1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 16, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page

3215 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Fire Marshal Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 100). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 3215

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 124). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading p3215

Committee of Supply: Department of Public Works estimates

On vote 219.

Mr. Chabot — 3215

Mr. Curtis — 3217

Mr. McGeer — 3217

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3217

Mr. Gardom — 3220

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3221

Mr. Chabot — 3221

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3222

Mr. Chabot — 3223

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3223

Mrs. Jordan — 3223

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3224

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3225

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3225

Mr. Chabot — 3226

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3227

Mr. Gibson — 3227

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3227

Mr. Phillips — 3227

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3229

Mr. Gibson — 3230

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3230

Mr. Gardom — 3230

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3230

Mr. McGeer — 3231

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3231

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3232

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3232

On vote 220.

Mr. Chabot — 3232

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3232

On vote 222.

Mr. Curtis — 3232

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3233

Mr. Fraser — 3233

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3233

On vote 223.

Mr. Chabot — 3233

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3233

Mr. Chabot — 3234

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3234

Mr. Chabot — 3234

Mr. Curtis — 3234

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3235

Mr. Chabot — 3235

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3235

Mr. Curtis — 3235

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3235

On vote 224.

Mr. Fraser — 3235

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3235

ERRATA — 3236

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

FIRE MARSHAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Fire Marshal Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 100 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.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 124, Real Estate Amendment

Act, 1974, 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.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES:

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

On vote 219: Minister's office, $62,860.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, we've just

received the annual report from the department this very minute as we

arrived in the chamber to discuss the management — and the lack of

management — of the Minister relative to his department.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, I agree that he did better than the Minister

of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk). At least

he's here.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: Some of the cartoons I haven't had a chance to

examine to see whether they are really funny or not. But I guess after

I take my place and while someone else is speaking I will have an

opportunity to examine the cartoons and the annual report to see

whether they are pertinent to the administration of this particular

portfolio.

I see the Minister has a picture in living colour. One thing: the

Minister's hair is a little long in this picture. I was wondering….

You know, the fashions are changing; maybe the Minister should have a

new haircut. A new haircut would be more appropriate.

I notice tonight, Mr. Chairman, something which brings a question to

mind. I notice the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) introducing

some legislation; and I am wondering, in view of the fact that you are

responsible for these chambers and it appears that the government does

not have its legislative programme in place and weren't prepared for

the current session of the Legislature, if you are giving consideration

to installing air conditioning in these chambers. Because we'll be

here, it appears, most of the summer. And if we don't have air

conditioning, there's probably some other kind of atmospheric

conditioning you might want to establish in these chambers.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: Last year, Mr. Chairman, I brought up the

question of the Glenshiel Hotel. I asked a series of pertinent,

important and timely questions on the Glenshiel Hotel. I'm wondering,

now that a year has lapsed, whether the Minister is in a position to

tell the House what price he paid for that hotel within the precincts

of the parliament building?

Also, no doubt the Minister has had a fair amount of time to give

some consideration to a master plan for public buildings within the

precincts of this chamber. No doubt there has been some consideration,

in view of the tremendous escalation in the number of civil servants

that have been engaged by this government.

I'm wondering if the Minister, when he takes his place to answer

questions, will outline to us what the plans are for housing the new

employees of the government — whether the plans are well advanced, and

when we can expect some kind of construction of buildings within these

precincts.

As you look around the City of Victoria today, in almost every

corner of the business community of this city you find an office of

some department of government. The government has spread its

bureaucracy throughout the City of Victoria as well, no doubt, as

throughout the City of Vancouver. There's been a tremendous increase in

the amount of buildings that have been rented by the department. And it

appears that there is no relenting in this expansion of leasing of

private buildings, be it in Victoria or Vancouver.

All we have to do is look at the estimates of the department and we find that the costs for rentals

[ Page 3216 ]

have increased from $4 million to $8 million — a doubling in one

year. Is this tremendous increase in costs of renting or leasing

private buildings going to continue?

I was just wondering if the Minister could give us some idea as to

the amount of square footage he has leased from private individuals. I

would assume it would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of two million

square feet. Approximately two million square feet has been leased by

the Department of Public Works to house the various departments of

government.

A little later on, when we get to the other specific estimate, I

will be asking probably more specific questions relative to the

tremendous increase in costs for housing certain specific departments.

Now the Minister during the last session indicated that he had

researched into Rattenbury's design of this chamber; and when he moved

the cabinet Ministers and established their suites in this building, he

was just carrying out the wishes of old Rattenbury. Well, maybe that's

right; maybe old Rattenbury wanted the cabinet Ministers to be in the

main legislative building. And the Minister — the present Minister of

Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) — is fulfilling the wish of the old

architect of these buildings.

But I don't think that Rattenbury gave you any indication or

suggestion that there should be the kind of lavishness in the

Ministers' suites which we see today. I'm sure he didn't direct you or

give you any guidance through his former plans to spend the kind of

money that has been spent on the various Ministers' suites.

I'm sure that if King Farouk were alive today, he'd feel right at

home in some of those offices; he'd feel right at home. Because I'm

sure he didn't have an office any more lavish than the present

Ministers have in this building.

We find that costs are running extremely high for establishing

comforts for the poor-boy socialists of this government. They're

spending a lot of money in this building, and they are spending it

primarily for the establishment of lavish offices for the Ministers.

Not too long ago — last year I believe it was — the Minister, when

he travelled to Prince George, suggested that the parliament buildings

were on the verge of collapsing. In fact, his words were: "Unless some

major renovations are undertaken, this building is liable to collapse

down around their ears."

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Keep your voice down.

MR. CHABOT: That's what the Minister said.

Well, I think the Minister finds that he wasn't entirely accurate

when he made that statement. Because since that time there has been an

extensive amount of burrowing in practically every wall in this

building, and the building has stood — and stood very well indeed.

I understand that just a few days ago there was a slight earth

tremor here in the City. of Victoria, and the Minister suggested that

if there ever was a tremor, the building would collapse.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did Bill Chant make a speech?

MR. CHABOT: Well, the building is still here and it didn't

collapse. I'm wondering if the Minister would give us some idea…or if

the Minister would correct that statement that he made up in Prince

George regarding the buildings.

Now I find throughout this building there has been a great deal of

activity, be it by tender or otherwise, in reconstructing the various

corners. But most of the reconstruction has been directed at providing

access to that third floor — that exclusive third floor where those

Ministers live like King Farouk used to live.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: One Minister has just piped up, Mr. Chairman, and

he has an 8-ft.-along desk; it will sleep three people. It's

unbelievable! Thousands of dollars for that Minister of Human

Resources' (Hon. Mr. Levi) desk. Lavishness that no king would would be

ashamed to walk into.

But there is one corner of this building which hasn't been touched

and I am concerned about that. Just one little corner, probably about — oh, I don't know what the size is — probably about 600 square feet, or

700 or 800 square feet — that is the press gallery. I understand there

is a bit of a storm brewing as to what could happen to the press

gallery.

AN HON. MEMBER: Complaining to the press.

MR. CHABOT: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that there is a bit of a feud in the cabinet as to really what will happen to the press gallery.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do they want to do with it?

MR. CHABOT: The Speaker wants a private suite, and he wants to occupy what is presently the press gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: They're wiping them out by hiring them all.

MR. CHABOT: I am wondering whether the

[ Page 3217 ]

Speaker is winning or whether the Premier is winning, regarding what will happen with the press gallery.

As I understand, the Speaker is really putting the pressure on to

get that private Speaker's suite established in what is presently the

press gallery. He has been pushing, and pushing for some considerable

time.

This is a topical question, and I am wondering if the Minister of

Public Works will tell us whether there is going to be a private

Speaker's suite in what is now the press gallery Or is it an iffy

question to which we might get a maybe answer? Or is it clear-cut? What

will happen to that little spot that remains untouched?

Also, I wonder if the. Minister would tell me whether he has issued

any tenders, by invitation possibly, for carpeting to cover the public

areas of this parliament building. If so, what area does he propose to

cover? Is it the corridors surrounding this chamber? I think it is a

question that is worthy of an answer, whether invitations for tenders

have been issued.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That is an answer worthy of a question.

MR. CHABOT: I am wondering if the Minister could tell us what

the estimated cost of the carpeting would be for these floors. Is the

estimate in the neighbourhood of $170,000 to $200,000? — which I

understand it is. Would the Minister tell us that? I suggested that it

was by invitational bid; I am wondering if the Minister could tell us

whether it is by open tender or invitational bid.

I am sure that I will have a few more questions; in fact I have a

few marked down here, but I am not one to throw a whole series of

questions and then get only a few answers. So I think it is only right

that I throw out about seven or eight questions, then at a later time I

will throw out the other questions. That way not too many are left

behind in the shuffle.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Excellent, excellent.

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

have waited with interest to see if the Minister was going to reply at

this point, but presumably he is going to collect a list of answers

before he gets to his feet.

While he is doing that, perhaps under vote 219 he could indicate the

number of people who actually work out of his office, through you. I

realize the vote shows it as three, but my information is that there

are, in fact, five full-paid individuals working out of your office.

