1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

8493 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Fraser)

On vote 76: minister's office (continued) –– 8493

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Lockstead

On the amendment to vote 76 –– 8497

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Division

On vote 77: administration and services department –– 8498

Mr. Lockstead

On the amendment to vote 77 –– 8498

Mr. King

Mr. Barrett

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Hon. Mr. McClelland

Mr. Lauk

Division

On vote 77: administration and services department –– 8503

Division

On vote 78: highway operations department –– 8503

Mr. Lockstead

On the amendment to vote 78 –– 8503

Mr. Cocke

Division

On vote 80: transportation policy department –– 8503

Mr. Lockstead

On the amendment to vote 80 –– 8504

Division

On vote 80: transportation policy department –– 8504

Division

On vote 82: motor vehicle department –– 8504

Mr. Lockstead

On the amendment to vote 82 –– 8504

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Mr. Lockstead

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. King

Mr. Lauk

Division

On vote 82: motor vehicle department –– 8505

Division

On vote 83: Carrier Commission and motor carrier branch 8505

Mr. Lockstead

On the amendment to vote 83 –– 8505

Division

On vote 83: Carrier Commission and motor carrier branch –– 8505

Division

TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 1982

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 76: minister's office, $228,769.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Chairman, yesterday my colleague from North Island (Mr. Gabelmann)

raised an issue which he and I have been raising in this Legislature

year after year with respect to the Island Highway, particularly the

section between Courtenay and Campbell River, which is probably one of

the most dangerous in the province today. I have a few questions.

Yesterday

the minister indicated that the cost in 1980 dollars would be about

$166 million, if I recall the figures he was relating. I wonder what

that means. Is that just for the

section between Courtenay and Campbell

River, or is it for a larger

section than that: up as far as Menzies

Bay or down as far as Deep Bay? I would like to know what

section he's

thinking about there.

Another question I have relates to the

southern part of the Island Highway in my constituency. I wonder

whether or not the study determining the route for a bypass has been

completed at this stage. Has that study been done? Has it been made

public? I have not heard anything about it at this stage, although

there was some indication out of the Ministry of Highways some weeks

ago that the release of that report was imminent.

The other

question I have relates to whether or not the ministry is considering

construction of a bypass route in the southern part of Comox

constituency, before they start the bypass between Courtenay and

Campbell River. The ministry is probably more prepared to start that

northern route; in other words, more studies have been done on impact,

route selection and so on on the northern part of that route than on

the southern part. It's very urgent. I know that the provincial

government this year has cut back on programs everywhere. But the

dangers are there, and studies that are being done indicate it. The

RCMP call it one of the most dangerous death-traps in British Columbia.

This Tonkin report, for instance, which was done on accidents as

related to adolescents, points out that the northern part of Vancouver

Island is one of the most dangerous. So the indications are all there.

The government knows that the priority must be to get started on that

bypass route. I wonder if the minister can give us any indication as to

when they will be beginning construction. and whether it will be on the

northern

section or on the southern

section of the bypass route.

On Lasqueti Island we have a group of people who are interested in maintaining

the roads with horse-drawn equipment. A proposal has gone to the minister; they

would like to do this on contract and are quite prepared to fit in with the

current amounts of money available for highway maintenance on Lasqueti Island,

They have the horses and they have the equipment, horse-drawn graders and everything

else, but the minister has rejected this proposal.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Are you serious?

MS. SANFORD:

I'm very serious about this. For the interest of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), most of the Lasqueti

Islanders support this proposal. They are very conservation-minded.

They are quite prepared to go out and make the effort in order to

ensure that the highways are maintained by this horse-drawn equipment.

I would like to see it tried as a pilot project.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: The House Leader finds this very amusing this morning, Mr. Chairman. He's never been to Lasqueti.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes. I have.

MS. SANFORD: You have? Is he aware that there is no hydro power on Lasqueti Island?

People

are sneering at the concept of horse-drawn equipment to maintain

highways on an island like Lasqueti. And they're saying: "Well, it was

tried a long time ago and it didn't work, and we've now progressed to

another stage." But I think that in the interests of conservation, in

the interests of trying to meet the needs of the Lasqueti Islanders

themselves, the minister should consider that proposal. I have had

dozens of letters from the people on Lasqueti who would like to see the

minister accept this proposal as advanced by one of the Lasqueti

Islanders.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD:

Certainly he does. He should. I don't think the minister heard that

comment. My colleague suggested that the minister might be more

favourably disposed to this proposal if he could race them after work,

but he is just too tied up with his officials to take note of that

comment.

Motor vehicle inspection was also raised yesterday.

It seems to me that if the minister is not prepared at this stage to

extend motor vehicle inspection to all areas — he indicated that it

would be some time before this program that he's now working on is in

effect — people in areas such as Bowser, Parksville and Qualicum. who

have to travel so far in order to get their vehicles inspected, should,

at this stage, either be exempted from that program — if everybody else

in the province is not going to be covered, then they should be

exempted because they are the ones who have to travel so far — or have

the mobile-testing unit brought in so they don't have to travel that

distance. It's very disturbing to people who are living particularly as

far north as Bowser, who travel all the way to Nanaimo. Some minor

problem occurs and they have to travel all the way back, have it

repaired, and then go back again to Nanaimo to have the final test

done. It's a waste of gas and energy. That highway is already too

congested without having everybody driving down to Nanaimo in order to

have that testing done. Either exempt them or put the mobile unit in to

do the testing.

Within my constituency there is one

particular problem that has occurred that the parents in the area are

very disturbed about. It relates to a highway crossing where the

[ Page 8494 ]

children

must cross over the Island Highway at Pym Street near Parksville.

Because of the cutbacks in funding from the t Ministry of Education,

the school boards find they're going to have to cut down on bus routes

next year. I think we're going to find that parents all over this

province are going to be calling for the installation of lights or

overpasses or some other mechanism whereby their children can safely

get across busy highways.

Pym Street is located in an area where there is very little

visibility. The parents have met with the school board. The school

board has indicated to them that there is no way they are going to be

able to put in someone who would be able to act as a guard to get them

across the road before and after school. They just don't have that

money, with the cutbacks they have faced through the Ministry of

Education. So the parents are now calling on the Minister of Highways

to install light at Pym Street on the Island Highway or put in an

overpass. I know that, according to Highways ministry officials, an

overpass is about $110,000, as I understand it, and a traffic light

would be about $30,000. My preference would be for an overpass, because

of the congestion on the Island Highway that I referred to earlier.

With these additional lights you create even more problems of traffic

flow.

Mr. Chairman,

it seems to me that because of the cutbacks the minister is going to be

under great pressure from all over the province because more and more

students are going to have to cross busy highways as school boards can

no longer afford to run buses. I think that ministry officials will

indicate to the minister that they are already beginning to get,

additional requests because of these cutbacks. Already there are well

over 40 kids that are crossing the Island Highway at Pym Street, and

next year it will be double that amount because of the cuts in bus

service.

The other thing I'm concerned about, Mr. Chairman,

is maintenance. I'm getting so many complaints this year already on low

levels of maintenance of roads that need to be oiled and graded, those

that have not yet been paved. I don't know what's happened this year.

Is that cutback already showing to the extent that we're getting all of

these complaints about highway maintenance, or is there some particular

problem related to the constituency of Comox? I don't know what the

problem is there, Mr. Chairman, but I can assure you that I will

continue to press the regional officials in order to have those roads

properly maintained, even though they've had to cut back on the money

that's available to them this year. I'd appreciate the minister's

comments.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the

member for Comox, the maintenance level in Highways, funding-wise and

every-other-wise is the same as it has always been. There haven't been

any cutbacks, but what is happening in the rural parts of the province

because of our beautiful weather is that roads are drying out, and we

have some dust flying. If the weather had been a little more liquid,

this wouldn't have happened. However, we're on top of that and trying

to get caught up all over the province, and I imagine it applies in the

Comox riding as well. There have been no cutbacks whatsoever in funds

voted for maintenance. There is an increase in this year's budget, as a

matter of fact, to look after inflation.

The Parksville

crossing at Pym Street. I'm not aware of that, but I understand we've

put in a crosswalk for school children. We're checking to see if a

light is warranted, but I think we're jumping at a conclusion here. I

don't think you'll see a cutback in bus transportation, from what I

understand from government. Again, we're worrying about something that

I'm sure is not going to happen. In any case, regarding that, we're

checking to see if it justifies a light. A crosswalk has been put in.

think you were referring to motor vehicle inspections at Nanaimo. As

I've said earlier, we'd like to expand motor vehicle inspections, but

use the private sector for it. But that's a ways off. The comments you

made about the road north of Nanaimo and Parksville, and so on up to

Courtenay, I don't think are justified now. We've just completed

four-laning all he way to Parksville, so that should be a big

improvement for part of the journey that they have to make.

Lasqueti

Island maintenance interested me greatly, and we've had correspondence

on it. What the government is worried about there is that we don't want

to get any horses on the payroll. That's a famous item that goes back

years in Canadian history. We have rejected the citizens' request to

take over the maintenance on the island because we have our own crews

there. We certainly looked at it, but we aren't prepared to change at

this time.

Then you went into the larger problems such as

the Qualicum bypass. I'll just report where we are with the Qualicum

North bypass at the present time. Two routes have been critically

examined, and there has been a multi-disciplinary study by an

engineering consulting firm for a bypass from Qualicum to Mud Bay. One

route parallels the present highway and railroad; the other follows the

B.C. Hydro transmission right-of-way. Each route impacts on the

fisheries resources — Big and Little Qualicum, Chef and Nile Creeks —

agricultural land and the recreational potential of the area. Bridge

structures and stream-crossing sites are a particular engineering

concern. The study report outlines the optimum route and offers

mitigating strategies to alleviate any adverse impacts. The distance of

the bypass is 27 kilometres, and the cost of the project is estimated

at $72 million, based on 1982 dollars. The cost of the study was

$41,000. Copies of the report have been sent to the municipalities, the

regional district and the local libraries.

The last one you

mentioned is the big one — $166 million; I think you referred to it as

the north one — the Courtenay–Campbell River bypass. One of your

questions was: "Where does that go?" It goes from Mud Bay to Menzies

Bay. I would just make the observation that we have a heavy density of

traffic there, and while we tried last year to alleviate some of that

partly by doing a fair amount of work on the road from Courtenay to

Campbell River, I would say that the north would be a priority over the

south. As a matter of fact, there are not nearly the problems with the

north that there are with the south environmental-wise and so on. I

think it would be the first to get clearance from the government,

because I don't think the south one is anywhere near ready to have a

decision made; but I think we're very close on the north. The traffic

justification is probably higher in the north one than it is in the

south one, as far as density of traffic is concerned.

I want

to answer some of the questions of the member for Cowichan-Malahat

(Mrs. Wallace). The first note I have here is on the Kuper Island

ferry. The MLA's concern is that the Indian children from Kuper Island

attending elementary school in Chemainus are required to wait for an

hour before returning home after school. She asked that that service be

rescheduled. However, this is not feasible for the following reasons.

If we institute an earlier sailing to satisfy the MLA's concern, it

would disrupt for the balance of the day the

[ Page 8495 ]

schedule

that has been established in the best interests of the workers,

commuters and other travelers. It would be difficult to change the

arrival and departure time because of the interlocking

schedule

involving both Thetis and Kuper Islands. It would involve a major

change in the crew's hours of work at substantial additional cost. The

problem could be readily resolved by a change in classroom hours at

both the elementary and secondary schools. That's an observation that

our ministry has on the Kuper Island ferry.

The Koksilah

pedestrian overpass located at the south end of Duncan was designed to

provide a safe crossing across the Trans-Canada Highway and E&N

Railway for school children attending the elementary school. The

estimated cost, by the way, is $400,000. The structure is eligible for

a $124,000 federal government grant under the UTAP assistance program.

The structure crosses the highway, railway and frontage road. There's

no point in building it until the highway is widened, because children

would find the route access too long until the highway widening is

completed. Highway widening cannot proceed without the CTC order for

the railway overpass. This is in abeyance until the rail line

abandonment issue is resolved. In the interim the existing school

crossing signal is being used to cross the two lanes of the highway.

The

Crofton access was mentioned by the member. A study was commissioned to

examine and compare the land use and social impact of the two

alignments to replace the existing Crofton-Chemainus roads. One route

crosses the Halalt Indian reserve; the other longer alternative avoids

the reserve but impacts subdivided land and farms on the existing

Westholme Road. The final report is now completed and has been given to

the Indian band.

Whippletree Junction. This project is on

the Trans-Canada Highway south of Duncan. It includes reconstruction of

the section, with the Whippletree frontage road and Phipps Road,

including a left-turn lane on the highway. The design is complete and

the estimated cost is $210,000. The project is not included in this

year's program and, Mr. Chairman, the engineers tell me we cannot do a

temporary job without abolishing the shoulder, and they do not

recommend doing that. I think that pretty well covers what you brought

up last evening.

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to ask the

Minister of Transportation and Highways for a progress report on a

number of items. Last year I was told — and I suppose it came out in

other ways as well — that the corridor route for a bypass for Nanaimo

had been established and that work was proceeding to identify the route

more precisely within the corridor. I'd like an update on that.

Discussion has been going on for some years about arterial routes

through Nanaimo, and whether or not there would be one-way streets,

couplets and that sort of thing. I hear from the city that they're

discussing this with the ministry and waiting for responses from the

ministry. Presumably the ministry is waiting for responses from the

city. I invite the minister to bring me up to date from the point of

view of the ministry itself so that I can then go back to the city and

say: "Well, this is the position as far as the minister is concerned."

received a copy of a letter addressed to the minister from a Mr. Bruce,

and it leads into a whole discussion of the Northfield Road–Boundary

Road highway intersection and the E&N railroad at that same spot.

Northfield Road actually meets the highway. Boundary Avenue comes in

within a few feet of the highway and the E&N railroad track. The

minister replied on February 5 about the reconstruction of Northfield

Road at Highway 19 and the issue of Montrose Avenue. These are all

matters of continuing discussion. There's a quotation from the letter:

"You're aware that option l(

g) of the consultant report was the

arrangements which appeared to provide the best solution. However, now

that more detailed technical information is available, there are some

problems with this solution. My staff will be reviewing options again

in the near future with city staff before a final decision is made."

This was February, and I'm wondering about these discussions.

The

question of Montrose Avenue as an element of the major city street

network is a decision for the city, but the minister goes on to say

that he has directed his staff to review this matter with the city. The

rest of it is simply that he has instructed his staff to review.... I

wonder how those reviews are coming along. There was the story in the

Nanaimo press recently on June 24 where the city officials were being

put on the spot at a public meeting about this same intersection, and

the public works director denied that the city was holding it up. He

stated: "We" — that is the city officials — have asked the Ministry of

Highways every two weeks, and the answer they're always given is that

progress is being made." I invite the minister to bring me up to date

on the discussions of these various items.

HON. MR. FRASER:

To the member for Nanaimo: a multi-disciplinary study examined a

four-lane route for a bypass west of Nanaimo. The principal concern

centred around the alienation of agricultural land in the reserve,

subdivision developments and commercial facilities. The study indicated

potential problems and suggested ways of alleviating these. In

addition, the route was examined in the context of projected traffic

growth and the connections to local roads in accordance with regional

district plans. The final report recommended a number of route options.

The optimum, Route 11, Nanaimo Lakes Road west, has been selected for

further examination. Mapping has been ordered to prepare for laying out

the line. The cost estimate is $70 million for a distance of 25.6

kilometres, and the cost of the study is $120,000. Copies of the report

were sent to the City of Nanaimo, the regional district, local

libraries and government agencies. I'm afraid we're a long way from

doing any work there. We knew we would all have quite a problem in

Nanaimo.

MR. STUPICH: Nothing has happened since the report.

HON. MR. FRASER:

No. Regarding Northfield Road, route 19 intersection, I believe this

issue was first identified in 1978. In 1979 the City of Nanaimo and the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways jointly undertook the hiring of

a consultant. In November 1979 the study by the consultant, DelCan, was

completed. In 1980-81 the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and

the City of Nanaimo reviewed the consultant's recommendations. In May

1982 there was a presentation to the Highways board and the board

endorsed the following improvement strategy.

Phase 1 is

left-turn slots for turnoff of highway. Phase 2 is acquisition of land

for new T-intersections for Boundary Avenue and Northfield Road,

development of the intersections. Phase 3, connection of Boundary

Avenue and Northfield Road through to Highland Boulevard; frontage road

[ Page 8496 ]

required.

The present position is for the Nanaimo staff to present a proposal to

council in June 1982. In other words, these are staff discussions. The

last comment is: "Nanaimo staff to present proposals to council early

in June."

MR. STUPICH: Thank you for those responses. What's the status of discussions on the arterial routes through Nanaimo and the one-way couplet?

HON. MR. FRASER:

I might be wrong but I don't think anything is settled on those at all.

It's a concern because of the congestion, but we're trying to work with

the city, the regional district and so on.

MR. STUPICH: Are you waiting for the city, or is the city waiting for you?

HON. MR. FRASER: It seems to be a two-way process.

(Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. MITCHELL:

I want to carry on from where I left off, having reviewed the Blues and

the minister's comments. Getting back to the Millstream extension, last

year I brought to the minister's attention, and to the attention of

many people in his ministry, that originally the Millstream extension

was through vacant land, but somewhere along the line the ministry

changed their policy. The particular issue that has caused the most

concern in the community is the permitting of a subdivision directly in

front of the proposed Millstream extension. In their plans, the

Millstream extension ran from Goldstream Avenue right through to

Latoria Road. There are three subdivisions south of Sooke Road:

Triangle, put in by Harvey St. Hilaire; Genstar; and the property owned

by the B.C. Housing Corporation. On each of these, the subdividers had

to dedicate property for the Millstream extension. But because of some

political interference — it can be nothing else but political

interference — theSun ridge subdivision was granted approval last

November to go in directly in front of the proposed road alignment,

which made the property bought by the Highways department from Harvey

Aikman of no value.

The end result is that they traded a

Highland piece of property for some swamp. I brought to the minister's

attention the frustration felt in the community, and asked for a public

meeting so that the public would know where the road is going, and how

to preserve the creek and the ALR land. But for some unknown reason,

the minister refused to have that public meeting, refused to bring it

out in the open; then out of nowhere he allows a subdivision directly

in front of the land, which will make the road like a piece of wet

spaghetti by the time it's finished. There was no need for this. It's

been six years in preparation, and it's ended in disaster.

The

ministry must have a policy; if one subdivision has to dedicate the

right-of-way, you can't allow another one in in front of it without

dedicating that right-of-way. This is what causes the problem. That

subdivision has since gone broke and it really hasn't benefited

anybody. The frustration, the time lag, the waffling back and forth has

been a disaster for that whole area. We still haven't got that road in.

The ministry has to come down with an open policy that will be

acceptable to the community, to all the elected people, and do it

above-board, not play petty local politics by trying to appease

everybody. This has caused more problems.

As the minister

said, it caused the defeat of two regional directors. I'm not giving

any particular reason, but this is what they focused on. They were

voting against the Highways policy of not being open or above-board and

not receiving or accepting public input. This has caused more problems

out there. I feel that the minister had the leadership and he missed

it. As I said last year, somewhere down the line he is the super mayor.

They goofed somewhere. I don't know who to blame, but I have to blame

the minister because, as they say, the buck stops there. The community

is more concerned about this question: there was no openness to the

public after the original community plan was put in operation.

HON. MR. FRASER:

To the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), I wasn't

involved in the details. I accept the blame if there is any blame to

accept, but I think I should tell the committee what happened.

The regional district of the time — I believe it was 1981 — approved the change of

the line with Highways. Then an election took place in the regional district

and it became a local election issue. Some directors were defeated. As I understand

it, the people elected in 1981 now want to change the line. As far as Highways

is concerned, we entered into an arrangement with the locally elected people,

and we want to stay with that decision. I think this is one of the problems.

Somewhere along the line we have to make decisions and stick with them; and

that's what's happened here.

The

Capital Regional District agreed with Highways about what took place

here. We had a change of individuals. I guess they were elected on this

issue. I didn't follow the local campaign. It was on this issue. Now

they're trying to change back. While all this is going on, it sure must

be costing somebody a lot of money, because nothing is happening. As I

said when I started, I accept that blame. But we want to stick with

some decisions somewhere and get something done.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

As we wind down the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and

Highways, I want to say that the minister, with his usual clarity and

his staff, has answered questions at length and in great depth and

detail. I think we now know about every pothole in every road in

British Columbia. We're well aware of this type of debate. Every member

in the House has transportation and highway problems in his riding, and

everybody likes to say a few words.

In closing this debate for the opposition, I'd like briefly to mention one or two things to the minister.

The

matter of STOL — short take-off and landing aircraft — has arisen,

primarily through the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). Nonetheless, this is the Minister of

Transportation and he will have a great deal of input into that

situation. I understand that a large amount of public money has been

set aside for a study. I would hope the minister would look seriously

at this question of spending public funds for this purpose in these

particular areas at this time. The opposition is in favour of and

certainly agrees with the concept of a short take-off and landing

aircraft, particularly in the rural areas that many of us represent.

Using shorter strips, there's no question that this is the aircraft of

the future for many parts of British Columbia. However, when you are

considering building airfields in downtown areas at a time when we're

trying to move some of these facilities from congested areas, I think

the government should look at this very carefully.

[ Page 8497 ]

The

second matter I have, which was not discussed under these estimates at

this time — and I'll just touch on it very briefly — is that once again

the Minister of Transportation and Highways should, in my view, have

some input at least thinking of forming a merchant marine or assisting

and working with the federal government in this regard. It has long

been a policy of our party — federally and provincially — in this

province and was in fact a goal of our government between 1972 and

1975. Negotiations, as I understand it, were in fact taking place to

ensure that some of the resources sent and shipped from British

Columbia would be sent on Canadian bottoms and ships manned by Canadian

crews. It's a long-term, admirable goal, but I think it can be

accomplished, and I would hope that the minister would work with the

federal government, hopefully with a view to having at least some of

our products shipped on Canadian vessels. You might be interested to

know, Mr. Chairman, that by the conclusion of the Second World War,

Canada had the third-largest merchant navy in the world, and now it is

virtually non-existent.

I know the minister will make some

remarks in closing, and if he has responded to this question, I've

missed it. Very briefly, on May 12 of this year the minister forwarded

to me a copy of correspondence that he had received from the federal

Minister of Transport, Mr. Pepin; in fact, this correspondence was

dated February 17. I know the minister is familiar with it, but could

he once again — if he hasn't already done so — tell me where we are in

terms of the federal subsidy to the provincial government for water

transportation. If he replied to this before — he may have — I've

missed the answer. Could he briefly tell me how much he expects that

subsidy to be this year. I think last year that subsidy amounted to

approximately $10.4 million, and I wonder if we can expect to receive

the same amount this year based on the same formula.

With that, I do have a motion to move, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps the minister wants a minute or two to respond.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Chairman, I'll reply to the member for Mackenzie's observations.

First, the STOL study that has been announced by my colleague the

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications is authorized by

the government, and it will cost us $10,000. We've had a STOL study, as

I think the member realizes, but this changes locations. I will want to

have a look at it, and there will be no decision made beyond that

except by consultation with all members of the government after the

study is brought back in.

The merchant marine. I know the

member and his party support that and it sounds good, but our

government certainly doesn't support getting into the merchant marine.

We now have the largest ferry fleet in the world, and we have our hands

full with that operation. I guess that's where the NDP and our party

separate; we don't plan on taking any steps to institute a merchant

marine.

to the government of British Columbia — which is what it is — the

first-ever agreement made in 1977 by our government with the government

of Canada to subsidize water transportation on the Pacific coast.... I

just forget what it started at, but I believe it was $8 million. It has

a cost-of-living escalator clause in there, based on the Vancouver

consumer price index. The member is correct. In the last fiscal year we

receiving a little more than that this year, because the consumer index

is going up. I did send the member the correspondence we've had with

the Minister of Transport for Canada. As he lays out in that

correspondence, he doesn't want to look at a review of that until a

transportation study is completed for the marine services on the

Pacific Coast, and that should conclude sometime this year.

personal thoughts are that maybe we should make sure it will last for

four or five years, and that way the subsidy would continue without

review. If that happened, it would increase each year because of the

consumer price index. My observation on that is that the government of

Canada seem to be highly cooperative and we don't anticipate any real

problem with this subsidy in the foreseeable future. We're always

critical of other governments, but the Minister of Transport for Canada

has been very cooperative with our government on this issue, and I

don't see any reason for that to change in the immediate future. When

it does, we'll do all we can to retain it. But it certainly helps to

keep a fine service operating, which is the B.C. ferry fleet on the

Pacific coast of our province.

In conclusion, I'd like to

thank all members of the Legislature for their cooperation during these

estimates. It is much appreciated. I have learned a lot and I'm sure

other members have as well.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I thank the minister for his remarks.

now come to the time, as is the practice of the official opposition, to

reduce some of the votes where we think there has been excessive

budgeting allowed to the various ministers for office expenses, travel

and these kinds of things. I'm going to move that vote 76 be reduced by

$2,500, a very modest sum when you look at some of the other figures.

However, we don't necessarily want to deny the minister funds so that

he can travel around a bit, which he must do as Minister of Highways.

The point we're trying to make is that this modest sum on this

particular vote is a $2,500 increase over the same amount granted to

the minister last year. We feel that all ministers should be reducing

their travel, their office expenses, their publications, their

advertising and all of these things at a time when we're cutting back

on educational programs, hospital beds and all of these health

services. I therefore move that vote 76 be reduced by the grand total

of $2,500.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to comment on this motion that I withdraw the remarks I made earlier.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Cock;

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

[ Page 8498 ]

NAYS — 27

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Richmond

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

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

Vote 76 approved.

On vote 77: administration and services department, $19,242,394.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

We move that vote 77 be reduced by $2,280,000.10. The reason for this

is that in this particular vote we have an increase of 19.8 percent

over last year in travel; an increase of $230,325 for professional

services, up 31 percent over last year; and a $196,000 increase, up

15.9 percent over last year, for office expenses. Can you believe it?

That will buy a lot of pencils.

I therefore move that vote 77 be reduced by $2,280,000.10.

On the amendment.

MR. KING:

Speaking to the motion, Mr. Chairman, we have the very ironic situation

of the Premier of this province being down in Ottawa advocating cuts in

public spending at one and the same time that we see these profligate

increases and this lavish self-indulgence by ministers of this

provincial government. The opposition is not prepared to tolerate this.

That minister doesn't need to exceed his last year's budget by over 30

percent while calling on the people of British Columbia to show

restraint. Now is the time for this government to show some moral

leadership. They should vote for this motion.

MR. BARRETT:

I expect the Minister of Highways to stand up and tell us how he's

going to explain this unnecessary increase for his luxury and comfort

in office to his constituents when the country is talking about

restraint.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ahh!

MR. BARRETT:

The man who wears $50 cravats doesn't know how to worry about people

who have to meet mortgage payments. That's their response to the

ordinary people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, it's $8.50.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, for one inch. I hope the taxpayers aren't paying for your cravats.

This

government makes sure that the ministers wallow in luxury at the same

time as they're asking for restraint in other areas. This government is

spending....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: This government is going to great lengths to keep vouchers of their own expenditures secret; then they ask us to vote on this.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, you're familiar with the rules of this chamber. I ask all

hon. members to bear in mind that when we are in committee we are

strictly relevant to the

section under discussion.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr.

Chairman, I appreciate your ruling, but this is a motion in committee

to cut expenditures. The only accountability of expenditures related to

this motion or any other motion are vouchers that verify whether or not

the budget was kept. I'm talking about an expenditure that will show up

in the vouchers that we're making a specific motion on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. BARRETT:

You can say "order" all you want, but you're nothing but a government

trying to hide extravagant waste and expenditures and keep these things

secret right across the board. Mr. Chairman, this is a fat-cat

government that's living high off the taxpayer like pigs at a trough,

and every time we ask to see vouchers we come to this kind of "order"

nonsense.

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

there is a place for the discussion that the member is currently

engaged on. Unfortunately it is not here at this time. We have before

us an amendment to reduce vote 77 by $2.28 million. I would ask that

the member relate his discussions to that particular motion.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, these are public funds. We're in committee dealing with

the estimates of public funds. There is a specific motion for a cut in

expenditures, and it clearly relates to the method of controlling

expenditures. That's why the motion has been presented in order by the

opposition. Speaking to the motion, the reason we want a cut in public

funds being wasted by this government is that there is a threat to the

accountability system by the heavy-handed cabinet ministers on the

public accounts committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order,

please. Hon. member, the Chair has advised the member on two different

occasions now that the direction of the member's argument, while it may

have an appropriate place somewhere, is not appropriate here, and I'm

sure the member, with his many years of experience and parliamentary

knowledge, particularly of the rules of this House, doesn't have to be

informed of that by the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Mr.

Chairman, we're dealing with an expenditure of money and we're dealing

with a reduction motion. One of the reasons the motion is put forward

is the legitimate argument that if we cannot have a proper accounting

procedure on those expenditures, members of this House

[ Page 8499 ]

cannot

be responsibly asked to support waste, extravagance and fat in

government without a debate on a motion to cut that waste, extravagance

and fat. A 30 percent increase in one vote while the Premier is in

Ottawa talking about restraint is totally unacceptable to the official

opposition. The taxpayers of this province are fed up with the secrecy,

the coverup and the method used by this government to avoid their own

accountability.

30 percent increase in one vote is simply

not justifiable in terms of the kind of restraint that the taxpayers

want. There is a tax revolt going on in this province, Mr. Chairman,

and it directly relates to this kind of motion that cuts expenditures.

The minister has not got up in this House and justified the extravagant

increases. The minister is one of the nicest, kindest, weakest members

of the cabinet when it comes to cutting expenditures. That minister,

whose own accounts have yet to be examined inPublic Accounts, is being

placed in the position of justifying a 30 percent increase when the

Premier is talking about restraint.

You

ask us to blindly vote for these dramatic increases in public

expenditures when the federal government is predicting a 10 percent

decrease in revenues. We do not have an indication, although there was

an interview given by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), of how

much our revenues are down. Do we know whether or not this 30 percent

increase in this vote will lead to deficit financing this year? Has the

minister said clearly that we're avoiding the same 10 percent decrease

as there is in the federal budget? How do we know, when we ask for

these kinds of increases, whether or not you might be driving the

province into operating deficit? [Laughter.] Mr. Chairman, they can

laugh all they want, but we've seen a deliberate attempt by this

government to hide the facts of the fiscal situation in this province

from the people of British Columbia in the last few weeks.

Professional

and special services in this vote is up by 31 percent in one year. Now

you tell us, Mr. Chairman, why we should support it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Sit down. He will.

MR. BARRETT:

All of the aggressive, childish intimidation by that turncoat Liberal

who's responsible for part of this mess will not get me down.

Mr.

Chairman, this is a government that is full of hypocrisy. A 31 percent

increase in one year in professional services! You tell us, Mr.

Minister of Finance, whether revenues are down. You tell us where this

money is coming from if it isn't from the small businessmen and the

taxpayers of this province, whom now you even refuse to show

accountability to.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Order!

MR. BARRETT:

You're the Minister of Finance. You're calling "order" because you know

you can't justify a 31 percent increase in this one vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's speaking in favour of restraint.

MR. BARRETT:

In favour of restraint! I want to tell you that the taxpayers of this

province would feel a lot better if they sat on a wicker chair instead

of on custom-built furniture worth thousands of dollars, when they're

talking about restraint.

The furniture we bought ten years

ago was still good enough to sit your rear ends in. We don't need new

furniture today. Every home in this province is asked to cut their

budget; people are cutting their purchases; people can't buy new

furniture or luxuries for their homes and can't put food on the table;

and you ask us to give you a 30 percent increase for your derrieres to

be comfortable. I say no way, while the taxpayers of this province have

to pay this.

I can't be responsible for the physical

comforts of cabinet ministers, but I tell you that a 30 percent

increase in special services is just too much. Giggle and laugh and

chatter over there while people are losing their homes and businesses.

And you lap up in luxury. I'm not going to talk about the wine or the

expensive meals. I'm just talking about the comfortable furniture that

these people have a mad passion to surround themselves with. What

justification is there for it? Interest rates are at 18.5 percent and

19.5 percent; people can’t pay the mortgage rates and are losing their

homes; they're losing their cars. Those smart, rich cabinet ministers

spend public money in a manner that is unprecedented, in a time of

restraint. There's a 31 percent increase in the budget in this

section

alone. And you've got the nerve to go around telling people to preach

restraint.

When you look at this section, you'll find that

advertising is up 28 percent. Part of the advertising they're going to

buy is to tell people how to show restraint in spending their money.

There's a 28 percent increase in advertising to tell people to show

prudence and frugality, while they blow money and attempt to cover it

up inPublic Accounts.

Last night we were delivered of a

federal budget that is calling on this whole nation to show restraint.

We've been going through a whole session with this Premier saying:

"Everybody show restraint." Now we've got a 31 percent increase in this

section, including a 28 percent increase in advertising. How do we know

the Highways ministry won't take out another ad to wave a towel around

for the Canucks?

If you're going to have an increase of this

much, then put this money into hospitals and schools in this province,

not into furniture for that government.

You tell the people

out there who you have been advocating restraint for. They've had their

business taxes go up; they're losing their jobs and their homes. You

can't even provide a homemaker for 80- or 90-year-old pioneers who have

built this province, but you want more money for advertising and more

money for services for yourselves. Who do you think you are? In a time

of restraint, who do you think you are to make sure that your comforts

are taken care of, while those poor taxpayers are pouring money into

this government to take care of them? Show some leadership. Show an

example. Sit on a hard chair once in a while. Remember where you came

from. Once you got near the trough, you people abandoned any sense of

personal responsibility when it came to protecting taxpayers' money,

Office

sundries are up by 40 percent in this section. I suppose cream for the

coffee has gone up from 60 cents to 80 cents now, and you can't afford

to take it out of your pocket. Milk's up at the blind store, so they

need a 40 percent increase in subsidies for their offices.

There

is not one whit of responsibility in these dramatic increases. You've

got the leader of your group down in Ottawa talking about restraint.

Homemaker services, hospitals and schools are cut, but there's a 40

percent increase in

[ Page 8500 ]

sundries for your office. Maybe we'll buy him a new pinwheel to discover which way the wind is blowing.

The

municipalities can't improve their budget situations; small businesses

can't improve theirs. But you've got the gall to come in here with a 28

percent increase in advertising, a 40 percent increase in office

sundries, a 31 percent increase in special services, but not a peep out

of any one of you asking for a cutback.

What are the special

services that you need? Have you got a foot-rubber in your office? Have

you got an electric massager? Have you got a great big couch in there

to sit on? When you talk about sacrifice and restraint, it goes for

everybody except yourselves. Broadway shows, bottles of wine; lapping

it up at the taxpayers' expense; and now this kind of stuff on top of

it. No wonder people get fed up with governments. No wonder people get

fed up with fat politicians living off the taxpayers with no sense of

responsibility at a time when you're asking for restraint. The only

member over there who knows what I'm talking about when it comes to

politics is the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). He used

to be a mayor. He's telling municipalities to cut back. I would like to

see him, on this particular vote, stand up and justify any 40 percent

increase in office sundries at a municipal level.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. At this time I must caution the member that while a

certain amount of latitude is always in order, to reflect on an entire

economic speech covering many ministries or many incidents is certainly

not in order, particularly under a particular

section of an amendment.

I would ask the member to return to the debate in question.

MR. BARRETT:

This is vote 77. Is this not right? It is administration and services

department, and I'll read to you what the code breakdown is on this

vote so we'll know exactly what we're talking about. Travel expenses,

$335,000 a year ago, now up to $402,000; a 19 percent increase. Does

that show restraint? The answer is no. Professional services, $739,000

up to $969,000 — a $230,000 or 31 percent increase. Does that show

restraint? That's all in this vote, Mr. Chairman. Office expense, up

$196,000 in one year, a 15.9 percent increase. Does that show

restraint? The answer is no. Office furniture just stays the same.

We're going to use last year's furniture. That is this government's and

this department's one sacrifice to restraint. The soft couch they sat

in last year they're going to use again this year, only buy some more

at the same price. Why do you need $74,000 worth of furniture if you

just bought $74,000 worth of furniture? Have you doubled your staff in

there? Advertising is up $45,000 in this department alone, a 28 percent

increase. Building occupancy is up 27 percent, and they pay it to

themselves. Materials and supplies go from $2,288,000 worth of pencils

up to $3,215,000 worth of pencils for those pencil-pushers, an increase

of 40 percent.

That's the point I was making. If there was

one mayor's office that operated the way a cabinet minister's office

operates, the Minister of Municipal Affairs would publicly attack him,

as he attacked the mayor of Kelowna. I find it most interesting that

when we discover a 40 percent increase in materials and supplies for

one cabinet minister alone, there's not a peep out of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, who finds victims in the mayor's office, but when

the same sort of lack of responsibility is shown by the minister he

doesn't say a word about it. Hypocrisy, Mr. Chairman. A 40 percent

increase in materials and supplies. A 37 percent in data processing —

well that one is legitimate. You need a 37 percent increase in data

processing just to handle the more expenditures that they're blowing

out of that minister's office.

Restraint, my eye! Pigs at

the trough! There's never been a worse government in the history of the

province of British Columbia when it comes to spending money.

HON. MR. McGEER:

I'm going to stick strictly to this amendment, except to answer the

remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. I was here when the

Leader of the Opposition was Premier. I was here when the first thing

he did was to double his own salary and become the highest-paid

politician in Canada. I was here when the second member for Surrey (Mr.

Hall) ran up a $187 million deficit at ICBC. I was here when the former

member for Vancouver South, until they defeated him, ran up a $100

million clerical error in his ministry. I was here when the greatest

waste, carelessness and profligacy ever to occur in government in

British Columbia took place by the pious and hypocritical members from

across the way.

I've been here listening to the trivia in

their debate and their fascination with the smallness of all the items.

The smaller the item, the more they understand it; the larger the

issue, the more confused they become. We don't need any lectures from

the Leader of the Opposition about hypocrisy or waste. He's the master

of both. I'm sick and tired of all the nonsense that has come up in

this session and session after session.

I'll make a

challenge to the Leader of the Opposition right now. If he wants to see

sacrifices, let him name how much he'll cut his salary, and I'll cut

mine half as much again. Let's set an example for the people of British

Columbia. Say how much you'll turn back from your salary, and I'll do

that much and half as much again. You worry about cuts in hospitals and

schools around this province. The budget for all of them is up. The

people who are lucky in British Columbia today are the ones who are

working.

We'll set the examples right here in the House and

you go out there and tell the union leaders, Mr. Leader of the

Opposition — the people who are in bed with you — to take the cuts that

you take and I take. Then there will he enough money for the schools,

the hospitals and perhaps for some of the unemployed in British

Columbia. Prove you're not hypocritical. Name the cut in your salary.

I'll do half as much again as my example, and we'll take it to the

union leaders and people who are working in this province. We'll have

enough taxes to go around to and serve the people and look after those

who are unemployed. You start, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, this

morning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Prior to

recognizing the Leader of the Opposition, I think it might be

appropriate if we read the amendment which is presently before us. The

amendment is that vote 77 be reduced by $2,280,000.10. That is on vote

77, the Ministry of Highways. We have allowed some latitude, and I

think we can at least agree that we have strayed somewhat from the

intent of vote 77. Latitude has been taken by both the Leader of the

Opposition and by the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications. That latitude has now come to an end. We will now be

strictly relevant to the amendment to vote 77.

[ Page 8501 ]

MR. BARRETT:

Vote 77, administration and services department, includes such things

as travel expenses, professional and special services and office

expenses. Under travel expenses, I have never been accused of

double-dipping — having meals bought by one cabinet minister and then

putting money in for the same meal on the same day. I have never been

accused of using double methods for getting money for a meal that

another cabinet minister bought for me, and that comes under travel

expenses. I have never been accused of hiding vouchers so we can avoid

a debate on the double-dipping by certain cabinet ministers when it

comes to meals, Mr. Chairman. There are people in this province who

can't buy one meal, let alone double-dipping under travel expenses. If

that minister will stop double-dipping, then we'll get around to

talking about that kind of responsibility under vote 77, the travel

expense section.

I hope that that Minister of Highways

doesn't double-dip under the travel

section of vote 77. I hope under

this vote in his travel expenses there are no vouchers that show that

he's been treated to a meal by a cabinet minister and then put in for a

voucher to have the same meal paid for by the taxpayers — one meal paid

for twice. I want the Minister of Highways to assure me that he's not

operating that way under vote 77, travel expense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT:

Do you know what double-dipping is under this section, Mr. Chairman? It

means being hosted at a meal by one cabinet minister, and then putting

in a voucher to get paid for the same meal, the same day, from the

taxpayers. That's what's going on in here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: When we hear that pious claptrap from that university professor who used to be a Liberal....

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I am not going to advise one more time that we will be strictly

relevant to the

section under debate. The discussion at this point is

not only bordering on unparliamentary terminology but it is straying

far from the particular

section under debate. If the Leader of the

Opposition is not prepared to debate the

section before us, then he is

welcome to take his place and allow someone who is willing to debate

the

section take his place and debate in order. I would hope the

discussion on the particular matters the member is straying into at

this time will come to an end and that we will return to the strictly

relevant

section before us.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, vote 77, administration and services department, which

this motion proposes to cut, includes expenditures for data-processing,

materials and supplies, building occupancy, advertising, office

furniture, office expenses, professional and special services and

travel expenses. In advocating a cut through this motion, I am arguing

that I hope the Minister of Highways does not participate in a 19

percent increase, under the code of travel expenses, for double-dipping

in meals. That is legitimate discussion under this particular motion.

think I've made my point, and now I will go on to professional

services. Professional services have gone up by 31 percent. Office

expenses have gone up by 15.9 percent. Advertising has gone up by 28

percent. Building occupancy is up by 27 percent. Materials and supplies

is up by 40 percent — a 40 percent increase in one year, and you talk

about restraint. If we can't see the vouchers we can talk about it in

here. You've got enough time — five minutes to lunch to do some more

double-dipping.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the member to withdraw that remark.

MR. BARRETT: Is "double-dipping" not a parliamentary word?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

When a motive that is clearly improper is imputed by one member to

another member it is, as the member is fully aware, unparliamentary,

and I would ask the member to withdraw the remark.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw any inference of a motive. I'm just stating a matter of fact.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member, I ask the member for a withdrawal of the term.

MR. KING:

On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition has said that he was

imputing no motive. It is a fact, and it is a matter of public record,

that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) billed for a meal which his colleague, the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) had....

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not relevant to the debate before us, hon. member.

MR. KING: Well, it's a fact supported by the vouchers, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

As hon. members are aware, there are guidelines. Let me just quote

section 155 of Beauchesne's fourth edition: "It will be useful to give

examples here of expressions which are unparliamentary and call for

prompt interference. These may be classified as follows: (1) the

imputation of false or unavowed motives...." Hon. member, in the

opinion of the Chair, such an expression is unparliamentary, and I

would advise members that when asked to do so....

MR. LAUK:

On a point of order, With the greatest conceivable respect, Mr.

Chairman, you are perfectly entitled within the standing orders of this

committee to call any member to order for irrelevance, but you can't

make him withdraw an irrelevant remark. The Leader of the Opposition

has withdrawn any improper inference with respect to Mr. Science, the

minister of floating airports and longest exhaust pipes in history. But

the fact remains that he charged twice for the same meal. That's not

unparliamentary; that's just something that is a fact. It may be

irrelevant to this discussion, but it's certainly not unparliamentary.

If you stifle that kind of debate, then you stifle freedom of speech

anywhere, and I'm sure that's not what the Chairman intended.

[ Page 8502 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I am sure that hon. members would agree that this discussion would not

even arise were we strictly relevant to what is before us under debate.

The Minister of Highways is the minister currently before us for

discussion. I would ask again that we return to the relevance of the

amendment motion before us.

MR. BARRETT: The

conclusion of this particular debate on this motion is at hand. I

intend to vote in support of this motion. I cannot support extravagant

increases, particularly in office expenses, building occupancy charges,

and advertising. I cannot support the waste, extravagance and dramatic

increases in costs that obviously could be cut to the benefit of the

taxpayers. That's the whole purpose of this exercise. There is no

restraint being shown whatsoever by cabinet ministers when it comes to

running their administration — $82 million last year and about $85

million this year could be saved for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

If they'd just sharpen the pencil a little bit more, make use of last

year's eraser, use both sides of a piece of paper, show some common

sense, and only bill for a meal once, then we would save a lot of money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

MR. BARRETT: Broadway Bob! Give us the pictures.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Energy has the floor.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition obviously doesn't believe in

debate. He believes in one-way harangues, but when the opportunity

comes for others to make some comment on a very important amendment, he

doesn't wish to have that done.

I just want to make a couple

of points, and I'll be strictly relevant to the area of office

expenditure, particularly furniture and travel, Mr. Chairman. I want to

ask the Minister of Highways, in respect of this amendment to the

motion, if he will assure the Legislature that he'll be prudent in the

purchase of furniture for his own office, because I have to confess,

Mr. Chairman, that I have a great big couch that I sit on in my office,

and I have a great big desk. I want the Minister of Highways to assure

us that he'll be reasonably prudent in investment. I have some nice

chairs in my office too. I hope that we can keep those great big

couches and those great big desks in our offices for a long time,

because they cost an awful lot of money, and they were bought by a

government which was mesmerized by new-found power in 1972 and 1973,

government that was no less than lavish and extravagant.

Yes,

I have a big desk in my office; yes, I have a big couch in my office;

yes, I have a very nice office. I hope we can keep that furniture for

at least 20 years, because it will take 20 years to get the taxpayers'

money back from the expenditures by that government for the office

furniture which I still use and will use for a long, long time. It'll

take 20 years to pay back the extravagance and waste that that

government was so fond of.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak for

a second about travel, I want to ask the Minister of Highways, who is

one of the most able public administrators in this province, if he will

follow his own good example, rather than the example of the Leader of

the Opposition. I want to tell you that the example of that Leader of

the Opposition will lead you down terrible, dangerous paths. I give you

an example from 1974, when Mr. Barrett was the Premier. He took 16

people on a Japanese trip — 16 people, including his administrative

assistants, his press secretary, his secretary, her husband, his Deputy

Finance Minister, the Deputy Industrial Development Minister, Mr.

Lauk's executive assistant, consultants, and a number of other people.

The wives paid their own way. Sixteen people were taken to Japan. To do

what? Well, it says that there would be some details of some financial

meetings that might be set up.

On that trip, the Leader of

the Opposition, Mr. Minister of Highways.... The only news announcement

was that he would play in two games with his Old Stylers rugby team at

the beginning of the tour. Mr. Chairman, I don't want that Highways

minister to be travelling at public expense to play rugby. Not only did

the people of B.C. pay for the Premier's rugby trip, but they also paid

for his cheerleader squad as well.

I want to I make sure

that the Minister of Highways follows his own good example and not that

of the Leader of the Opposition, who also went to China. What did he do

in China? He went there with Attorney-General Alex Macdonald and Health

minister Cocke, Emery Barnes and Quon Wong, father of the

Attorney's-General executive assistant. There were ten members on that

case. Mr. Cocke, the Health minister, went to study acupuncture in

China. Mr. Macdonald was chosen because of his long association with

the Chinese community in Vancouver. Why did the Premier go? I want to

give advice to the Minister of Highways, Mr. Chairman, not to follow

the former Premier's example. He went because he hoped to be able to

set up talks. He never had any talks. He went over there because he

hoped to be able to set up talks, and he asked the people of British

Columbia to pay for it. I don't want the Minister of Highways to follow

that former Premier's example. Mr. Highways Minister, we trust you far

more than we trust that side of the House.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, I'm grateful to the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources because he has raised a perfect example. The

Premier of the day took 16 people to Japan at a cost of a little more

than $4,700. A few years ago the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) took four people to Japan at a

cost of $35,000. Why don't you compare the figures before you get up

with your big mouth, Mr. Minister of Energy? Most of the people

travelling with us paid their own way. That's $35,000 from the Minister

of Industry to go and lose coal sales. Do you remember that trip?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're on vote 77.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I wonder if I could ask if the

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) would table the documents

relating to the $4,700.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Not in committee, hon. member. Before us is a vote that vote 77 be reduced by $2,280,000.10.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page 8503 ]

YEAS — 21

Macdonald

Barrett

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

NAYS — 25

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Richmond

Ritchie

Brummet

Wolfe

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

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

On vote 77.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I think it's about time I cleared the air here over the discussion that

has been going on. One observation made was that advertising is up 28

percent. That's quite correct. That's for advertising of safety to try

to stop the carnage on our highways. I have to assume, from the

observations of the opposition, that they're opposed to that. How we

ever got onto ministers I will never know, because the travel

section

has nothing to do with ministers at all. It's for the travel of the

very good staff we have in the ministry. An overall observation I have

is that this budget has not got even a 5 percent increase, in view of

the fact that inflation is 11 percent, so I don't know why the

opposition is all excited about it.

Vote 77 approved unanimously on a division.

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

On vote 78: highway operations department. $521,132,477.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Chairman, once again, I'm calling a division on this particular

vote for the same reasons as before: travel expenses, up 10.6 percent,

office furniture, up 29.6 percent; advertising, up 4.1 percent:

occupancy, data processing, all increased significantly. I therefore

move that vote 78 be reduced by $6,449,000.34.

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE:

I would like to make one brief point on this motion, as I would on any

other motion. We're not voting against the total vote; we're voting

against....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE:

We're saying that you're spending too much, but we realize that you

have to have the basic vote. All we're asking is that it be kept to

last year's amount, clearly and simply. We will vote for this motion,

and if we are defeated.... And we will be, because of that massive

government over there and its profligacy; but we will vote also for the

basic vote, because we realize that without it the government would

grind to a halt. We would just ask them to look at their excessive

spending.

HON. MR. FRASER: I don't quite understand

the strategy over there. They're moving to reduce the expenditures of

one of the essential services of government, which is the maintenance

of the highway system. The total vote is increased by only about 5

percent. As a matter of fact, there is not enough of an increase to

look after inflation. Are you saying we shouldn't snowplough the roads

and we shouldn't use dust control and so on? That's what you're saying

here with this motion, and you won't have us voting for it; I'll tell

you that.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Macdonald

Barrett

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

NAYS — 27

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Richmond

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

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

Vote 78 approved unanimously on a division.

Vote 79: Hydro development — highways, $10 — approved.

On vote 80: transportation policy department, $5,658,433.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I want to re-emphasize to the House that as we are moving these

amendments — and I will be moving a motion to reduce this particular

vote as well — what we are voting against is the excessive increase

this year over last year in spending for items like office furniture

and travel. We feel that the government has adequate moneys in last

year's travel and office furniture budget. On vote 80, which I'll be

moving to be reduced by $290,175, there's one item

[ Page 8504 ]

that

really stands out. There's an 825 percent increase in spending for

office furniture this year over last year, and it is shocking. So I

move the reduction, Mr. Chairman.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Macdonald

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

NAYS — 27

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

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

Vote 80 approved unanimously on a division.

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

Vote 81: Crown corporation assistance, $54,822,700 — approved.

On vote 82: motor vehicle department, $30,543,264.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I move that vote 82 be reduced by $1,999,000.09.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Why?

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Because the increase, under this vote, in office furniture over last

year is 97.6 percent. We're only moving for a reduction of this year's

increase over last year on travel.... Actually travel is not too bad;

this year it increased 9.9 percent over last year. Office expenses,

building occupancy.... Gee whiz, you're moving up to a 27.6 percent

increase. I mention this because the hon. member asked me why. If he

hadn't asked me why, I wouldn't go through this in every vote.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I have a quick observation on this reduction. It's quite amazing: again

the opposition show their dislike for safety. This is the motor-vehicle

department, th e big safety branch of the ministry. Picking out

individual items, quite frankly, the total for this

section of the

budget is up less than 10 percent from last year; it doesn't even

accommodate inflation. I can't understand their attitude against safety.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I just want to clarify a point for the hon. minister. We are not voting

against any reduction in safety advertising — any of these. We've

attempted to make that point quite clear. Speaker after speaker on this

side of the House has attempted to explain it in a very logical manner.

We are moving for reductions in the increases for ministerial travel

and office furniture in a year of restraint. They're asking working

people to take 6 and 7 percent wage increases when inflation is running

rampant at 11 and 12 percent. It would appear to me that those

ministers and those people could get by without these horrendous

increases, without going first class, without drinking $37.50 wine. It

would seem to me that those people over there could sacrifice a little

in this year of restraint.

We're not against highway safety.

We will promote highway safety. When we move to that side of the House

next year, we will continue to practise highway safety in every way

possible. But I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, we're moving this

reduction. I now call for the vote.

HON. MR. MeGEER: Attempted closure! Disgraceful, Mr. Chairman!

How

is it possible to reduce a vote this size by nearly $2 million without

cutting safety? Obviously it's been carefully thought through by the

opposition, because they had the reduction down right to the penny. I

can understand that the opposition is against safety, but I can't

understand why they're against the furniture industry.

MR. KING:

The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications failed to make

any point that's worth answering. However, I was amazed at the Minister

of Transportation and Highways, who justified this massive increase

over last year's estimates on the basis that inflation is running at 11

and 12 percent. This is the government that has allowed 6.4 percent, is

it, for the hospital budget increase this year, with the result that

thousands of beds have been cut?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: I just make that point, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no, no, no, no!

MR. KING: All right, Mr. Chairman, you've made your point.

the Minister of Transportation and Highways demands for himself an

increase that more than accommodates by far the inflation rate, how do

we expect to get the inflation rate down? That's feeding inflation, and

that's why the opposition is moving to cut this vote to the same level

as last year. That's real restraint; that's tightening the belt — all

of the things that the government is calling on the taxpayers to do.

They have an opportunity now to show some moral leadership, to lead by

example. That's what we're calling for: simply to hold the line to last

year's expenditures.

HON. MR. FRASER: I just want to

straighten out the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke in that this vote is

way less than the inflation rate. This government is trying to get

increases below the present inflation rate of 11 percent and the

increase we're talking about here is between 6 and 7 percent.

[ Page 8505 ]

MR. LAUK:

The second member for Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) suggests that we're

against the furniture industry. I'm not going to answer that outrageous

charge, but I will say that I've never seen any person on this side of

the House wear a dark, three-piece, pin-stripe suit with a pair of

sneakers.

Amendment negatived on the following division.

YEAS — 17

Macdonald

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace

Mitchell

NAYS — 27

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

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

Vote 82 approved unanimously on a division.

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

On vote 83: Motor Carrier Commission and motor carrier branch, $2,542,953.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I move that vote 83 be reduced by $182,502 for all of the reasons

already outlined on numerous occasions in this Legislature over the

last two days.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

Macdonald

Barrett

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace

Mitchell

NAYS — 26

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Richmond

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 83 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Division is called on vote 83.

Hon. members, it would appear that all who can be here are here. Is it agreed that we proceed with the division?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. NICOLSON: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is: shall vote 83...?

MR. NICOLSON:

On a point of order, I said no, Mr. Chairman. I very distinctly said

no, and did so for a reason. Standing order 16(2) on page 4, says:

"Upon a division being called the division bell should be rung

forthwith. Not sooner than two nor longer than five minutes thereafter

Mr. Speaker shall again state the question and amendment (if any)." Mr.

Chairman has been seeking leave of the House, which must be unanimous.

On previous occasions I have heard noes uttered, but I thought Mr.

Chairman had just simply not heard them. In this particular instance I

very distinctly said no very loudly and engaged the eye of the Chair

while doing so. I would suggest that as leave must be unanimous, we

must wait at least two minutes. By my watch that means that we now have

ten seconds to go.

Vote 83 approved unanimously on a division.

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

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

The committee. having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada