on the grounds of dollar value of Canadian content.

I'm told that Central Glass said that their U.S. content, their supplies for this curtain wall, was $587,000

whereas Zimmcor said it was $614,000. Zimmcor claims that there is no way that Central Glass can keep their U.S. content down to that amount. That may or may not be the case - that's something for experts to determine.

What concerned me was the allegation of Zimmcor that there's no way that Central Glass would be monitored and followed up on this. In other words, the element that was critical to the making of a decision - namely, the amount of Canadian content - would not, in the end, be monitored. I'd like the minister to tell the committee whether in fact that is a correct description of how this or similar bids might be awarded. If it is, what steps are taken to ensure that suppliers do in fact live up to their representations to the government with respect to the percentage of Canadian content?

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr. Chairman, to the member for Vancouver-Capilano, going back to front, I'm aware of Zimmcor Aluminum and Central Glass, and you're correct. You have all your facts straight. But there was a lot higher Canadian content in the Central Glass and it was awarded to them. As far as how we monitor it, that's a real good question. We have Concordia Management in charge of the job and, hopefully, that's what they're there for - to monitor those sort of things for all the contracts and to make sure they do live up to how they bid.

MR. GIBSON : Will you ask them to do so in this particular case?

HON. MR. FRASER : Yes, I'll be glad to point it out to them and tell them to monitor it.

As for the George Street problem, yes, we'll look at that right away. On the sound baffles, I agree with you, and we'll look into that right away. I don't see why we can't do as well as we did in West Vancouver on that.

Regarding maps, I agree with you. I don't know what problem that is for

the ministry, but we're trying to get more information out all the time.

It's a real good point for the cyclists that they should know. We've

got lots of maps, but none specifically for bicycles. That's a real good

suggestion, and we'll look into that to the point of getting some maps for

bicyclists. I think that clears those questions up, Mr. Member.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie) : I do have a few questions for the minister on highway and road matters regarding my riding. I was disappointed when these estimates started out last Monday, I think it was, Mr. Chairman, and the minister described his highways programme as a catch-up programme. I was a bit disappointed in that remark because I think our government under the NDP did much-needed highway work in British Columbia. I. know that in my own riding there was a rational amount of highway work taking place every year, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me now....

As a matter of fact, I know that I'm not now aware of one, single, individual capital project - highways project - taking place in my riding at this point. I may be wrong, but I'm personally not aware of any.

AN HON. MEMBER : How come?

MR. LOCKSTEAD : The minister, or possibly the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) , asks: 'How come?" I didn't want to get into this, Mr. Chairman, but if we must, we must. The fact is, if he wants to know how come, it would seem to me that perhaps the minister is spending the money in his riding and cutting off some of the other ridings. I hope I'm wrong.

I'm particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, about Highway 10 1 up the Sunshine Coast. I would be very much appreciated by the residents of my riding, and by myself, if the reconstruction of that highway could be continued on a rational basis, a little bit every year. I'm not asking for a great big project. Over the last three years - excluding this year, but prior to that - we had a little bit of work being done every year. It was maybe only three or four miles. That highway should be completed at least up to Pender Harbour.

There are also a number of major side roads in my riding, and I won't go into them all. Mr. Chairman, approximately four years ago the staff in the Department of Highways developed what they called the five-year plan for the Sunshine Coast area of my riding. That includes Powell River and Texada Island. Every year a certain amount of work was done. I had seen that five-year programme, and it was a good programme. I would have liked more, but I wasn't greedy. But it seems to me now, Mr. Chairman, that this programme has stopped. I'd like to know from the minister what has happened to that programme.

[ Page

3451 ]

This includes upgrading of major side roads, a certain amount of day labour, and this kind of thing. Perhaps one of the minister's staff people could let the minister know when he answers and he could tell us what happened to this programme. I know that I'm very interested in finding out what happened to that particular programme.

Last but not least, I would Re to deal with Highway 20, most of which, by the way, Mr. Chairman, is in the minister's riding. I'll be honest. The minister has done quite a bit of work and has authorized quite a bit of money for that highway which services Bella Coola, which primarily serves residents in my riding. However, in the Bella Coola Valley itself there has been no major highway work done in that valley on the main highway for quite a number of years, Mr. Chairman. I'm asking the minister now to consider repaving the highway up through the valley, from Bella Coola proper, up through Tweedsmuir Park.

As a matter of fact, I would very much like to see a new highway. As you know now, the famous hill up over the mountain in Tweedsmuir Park is quite a dangerous hill and it's closed off during the winter for some long periods of time, particularly during spring breakup.

There is another route that could be utilized. I know it's an expensive job but it would lower the highway by some 2,700 feet and I think the savings in the cost of snow removal alone and trying to keep that highway open over the years would eventually pay for that highway. So I hope that the minister will consider that project.

Mr. Chairman, another project I'd like to talk to the minister about, because it does fall under the purview of his department, is the need for a provincial government building in the Sunshine Coast area. That is the Sunshine Coast Regional District, which includes everything from Langdale and Gibsons to Pender Harbour and Egmont. The government is presently renting premises for the various provincial government functions all over the peninsula. There is no centre of activity; people are scattered from Gibsons to Sechelt to Pender Harbour. In other words, the government is renting these premises all over the place.

I do know that the former Minister of Public Works was reviewing and looking at sites in that area, with a view to eventually - perhaps - constructing a government building in that area, and perhaps placing a government agent in that area. People presently living in that area have to travel to Vancouver or to Victoria or wherever for a lot of functions, such as applying for land, for example. I would like the minister to tell me today, Mr. Chairman, that he will have his department look into this matter once again.

One other item under Highways, Mr. Chairman, is of some concern to me. Perhaps

the minister can give us an answer when he rises to answer these questions.

1 would like to know if the Ministry of Highways is still using 2, 4-D, 2, 4, 5-T or other chemicals to clear bush along the highways. If so, in what areas are these chemicals being used and what chemicals are being used? And what amounts are being used, as the hon. member to my right points out, although I really think he's on the left.

The last topic which I wish to discuss at this time is the ferries. As you are well aware, your ministry operates quite a number of ferries in British Columbia - 14 of them in salt water and some of them operating in my riding. I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Minister, to one particular route, and that's the route between Powell River and Courtenay, currently being served by the Sechelt Queen. There's been a considerable amount of problems on that route, as you well know.

We were finally able to get a bigger vessel on that route; shortly after that larger vessel went on the route, the fares were doubled and, in some cases, tripled. Traffic was reduced. I am told, by about 40 per cent, although I think it's up a bit now.

I appreciated the larger vessel, but one of the problems with it is that commercial traffic has a problem. At certain tides, certain trucks and vehicles can't load or unload because of the height factor. I do know that the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) is responsible for B.C. Ferries in this Legislature. They have, sitting idle at the moment, a vessel called the Queen of Tsawwassen which is not being utilized. That vessel is 20 years newer than the present Sechelt Queen.

It has bow thrust propellers for manoeuvrability in the smaller wharves in the Courtenay and Powell River area. It carries approximately 20 more vehicles, I understand. So I hope that the minister will talk to his counterpart in Transport, the Hon. Jack Davis, to see if we can perhaps utilize the Queen of Tsawwassen on that route.

I should tell you about the Sechelt Queen, Mr. Chairman. Approximately a year and a half ago, food services were taken off of that route and that vessel. I really don't know why. Machines were put in but the food is inedible; I can tell you from experience. I utilize that vessel to get home on a great deal and the food is inedible. The machines don't work half the time.

There's a great number of complaints and I'm sure you've gotten reams of letters on this whole subject. I know that the various chambers of commerce, TIC commissions and the rest of them are complaining steadily about this food situation. There's no reason for it in my view. The people who were formerly hired to work on the ferry to serve food are still there. They're still hired as clean-up people. But they would just as soon have a proper food service on that vessel and on that route, as would most of the passengers. That route does take I hour and 40

[ Page 3452 ]

minutes. It's comparable to routes I and 2, Mr. Chairman, and I think we deserve the same treatment as people on routes 1 and 2.

Also, Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister would consider - and there's no reason why we shouldn't do this - free passage for senior citizens on a week-round basis. I know that we now have free passage from Monday to Thursday for seniors and that rates are in line with B.C. Ferries. But I don't see any reason why we should not have free passage for senior citizens on a week-round and year-round basis on that route.

You know, in our area, in order for various groups to function they must travel on the Texada Queen, the Powell River Queen and the Sechelt Queen - the school groups, the various ball teams and young hockey teams and baseball teams, Girl Guides, Brownies, the whole bunch. They pay quite a high rate. I'm not saying that these groups should perhaps go free, although if I had my way I'd let them go free during the week when traffic is down anyway.

The vessels are usually used at only 25 to 40 per cent capacity at the most, so I don't see any reason why these groups - these ball teams, these school bands and the rest of them.... I know there are special rates with seven days' notice for some groups - not all - but I think it would be good politics. It wouldn't cost you anything; it wouldn't cost you anything at all. I don't see any reason why we can't do that.

There are two or three last items here, Mr. Chairman, before I take my seat. I wish to draw to the minister's attention one item that has been raised by the Powell River Tourist and Industrial Commission. They asked me to ask the minister this question, which I will. I really don't have any views on this item, but the item was - I think the minister has received correspondence on this matter - that they would like the Sechelt Queen possibly transferred to B.C. Ferries. I really don't know what the reason is for their thinking, unless perhaps it's because B.C. Ferries honour resident-commuter cards.

In other words, if you're a resident on the Sunshine Coast anywhere from Gibsons to Langdale to Powell River to Texada Island, you can get what is called a resident-commuter card and you get a slight fare reduction on all B.C. Ferries. I think it's a saving of about $2 on a vehicle and $1 for a passenger -something like that. The resident-commuter card is not honoured by Highways' ferries - in other words, the Sechelt Queen.

I have correspondence from the minister. I'll be fair, Mr. Chairman: the minister does answer correspondence. He gives good answers; I really appreciate that. Not all the ministers do that. You get a response but you don't get any real answer. But this minister does answer his correspondence.

In any event, the minister advises me in correspondence dated May 24 of this

year that on that particular route the fare structure will be in line with B.C.

Ferries, and in all fairness it is, except for one item - the department does

not recognize resident-commuter cards.

The rationale for not honouring these commuter cards is this. Just listen to this! I was told that if the Highways people recognized resident-commuter cards on that route, then they would have to do the same for people in Courtenay and Campbell River and what-have-you. But that's nonsense, Mr. Chairman. If we wanted to use the rationale for not recognizing cards, then we might as well say that everybody in the lower mainland should have a resident-commuter card - which, by the way, they should. But anyway, they should have the cards because the people on the Sunshine Coast have them.

The ferry docks at Horseshoe Bay so everybody in the lower mainland should have a resident-commuter card, which is ridiculous.

So I'm asking the minister now if he'll make a commitment in the House this afternoon that they will recognize the resident-commuter cards for people on the Sunshine Coast-Powell River area.

HON. MR. FRASER : To the member for Mackenzie, I'm happy to hear from him. Regarding the local preference, to go from back to front here, for the Comox-Powell River run and the Sechelt Queen - we are opposed to that.

MR. LOCKSTEAD : I know. That's why I raised it.

HON. MR. FRASER : I understand the B.C. Ferries don't give that either where they have these short runs, so we're not at variance with them. But we'll take a look at it again. On all ferry problems, we have a ferry study going on now and I'd recommend that they certainly go into Comox and Powell River. Bring all these things there to them, Mr. Member, because you're right. We do get complaints and so on.

That's what I'd recommend there, but I wouldn't hold out any promise at this time until we get that study. Put this into that study and they'll report back here. It won't take all that long.

On the Powell River suggestion, I would just say, Mr. Chairman, to the member, that I'd like that suggestion put to the study group that's going there as well. It was the Powell River association that wanted B.C. Ferries to take over this run. Make that suggestion there, and that will get back here properly.

Regarding the complaints about food on this run, I've heard these before. Apparently the problem was that when this run was taken over by Highways, as I understand it, from B.C. Ferries, they had a catering service. Highways has never had a catering service, and so they went to nickelodians, or whatever you call them. There have been a lot of complaints about

[ Page

3453 ]

that. Again, I think that's an item to give to the ferry study people.

It's the same with commercial vehicles which you mentioned. The Queen of Tsawwassen.... I would like to see this put into that committee.

Getting on from that, the next item you had here was spraying. It's my understanding that I said last year there would be no spraying of 2, 4-D, and then I find out the odd time it happens. It's one of those things that's hard to get a handle on. Just recently we said no more 2, 4-D. Apparently they had some stock of it and they did some spraying in the Kootenays here a little while ago. It's stopped. It's contrary to policy to spray with 2, 4-D, but they are spraying some with another chemical - I'm not too clear what it is.

We've also got a real problem with our rights-of-way all over the province. They're all growing up and we're supposed to be cutting them and we're not getting that done. I think I said on Monday in my opening remarks that we certainly have a problem. I'm going to take the spraying of the roadsides to the committee of cabinet that we have to try and get some better resolution than we have on it.

On the government building, I wasn't clear just where that was, but we'll look into that, Mr. Member. I can tell you from what I know that there is no high priority for a government building in the area at all. We're in the midst of this transfer, but it hasn't a high priority. That might not say that it doesn't come up shortly.

Now dealing with the subject that I know best is our mutual problem, to the member, Mr. Chairman, Highway 20 from Williams Lake to Bella Coola is a distance of 300 miles. Probably 50 or 60 miles of it are paved and the balance is gravel-surfaced road. But it now becomes a very important link in our highway system because of the withdrawal that you're aware of, Mr. Chairman, and the member is aware of, of Northland Navigation from service to Bella Coola. It's been very unsatisfactory since, but it's put an extra priority or a higher priority on Highway 20 than has been had in the past years.

We're aware of that and have been working on it. For the information of the House, we have spent over $2 million on this piece of road since last fall.

For the member on the mountain, we have spent half a million dollars. I'm happy to tell the House that here about three weeks ago we got our first truck and pup trailer down the mountain for the first time ever. I realize the next week the same truck and trailer went over the bank, but they couldn't even get a trailer down the mountain until about three weeks ago. It's a very treacherous piece.

Regarding the other route, to get away from this switchback mountain, which

is 14 miles in length, there is another route surveyed out - I think you're

aware of that - from Towdystan down the Atnarko River and into Bella Coola on

more or less a water grade. I made noise, Mr. Chairman, that we might do something

about it, and immediately Nimpo and Anahim Lake got up in arms. Now we're

looking at a route from Anahim Lake south to hit the Atnarko and then into Bella

Coola, because I don't think any of us want to see the communities of Nimpo

and Anahim Lake bypassed - which the Towdystan route would have done.

They're out there looking at that, but I would like, Mr. Chairman, this member's help. It isn't a large monetary problem to build this new road. The biggest problem we have in the Highways ministry is the environment. Environment Canada and the fish and wildlife branch of Recreation and Conservation.... The Atnarko is an excellent salmon river, and according to the highway engineers we have to come close to that river and blast rock and so on, and those environment studies are going on now. Any help you can give would be appreciated.

I don't think that Environment Canada is that uptight about it. I think this can be resolved. We have a three-mile canyon area in there that we have to get through to get this water grade. I think if we all get together we could maybe start on that route next year. The financing I don't think would hold us back, and I think for the better living for the people of Bella Coola in your riding and certainly for the maintenance of highways.... We have snowfalls in the mountains, as you know, of seven feet at a fall. It's very difficult.

We have difficulty there this spring with spring breakup, and the whole road collapsed on us from Anahim west. It's very difficult, but now it's the lifeline to the community of Bella Coola. We're determined to bring it up to a better standard.

As I said, we spent $2 million or $2.5 million on it and we will spend that much money again by Christmastime this year so that that road won't collapse on us in spring breakup next year. A lot of those funds are going to be spent from Anahim west. It was impassable for even bulldozers to get through in May, it was so bad. As a matter of fact, we have at the present time 114 mudholes corduroyed and that is going back 25 years in highway maintenance. We stopped using corduroy, I understand from the engineers, 25 years ago.

They have got so bad there we have had to go back to corduroy and then cover the corduroy with gravel. So we are going in there now and dig all those holes out - seven or eight feet deep - and replace it with proper gravel so it won't happen next spring.

Regarding the Highway 101 and the Sunshine Coast, we might have our priorities mixed up, Mr. Chairman, but because of the traffic density we're going to do some more work. We haven't anything lined up at the moment, but the traffic density doesn't give it as high a priority or the urgency that we have in a road like Highway 20 that is all of a

[ Page 3454 ]

sudden the lifeline of a community.

While I'm on that subject, because of the boat situation on the coast, as you well know, Mr. Chairman, the other higher priority has become the Stewart-Cassiar road to service the community of Stewart. I place the communities of Stewart and Bella Coola as very high priority for road construction. It's costing a lot of money but we're determined to get them decent roads by 1978 so they won't keep failing and so on from spring breakup.

That pretty well covers what you brought up, Mr. Member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD : I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman. Regarding the five-year programme for the Sunshine Coast from Gibsons to Powell River that the Ministry of Highways had initiated some years ago, I'd like to know what happened to that programme or if the ministry is going to continue that programme.

One other item is that the minister referred to the study team to look at various aspects of the Ministry of Highways-operated saltwater ferries. I did read the press release and you did discuss this in the House the other day. I'm not quarrelling; I think it is a good idea. I think it is the way to go, as a matter of fact. But perhaps you could tell us, Mr. Minister, what the terms of reference of the committee are and when you have asked that the study be completed.

One last item before I sit down. Mr. Minister, I really disagree with you on commuter cards. I see no reason at all if, as you say in your correspondence, the fare structure on that route will be kept in line with the B.C. Ferry Corporation fares, why resident commuter cards could not be honoured on that route. I really see no reason why that item has to go to a ferries standing committee. It just make plain common sense, Mr. Chairman.

One last item, Mr. Chairman. I don't have to tell you about politics. You've been in the game some 20 years longer than I have and much longer than that, probably. It's good politics! Do it! There's no reason in the world why you can't do it. All it requires is your signature on a memo. That's all that is required, Mr. Minister, and it would be in keeping with policy of your government in terms of B.C. Ferries. In fact, it would be in keeping with your own statement.

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your remarks. We'll take another look at it, Mr. Member.

Regarding the terms of reference for the highways study, I'll send those to you in the mail. I have them here. It is three pages and I don't think we want to read it.

On the five-year programme you refer to, I believe the ministry feels that

was your five-year programme, not theirs. They have done a lot of work but we

will look at it some more.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat) : Mr. Chairman, last year during the estimates of this minister I raised several items and I would like to thank the minister for his response to at least two of them. He has seen fit to do some paving on the Shawnigan Lake Road. I was a bit disappointed that there wasn't a little more design study put into that. Some of those comers are very sharp and ungraded, but it has been paved, and that much I do appreciate.

I also asked him about some identification for people in wheelchairs or handicapped persons to find the hidden elevator. The minister did put some signs around this building, but unfortunately he not only put them in but he tore them out again when he was carrying on the modifications in building what has fondly become known to me and some of the other people who have to walk out of here on a rainy afternoon or evening as a little area that we call Fraser Lake. The signs seem to have disappeared, Mr.

Chairman, and I hope the minister will assure us that they will be placed back and in obvious positions so that people in wheelchairs or other handicapped people will be able to find that entrance to the building.

The other point which I raised last year was to do with the Thetis Island ferry. The minister assured me at that time that he would do something about including Kuper Island, where that ferry also calls, in the advertising of that ferry.

Now we've had a couple of small signs appear which say "Kuper Island, " but I noticed in his annual report he still talks about the "Thetis Island ferry, " and the tickets still talk about the "Thetis Island ferry." I think the point I made last year was a very valid one - that that ferry is now serving, as a vehicle ferry as well as a foot-passenger ferry, the native Indian population on Kuper Island. In all fairness to that population they should have the same recognition as the residents of Thetis Island.

The minister has been carrying on this year a great deal of highway construction in my constituency. I don't have the same complaint as the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) ; in fact, I have so much construction going on I can hardly get from Victoria to home.

I have some mixed feelings about this. We have a situation on the Island which is a unique situation. That four-laning of the Island Highway is not only four-laning the Island Highway but it is four-laning the one and only artery for local transportation in a great many areas. It's an artery that has to be used for local transport. It's unique in that there are no alternative routes in many areas, or if there are alternatives they are very long and hazardous and time-consuming. So it's used as a commuter, local-traffic type of thing and it's also used as a portion of the Trans-Canada Highway.

[ Page

3455 ]

The four-laning of that highway with all grade crossings from all the incoming roads is creating a great deal of concern among the residents of my constituency, as the minister will be well aware and has been evidenced by the number of queries I've been passing along to him for lights at intersections. If all those queries are granted, Mr. Chairman, we're going to have one continuous series of stop-and-go all the way between here and Nanaimo, because there are so many intersections coming into that highway that it's going to take away the main purpose of four-laning a highway to make a thoroughfare that will carry through traffic out of the area.

I suggest to the minister that this is a real problem and he's going to have to look at some overpasses or underpasses or some other way of getting access off and on that highway. In the meantime, if he's going to avoid mayhem on that highway, he's going to have to accede to the many, many requests for stoplights along that Island Highway. The one stoplight that I'm sure the minister knows 1 have in mind is at Boys Road, where we've been crying for a light. There's a major shopping centre open now and a left turn out on to the highway to go back into the city of Duncan.

It's a real hazard. 1 shop in that shopping centre and sometimes I'm 10 minutes getting out onto that highway. I've had every possible explanation - and 1 think 1 must call them excuses - because I'm convinced that the minister in his wisdom is waiting until the four-laning is complete before anything is done there. At that time I'm sure we will have a light at that particular intersection. 1 don't know how many of the others we will get but that one we will have.

My query to the minister, Mr. Chairman, is to do something now, because it's going to be a while, in my estimation, before that four-laning is completed there. Either give us an assurance that that will be completed within the next month or so and the light goes in, or else make some temporary provision to provide some safer kind of exit in and out of that particular intersection.

Another problem the construction on the highway is causing is a problem with

maintenance in the Cowichan area. As I'm sure the minister is aware, when

there is excessive construction going on in an area the local road crew becomes

involved in that construction, and as a result the routine maintenance often

gets pushed to the side. We're finding that query after query that is routed

through the regional director is very belated in getting any attention. I'm

told over and over by the officials in the minister's department that the

problem is that they're so busy because of the construction that they don't

really have time to do the maintenance. Now we have a lot of unemployed in this

province, Mr. Chairman, and 1 think if that's the situation perhaps that

minister should have a look at giving us a few more staff in that area so we

can get on with the routine maintenance.

Those were the rather routine and general comments I wanted to make about some of the specific roads in my constituency. It relates, Mr. Chairman, to the provision of the Highway Act which provides for one-twentieth of a piece of property to be, in fact, expropriated. The Act still reads that way and legally that is correct; it can be done. My understanding is that we have been moving away from that and some compensation has been made for the value of the property involved.

To witness that, I want to talk about a specific case, and that is Hillbank Road. Hillbank Road had a 66-ft. right-of-way for part of its length and then it was reduced to a 33-ft. right-of-way. Unfortunately, when the road was put through it was not put in the centre of the right-of-way and when it came to the end of the 66-ft. right-of-way, it continued on off the 33-ft. right-of-way on the property of my constituent, who lives on Hillbank Road.

That is a condition which has existed over the years. It is a condition which my constituent has drawn to the attention of the Ministry of Highways many, many times. It's a condition that has caused my constituents to attempt to fence off their property. In placing their fence posts even back from their line, they were so close to the actual road that there were many problems with people coming in at night and tearing the fence down because it was too close to the road. It's been almost a situation of harassment over the years for this particular constituent.

Now there have been negotiations to widen the right-of-way. The constituent was approached by Mr. Mercer, I believe it was, from Burnaby who asked to get an appraisal on the property. This would indicate, Mr. Chairman, that there was some intent of making a payment in recompense for the value of the property. The constituent was asked to get an appraisal; they did so. They got an appraisal - $13,500 for the half-acre of property. That was the appraisal obtained from an independent appraiser and they paid for that appraisal.

In the meantime, they received from another official of the ministry a form duly made out offering them $500 for the clearing they had done, asking them to sign it and return it and they would receive the $500. My constituent naturally complained about this. I understand that your deputy minister contacted this person, discussed the matter with him, said there were other considerations and talked about things like the taxes they had paid on this land over the years, though granted that would be a very small dollar sum. But he did indicate to my constituent that there were considerations.

The next thing that happened, Mr. Chairman, was that my constituent got a registered letter, this time

[ Page 3456 ]

offering $750 for the clearing and offering to build fences and provide gates and provide gates and asking that it be ~signed and returned.

Now that's where it's at, Mr. Minister. My constituent is sitting with his registered letter, very concerned. Had 1 had an opportunity to deal with you before your estimates came up on this off the floor of the House - and 1 did advise your secretary that 1 intended to raise it because of the fact that if 1 was going to raise it on the floor I would have to do it now, and 1 hadn't had an opportunity to discuss it with you before.... I'm concerned that this kind of thing is happening, and I'm sure you would be concerned, Mr. Minister.

People out there in good faith are being... I don't like to say misled, but certainly they are misconstruing at least - or construing incorrectly if it is incorrect - some of the comments from some of your people. When they go out and get an appraisal, they have every right to expect that something like this is going to happen; there's going to be some recompense for the land. I realize that it's a moral obligation only. Legally the Act says that you can take up to one-twentieth. But, Mr. Chairman, 1 do not believe that the minister really believes in expropriating property from people who have worked hard to buy that property and have tried to improve it and make a home on it.

1 would ask the minister to give some very serious consideration to not just this particular case but to all cases where this kind of hardship and confusing information is causing people to become very distraught and emotionally concerned. They are having a great pressure put on them over a great number of years, really, because of this very strange situation where the road was built on their property.

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr. Chairman, to the member for Cowichan-Malahat, I'm aware of the problem you just referred to. I'd just like to review it for a moment for the House. It's a 25-acre parcel of land. There is a public road straddling the common boundary with their neighbour. There's also a power line alongside the road.

My ministry wishes to establish a surveyed 66-ft. right-of-way with a 33-ft. width from each property. Each owner will lose one-half acre. We have offered fair and liberal compensation for improvements to the land, mainly for clearing. There is one-twentieth of this land available for resumption, as you mentioned. We have also promised to erect fences and gates as required. The owners wish the full road allowance to be taken from the neighbour. 1 think, Mr. Chairman, that the owner is the one whom you were discussing. Presently, neither this ministry nor the adjacent landowner feel this is a fair arrangement - to take it all away from the neighbour and not from the people involved.

But to conclude on that note, I'm quite willing to meet the owner of that property with you at an arranged time in the not-too-distant future to see if we can't resolve it. That's just a brief report on it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER : Yes, they sure are.

MR. LAUK : What about the, policy? Why don't you pay for it?

HON. MR. FRASER : We've offered to pay for it. We haven't expropriated. There's been an offer of paying for the improvements to the land and the fences and so on.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER : You know, there's the public treasury to think about, too. We have to think about that. If we buy this land, we have resumptive powers. What is really going on policy-wise is that we now have resumptive powers and we're paying as well.

MR. LAUK : This is confiscation. I thought you were against that.

HON. MR. FRASER : Well, you're fully aware, Mr. Chairman.... The member for Vancouver Centre here says it's confiscation. I guess you'd call it legal because everybody is entitled to ret