Perhaps you could explain the discrepancy, please.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I just want to

make a brief comment — I do this every year — in favour of the people who look

after this building and the precincts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McGEER: I would like to say the buildings are among the

most beautiful buildings in all of Canada. The people who look after

the buildings, and the people who care for the grounds are doing a

tremendous service for the people of British Columbia. I want to

compliment the Minister and his staff.

Mr. Chairman, we have never had an opportunity to be here at this

time of year before and see all of these beautiful flowers out there in

the gardens. I want to tell you if anything would compensate us for

dragging through May, it is to see the beautiful gardens. I hope we are

not going to be here when the leaves turn this fall, but I think

somebody ought to throw a bouquet to the Minister and his staff for the

splendid job they are doing, not just in caring for the gardens, but

keeping these buildings among the most beautiful in Canada.

MR. CHABOT: Maybe the Minister wants to answer those few questions, I have a few more, but nothing of any….

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Why should I give you a whole series of questions? Could you answer those few questions I asked you, Mr. Minister?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): I certainly

wouldn't want to be accused of filibustering my own estimates.

(Laughter.) I was going to give you a little report on things, on the

finest staff in the government, but the Member for Columbia River was

in such a hurry to get up and ask his questions…. He might well be in

a hurry, because he asked the same questions last year, so he will

probably get the same answers.

MR. CHABOT: No, that is not true. Do you want me to go on my Glenshiel talk?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: No, that's kind of a broken record.

I would like to commend my staff, the Deputy Minister, who is here

tonight, Mr. George Giles. Mr. Giles has been with the department for

several years, but he has been acting as Deputy now for just over a

year. He is very energetic….

MR. CHABOT: Why don't you give him a full salary?

[ Page 3218 ]

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I don't object.

Because of his professional training he is very able to do the job before him, and this department has a very big job to do.

Another person whom I would like to mention, along with Mr. Rhodes

who is here tonight, the Comptroller. He keeps you all in line, to see

that we don't spend too much money on space, or new buildings, or any

other matter.

For many years Mr. Lougher-Goody and one or two assistants were in

charge of all the space planning and acquiring property and so on.

Since the new government took power we found it necessary to hire a

full property division, persons trained in the real estate business.

Some have come from other governments, including the federal

government. I think the fact that we had to hire extra staff indicated

the shape of things as we found them. Certainly, in doing that I would

like to pay my respects to the job that was done by Mr. Goody and other

members.

I would also like to commend Alex Brady and his construction crew.

When we came in here — and the Member for Columbia River ran over the

old record about the money that we were spending and what we have been

doing to this building….

MR. CHABOT: Continuing — $4 million.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I beg your pardon?

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): You've been working on those stairs outside our office for 12 months.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I think it's only right that I send the

Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) a little book of pictures

across, because he wasn't here in the House.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The Member for South Okanagan doesn't

realize that when we came in here the roof was leaking, there was dry

rot in the rafters, the paint was falling off the ceiling….

AN HON. MEMBER: You're leaking now.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Things were in a terrible shape.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Now there's nothing but draft.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Well, most of the cracks are over there.

MR. PHILLIPS: Draft, I said, not cracks.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Quite frankly, when we came in and started

to look about this building, we were shocked to see the amount of

plastic that was propped up under the attic, the amount of buckets that

were there collecting water and how every time it rained we had to send

up to the UIC to get an extra crew of bucket boys to run and dump the

pails.

We felt that that was very poor economy on the part of the previous

administration. So forthwith we decided to repair the roof, take down

the plastic, paint up the building; and we're getting nothing but good

comment. Every mail brings in letters of commendation for the respect

that we're showing to this fine old building.

MR. CHABOT: Rattenbury would turn over in his grave.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, as my friend says: "old Rattenbury." It shows how much research he did when he was Minister of Labour.

The design for this building came about through an international

competition and it was won by a young man by the name of Francis J.

Rattenbury. It was won when he was 21 years of age.

MR. CHABOT: How old is he now?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: These buildings, whether they're in British

Columbia or elsewhere, are now historic pieces. I think that this

building, apart from being the Legislature…. As it is our provincial

parliament, we should all respect it and revere it. But because of the

fact that it was designed by a world-famous, now historic architect, I

think that we do well to preserve it. It's one of the best tourist

attractions in the province. Since we renovated it the number of

tourists that go through here is now an all-time high — four times the

previous high.

Now questions were asked about our programme for building. Yes, we

have a design for the precinct area, and we have some 600,000 square

feet of space planned for this next year. We plan building some 220,000

feet on to the B.C. Hydro building on Pandora Street …

MR. CHABOT: That's not in the precinct.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: …the law courts building — some 40,000

feet. We have two buildings on Blanshard and Courtenay — 60,000 to

start with, with upwards to 200,000 feet. The Times Building — another

57,000 to 60,000 feet. The Dowell Building….

AN HON. MEMBER: That's 60,000 on the Victoria Times building?

[ Page 3219 ]

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, 60,000 square feet; we can increase it

by 60,000. The Dowell building, a smaller building but a historic

building, out on Wharf Street that we have recently acquired will

provide some 20,000 feet of space. St. Ann's Academy — we plan moving

into the secondary school shortly and when given possession of the old

building, we will make use of that in its present stage for space, at

least until it can be renovated.

We're planning a multi-purpose building that would include

transportation, with upwards to 400,000 square feet. And I think that

you're all aware that after 15 years a start has finally been made in

downtown Vancouver — Block 51, 61, 71. Judge Nemetz tells me that….

AN HON. MEMBER: Justice.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I beg your pardon; Justice Nemetz has been

concerned and working on this project for almost 15 year now. This is

underway and contracts have been let for setting up the hoarding. Howe

Street is currently being diverted onto block 61. The ramp that had

been permitted to be designed and built by the previous administration

is being removed and we have a temporary access for Howe Street over

block 61. We hope to have the first building on site ready for Complex

1 would like to report that we've had a high degree of liaison with

the City of Victoria and with the City of Vancouver. We were able to

get together with Mayor Phillips and straighten out various problems

with regard to the block 61 project.

We have worked with the City of Victoria with regard to planning

parking and transportation for various projects — the projects I have

mentioned — and we hope to have a joint city and B.C. government tender

for a building in downtown Victoria. They own some land, we own some

land and we hope to have a joint project here.

Now questions have been asked and remarks have been made with regard

to property acquisition. We set up a property division mainly because

of what we found when we came here. We found that the previous

administration had been dealing through the recognized real estate

agencies in the various communities. One agency in this city had

purchased all the greenbelt properties on the Island; another had

purchased all the greenbelt properties on the mainland.

MR. CHABOT: What's your role in the greenbelt fund?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: My friend from Columbia River asked about the Glenshiel Hotel. We answered these questions last year.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, a year has gone by. You said you couldn't

give me the price last year because you were negotiating other deals.

Is it still pending? They tell me it was $570,000.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: If you'd turn off your mouth and open your

ears, you'd probably remember a lot better than you did last year. We

answered this last year; we'll answer it again this year.

Now one of the first property acquisitions we made was the Glenshiel

Hotel. The real estate firm that acquired all the greenbelt properties

had appraised it at $640,000. So I went to the person in this

department and asked: "Okay, what do we do to acquire it?"

He said: "Well, that's the appraised value; they will acquire it for that value. Did I tell them to go ahead.'

I said: "No, we'll just wait a little bit. I want to think about this."

With that I returned to my office and phoned an independent

appraiser. I asked him to appraise this property and to bring the

appraisal to my desk, and I would see that he was paid for the

independent appraisal.

His appraisal was for considerably less than the appraisal and the

proposition that was offered to us by the real estate firm that had

done all the dealings for the previous government.

Instead of paying $640,000, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon R.A. Williams) and myself sat down and met with the

management and we bought that property for something in excess of

$50,000 less than what we would have done had we proceeded in the

orthodox fashion under the previous administration.

MR. CHABOT: How much did you pay?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We paid $590,000.

MR. CHABOT: I suggested $570,000; it's even worse.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: You suggested $570,000; I see. Well, we paid $590,000 and that was…. Pardon?

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: On other properties we have become very

vitally and closely concerned if the figure is above appraised value.

We become involved and see that we get it down to at least the

appraised value. We try and have more than one appraisal so that we're

in a good position to bargain and negotiate.

We have hired Peter Gregory from the federal government, who I believe is a good, hard-nosed

[ Page 3220 ]

public servant, and he will save his wages each year many times

over. I believe the property division to date has saved the wages many

times over by getting in and bargaining rather than just accepting what

the real estate fraternity had been offering the previous

administration. I'm prepared to stand up and defend any of our real

estate dealings since we have taken power.

My friend asks about the number of public employees hired. I would

like to point out that when we were elected approximately 20 per cent

of the employees, some who had been in the employ of the then

government and the present government for 20 years, were listed as

"casual continuous" employees. Continuously casual, that was their

attitude. They are now full-time employees, so naturally our employment

rolls of full-time persons appears to be considerably more than what it

was two years ago. But the basic reason is that about 20 per cent were

listed as "casual continuous" employees.

My friend says this place is good enough for King Farouk.

MR. CHABOT: I said the Ministers' offices.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Well, when we came here there were public

servants in this attic corner and in that basement comer. They were

jammed in like sardines, and it was more of a place for King Oscar the

sardine. (Laughter.)

I'll take him at his word that this may well be capable of King

Farouk. But I believe King Farouk lived in a tent, and the Socreds,

like King Farouk, after the next election will fold their tents and

silently fade away. That'll be the end of them.

MR. CHABOT: You always have to be political.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: As far as the lavish extravagance, this

isn't the case at all. The Ministers' suites are designed after the

suites that Francis Rattenbury designed for the original building.

As far. as the rugs and carpets that we have, we have contracted to

buy sufficient carpeting to complete the entire building. Not the

hallways; the hallways will remain in tile where we have tiled

hallways. For the various offices, including the offices on this main

floor of the MLAs, government and opposition, they'll have the same

quality and same dye lot of carpeting.

As far as what will be done with the….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

HON. MR. HARTLEY: As far as what will be done with the space

on this floor, the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) should know

that we have a legislative committee, that will make the decisions with

regard to the press gallery and so on.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Say a few words about Autoplan.

MR. CHABOT: What about the press gallery?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: As far as what my friend said about this building not being needing….

MR. CHABOT: Put that old book away. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. HARTLEY: If you promise to remember next year the

answers that we gave you this year, we won't bring it up. Since he

quoted what I said in Prince George last fall, I'd like to read an

excerpt from a letter that was written by the previous Deputy to the

previous Minister (Mr. Chant). He lists various work that had to be

done. I mention this because the official representative of the

opposition is still trying to say we're spending money where money

shouldn't be spent. The previous Minister made a similar statement.

This is what a letter written by the previous Deputy to the previous

Minister states: "In

summary, these reports indicate that close to $1

million will be needed to restore the exterior of the legislative

building to a good standard." That was restoring the exterior. That

wasn't in 1972 when we were elected and it isn't this year; it was

eight years ago, 1966. This report lay there and collected mould, and

that previous administration failed to do anything about the state of

repair of this building.

Now they dare get up and criticize us. They should hang their head

in shame. This is the home of democracy in the province and I think

it's the least we could do. If they can't respect democracy itself, I

think they can respect the building in which that institution is housed.

MR. CHABOT: The home of socialism.

MR. GARDOM: One word to the Hon. Minister. When Mr.

Rattenbury designed the building, it was never intended by him, Mr.

Minister, that the graceful driveways were to be resting places for the

products of Detroit or Oshawa or the Volkswagen works. We all can

remember that the former Minister committed the rather indescribable

indiscretion by extending the parking privileges down the driveways on

each side of the building to Belleville. Thankfully, I'd say, you

certainly brought that to a prompt end.

But unfortunately, we still find parking in front of the buildings,

Mr. Minister. There's no question that this is one of the most

beautiful scenes not only in B.C. but I'd say in Canada. Certainly, if

it is not the most photographed legislative building in all of the

[ Page 3221 ]

country, it parallels if not exceeds the House of Commons in Ottawa.

So bearing in mind, Mr. Minister, that we do have architecture that

is unique and is acquiring a very pleasant and, I hope, lasting

historic significance, please, please, please totally eliminate parking

in front of these premises. It does absolutely nothing but detract from

the beauty of the surroundings and there's no need for it. I'm not too

sure how many vehicles can be placed in front of the premises, but as a

guess I don't suppose it would hit 20. And there is no reason that I

know why those 20 individuals can't have but a block pleasant walk to

come to work. It would do them a lot of good as well. There should be

no parking, absolutely no parking in front of these legislative

buildings. Would you agree to that?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I think that's a very good point. We agree

and we hope that, through the cooperation we're getting with the city

and with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and

transit and through proper planned parking, in this term of office we

can eliminate the parking about the building. A very valid point.

MR. GARDOM: If you have any problem putting up the barricades

at one end, I'm happy to put the barricades up at the other end to give

you a hand.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Thank you.

MR. CHABOT: I want to thank the Minister for telling us what

the government paid for the Glenshiel Hotel and stating it was

$590,000. I find it in the back of his annual report now that they paid

$592,859.95. I suggest to you that the taxpayers of British Columbia

were ripped off by the sum of $133,000 by the purchase of the Glenshiel

Hotel.

I wonder how you arrived at your valuation when you registered the

property in land registry because it has a declared value there of

$570,000. I'm 'wondering where the discrepancy comes in. Don't you tell

the land registry what the true figures are in the value of the

property or do you, in your own mind, believe that it's not worth as

much as you paid for it? You had a declared valuation of $570,000. It

was on that basis I was suggesting last session that you had paid

$110,000 too much and that the taxpayers had been ripped off for

$110,000. Now I find it's $113,000.

Are you going to continue the present trend of renting space? You

did say there are plans to construct buildings. You suggested that to

me, within the precincts here. But I find Blanshard Street quite a ways

away. I'm wondering, in order to communicate between this building, the

hub or the nerve centre of the political process or of the government,

how you are going to keep in communication. I know you can keep in

communication by telephone, but when you have to deliver communication

and various materials between the department, are you going to have

like they have down in Washington in the Pentagon? Are you going to

issue roller skates to people who are messengers between the various

buildings?

My question wasn't what you're doing scattering buildings all over

the City of Victoria, which I suggest is taking place at this time.

What are you going to do within the precincts of this building?

Are there plans for demolishing the existing buildings eventually?

To do so, I realize that it is necessary temporarily to rent buildings,

that's for sure. While this process is going on, at this point, do you

have plans for putting buildings across on Superior Street or in other

areas within the precincts of the parliament buildings?

Is there going to be a continuing escalation of the rental costs in

your department? They moved from $4 million to $8 million this year.

Also, you fail to say whether the Speaker is going to win out in

getting his private suite in what is now the press gallery. If the

Speaker does win out — I know he has tremendous influence — if he does

win out, what do you propose to do with the press? Where do you propose

to locate the press if the Speaker gets his wish and his private suite?

One other question I asked, and which hasn't been answered, is

regarding tenders for carpeting to cover the public areas of the

buildings. What is the cost going to be? Were they by invitational

tender or by just the normal form of tender? Is the cost going to run

in the neighbourhood of between $170,000 and $200,000? That hasn't been

answered.

One other question that I want to pose to the Minister is: the

government, I understand, has purchased the Victoria Press building. I

was wondering if the Minister could tell me what the purchase price of

that building is, what the square footage is.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: What building is that?

MR. CHABOT: The Victoria Times building, or the Victoria

Press building — the old building, the old, abandoned building. I would

like to know what you paid for it and just what the square footage of

that building is, Mr. Minister.

Also, I wonder if the government is calling tenders for a supply of

rugs to be delivered to the Belamy Building on Johnson Street here in

Victoria. If so, what yardage of rug is involved in the tender? What

was the price per yard on bids received? Was it in the neighbourhood of

$40 or $50?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Twenty.

MR. CHABOT: A square yard? Was it in that

[ Page 3222 ]

neighbourhood? You're nodding your head. Is that in the affirmative,

or…. . Mr. Minister? If the tender has been awarded, what was the

total cost of these rugs?

I know I can't afford, and I'm sure the taxpayers of British

Columbia can't afford, to have rugs that are worth $40 to $50 a square

yard, or even $30.

I'm wondering if the Minister will tell me…. That's been a trait

of this government — stop everything, start over again and then attempt

to take the credit for any action taking place. We've seen that on the

railway in the north; we've seen it in other areas as well.

I want to talk about the public building in Kimberley. It was

started early in 1972 and came to an abrupt halt with only a slab of

cement in place. It's been sitting there for two years and nothing has

happened. What is the

schedule on that? Is it going to proceed? If so,

when? They have been waiting for a long time; they were waiting for a

long time even before the building was started, I'll tell you, to get a

public building in that community. Now there has been this unnecessary

delay of two years. Is there going to be further delay in getting the

public building in Kimberley underway?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: It is very interesting, Mr. Chairman, the

way we are charged with unnecessary delay. The building, where the

footings, foundation and basement were installed in Kimberley — that's

just one of the buildings — up in Burns Lake, a similar thing…. There

are footings and foundation poured.

MR. CHABOT: Did you stop that one too?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We didn't stop it. In both those cases that was the extent of the contract that was left immediately before the election …

MR. CHABOT: Why didn't you follow through?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: …so they could get out and say, "Look at the progress. Look how things are going. We are going to build a building here."

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Why didn't you keep it going?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: In the case of Burns Lake, they let the

foundations alongside the existing provincial government building, but

separated by about six feet, and no connecting link. The public

servants up there contacted us and said, "Look, this is stupid, up in

this country, having to run from one building in and out to the next."

So we had to design it because all the design the previous government

had was a basement, and that was about the height….

HON. MR. BARRETT: A pre-election basement!

HON. MR. HARTLEY: That's right. Tell the truth.

Now, as far as the information, my friend, on the Belamy Building — I think he had better fire his source of information.

MR. CHABOT: Better what?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Fire them; sack them; can them — because

while we did call for tenders on rugs, and these rugs were to be stored

in the Belamy Building, but we cancelled the tender. The tenders were

about $19. Less than $20.

MR. CHABOT: Less than $20 a square foot.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: That contract was never let. We called tenders, and we didn't proceed. So you've got some phony information again.

MR. CHABOT: No, no. It's good information — a good question and you answered it.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Now, as for the Glenshiel Hotel, the actual value…the land value was $260,000; the improvements, $330,000 and….

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: It was $590,000.

Yes, this and many other properties are far more than what the

government should have paid for them. But three years before we took

office, the Glenshiel was offered to the previous government for

$490,000. This is inflation and escalation.

In the case of the Belmont Building, it was offered to the previous

government for $0.5 million, and now we are going to have to pay that

out in rent. The reason we are having to rent space and build space is

because of the fantastic inertia of the previous government. Had they

acted in a wise fashion, we wouldn't be in the mess that we are in.

MR. FRASER: You need that for your party hacks, that's all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. HARTLEY: All you can do is thump your desks. Mr.

Chairman, never was an opposition in this province treated so well with

space, with secretaries, with research assistants, as this opposition.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And they still can't help themselves.

[ Page 3223 ]

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I asked a few very simple

questions. I thought we would get through the estimates fairly quickly

if some of the response was forthcoming without necessary political

nonsense from that Minister over there — cheap politics like I've never

heard before in this chamber. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: I asked regarding the Victoria Press or the

Victoria Times building, just whether it has been purchased, whether

that old building has been purchased, what the square footage was in

that building, and the price of that building. He didn't answer it.

I keep wondering why you keep evading this Speaker's suite — whether

the Speaker's going to be given an exclusive suite, Mr. Minister, in

what is now known as the press gallery.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I answered that. I said that

we have a legislative committee, and their purpose is to work with the

architects to redesign and plan this whole floor, the offices of the

MLAs, both government and opposition.

But I would like to state this: at no time, to my knowledge, has the

Speaker contacted my office with regard to any recommendation or

request for additional space for the Speaker's office.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): He's bypassed you.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, he's gone right to the top.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: This whole matter will be discussed with

the legislative committee of which both government and opposition are a

part. I think you can appreciate that we can't be redesigning and

reconstructing this floor while the Legislature is in session. Last

session, just so we could move ahead on the top floor, we had our

construction crews building duct spaces both on the government side of

the House and the opposition side of the House, and the opposition just

screamed blue murder. And it was a very minimal amount of construction

at that time.

MRS. JORDAN: I've listened to this Minister with great

interest. You talked, Mr. Minister, about Mr. Rattenbury, and paid

great tribute to him. I frankly feel that in some of your renovations

you are to be credited, but I think you have shown a tremendous lack of

sensitivity in appreciating what he was trying to do with these

parliament buildings in terms of not only creating an historical

building that is functional, not only creating an instrument of history

for the future, but also his tremendous sensitivity in displaying the

craftsmanship of the time.

When one comes into the main rotunda, Mr. Minister, it really

appalls me, the amount of vulgar display of gold that there is down

there. When I look at it and when I look at some of the extremism of

the gold even in this chamber, I think this Minister sort of has a

vision of himself as being King Midas reformed. You're acting like a

little bear in the honey pot throwing all this gold around.

There is an old saying, Mr. Minister, that the brighter the colour,

the more precious the metal, then the less one uses of it. The way you

have used it, particularly down in the main rotunda, the gold is so

predominant that you lose all concept of the sensitivity and the

artistry of those mouldings and the carvings, which I believe are all

hand done. With all respect to the older, very aged colours and

moulding around other parts of the buildings, when you look at them the

use of the colours — the moulding of the beiges — enhances the depth of

the carving and the craftsmanship.

I would hope that you might reappraise your situation downstairs

because I think that by the time you get it finished it expresses an

overuse, or as I say a reformed Midas use, of gold to the point of

almost being vulgar. You should go back to an appreciation of the

sensitivity of what is truly a reflection of our history and the hand

crafting of this building.

I'm sorry that I had to leave the floor for a moment but I hope that

the Minister is not going to cover up any of the beautiful tiling in

the building — even the more modern tiling — with carpets. I haven't

been over to the building adjacent to the entrance which used to be the

Attorney-General's office, and which I think still is in part. The

former administration was going to cover up that beautiful tile with a

carpet. I happened to get there the day they were doing it and we got

it stopped. I hope the Minister will never do it. That's lovely Italian

tile and it should never be covered up. As I mentioned, I hope that in

your efforts you will maintain the basic character.

In your enthusiasm to renovate the building — and I must say I can

see the visitors writing you letters saying how much they appreciated

the mending of the leaks in the roof and how beautifully you have done

it — don't lose sight of the fact that the beauty in a building, the

history in a building, is in its use by people through time. If you

transform this building into all refinished walls, all refinished

woodwork, all refinished wood fixtures, you're going to destroy the

very essence of the building as it relates to our history. The

banisters, for example, shouldn't be all new and shiny. Those banisters

have years and years of people's hands on them. That's part of our

history.

I would hope that you would just move with some restraint so that

you don't bring in a glaring nouveau riche appearance about the

building, because this in itself with its beautiful marble would

destroy its

[ Page 3224 ]

concept.

As for our offices, Mr. Minister, really we don't want any gold

filigree in them; we would just like you to remove the flush plumbing

from them. It is a bit of a noise hazard when one is talking to

constituents.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): You get a flush from above.

MRS. JORDAN: It's that three-man desk up there that is doing all the damage.

I would like to know, Mr. Minister, the general cost of the gold

work within the building. I certainly wouldn't be concerned about a

moderate use of it with taste, but I am concerned with what appears to

be the excessive use of it and in fact not in good taste. I hope that

the Minister would be able to let me know what money is involved. I'm

sure the people appreciate your efforts, but not to the extreme.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I've

interrupted the Minister who was going to also talk about the

sensitivity session that he and the Member for North Okanagan might

well have. I don't know who the group leader of that twosome would be,

but they could sit in a circle, staring at one another, trying to find

out what are their strengths and weaknesses and aspirations. It is a

touching thought — the two of them at a sensitivity session.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No divisions on that, please.

I would like to ask the Minister a few other questions — first,

about the telephones in the building. They're better, but if the

government can't run the telephone system better than it is now doing

in this building, heaven help us if they try and take it over in the

rest of the province.

I understand that you have difficulties in getting extra lines but

still the system doesn't work very well. The problem of crossed lines

is fairly frequent. That is, if someone is phoning on 8 to Vancouver

and someone else is phoning on the Vancouver line, you can often cross

the line and get someone else's conversation quite unexpectedly. It

happens about once a month, I guess, in my case, which is too frequent,

I would say, for both the civil service and the politicians. It must

affect all of us. Telephones in the building are not really working all

that well. I would like to know what you are doing about it,

Lines to Vancouver are not working well either. We obviously need

more of them. I understand there has been a request for more, and B.C.

Tel have yet to provide them because they don't have the equipment or

something. We are told now by the operators to use 112 whenever you

can't get through because they don't like having you constantly

phoning, phoning, phoning because again it ties up the system. They

prefer you to go right outside it to the commercial system with B.C.

Tel and phone wherever it may be. I wonder what you're doing to cure

this problem.

I personally don't mind going through 112 at all. I think it is a

good idea. It obviously gives a small bill to the government. I wonder

whether if you could tell us what you are doing to improve the

telephone system.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the Member should really be directing that to the Minister of Transport and Communications.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, there is a distinction here. I

understand one is responsible for Transport and Communications but the

other is responsible for installing the phones. I know it is a very

difficult distinction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that right? Is it yours, Mr. Minister?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I've had trouble earlier with two letters

I had passing the buck. I believe it is your responsibility in the

building, is it not, Mr. Minister?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, he doesn't want to commit himself.

He's not going to commit himself. I'll raise it under the other

Minister as well, but in case I'm on the right one this time he might

like to say a word or two about that.

There is another important subject and that is: when is the Minister

going to take steps to protect that simply splendid mosaic immediately

below the rotunda which has nothing around it to stop people from

stomping all over it. The thing is crumbling away. I would like to say

that if they do anything about this they should put up a plaque to the

memory of our great friend, Jimmy Nesbitt, because he has often

mentioned this to all Members and the Minister would do us a

considerable favour to assist us in being able to tell Mr. Nesbitt that

the mosaic under the rotunda is being protected because it is being

tromped on and is crumbling away and breaking up. The replacement tile

simply isn't up to the original. There is no question that you should

put something around it.

It's no fault of the tourists. Quite often they don't even notice it

when they come in — there are so many of them down there. It's no fault

of the school kids that come. But certainly Members should avoid

stepping on it, if I can suggest this to all of us, until such time as

the Minister puts a nice railing around it

[ Page 3225 ]

- perhaps one velvet rope with polished brass supports at each

little corner of it — so we can protect this very attractive piece of

B.C. history.

It wouldn't take a great deal of money. You could even do it

cheaply; you don't have to have weight for the brass or weight for the

velvet rope. You could do it with a white rope and pieces of wood — pieces of two-by-fours on little stands if you wanted, Mr. Minister.

It certainly is time that you did that, because it really is

pointless to spend a vast amount of money on renovation in this

building — which I approve of heartily, as I told you before. I think

you are doing a good job of renovating and protecting the most

important building in my constituency. But there is no point in doing

that if, at the same time, you are failing to take cheap — in fact,

virtually free — steps to protect existing mosaics and other things

which could be done with just a little foresight and a little effort.

If you do take me up on this — and I trust that you will — I hope

you won't forget Jimmy Nesbitt, who has often proposed this. Really it

is his idea. He's watched this building fall apart over the years….

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I've just got to be sure. He's watched

this building fall apart over the years and he's watched you trying to

put it together again. There's no question that a barricade of some

sort — an attractive one — would protect this from the unthinking feet

of the populace, as well as ourselves, and it would do something to

protect the historical floor that exists right there — that great

mosaic.

The next thing: I would like to know what your plans are for the

press gallery. It's a curious room down there. We understand that the

Speaker might have designs upon it. It's undoubtedly a fire-trap. It's

probably disease-ridden. It smells strongly of alcohol. It's got all

sorts of failings. Nevertheless, they love it; it's their home. They

would like to know what you're going to do with it and so would I. Are

you going to renovate this and spend a small fortune on decorating and

turn it into a dining room for Mr. Speaker?

Are you going to leave it to the inhabitants who presently infest

the place, who, even though it's crowded, even though they have

questions about it, still love it, curiously enough, and would like to

know what your views are? And so would 1.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: When are the renovations in this building

going to be finished? My own office, for example, has a drainpipe from

the Minister upstairs who apparently can't use the public facilities.

(Laughter.) It's great; we know the state of his health in view of the

frequency.

Nevertheless, we would like to know what you're going to do about

this rather ugly drainpipe right through my office, and the other two

pipes. I'd certainly like to know what the brass pipe is which is

capped halfway down in my room, This type of thing, I think, should be

finished off.

We're perhaps being a little lighthearted here, but we'd certainly

like to know how long it's going to take to finish redoing the

building. I have a particular reason in my office to want to know how

successful you're going to be on the floor above because that clearly

is going to determine your success in my office as well as we are

getting downstream benefits. (Laughter.)

Those are a few comments which perhaps the Minister would like to comment on at this time.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Possibly I should start in reverse order.

I'll double check that brass pipe which goes through the new leader of

the Liberal Party's office, but it could well be that it's a bugging

device placed there by the former Liberal leader.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: On his first question with regard to

telephones. I realize he's a new boy but he did have experience in the

federal House. We've had the Department of Communications in this

government for over a year now.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, that's right.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Telephones are part of that. So on that

one, Mr. Second Member for Victoria, I'll have to just give you "wrong

number, try again".

. As far as the mosaics. Yes, we are very much concerned about these

mosaics and we're doing something about it. These mosaics have been

walked upon for about 80 years now. We've had them photographed and we

are ordering the same tile. We find we can get the same shades of tile

from Italy. As these loosen up, we'll rebuild it and reset them on the

original pattern and design.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Press gallery.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I've already answered that twice,

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I won't be very long on the

idea that we're going to leave that thing to be ground into dust and

then you're going to pull some photographs out of your file and send

off to Italy to get a few more chips of marble to come and rebuild it

when a few protective measures now would prevent this from happening.

Mr. Minister, you

[ Page 3226 ]

don't understand the difference, apparently, between restoring and preserving what exists. There is a distinction.

For instance, if this building collapsed and you rebuilt it, it

wouldn't be the same building as this building preserved. What I'm

asking for the mosaic is not to have the thing ground down into the

ground. I would like to have it protected now while there is still

something worth protecting so we then have the original. If the museums

of the world, Mr. Minister, had accepted your idea that a duplicate or

substitute is just as good as the original, there wouldn't be one of

the Old Masters in any of the museums. All the paintings would have

disappeared. There wouldn't be any point in having an Emily Carr which

the Hon. Provincial Secretary is trying to find a few more of; he would

just have a few new ones painted. That's not the same as protecting the

old.

I trust that you will reconsider a somewhat flippant reply to my

comments or at least the comments of the honourable friend (Mr.

Nesbitt) of ours from the Sun newspaper, as conveyed through

me, as to the need to protect the existing mosaic. Replacing it is not

the same thing as protecting it.

On the question of telephones, I appreciate the fact that it's not

your responsibility. I apologize for asking you; I'll ask the other

Minister. I had to read out today two letters where two Ministers both

said the other was responsible. We get a little leery of this because

it happens too frequently.

With respect to the press gallery, I don't really think you've

answered it. Are they going to be there forever? Have they got the

rabbit warren for the remainder of your term as Minister of Public

Works? Are you going to redecorate it for them? Are you going to take

down the copy of the Victoria Times of 1937 which is hanging on the

rafters on an old piece of string? Are you going to do that or are you

going to turf them out, redecorate it, install a large dining-room

table and turn it over to the Speaker? We would like something more

definite than you gave us on this.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Further on the question of referral to a

committee on facilities, I am surprised all of a sudden that the

Minister, when he gets into what appears to be a dicey situation with

the Speaker, wants to slough it off to a legislative committee. The

legislative committee on facilities was never consulted and never

worked with the architect in the other offices surrounding this

chamber. All of a sudden, when we get to a dicey situation where the

Speaker is putting tremendous pressure on establishing his private

little quarters down there in the corner, it's going to a committee. I

thought that the terms of reference for this committee originated from

the

Legislature and not from the Minister of Public Works. In fact, I'm

sure the Members on this side of the House or maybe even the chairman

of that committee is not aware that it is going to be their role to

decide just what the future usage of that office is going to be.

I think that it's necessary to lay to rest once and for all that

myth being generated by the Premier and by the Minister of Public Works

regarding research assistants in the office of the official opposition.

It was the former government that established the position of research

officer …

HON. MR. BARRETT: One.

MR. CHABOT Just one moment…in the employment of John Wood. At that

particular time, the government felt the opposition wasn't performing a

responsible and informed job on criticizing the policies of the government.

So they hired one John Wood as the research assistant so there would be a better

job done. So John Wood now, with the election of a new government, has gone

on to his reward. He has doubled his salary; he is now getting $27,000 a year

as executive assistant to the Premier.

In the previous situation when you were over here, you had a staff

of two…you had a secretary; you had a research assistant. Now there

are three. A secretary…. The Minister of Public Works raised this

issue and I want to put that myth to rest once and for all. A straight

myth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Are you on a point of order?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Member is clearly

out of order. He's dealing with personnel and that has nothing to do

with the Department of Public Works. I ask you to call them both to

order if they're discussing that subject. Both of them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. That's right. We will continue the debate on vote 219, please.

MR. CHABOT: I think I've made my point. There's only one

question. I don't have that many questions to ask him, and I'm rather

puzzled, of course, with the Minister's sloughing off that problem on

the press gallery. That other question which hasn't been answered is

the purchase of the Victoria Times building. It's my understanding it

was purchased for $1.7 million. If that's a fact, I'd like the Minister

to tell me just what the square footage of that building is. Mr.

Minister, you answer questions and things move along more smoothly.

Will the Minister talk on the Victoria Times building?

[ Page 3227 ]

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The Victoria Times building was purchased

today. I'd be pleased to give the details on square footage tomorrow or

the next day during question period. I haven't the figures here for the

square footage but I'd be pleased to go over the appraisal and give you

the square footage in the next question period.

MR. CHABOT: I'll appraise it for you.

What did you pay for it? Do you have the figures on what you paid for it?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Your figure is approximately correct, I believe.

MR. CHABOT: Okay.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I'd like to

address a question to the Minister responsible for the expropriation of

a large chunk of the downtown City of North Vancouver. I'd ask the

Minister if he could enlighten us on some of the proceedings under that

expropriation. Could he give us an estimate of overall cost? I know the

city portion alone, according to proceedings in council, is something

over $2 million. Perhaps he could give us an estimate of the overall

cost of that expropriation and, indeed, how the negotiations are

proceeding and whether it will be, in the final event, necessary to

expropriate or whether they might be acquired by negotiations.

I wonder if he would tell us how much of that 17 acres will be going

to the transit bureau since 17 acres is obviously a good deal more than

is required for the ferry terminal. Perhaps he could tell us how much

is going to them and how much to other provincial uses or other uses.

The government has stated through the Minister of Municipal Affairs and others that full taxes will be paid on this land.

I'd ask the Minister to reconfirm that again publicly, because it is

very important to the city. I gather there has been a commitment given

that there will be consultation with the city in planning for any use

of this land. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that as

well.

Finally, I would ask him about relocation assistance for the

employment activities within that area. I gather that there is some

possibility that some of the firms might be relocated within that

17-acre region. I would ask him specifically about Cates Towing and

about the Seven Seas Restaurant, which I gather is not within the

actual expropriation area but much of its parking is. So it may have to

be moved.

The northern waterfront marina complex has already had a breakwater

built for it. I would ask him if he knows at this time whether that use

will remain compatible with a ferry terminal or whether there will have

to be realignment of breakwaters or perhaps a complete move out of the

area.

We'd also like any information he could give us on relocation of other employers in the area such as Ocean Cement.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Actually, these questions could be directed

to the department in charge of transit transport. The Department of

Public Works took this expropriation action on behalf of transport. I

don't think $2 million will be enough.

Interjection

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, some of the owners have come to us to

negotiate. Where we ran negotiate a mutually agreeable price, this is

the way it will go.

If we cannot reach agreement, then the other course will have to be

taken. But as far as the details of that planned development are

concerned, it should be with the Department of Transport. We are just

handling the mechanics and the paperwork of the expropriation.

MR. GIBSON: The whole 17 acres will be going to the transit bureau?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I am sorry. I didn't hear the last phrase.

MR. GIBSON: Is the Minister saying that the whole 17 acres

will be going to the transit bureau? Because, as I said, this is a good

deal more than is required for a ferry terminal. I was wondering if

perhaps other provincial agencies will be using some of that land, or

if it might alternately be used for relocation assistance for some of

these other companies.

Also, would he confirm the full taxes and planning consultation?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Well, I don't expect that the whole 17 acres will be needed by transit. But again, they would have to answer that.

The reason we took the whole block in was because it was difficult

to make certain who owned which and what. So we just put a blanket

coverage over certain perimeters, and some possibly may never be used

by any department of government.

It's, in effect, a freeze so that we could pick up the property for transit use.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell the Minister of Public Works

what a fantastic job he's done. I don't know who gave him his

instructions, Mr. Chairman, but he has certainly carried them out to

the letter. In fact, I think he has gone over and above and beyond the

call of duty, because he has thoroughly sabotaged the opposition.

Thoroughly sabotaged the opposition!

[ Page 3228 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Now you're in trouble!

MR. PHILLIPS: I tell you, Mr. Chairman, I went over to take these health tests the other day.

AN HON. MEMBER: That ain't hard.

MR. PHILLIPS: I went to take health tests to see what kind of shape I was in. And I want to tell you what happened, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Take care of yourself.

MR. PHILLIPS: Since I have been down here — last spring and

last fall and again this spring — with the jack-hammers and the

air-hammers I am losing the hearing in one of my ears.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You do that to yourself.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am losing my hearing from all of this

industrial noise around here. It's been a continual, without cessation,

noise down in our offices.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, you're just listening to yourselves.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, if it isn't on the outside, it's on the inside.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): It sure is!

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: First of all, there was the jack-hammering

outside the office, the air-hammering blasting away, the machines

running. You couldn't hear yourself think.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Jack-hammers on the outside, jackasses on the inside.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I managed to get through one session all

right. But this session, it hasn't only been the drills and the

jack-hammers and the water rushing down those big sewer pipes that

you've got running through some of the offices. You know, it's

sometimes embarrassing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's where you got your speeches.

MR. PHILLIPS: But then he put that big dumb-waiter shaft in the opposition office.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh. You talk about maintaining these buildings

to their original grandeur. I tell you, you ought to come down to the

opposition office. It looks like one of those old dumb-waiter shafts in

an old hotel that I used to travel in in High Prairie, Alberta, back

when I was a salesman.

But now that the noise has gone, he is trying to gas us. You know,

first of all it was the grindings, and it was full of pollution from

grindings and marble dust and cement dust. Now it's the welding smell.

Do you know that that's a poisonous gas, Mr. Chairman? You know it's a

poisonous gas.

I run an automobile dealership where they do a little welding once

in a while. We have to have the air conditioning fan in there to take

the stuff away so that the welders won't get poisoned.

But I walk into those offices…all the way down the hall the other day; I was so dizzy when I got to my office from there….

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, really. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Public Works has done a fantastic job of sabotaging the opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear?

MR. PHILLIPS: Disturbances and smells and noises! And then,

guess what? He keeps us in our office, because…. If you want to make

a phone call — and I know this isn't his department — but if you are

going to make a phone call, it doesn't matter whether you want to dial

the trunkline, the Vancouver line or the outside line, you can't get

them. Then when you do get them, you can't get the long-distance

operator.

AH HON. MEMBER: And when you do get them, you get the wrong number.

MR. PHILLIPS: So I have to judge, you know. If I get five

phone calls from 8:30 to 12 out of one of those telephones, I consider

myself lucky. Five in the morning. Five in the morning.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister if he will

do as good a job…. Since our offices here have been sabotaged, are we

going to have offices in the constituencies?

I would like to be more specific and ask the Minister what is happening with the new courthouse in Dawson Creek?

It was all ready to go. It should have been finished. Now I

understand that the second storey has to be rebuilt. Instead of having

collapsible walls we're putting in permanent walls.

[ Page 3229 ]

You had an estimate last fall. Then you went to tender and the

tender came in and there was only one bidder. Now where are you at? How

much longer is that beautiful building that was started by the Social

Credit government — started by the Social Credit government — how much

longer is it going to be before the residents of that great Peace River

area are going to have the use of that shiny new courthouse? How much

longer?

You know, Mr. Chairman, the Premier remembers me talking about the

courthouse in Dawson Creek. I remember him telling me one time I

wouldn't be back because I had asked for the courthouse. Yes, I

remember very well.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I remember you in that comer.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I was sitting back in that comer there. I spoke about the courthouse. The Premier and I had….

HON. MR. BARRETT: And you moved from that corner to that corner — and the next time right out. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the Premier certainly is in a jovial mood tonight. His fondest thoughts have turned into dreams!

No, Mr. Chairman. His fondest thoughts, his wishes, have turned into dreams.

No, I won't tell you, Mr. Chairman. I won't give the Premier the

benefit of where I am going from this corner. No, not tonight. That

comes later. That comes later, Mr. Premier.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier had better take a good look at

David Lewis, because he won't be around here very much longer. You'd

better take a good look at him.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: One of the greatest political opportunists that

ever walked the streets of Canada, that David Lewis. A political

rip-off, that's what he is — a political rip-off artist, my friends.

He held the government together until they all got their pensions;

then he could no longer support the government. Oh, I want to tell you

about Mr. Lewis. So he could get his pension — that's why he supported

the Liberal government. That's why David Lewis supported the Liberal

government right up until the 11th hour of the last day. As soon as

they got their pension, David Lewis says, "I can no longer support

those dirty Liberals."

As soon as he got his pension, that's all. Political rip-off! He knows he's not going anywhere.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Can we get back to the Minister of Public Work's estimates? I think you've had your fling here now.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, Mr. Chairman, I am on a diet, and

I've got great amounts of energy. I will try and contain myself if the

Minister would answer my question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nobody else would.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I think it would be proper if the Minister

of Health made an announcement, or possibly the Minister of Labour,

under workmen's compensation, that deafness is now an occupational

hazard in this hall.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's a desirable occupation.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: As for the Dawson Creek courthouse, this

was another contract, another partial contract that was let before the

election. I guess they had no idea of really finishing it, but we have

let the contract so that building should be completed very recently.

You should be able to move in, yes. Maybe even today.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: So we should be able to occupy it before

the summer is out. But it was another case of just a partial contract

let out before the election.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Minister of Public Works has the floor.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The Member for North Okanagan…oh, she's

left, but she raised the matter of the tile floors. As you come in

through the east approach in the main hall and turn south, you'll see a

great expanse of the floor just cemented over. That's just how much

respect and feeling the previous administration had for these fine tile

floors.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Cemented floors.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We have been fortunate in acquiring tile that will match. This is one reason why

[ Page 3230 ]

we lifted tiles on the third floor, so we can replace all of the broken and removed tile on the main floor.

MR. GIBSON: I just want to ask the Minister once

again…because I know he's concerned about just about the most

valuable property in the City of North Vancouver, that 17 acres. There

are a couple of questions he didn't answer. I'll simplify them: Will

the government, on that property that's not being used by the transit

bureau, undertake to consult with the city in the planning of the use

for that property? That's point No. 1.

Point 2: Will the government give relocation assistance within that

area on the businesses, or most of the businesses that are being

displaced by the plan for the ferry terminal? I refer him particularly

to Cates, to The Seven Seas, the northern waterfront marina and to any

others that could be accommodated.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We have met with the mayor of North

Vancouver, that is, the Department of Public Works has. We met very

early on. The Deputy in charge of transit met with the mayor and

council before any expropriation action was taken.

Now, really you should be asking this of Municipal Affairs and

transit, but I'm sure they will do everything they can to facilitate

any change that has to be made. Public Works have assured all the

business concerns there now that they'll be allowed to stay there as

long as they can, those that have to move. Of course, some won't have

to move. Those that have to move, we'll let them stay there as long as

we can, so we can facilitate their changeover, their movement, in as

orderly a fashion as possible.

MR. GIBSON: And you'll use best efforts to relocate them within the area?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Certainly.

MR. GARDOM: Three quick points, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister,

we're very delighted to hear that we have your unconditional commitment

tonight that no longer will you permit parking in front of these

buildings. But I would respectfully suggest that this is a decision

completely within your province and power, and I don't think there's

really any need to go to a committee. I hope we're not going to have

any stall in that and this will be done toute de suite. I'd like to see

no parking there next week. Let's just get the cars out, period.

Secondly, I'd like to say a couple of words about access to public

buildings by handicapped people. Last year, as perhaps you recall, Mr.

Minister, I introduced a private Member's bill, Bill 97. My

recollection is that you spoke to it and you said some very encouraging

remarks, but we still have not received any assurance from yourself,

Mr. Minister, that in the future all new public structures in the

Province of British Columbia will include access for handicapped

people. I'd like to have that assurance tonight.

Secondly and even more important, I'd like to have your assurance

tonight that the existing public structures in the Province of British

Columbia can be improved to the extent that there can be some adequate

means of access to any public building in B.C. for handicapped people.

The third point, Mr. Minister: In your report you referred to the

report of the Inspector of Electrical Energy. I see at the outset that

you indicate there has been a public inquiry held under Dr. Hugh

Keenleyside concerning the electrical inspection services that are

provided throughout the province by your department. I see from your

report that you divided the province into nine regions, and each of

those are to be supervised by a regional inspector. Well, could you

inform me as to whether or not you contemplate that electrical energy

inspection within your department will only be with reference to public

facilities, or will this include private facilities? I don't quite get

the context of where your department is going in this field. Perhaps if

you could explain that, it would be helpful.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'm pleased that the Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey raised the matter of electrical inspections. This

was a source of considerable concern. It was for this reason that we

asked Dr. Keenleyside to head up a study. We were very pleased with his

findings and the fine effort he put into it. I think it's only fitting

I mention at this time that Dr. Keenleyside gave his services to this

commission with no charge. I think this shows a very fine spirit in a

retired public servant.

MR. GARDOM: That's not an answer, though. Is the report down?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, the report is down. All MLAs were

provided with a copy; I don't know what happened to yours. If it's

become lost then I would be pleased to provide you with another copy.

The Department of Public Works has many areas of inspection — boiler

inspection, electrical inspection and so on.

MR. GARDOM: In public buildings, though, isn't it?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: In public and in private buildings. The

provincial electrical code covers all electrical installations in the

province. There were problems in building construction being held up

because of lack of inspectors and so on. Dr.

[ Page 3231 ]

Keenleyside's report dealt with this. We are acting

upon the recommendations of the report. We are planning a complete

reorganization which we hope will solve the problems that have been in

that area in the past.

As for the type of design of buildings to facilitate the movement of

handicapped people throughout public buildings, our design department

accepted some time ago the design that would use ramps alongside stairs

or, in some places, in place of stairways, to design the bathrooms and

so on, so a person in a wheelchair can go in and make use of the

facilities. These will be worked into all new public buildings, and as

we renovate the old ones, the designs for handicapped standards will be

worked in. There is a handrail to go in front of the building so that

crippled or handicapped persons have something to hold onto to assist

themselves coming up the steps of the northern or front approach. I

think that was it.

MR. McGEER: What about the parking? You agreed to get rid of it.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We agree. But it has to be tied in with other….

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I said in this term of office; as soon as possible.

MR. McGEER: Two or three things…I just spoke briefly before

because I wanted to commence by giving well-deserved congratulations to

the Minister and his staff for doing such a nice job on the building.

Mr. Chairman, one of the things, though, that I am a little

disappointed in…there's always something that you think isn't

perfect. I used to like the old carpet in this chamber. Mr. Chairman,

the present shade looks like Tory underwear — it's that pale purple

colour. I liked that old blood red colour that we had; it stirred the

passions and made for more interesting debate. I don't know what

happened to that red carpet, I don't know why we chose this shade of

Tory underwear, but I hope we are going to put this in the Premier's

office and get a shade of conservatism there and get back to some good

bright red in this chamber.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister is going to find some funds

in his budget to buff up the outside of the building. The old girl's

getting a bit grimy on the outside. I think that if we were to do a

little sand-blasting and spiff up the external appearance, it would

just give a little brighter attraction to this incomparable area of

Victoria.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I notice in the report of the coordinator of

construction that he starts out with a pithy comment, saying that the

fiscal year commenced with the bi-annual construction strike-lockout

situation with most of the trades, thereby substantially reducing the

number of good weather months available to the industry.

Construction, Mr. Chairman, is the largest industry in British

Columbia. More money is spent on construction than the forest industry

or anything else we have. When you consider the amount of time lost

though strikes and lockouts and the much greater amount of time wasted

through layoffs of skilled tradesmen, we surely have here the least

efficient industry of any in North America.

It starts, of course, with the concept that a general contract is an

efficient way of going about things and that setting a stipulated price

for a job will bring about the cheapest result. But the consequence of

it is an industry that experiences chronic shutdowns and wages that

some people think are so high as to be extortionist, but which are

required to compensate some of our most highly skilled and valuable

workers for a third of the year when they sit on their duffs without

any work at all.

I was quite interested in what the official had to say who prepared

this report, saying that it was the intention of the Public Works

department to move away from the traditional concept of general

contracting with all the opposed factions' troubles implicit in

stipulated sub-contracting.

Now it strikes me that this is one of the most significant

statements that I've read in any annual report of any department of

government. I wonder if the Minister would care to elaborate on just

what's involved here, and perhaps give us some indication that we're

going to mature beyond a very immature and inefficient method of

getting the essential construction of British Columbia completed.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The last question first. The reference in

the annual report was with regard to construction management. The

process that we're using in block 61 is that a management firm will

look after the management of the project and various subtrades and

other firms will handle the actual construction.

As far as the annual report earlier on, I think the Member for

Columbia (Mr. Chabot) mentioned that he just received the report

tonight. I tabled the report some three months ago, very early in

February. You all had a copy at that time. I made a copy available to

you tonight for the purpose, as the First Member for Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) has just now put it — for reference on any matter you wish to

raise.

With regard to the exterior of the building, we do not intend

sand-blasting the building because it's quite a soft stone. We feel

that this would facilitate the oxidization and be not in the best

interest of further long-term life. But we do plan on having an

[ Page 3232 ]

in-house crew recaulk all the joints and….

MR. McGEER: Can't you get the grime off?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Well, this is the advice we have. If we

sand-blasted, it wouldn't stay clean that long. This stone greys very

nicely and with the salt it's quite beautiful. But we do plan

recaulking and retiling the roof. We're fortunate that we have

tradesmen that understand the proper construction and maintenance of

tiled roofs.

There are other tiled roofs on buildings in the province owned by

the provincial government. So we hope to train other young tradesmen to

work with the experienced men now so these tiled roofs on this building

and other buildings can be properly maintained by in-house crews. The

same will go for the exterior, caulking up and repairing the exterior

of this and other buildings, short of sand-blasting.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like to just repeat one question

to the Minister. The question is that of the mosaic. I appreciate the

fact that he told me that if it does disintegrate completely it will be

replaced. I wonder whether or not he could perhaps tell us just tonight

that he'll be willing to put up some sort of barricade to stop people

marching across it and thus hastening the process of decay.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We looked into this some time ago. The

gentleman we referred it to was on our committee for restoration. We

set up a committee and asked for ideas. This idea of putting a purple

cord and some brass posts around to protect it was discussed. We were

told by the architects and design people on the committee that those

tiles were built and designed to be walked on. Some of them have

loosened up and been reset. We were advised to go ahead; it's made to

be walked on. You can't wear it out; you won't wear it out.

If it does through misadventure, if certain tiles loosen up, we are

ordering or have ordered replacement tiles. We have gone to great

trouble to have the design recorded so that it might be maintained at

as good quality and better quality than it is now. It hasn't been

maintained properly over the years.

Now we're advised that it's of sufficiently good quality to be able

to stand the regular walking that it is receiving and that it has

received for the past 80 years. Now if this is proven wrong, then we'll

certainly consider what the Hon. Second Member for Victoria has

suggested.

Vote 219 approved.

On vote 220: General administration, $757,546.

MR. CHABOT: I presume this is where the money will be spent

on the Victoria Times building, now that it's been acquired. It

wouldn't come under vote 222, construction of provincial buildings. I'd

like to ask a question of the Minister regarding this old, broken-down,

dilapidated, rejected building.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Not true.

MR. CHABOT: It has been rejected by the press barons. The

Minister paid $1.7 million for a building that's been cast aside, is no

longer satisfactory, no longer worthy of continuation to be owned and

operated by the Victoria Times. Now, what kind of money do you propose

to spend to renovate this old, broken down, worn-out, dilapidated

building?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Canadian dollars.

MR. CHABOT: Can I have some estimate as to what kind of dollars you're talking about?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: No, we haven't renovated. All we plan on doing is carpeting and possibly some movable partitions for open-area design.

MR. CHABOT: Just one further question. You've bought it since

the renovation has taken place? Am I correct in my assumption that the

renovations that have recently been done were undertaken by other than

the provincial government? Do you have any idea of what the cost of

renovations were?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I don't have the figures here but I'd be pleased to get this information and make it available.

MR. CHABOT: Okay. Are the renovations finished?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: With the exception…. As I said, we plan on additional carpeting and movable partitions for an open-area design.

Vote 220 approved.

Vote 221: government buildings (maintenance), $17,659,410 — approved.

On vote 222: construction of provincial buildings, $20 million.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I wonder if the

Minister would explain how many full-time and part-time employees are

employed under this vote. A little expansion here would be pretty

helpful, I think.

[ Page 3233 ]

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'll take notice on that. I'd be pleased to

file the question and get a complete list of all provincial maintenance

employees if you wish it.

MR. CURTIS: No, this is vote 222 we are dealing with — construction of provincial buildings. You must have some idea, through

you, Mr. Chairman, how many of these people are employed.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Are you referring to the in-staff employees here?

MR. CURTIS: Full time and part time. Yes.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Of course, our construction people are full time while we have ongoing construction, as we have here — about 60 persons.

MR. CURTIS: That is full time, Mr. Chairman, thank you. And elsewhere in the province, are there full-time employees under this vote?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Oh, yes. I thought you were referring to what was going on in this building.

MR. CURTIS: No, I am speaking about the vote, not this building alone. Is the Minister going to answer?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, I will be pleased to provide that

information. I haven't got it here. If you want it province-wide I

would be pleased to provide it.

MR. FRASER: I would like to ask the question, Mr. Chairman,

to the Minister, under this vote — construction of provincial

buildings, $20 million. Is there any provision in there for highway

maintenance buildings this year? We get the runaround all the time, and

in the meantime the Highways people are freezing to death as they have

no buildings at all. Then you get the other runaround — they can't

acquire sites. That is not correct; sites are easy to obtain. But in

the meantime these people can't do their work properly. We usually get

one built every two or three years. I would like to know if there are

any maintenance buildings in this vote — I imagine this is where it

comes under — and where are they going to be built?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: There are four going out to tender very shortly, in Fernie, under this vote.

MR. FRASER: Is that all that are going to be built under this vote this year?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: There are some ongoing now. One is coming up for tender very shortly.

Vote 222 approved.

On vote 223: rentals, $8,006,268.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, this is one where we see a doubling

— $4,400,000 to $8 million for renting office space. I see a tremendous

increase in some of these. I am not going to go through all of them,

but I see in the Department of Labour that the rental costs last year

were $77,000 up to $391,000, an increase of $320,000. I am wondering

what offices are being rented at this cost of approximately $444,444 a

year to house the Department of Labour. What has really transpired?

Don't give me the old story about the old building with the rope

fire escape. I have heard that old story before. I just want to know

what you are spending $333,333 for. Where are you occupying this space

that costs so much money, that appears to be so extravagant?

Department of Lands — increase of $120,000 from $52,000 to $177,000.

What buildings are being occupied that cost $120,000 more a year than

what was previously being occupied?

Water Resources — an increase of $250,000 in the cost of rental accommodation.

You go down to Recreation. and Conservation, which moves from

$92,000 to $293,000, $200,000 more per year — $200,000. Has there been

that kind of a fantastic increase in staff? If there hasn't been a

tremendous increase in staff, the quarters appear to be more

extravagant than they were in the past. Where have they moved from, and

where have they moved to?

We looked at Human Resources. That is probably the Belmont Building

— $500,000 more than it previously cost for rental accommodation. Is

the Human Resources in the Belmont Building? If it is, Mr. Minister,

you should own it, or someone else should own it. That is good money.

Where are all these other offices being occupied?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I have already answered the situation in

regard to the Belmont Building. Yes, we are paying something like

$250,000 a year for the Belmont Building. This is the building that I

referred to earlier that the federal government had offered to sell to

the previous administration for $500,000.

As far as the Department of Labour is concerned, yes we are spending

about five times as much in rentals than the previous government did,

but possibly we are indicating that we value the good services of that

department in eliminating and reducing strikes five times as much as

the previous administration.

[ Page 3234 ]

MR. CHABOT: The whole province is on strike, and you know it.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: It is not!

MR. CHABOT: The whole province is on strike, and you know it.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: As far as the breakdown on the Department of Labour, in Kamloops we have a $4,000 rental.

MR. CHABOT: How about Victoria?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The Mediation Board is in part of the

offices that we are still using, at $5,000 a year. Branch storage in

Victoria, Herald Street — rentals there. Complete department in

Victoria at the Victoria International House, $50,000, an additional

rental of $12,000 a year. Labour Relations in Burnaby, which is the

major increase, is $294,000.

Of course, one of the reasons that we need more space in Human

Resources is the fact that the provincial government has taken over the

responsibility that was held and handled by the municipalities

previously. The provincial government is now handling a far greater

share of the load.

I think it is fair to say that the average office space is of

greater square footage. There is a little more room. We feel that

public servants are very valuable people and should be provided with

worthwhile accommodation. This having them crammed into the attics and

into the hallways and down in the basements, as though they were

second-class citizens…. Yes, we are even giving them bargaining

rights. There is your answer about labour.

MR. CHABOT: Order, Mr. Chairman! I am not aware of any civil

servants having to work in any corridor or in any hallway in the past.

Would you tell me what hallway and what corridor they were working in?

Let's remain factual.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'll not only tell you, I'll show you pictures of them, right down there in the hallway outside the Department of Lands!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We can only have one person at a time. Would the Member for Columbia River complete his remarks?

MR. CHABOT: Right. He keeps interrupting. We'd move along a

lot smoother if there weren't these constant, unnecessary interruptions

by that Minister, and the political statements as well.

In the Department of Recreation there's an increase of $200,000. I

was wondering if the Minister could give me a breakdown on the cost of

the department, the additional space that's being occupied, and who is

receiving this money. In what communities is this money being expended

in?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, my friend was asking where we

had the offices out in the halls. Here's the hallway going down to the

Department of Lands as it was under Social Credit. Now there is a

beautiful, gracious hall there. Here they were using the halls for

cloakrooms, with desks out here in the hall. That was under Social

Credit,

My friend was either completely oblivious as to what was going on

under his administration…. He probably was. Maybe that's why they got

into all the trouble. But these are the pictures of the record of the

past, and this is why we took those pictures, because we knew that some

of these Members would stoop to anything to downgrade this building and

this government.

MR. CHABOT: Cheap politics at the taxpayers' expense!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: That's right, and it's because there are guys like you sitting over there, recklessly criticizing, that we had to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHABOT: The Minister goes off on these political tirades

and harangues and almost makes me forget my question — and he certainly

forgets it when he goes astray into the political jungle of socialism.

I was wondering if the Minister could answer that question about the

additional $200,000 that is being spent by the Department of Recreation

and Conservation. In what communities is it being spent, and who is

receiving this money?

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, while he's at it, the Minister

might care to comment on the rental contingencies figure, because the

Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) went through the list fairly

fully, but he did not touch upon the last item. In the last fiscal year

there was $50,175 for rental contingencies; it's up 15 times to

$750,000 for this fiscal year. I think the Minister should indicate to

the committee just why that figure is up so dramatically.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Which?

MR. CURTIS: Rental contingencies. At the bottom of this vote.

[ Page 3235 ]

HON. MR. HARTLEY: As far as Recreation and Conservation, the

question asked by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot): in

Abbotsford, we have a $300-a-year rental; Agassiz, $1,500; Alexis

Creek, $300; Barrier, $720; Bella Coola, $600….

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Of course we have hired additional

Recreation and Conservation officers — many that we didn't have before.

But if you want a breakdown: Nanaimo, $25,000; Kamloops approximately

$3,300; Dawson Creek, $5,000. There's no area more affected by

inflation than rental.

AN HON. MEMBER: You know why?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, we know why. I guess that's why there is a federal election.

Well, if you don't want the breakdown in the various

communities…that's the answer. I would be pleased to give you a

community-by-community breakdown of your Rec and Con vote.

MR. CHABOT: I was wondering if you could give me Vancouver-Victoria only.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I didn't hear the first part of your question.

MR. CHABOT: I said the bulk of the cost in additional rental,

no doubt, is in Vancouver and Victoria. I was wondering if you could

give me the breakdown.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes. In Penticton, $42,000; Prince George,

$43,000; Victoria, $7,300. We'll try and find Vancouver here. Maybe

they don't have any conservation offices in Vancouver.

MR. CHABOT: Is $7,300 for the Department of Recreation and Conservation all you've spent in Victoria for rental?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: This is under Fish and Wildlife. You see,

there are many facets to Recreation and Conservation — it could be

Parks. Fish and Wildlife, Recreation and Conservation, Victoria…let's

see. No, there is nothing listed under that. We rent space for the

Minister's office, $9,000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Whew!

MR. CHABOT: Where's that?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Victoria.

MR. CHABOT: Who do you rent that from?

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: What have we got at Langford Street? Langford Street, $11,000.

I think the major Rec and Con buildings in B.C. are in our own building here, buildings that we own.

MR. CURTIS: Again, Mr. Chairman, we're talking under rental

contingencies about $750,000. I'm disappointed in the Minister tonight,

shuffling his papers back and forth. Where is $750,000 going to be

spent, or in the process of being spent, on rents under a simple little

phrase, rental contingencies?

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'm surprised at the Member for Saanich and

the Islands asking this question. He might well know, as a businessman,

and in the day and age of inflation and increased costs, that we have

to have allowances for that and for increased space.

MR. CURTIS: What kind of increased space?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Well, administrative offices for the provincial government, whatever department.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: It's province-wide. That isn't a great deal of money for the entire province.

Vote 223 approved.

On vote 224: safety inspection division, $2,283,290.

MR. FRASER: Electrical inspectors come under this, right?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to know when B.C. Hydro build a rural

power extension, who's got jurisdiction over the inspection of that — this department or the B.C. Hydro engineers? It's a real problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's your problem?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Our Inspection department normally works

very closely with B.C. Hydro. Prior to last Christmas I know we had

some problems, but you and I worked them out, didn't we? The lights

were turned on for Christmas, were they

[ Page 3236 ]

not?

This department has jurisdiction over all electrical inspection,

including B.C. Hydro. But normally, if B.C. Hydro does their own work,

they do their own inspections. We pretty well, by and large, accept

that. But if ranchers, individuals, do their own work, or an outside

contractor comes in, then it is necessary, normally, to inspect those

lines before B.C. Hydro or the supplying facility connects. This was

the hangup in your district prior to Christmas.

Vote 224 approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's the end of Public Works — for this year.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:41 p.m.

ERRATA

The following lines should read as shown:

Page 2976, column 1, line 42

wish done?

Page 3029, column 1, line 4

legislative authority and debate.

Page 3045, column 1, line 26

Vancouver and the Capital Regional District in

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1974, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada