British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, April 24, 1975 — Night Sitting (30th Parliament, 5th Session)
30p 05s 750424z
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
1975 Legislative Session: 5th 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, APRIL 24, 1975
Night Sitting
[ Page
1711 ]
CONTENTS
Committee of Supply: Department of Public Works estimates. On vote 231. Hon.
Mr. Hartley — 1711
Division on adjournment — 1737
The House met at 8:30 p.m.
HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to let the House know that I've got two representativess from
the farmers' institute in my area, Bim Barker from Ta Ta Creek and Dave Mader
from Galloway.
MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Tonight in the Members' gallery
are Mr. and Mrs. Howard Lowry, big game guides from the Horsefly area
of the Cariboo. I would like the House to welcome them here tonight.
MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, tonight in the
gallery we have one of the outstanding residents of Texada
Island, Mr. Stan Heisholf.
Orders of the day.
The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.
ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
On vote 231: Minister's office, $88,895.
MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Tell us about the Golden
tourist information booth.
HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Chairman,
I think it is only right that I bring in a front-page story of
the Victoria Times .
AN HON. MEMBER: When you get home, read the paper.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Well, that's a good story.
This shows one of the first steps in the planned development
of some one million square feet of office space for the capital
city. In this building there are approximately a quarter of a
million square feet. With our health services building and the
Public Service Commission, there are better than 400,000 square
feet on the way now.
Along with these projects that are planned and underway, we
have the...
AN HON. MEMBER: We have the Yale.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: ...site preparation complete. Had we not had settling
problems the past year, the Abbotsford trout hatchery would have been underway
now. However, the tenders are called and we hope to be letting the tenders soon
for a $5 million project so that we can hatch trout and steelhead in B.C.
We are planning an agricultural centre in Abbotsford.
In Ashcroft, we are planning the restoration of the old BX
stagecoach building which served for many years as a
courthouse and we hope to restore it in a style befitting that
fine old building.
In Burns Lake ...
AN HON. MEMBER: You are going to take over the mill.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: ...we are planning a courthouse addition.
That's the spirit. This is being programmed in keeping with the
Justice Development Commission.
In Prince Rupert, we are redesigning the old liquor store
for a special facility for the land registry office.
In Vancouver, a remand centre for corrections. In Kamloops, a health centre.
In Nanaimo, a community health centre.
In Vancouver, public health labs and a motor vehicle
licence plate production facility.
In Surrey, a motor vehicle inspection office.
In Kamloops, a general purpose office.
In Prince George, a general purpose administration
office.
AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!
MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): You're a Minister without.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: In New Westminster, a general purpose
office building.
The major buildings under construction as of now include a
20-bed unit hospital for mental health in Tranquille, a part of
the Tranquille school.
A provincial government building for Fort St. John for the
Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald).
A Department of Public Works maintenance building in
Kamloops.
An extension of the law courts. This is a building underway
now in Victoria for the Attorney-General.
In Victoria, a health service building on Pandora at
Blanshard. This is also underway.
A provincial government building in Victoria at Blanshard
and Burdett, 30,000 square feet. This project is also
underway.
A multi-discipline building for Burnaby. BCIT, Department of
Education.
A classroom and lab building in Burnaby for the BCIT,
Department of Education.
Highways maintenance establishment in Fernie for the
Highways department; Highways equipment building in Sparwood,
Department of Highways; Highways equipment building for Keating
Cross
[ Page 1712 ]
Road....
Interjection.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Oh, one day, my friend, they'll get a new
Member. That'll warm things up. (Laughter.) It's most unlikely
that he'll be around much longer.
A Highways equipment building at Keating Cross Road,
Victoria, for the Department of Highways.
Revelstoke, a provincial building — this building is
designed by the same architect who designed this fine
legislative building, Francis Rattenbury. We are restoring the
provincial building in Revelstoke in a style that is fitting to
that great architect.
MR. FRASER: Tell us about Yale.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Today we announced the start of a building
at Douglas, Blanshard, Courtenay and Broughton Streets, a
quarter of a million square feet with 54 parking stalls. This
was designed to conform with that part of town with....
Interjections.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: That's 540 parking stalls, sorry. I
dropped a zero. Thanks very much.
This is a low-density, low-rise building, in keeping with
this part of Victoria, with open space and a maximum of natural
light. There's a plaza designed into the centre of the complex
with a skylight over it so that the interior walls of the
offices, those facing out into the street, will have the
benefit of natural light. We are also trying to make maximum
use of open space with ample use of greenery and shrubs.
Interjection.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Blocks 51, 61 and 71 in Vancouver are well
on the way, on schedule. Yes, a mirror too. We are letting a
little light shine in on downtown Vancouver; plenty of greenery
and grass.
Interjection.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: That's right. In your day you were having
a 55-storey building — I should say in your daddy's day —
casting a great black shadow right down the centre of
Vancouver.
Interjections.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: The following are buildings which have been completed
this last year: Valemont, a provincial court building officially opened January
7, 1974; in Lytton, a provincial tour building, officially opened January 28,
1974; in Grand Forks a Highways establishment; in New Denver a Highways establishment;
in McLeese Lake, a Highways establishment; in Vancouver, the Dogwood Lodge,
personal care home, and the first resident guests were received on June 5, 1974;
Powell River, a provincial government building and law courts, officially opened
on July 4, 1974, approximately 2,300 square feet of office space; Bob Quinn
Lake, Highways establishment, no official opening but turned over to the Department
of Highways on October 2, 1974; Tatogga Lake, Highways establishment, no official
opening but turned over to the Highways department on October 2, 1974; Burnaby,
the Dogwood Lodge, a personal care home, and the first resident guests were
received October 15, 1974, approximately 56,000 square feet of usable space;
Blue River, Highways establishment, turned over to the Department of Highways
on October 15, 1974, now operational; Logan Lake, Highways establishment, turned
over to the Department of Highways on October 16, 1974....
Interjection.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Logan Lake is in the riding of the Member
for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson).
Dawson Creek: provincial government building, law courts,
officially opened October 28, 1974. I would like to commend our
Bill Allen for the fine job he did; he arranged to have a very
fine display of flowers, and he put on a first-class opening. I
am sorry the Member for that area isn't here.
Interjection.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, the Member was invited to the
opening, my friend from North Peace River (Mr. Smith). Things
have changed. That old order has gone out. That way of never
having the opposition Member on the platform has changed. The
Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) did sit up on the
platform.
Whistler, the Highways establishment, turned over to the
Department of Highways, November 12, 1974.
Nelson: provincial government building officially opened
November 29. Approximately 35,000 square feet of office
space.
Kamloops: the Ponderosa Lodge Personal Care Home officially
opened December 11; 87,000 square feet of serviceable
space.
Kaslo: the Department of Highways equipment storage and
office building turned over to the Department of Highways
November 27, this year. Now operational.
Golden: the B.C. Tourist Reception Centre to be officially
opened on May 6.
Interjection.
[ Page 1713 ]
HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Do you want to be
there?
HON. MR. HARTLEY: The Member will be invited. Now after the
display he put on this afternoon, he may not choose to show up.
If he doesn't, I don't blame him.
MR. FRASER: He wants to talk.
HON. MR. LEA: We can't teach him everything. (Laughter.)
HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'd like to say this, Mr. Chairman: that
fine tourist centre that was designed by Public Works, I
believe, does justice to the most westerly approach on
Trans-Canada Highway, the Golden approach to western Canada.
It's a first-class building. It's a building that every one of
us as residents of the province, when we're returning to the
province, can be rightfully proud of. I'm sure that
non-residents.....
MR. CHABOT: It's in the wrong place.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: That's right, we're not a broken down old
government, they couldn't afford to give this government the
dignity and the prestige it deserves.
AN HON. MEMBER: It should have been in the Crowsnest.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: That Member would foul his own nest.
MR. FRASER: It cost over $80 a square foot.
Interjections.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Right. And I would like to say this:
tourism, one of our fastest-growing industries, contributes very, very
little pollution to the province, takes the minimum capital investment
and....
MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Tell the
Minister of Highways.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes. And I think the very least we can do
is design and build a first-class post-and-beam tourist centre
to let people know that they're welcome and that we appreciate
them coming, even though the Member from Golden doesn't.
In Vancouver at the provincial court building at 222 Main Street, the official
opening is planned for May 30, 1975. There are approximately 128,000 square
feet of office and court facilities.
Fort St. John: the provincial government and law courts
building is to be officially opened on June 2 of this year;
approximately 2,200 square feet of office space and court
facilities along with some 11,000 square feet of storage space.
I hope the Member will make note of that. If he hasn't already
received an invitation for June 2, he'll certainly be receiving
that in due course.
MR. BENNETT: Yes, save the stamp; you've spent enough
money.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Shortly after taking office we asked Dr.
Keenleyside to prepare a study and make an inquiry into the
problems relating to electrical inspection. That study....
Interjection.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: No, you have a copy. I sent you a copy, my
friend.
He made certain recommendations. He found many things, some
of which we already knew. We knew that we were inheriting great
problems in the field of electrical inspection. To cope with
that, we have more than doubled the number of electrical
inspectors, and we're moving on to triple that number. We feel
that it is in the best interests of safety, the protection of
homeowners, the protection of the public as a whole, that we
have proper inspections and that we have a sufficiently large
staff, an adequate staff, of electrical inspectors. We'll be
bringing in certain legislative changes to further implement
the recommendations that Dr. Keenleyside made.
MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): When?
HON. MR. HARTLEY: We've had the inquiry, and you have a copy
of the report, my friend. If you've misplaced it, I'd be
pleased to provide you with another copy.
We find that the totals of interested people, tourists —
residents and non-residents — who have visited this building is
an all-time high. We find that people are very interested and
appreciate the restoration job that has been done in the
building — not just in the chamber but throughout the
building.
MR. CHABOT: The green light's on.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: While the opposition chose to criticize
that in the earlier months, I believe even they are convinced
that it's right to show proper respect to this fine building in
the capital, this home of our top democratic institution.
Last year, in January, there were 1,868 persons
[ Page 1714 ]
who visited the building and were shown about by the tour
guide girls; this year, in January, there were 2,170. In
February last year, 3,000; this year, 3,100. In March, 5,400;
in March of this year, an increase of 1,400 to 6,800. The total
so far this year is 17,000 as compared with 15,000 last year. I
think this indicates that students, local residents and
visitors are interested in dropping in and seeing what is going
on. Some are even sitting up in the galleries to listen and
watch what is going on.
MR. CHABOT: The green light.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Is the green light on?
AN HON. MEMBER: No.
Interjections.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: That's your act this time.
On forming the new government, we attempted to take steps to
correct problems, problems of lack of management in, say, the
Department of Recreation and Conservation.
MR. FRASER: Order!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
HON. MR. HARTLEY: The Minister of that department has found
it necessary to increase the number of conservation officers,
biologists and other people that are ...
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!
HON. MR. HARTLEY: ....necessary to improve the management
in that area. In our department, we found that we had to
increase the number of electrical inspectors and inspectors in
other departments. I mention this, Mr. Chairman, because these
are the reasons why we found that we needed space, far more
than what had been used previously.
MR. FRASER: Does that account for all the empty ones you've
got?
HON. MR. HARTLEY: In other departments we brought forward
new policies and new services. The Minister of Human Resources
(Hon. Mr. Levi) brought in Mincome.
AN HON. MEMBER: Order! Order, Mr. Chairman!
HON. MR. HARTLEY: This meant more people, more staff and
more space.
MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Order, Mr. Chairman!
HON. MR. HARTLEY: The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald)
is completely reviewing his department of justice. In so doing,
this placed a great call on the Department of Public Works for
space.
MR. GARDOM: You missed the Department of Health.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: No, we're coming to Health. Yes, the
Department of Health is building hospitals. (Laughter.) They
provided a first in this province, and that ...
MR. GARDOM: Is this a leadership speech?
HON. MR. HARTLEY: ...is a province-wide ambulance
service.
MR. GARDOM: Who have you missed, Bill?
MR. FRASER: He missed Highways.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: No, no. We've done Highways.
MR. McCLELLAND: You haven't said anything about the
hotel.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: That's right. We have a hotel, too.
(Laughter.) The Glenshiel has shown a fine surplus.
Interjections.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: No, by no means are we ashamed of the
Glenshiel.
AN HON. MEMBER: What did you pay for it?
MR. FRASER: He never told us.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, you bet we told you.
MR. CHABOT: $150,000 too much.
MR. GARDOM: Who got the gravy, Bill?
HON. MR. HARTLEY: I can tell you this, Mr. Chairman: no
property acquisitions....
MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Did you take the inventory
before or after?
Interjections.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: No property acquisitions
[ Page 1715 ]
in this department, under this government, were made without
proper appraisals — not one. By having proper independent
appraisals, we were able to buy the Glenshiel for some $50,000
less than we would have done had we travelled the road that had
been done by that old government just by letting the real
estate fraternity buy it at their price.
Interjections.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: My friend from Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)
says the taxpayers got ripped off. They have raised the matter
of property. You know, just prior to the 1972 election, as late
as May, the old government decided to do something about
greenbelts. They all of a sudden, before the election, became
ecology conscious. So what did they do? They turned over the
job to one real estate firm here on Vancouver Island, with the
responsibility of buying so-called greenbelt properties on
Vancouver Island. And where did they buy them? Where did they
buy these greenbelt properties? Any little location alongside a
main highway where they could put up a sign: "This is your
greenbelt."
MR. GARDOM: Order!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister
to be sure that all the material is under his administrative
responsibility.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: This is correct, Mr. Chairman. This is
property acquisition. I'm comparing the policy of this
government where they have private, independent appraisals
done, and the tired old government that merely turned over
their greenbelt acquisition to the real estate fraternity and
allowed them to buy anything that was handy, pay the price that
the real estate man thought was good — a good price for him, at
least. There was not a single independent appraisal, and they
spent almost $8 million prior to the election just so they
could put up signs saying "look at your greenbelt." They hoped
to be able to suck the people of this province in on an ecology
act.
HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Eight million dollars, and no
appraisals.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: That's correct, Mr. Chairman — some 46
different projects and no independent appraisals. That's what
they did with the taxpayers' money. That's why this mouthpiece
for the private developers is up and hollering now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! That's right.
MR. FRASER: Sit down so we can get into the meat of things.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: We don't use a real estate firm.
Here we are: Greenbelt Protection Fund Act — mainland and the
Queen Charlotte Islands; the owner, Doris B. White, leased
....
Interjections.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: No. 2: Mabel Elliott, two-bedroom home;
neglected land on Highway 17. See, that was the big thing —
they wanted it on the main highway so they could put one of
those signs up.
Interjection.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: No. 3: Owner, Richard and Helen Weaver;
dairy farm, Highway 17. Yes, we can have another sign up on
Highway 17.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister
to relate his remarks to his administrative responsibility.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: This, Mr. Chairman, relates to the
Department of Public Works, property division.
Now what has this government done in the way of greenbelt
and property acquisition? Just a few weeks ago at Cosens Bay on
Kalamalka Lake the old Coldstream Ranch was acquired; some
2,400 acres, 1.5 miles of shoreline. And you know, this was
really non-partisan, because for 20 years that tired old
government had had this opportunity. For six years that North
Okanagan area was represented by a cabinet Minister, yet that
government and that cabinet Minister failed to act to acquire
this fine block of land for the people of this province.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would again ask the Hon.
Minister to relate his remarks to his own estimates.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Further, Mr. Chairman, under the property
division, another fine greenbelt project was the Boundary Bay
shoreline where the whole shoreline between the Nicomekl River
and Beach Grove has been acquired.
MR. CHABOT: Thank God the green light is on.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: This has been acquired to protect that
fragile marine area. The whole foreshore and a greenbelt area
behind it has been consolidated. Now this is proper, planned
greenbelt acquisition.
Probably the closest to home is what has just
[ Page 1716 ]
happened in the Inner Harbour — the old CPR ticket office,
and that foreshore land along with the Reid centre. This is
consolidating....
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Time, time!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, or we'll add an extra two
minutes on to the speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: You can't win.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just ask the Hon. Minister if he is
responsible for the administration greenbelt front.
(Laughter.)
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Right, and the green light, too.
(Laughter.)
The remarkable difference between our property acquisition
on the greenbelt is that it was done in the years after the
election, not three months before the election, nor through the
real estate fraternity. It was done through our own department
and the Department of Lands, as it should always have been
done.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that we are on the
right vote to bring this up.
AN HON. MEMBER: Then sit down!
MR. BENNETT: The Minister who figured out $25 insurance for
the government is now covering the greenbelt fund, when in fact
many people around the province are concerned about his
handling of the Public Works portfolio and the millions of
dollars that are being spent, much of it being wasted in empty
office space — misspent.
You know, Mr. Chairman, last fall — in fact in January of
this year — somebody reported to the Leader of the Opposition
that there had been space leased in the Lake City industrial
park and that this 12,500 square feet of space that had been
leased had sat empty for almost eight months. It was originally
leased, the Minister of Public Works said, for a pharmaceutical
warehouse for pharmaceutical supplies. But it was never used
for that purpose. In fact, it sat empty month after month after
month.
That office space was leased as of January 4, 1974, and eventually, after months
of sitting empty at a high cost to the people of this province, with no adequate
supervision from the Department of Public Works or the Minister, some old trucks
were moved into the warehouse and eventually some sandbags. But when we identified
this problem publicly, I would have expected the Minister.... We expect the
Minister to act responsibly. The money he handles and spends is trust money.
It's the people's money. He's spending it and dealing with it in trust, whether
it is to build new buildings or to rent buildings. This
Minister has an obligation to spend the public's money wisely,
as if it were his own.
If he doesn't treat his own money wisely, he should treat it
as if it were somebody's money which he would like to save.
But this property sat empty. It sat empty for many months.
So on March 24 of this year in this House, Mr. Chairman, I
identified to this Minister a problem of a building in Prince
George, a building known as the Oxford Building. I would like
to refer to my line of questioning at that time, because it is
indicative of the casual and frivolous way this Minister treats
the very serious responsibilities of his department.
At that time, and I quote from Hansard of March 24,
Mr. Chairman:
To the Minister of Public Works with respect to the Oxford Building
in Prince George, which has leased 4,900 square feet of space to the provincial
government at $6.50 a square foot. Could the Minister explain to the House why
it was necessary to contract for these premises in August, 1974? As of this
date they remain vacant and unused.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition
would care to table any documents that he has to substantiate this statement
...I would be pleased to respond.
MR. BENNETT: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister is unaware
that his department has contracted space for the Department of Housing and parks
at $6.50 a square foot, I wonder if the Minister could tell the House what procedures
are followed to determine the need in leasing office space in advance of the
requirement or after the requirement develops.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say this:
any time I have asked the Leader of the Opposition to table documents.... He
has yet to table his first document.
MR. SPEAKER: Order! I think no private Member is required by our
rules to table documents except with the leave of the House.
It goes on:
HON. MR. HARTLEY:...Members over there have got up and made
statements from documents that we find have been falsified.
Now I know of no documents tabled in this House that have
been falsified. The only question we have over documents that
have been tabled is a report tabled by the Minister of Lands,
Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) in which the
cover appeared to have been typed by a different typewriter.
It's the only document that I have knowledge of in this House
that is under question for having been tabled and was not
tabled as represented.
MR. BENNETT: A supplementary because of the Minister's answer.
He said that they take no steps, after
[ Page 1717 ]
he got to the point. Would the Minister tell us why in Prince
George they have leased space several months in advance of the need at a cost
of $32,000 a year? Would you advise how this could happen with that policy?
MR. CHABOT: He didn't even answer.
MR. BENNETT: It continues:
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, in many cases, even in new buildings,
if we lease space we have to design them to suit our particular needs. I just
cannot accept what has been said, but I would be pleased to take this as notice
and give a full report at a future sitting.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: What date was that?
MR. BENNETT: March 24.
MR. BENNETT: A further supplemental. When you are advising the
House, could you advise if you do have a policy that will prevent this from
happening throughout the province, because it seems an excessive cost to the
taxpayers.
Those are the questions that were asked a month ago to this
Minister. To this date we have had no explanations; no answers
in this House. This Minister has shown the same disregard for
the Legislature as the government has in bringing in rules to
stifle debate, to eliminate the possibility of questions and
the inability of the Ministers there to answer the questions to
the satisfaction of either this House or the public. We have
had no answers.
Just to show the Minister the pictures, I'll pass them
around. This is the Oxford building in Prince George, and
there's the picture of the empty space. Mr. Chairman, as I pass
this around, I'd like to say that we did create some action,
although we got no answer from the Minister. Almost immediately
after asking the question in the House, the question he
promised to answer, some furniture was moved in, but to this
date no department has moved into that building. Somebody shows
up every so often and dusts the furniture.
MR. CHABOT: Ninety-two dollar stacking chairs from Denmark,
maybe?
MR. BENNETT: So we have expense following expense — just
further cost to the public; no service. Taxpayers' money is
being wasted and never getting back to services to people but
being wasted on cost of government that isn't even being
delivered because no department occupies that space.
HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Tell us about the road
runners.
MR. BENNETT: Then again, Mr. Chairman, on April 15 after
coming back from the Easter recess and after his trip to the
energy conference in Ottawa, I asked the Minister in this
House, and I repeat:
Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Public Works: could the Minister
confirm to this House that his department has leased 4,025 square feet of office
space located at 10575 and 10579 King George Highway for a five-year period
on a triple net basis?
Now I would be out here in identifying this space that was
leased for the purpose of the Whalley Mental Health Centre,
because there was no number on the building, when we phoned the
rental agent to get the terms of the lease, which he provided,
the rental agent provided a mistake in the single digit.
Indeed, that address is not 10575 but 10675, just adjacent to
the address which, in error, I gave to the House.
But the terms of the lease that I identified and the use to
which this building was to be put should be well known to the
department. I would hope that the Minister and his department,
from the description, could tell a building less than a block
away was the building that was identified in this House.
I think it's irresponsible for the Minister to hide behind,
or try and hide behind, the mistake of a digit. The Minister
came into this House and smirked and said: "Ha, ha! The address
given was that of a Kentucky-fried chicken." (Laughter.)
But I want to say that when we went and took pictures of
this building on the King George Highway, we were aware that
the empty space was there and that the government had leased
it. I'll pass these around. We saw the Kentucky-fried chicken;
in fact, we stopped there. We knew it couldn't possibly have
been bought by the NDP because they serve more than left wings
and backsides. (Laughter.) We knew that that space could not
possibly belong to this government or have been leased by this
government.
But we were concerned, Mr. Chairman, that there was in this
area a space of 4,000 square feet leased for the Whalley Mental
Health Centre, leased as of August 1, 1974, still vacant at an
annual cost of $18,000.
Here we have a building in Prince George; now we have a
building on the King George Highway rented far in advance of
any need at a great cost to the taxpayers of this province, and
the Minister treats it frivolously. But, Mr. Chairman, I don't
blame just this Minister in the incompetence of his department.
He was supported in that lame excuse by the whole cabinet over
there and by the one protection this Legislature should have
from waste in government — that is the Premier and Minister of
Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett).
I think it's shocking that the Minister of finance would
hide behind this flimsy excuse, because while departments and
cabinet Ministers may waste money, the Minister of Finance
should be the guardian of the
[ Page 1718 ]
public purse. He should be there to guarantee that when he
has Ministers who do not have the competence to deal with the
public purse he will guard the public's interest because he,
above all, should recognize that this money is trust money and
that any waste of the taxpayers' dollar, indeed, reflects not
only on the Minister, but also on the Minister of Finance as
well. But we watch that Minister of Finance and the Premier
pound his desk and smirk and yell out "finger-lickin' good" —
hiding behind a digit while the people of this province
....
We see every day in the paper that the community colleges
are starved for funds, the public schools are starved for
funds, the universities are starved for funds, but the Minister
of Public Works cares not. He'll pay money to any corporation
that has an empty building just to build up his empire and say:
"What a big boy am I." This is the Minister that developed the
$25 car insurance for this party in the last election. This is
the Minister that worked out how we could deliver car insurance
for $25. While he couldn't deliver the $25 car insurance, Mr.
Chairman, he certainly has delivered a lot of space — empty,
expensive space — to the people of this province.
Then again, on April 16, I asked the Minister about space
that was empty in the province. I've asked him about space that
was empty in Surrey: 7,818 square feet; annual rental, $32,000;
leased April 1, 1974; still vacant as of April 23, 1975. The
waste to date on that building is approximately $34,000.
It's not an isolated case, Mr. Chairman. It's not just a
building in Prince George; it's not just a warehouse in
Burnaby; it's not just a building on the King George Highway.
Here is a building in Surrey at a cost of $34,000.
Then again in the Legislature, I asked the Minister about
the McLaren Building on Manor Street in Vernon. Thirty thousand
square feet leased and still empty as of April 23, 1975, in
excess of $6 a square foot; annual rental more than $180,000 a
year. The whole space sat empty for six months; approximately
half of it is still empty. Waste to the people: $131,000.
Then again, Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister on a further
date about the Allstate Building in Burnaby. Leased July 1,
1974; annual rental $54,000; still vacant as of April 23, 1975;
approximate waste: $42,000.
Then I asked the Minister on a following date, Mr. Chairman,
about a space in the Ellery Block at 900 Ellery in Esquimalt;
15,000 square feet; lease signed July 1, 1974. This building is
still vacant as of April 21, 1975. Approximate waste on this
building alone: $35,000.
Now, Mr. Chairman, you would think that having the problem identified, this
Minister would stand in the Legislature and say: "Thank you for identifying
the problem. My department will move speedily and hastily to
stop this waste of the public's money. We are concerned now
that you've solved the problem for us. You've been a good
opposition, a good watchdog on the public purse, and we will
waste no more." But instead we get smart-alec answers, no
responses in the Legislature, corridor interviews and attempt
to hide behind a digit and a Kentucky-fried chicken as an
excuse.
That's not good enough in a province where the public is
concerned, because right now in British Columbia homeowners
have to watch their budgets. The people of this province have
to be concerned about how they spend money. Costs are rising;
many people are unemployed in British Columbia today. More are
unemployed now than have ever been unemployed before in the
province. They're concerned about their budget and they still
have to send their taxes to Victoria. They have no choice
because they spend taxes every time they purchase. They pay 5
per cent tax. The taxes on their homes are escalating because
this government doesn't treat the municipalities fairly. The
taxes on their homes are escalating from education costs
because this government hasn't met its promise to take the
education tax off property. These people know that the cost of
clothing for their children, the cost of heat to heat their
homes is rising, and they have to save money and they have to
be prudent.
Here we have a department of government...and I don't just
blame this department, Mr. Chairman, because this waste and
mismanagement is applicable to all departments. It's just more
evident here and more inexcusable because this Minister refuses
to deal with it. This Minister has promised this Legislature — not to the Legislature but out in the hall, as reported in the
paper — that during his estimates he would make a statement and
that he would assure the House that this waste would continue
no longer. Yet in his opening statement we heard him talk about
a vote that comes under the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.
Hall) we heard him talk about greenbelts, but at no time did he
attempt to deal with the question before us — the waste of
public money in rental space, the possible waste of money in
the renovation of buildings, the possible waste of money,
perhaps, in contracts and construction of buildings.
It's symptomatic of the arrogance of this government that
not only do they restrict debate, not only do they bring in
closure, not only do they attempt to manipulate the closure
further with selective closure, but they refuse even to answer
the questions in their much-heralded question period and they
refuse, so far, to deal with them during the Ministers'
estimates.
There are other buildings I can identify, but I would like to continue to pass
around some of the empty space that I have identified tonight. There's
[ Page
1719 ]
the empty space in Surrey; here's the empty space in the
McLaren building in Burnaby; there's the empty space in the
Allstate building in Burnaby; here's the building that has the
empty space in Esquimalt.
I'd like to talk about further empty space in Prince George.
This building is 1777 Third, Prince George. The lease was
signed in November, 1974 at $6.50 per square foot. It's still
vacant as of April 22; waste — $13,000. I'd like to pass that
space around.
Interjection.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, those figures on those seven
buildings add up to $292,000. But we're not through because
there's additional space that we're investigating now. There
have been dozens of phone calls to our office and to the Leader
of the Opposition saying: "We have such a building in our
area." These are not isolated instances; these are instances
that are taking place in every part of this province. There's
an accumulation of waste and a scandal of waste that, although
apparent in this department, this Minister, whose arrogance in
failing to deal with it in this Legislature is now more obvious
than ever, and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), who
pounds his desk in glee when the Minister attempts to provide a
flimsy excuse — his partner in the crime of covering up waste —
are not even preparing to deal with the subject of waste and
the waste in his department in this Legislature.
We can go on, because it isn't just commercial buildings.
How about housing? There is a housing shortage in this province — people requiring accommodation — and yet we have occasions
where there are houses.... Here is a house that was apparently
purchased in Duncan in February, 1974 — purchase price, $37,000.
This house in the pictures still sits empty. I'll pass them
around.
When we went to take the pictures of the house to find out
why the house sat empty.... Even if the Department of Human
Resources, for which this house was apparently purchased, has
not found a use for it in over a year, perhaps they could have
leased it out. Perhaps in an area of a shortage of
accommodation they could have helped to meet the public
interest. But there's no such thought for people. This house
sits empty, and when we go to the door there's a notice. I'm
glad the Minister brought up the great job they're doing with
electrical inspection, because on the door is an electrical
energy inspection department notice. It's dated March 10. It
says:
"Dear Sir or Madam:
"On this date we called to make an inspection of the
electrical work in your premises but were unable to gain entry. Will
you kindly notify our office where we may call and when, and where we
may locate the key?"
Commercial buildings for all departments, houses sit empty;
but it's not just rental space, Mr. Chairman, that's causing a
waste. How about buildings the government has purchased?
Because the Minister quite proudly announced large amounts of
money that were being dispensed on buildings. How about these
buildings? How about the building...? I'll pass some pictures
around on this building. Here's a building: 800 Viewfield Road,
Esquimalt — lot A,
section 11 and 32, plan 198047. It was
formerly used by McIlwaine Cartage. It has an estimated 65,000
square feet; valuation, $425,000. It was purchased by the
government in a title search on November 30, 1973. This
building — this 65,000 square foot building — sits empty today.
Oh, not completely empty — it has a totem pole in it; 65,000
square feet since 1973 to house a totem pole. You know, totem
poles tell a story. When that totem pole went into the
warehouse it was smiling, but today it's sad. (Laughter.) Today
it's sad because it, too, realizes the hardships that are being
caused in expenditures to services for people in this province
because this Minister and this department, symptomatic of a
disease of waste and incompetence that permeates this whole
government, is wasting the taxpayers' money, is robbing the
people of services.
The Minister refuses to deal with the subject or even to
take remedial action; continues to ignore questions in this
House — questions that were raised a month ago.
It is shocking because the Premier condones this action. The
Minister of Finance condones it. He pounds his desk in glee; he
pounds his desk when he thought the Minister had an out. He
shouted: "Finger-lickin' good." I think it is disgraceful.
MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Some defence!
MR. BENNETT: Some defence! Here is a department — and it is
obvious they have spent a lot of money on gold paint in the
buildings — that in area after area in this province has spent
and wasted ...
HON. MR. COCKE: You're a disgrace!
MR. BENNETT: ...a lot of the public's money. The budget for
Public Works in 1974/75 was $48,000.
AN HON. MEMBER: Forty-eight million.
MR. BENNETT: Forty-eight million. But of course they had a
revised budget because they overspent, and I can see why. The
revised estimate in the budget this year for that year is $67
million. The estimates for this year are $90 million. Consider,
Mr.
[ Page 1720 ]
Chairman, if this Minister's programme of leasing and
maintaining empty office space continues, how many empty
buildings we will have next year and how we will have to
curtail services in other areas of the government because of
the waste of this department, waste that is not being dealt
with by this Minister, waste that is robbing the people of
British Columbia of services.
We have seen rent from the public Treasury for this
department go from $3 million in 1972 to $15 million in this
year's budget. But, in fact, are we actually filling more space
or are we just accumulating an inventory of leases?
AN HON. MEMBER: The Peter Principle.
MR. BENNETT: Although we have seen the government service go
from 29,000 to almost 46,000 people in this short time,
apparently even the departments that are accelerating their
hiring cannot fill their offices as fast as this Minister
leases them. They cannot not only hire people but they can't
even buy the desks and the fancy furniture that go up to the
Minister's offices fast enough. I guess they can't even fill
these empty offices around this province.
I think this Legislature should get some answers. I think
the people deserve answers and the people demand answers.
Even while this apparent waste is going on, this scandal of
waste, we see advertisements by this department published just
the other day, advertisements which are calling for more people
for the Department of Public Works. To do what? To act as
rental agents to lease more space. Here they want property
negotiators and they have run two advertisements. It says:
"The Department of Public Works has openings for two qualified persons in the public services
branch. Salary: $15,000 to $17,000. Under direction" — whose
direction? — "to be responsible for the administration of the
field property office and the programme of acquisition,
leasing, exchange and disposal of property."
We don't have enough property sitting empty....
MR. CHAIRMAN: The green light is on.
MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have no trouble
identifying colours, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, this scandal of waste is hitting proportions that not even the
opposition dreamed of when we investigated those first few buildings. This Minister
hasn't provided answers. Even if he has, we will be bringing before this Legislature
further examples of the deterioration and the loss of benefits to the public
from the public purse through the waste of money of this Minister. It is a scandal
of mounting proportions.
I don't blame just that Minister. The public is already
alerted to overruns in all departments. We now have it
officially from the Premier and Minister of Finance as of the
other day that he condones this Minister's action, he condones
the waste...
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. BENNETT: ...he plots and pounds his desk.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The time is up.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the public demands answers to
this very, very serious waste and extravagance in this
province.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I held back on answering the
questions, giving the statement that I promised. I have the
facts here.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Were you withholding
statements from the House?
HON. MR. HARTLEY: No, at no time. I say I withheld until now
because I thought the Leader of the Opposition at least knew
that a major portion, a considerable portion, of the increase
in our rental budget, some $3.3 million dollars, was the
responsibility, the load, that we had taken from the backs of
the cities of this province. I am shocked that he didn't know
that.
AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know very much.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: His old daddy let the cities carry the
brunt of the burden of administering justice in this province.
Under our rental budget this year, we are budgeting for $3.3
million that this department will pay that was formerly paid by
the cities of Kelowna, of Vernon, of Vancouver, and of
Victoria, and so on.
MR. CURTIS: Wait for your tax bill.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Public health: $1,125,000 million; Human
Resources: almost $2 million. So there is almost $7 million of
that $15 million budget that was formerly paid by the cities.
By making the statement and the false accusations that you've
made tonight, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, you completely
overlooked....
Interjection.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the statements that the Hon. Minister
of Public Works says are false,
[ Page
1721 ]
the Hon. Leader of the Opposition can rise in his place on a
point of order and correct....
MR. BENNETT: On the contrary, I demand withdrawal now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I do not believe the Hon.
Minister of Public Works is accusing the Hon. Member....
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has....
Interjections.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I demand a withdrawal.
MR. McCLELLAND: Hear, hear! Play fair.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will ask the Hon. Minister of
Public Works to withdraw any imputation that the Leader of the
Opposition was deliberately making a false statement.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I made no imputation. I
merely stated that he was making false statements. Here I have
a $7 million figure that formerly the cities of this province
were paying.
MR. BENNETT: I demand a withdrawal.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order we have
to establish a principle very clearly. The Hon. Minister may
say that the statements are false. However, he may not say that
the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has deliberately made false
statements to the House. They are two different things.
However, if the Hon. Minister of Public Works was imputing an
improper motive to the Leader of the Opposition, suggesting
that he was deliberately making a false statement, I would ask
him to withdraw the imputation.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I was merely correcting and
edifying the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask that if he was
making the imputation, he withdraw it.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: No, I wasn't making the imputation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Minister of Public
Works has indicated that he is not accusing the Hon. Leader of
the Opposition of deliberately making false statements.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, would you just...?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Leader of the
Opposition appreciates that you cannot ask a Member to withdraw
any statement saying that statements are incorrect or false,
but rather that he is deliberately misleading the House, or
making false statements in order to mislead the House. They are
two different things.
The Hon. Minister has said that he is not accusing the
Leader of the Opposition of deliberately misleading the
House.
AN HON. MEMBER: Different rules for different sides.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: No, Mr. Chairman. I was merely pointing
out that I was surprised that the Leader of the Opposition
hadn't studied the estimates to the extent to know that the
provincial government....
MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Point of order:
just in the interests of clarifying this, Mr. Chairman, I
consulted the dictionary that is at the foot of the chair up
there and I find that "false" means (1) not genuine, relating
to documents or teeth and (2) intentionally untrue when it
relates to testimony. I just mention that to you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Again I would just make the
distinction for the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano:
the Hon. Minister of Public Works has indicated that he has not
in any way accused the Leader of the Opposition of misleading
the House, but rather he has simply said that some of the
statements he made were false.
MR. GIBSON: But the point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that
the word "false" is defined as being "intentionally untrue."
That's part and parcel of the definition of the word.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Again I would ask the Hon.
Minister of Public Works to clarify the matter. Did you charge
the Leader of the Opposition with deliberately misleading the
House by making false statements?
HON. MR. HARTLEY: No, it is certainly not my intention to
accuse the Leader of the Opposition of deliberately misleading
the House. I think if we check the Blues, you'll see that I
stated that I was shocked with his lack of knowledge of the
budget, that he failed to study the budget and find that this
little government had taken a burden of some $7 million from
the backs of the cities, even the city in which he
[ Page 1722 ]
lives. That the Attorney-General's department had formerly
....
MR. GARDOM: Waffle, waffle, waffle.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: ...moneys that had been paid by the
cities previously. Now the Department of Public Works, on
behalf of the Attorney-General's department, is paying
$3,358,059 for court rentals that formerly would have been paid
by the City of Victoria, the City of Vancouver, the City of
Vernon, the City of Kelowna, the City of Prince George and so
on.
MR. FRASER: Balderdash!
HON. MR. HARTLEY: In Human Resources we are providing
facilities that some of our cities would have paid to the
extent of $1,902,000.
In public health we are paying for facilities
$1,179,602.
MR. BENNETT: What about the empties?
HON. MR. HARTLEY: And what I said, Mr. Chairman, was that I
was shocked that the leader of any party, particularly the
leader of the official Opposition, didn't know that. Here he
was saying that our increase in budget was because of waste
space. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Furthermore,
Mr. Chairman, when any responsible Member of this House implies
to the media, and fails to stand up and recognize his mistakes
....
I'd like to read a letter that the Leader of the Opposition
wrote to me, as Minister of Public Works, on December 13.
He outlines a programme of renovation and restoration for
his office space. Not only does he do that but he encloses
three sketches of what he would like to do. Then he has the
audacity to stand up and criticize this government for spending
money for refurbishing his suite. I think that that is a very
chintzy political attitude.
MR. BENNETT: We had just acquired a new Member. We were
trying to get an office for him.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, this was back in 1973, just
after we had acquired you. You didn't win a seat; we inherited
you. Your daddy passed you on to us. You are a leader by
inheritance.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister speak
to the vote, please?
HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'm speaking to this, Mr. Chairman. When this Member
would lead the Sun columnist, James Nesbitt, to believe that he didn't want
the refurbishing....
I would like to table this with the House, Mr. Chairman.
Interjections
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Members not interrupt the
person who has the floor, please? Wait your turn to speak.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: To put on a great act that he is the
saviour of the taxpayers' dollars.... We didn't object to him
asking for renovated space; that is fair enough. We were
pleased to give it. But when he would be so chintzy as to get
up and deny that he wanted it, and make a big play in the paper
that he didn't want it....
MR. CHABOT: How do you spell "chintzy"?
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Here's the letter; I'll read it to you.
"To the Hon. W.L. Hartley, Minister of Public Works.".
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Minister
proceeds, I would ask him to withdraw the suggestion that he is
using an offensive term against another Hon. Member by accusing
him of being "chintzy."
HON. MR. HARTLEY: What's "chintzy"? There's nothing
offensive in that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the criterion has to be
that if Members are offended by the use of a term against
another Hon. Member, it would have to be considered as
offensive.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: If it makes him feel better, Mr. Chairman,
I would be pleased to withdraw the word "chintzy." But I think
it was a very cheap politician that would do that.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think there is a distinction
between "cheap politics" and "cheap politician," and I
would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw any direct imputation
against another Member of the House.
MR. BENNETT: On a point of order. I don't object to the
phrase "cheap politician." I would like to respond by saying
that that Minister is a very expensive politician — to the
people of this province.
AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!
[ Page 1723 ]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Minister proceed? The matter
seems to be settled.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: The letter says: "Dear Mr. Minister:
"As discussed with my administrative assistant, I am
enclosing sketch proposals for the rearrangement of an office
layout in the Leader of the Opposition's suite. You will note
from the enclosed sketches that essentially both plans involve
relative changes to the divider walls."
These were the expensive folding walls that had been put
in.
Interjections.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: It continues:
"Plan No. I involves rearranging dividing walls in both the
secretarial area and in the area now occupied by the caucus
research assistant. Plan No. 2 involves rearranging the
dividing walls and the office now occupied by the caucus
research assistant.
"You will note that both plans involve the removal of the
folding partitions between my office and the caucus room, with
replacement with a proper dividing wall. I would appreciate it
if you would have your staff either discuss this proposal
directly with me or with my administrative assistant.
"Yours sincerely, Bill Bennett."
MR. MORRISON: Come on down and have a look.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: December 13, 1973. And then to imply that
we were wasting taxpayers' dollars carrying out something he
had requested....
MR. BENNETT: Tell us about the empty buildings.
Interjections.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: I have closely tabulated all questions
that were asked.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: The Leader of the Opposition may have had
other....
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Members please
maintain some level of decorum so that the Hon. Minister can
proceed?
Interjections.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: On March 24, the Leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Bennett) asked about the Oxford Building in Prince George.
Space in the Oxford Building was leased for the following
departments: the Department of Travel Industry, which moved in
on September 1, 1974; the Department of the Attorney-General,
which moved in on October 1, 1974; the Department of Recreation
and Conservation, now in occupancy, as is the Department of
Housing; the Minister of Northern Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler)
is moving in.
On April 15, the Leader of the Opposition asked about a
building located at 10575 and 10579 King George Highway,
Surrey. As I mentioned previously, one of the addresses given
by the Leader of the Opposition is a parking lot beside the
Kentucky Fried Chicken stand. I can also report that another
address given....
Interjection.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: My friend asks if I will confirm if we had
a lease. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell you this: I
asked our people to check our leases, and we had no leases at
either of those numbers. I asked one of our employees to go out
there and look to make doubly sure. He went and looked and he
said: "We have no number that corresponds to that address, and
we know of no time having leased property adjacent to the
Kentucky-fried." Now we went to all of that trouble to make
certain that the question he had asked was legitimate.
Now I know that he has fired one executive assistant, and if
he can't type up questions better than that, maybe he should
seriously look at his new executive assistant. Now I'll carry
on.
I can report that another address given by the Leader of the
Opposition is the location of a locksmith's shop. I can assure
the Leader of the Opposition that we have not leased this
locksmith shop.
HON. MR. BARRETT: The Tory leader needs that.
(Laughter.)
HON. MR. HARTLEY: No, I think our security owes an apology
to the Tory leader. I understand that last night he was
mistaken for the leader of the official opposition. (Laughter.)
But may I assume that the Leader of the Opposition is referring
to a space leased on the King George Highway in Surrey
[ Page 1724 ]
for a mental health centre. Our designers have worked with
the mental health staff in developing plans for this facility.
Public tenders have been called and a contract has been awarded
to Westward Construction.
The Leader of the Opposition also referred to his question
of March 21, 1975, regarding the Oxford Building in Prince
George. I have searched the Hansard for March 21, 1975,
and can find no indication of any question by the Leader of the
Opposition for the Minister of Public Works.
Interjections.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Oh, you're wrong again. You are all mixed
up. If it was the 24th, why didn't you say so? You said the
21st and that's what Hansard says. As a matter of fact,
Mr. Leader of the Opposition, not a single question was placed
on the order paper by you on March 21 to any cabinet
Minister.
On April 16 the Leader of the Opposition asked about a lease
for property at 10344-10356 137A Street in Surrey. This
building was leased for the Family and Children's Law
Commission. Later more suitable premises were leased and these
were assigned to the Department of Agriculture for the dairy
herd insemination staff and to the Attorney-General's
department for credit union inspections.
On Thursday, April 17, the Leader of the Opposition asked
the Minister of Public Works about office space in the McLaren
Building on Manor Street in Burnaby. Part of the space is being
prepared by the Department of Labour and the remainder is being
prepared for by the motor carriers' branch and the Motor
Carrier Commission. A labour dispute delayed the
renovation.
On Monday, April 21, the Leader of the Opposition asked the
Minister of Public Works about the lease of a two-storey
building on Norland Avenue in Burnaby. This space is for the
Department of Highways and is occupied.
MR. BENNETT: You'd better look at the pictures.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: On Tuesday, April 22, the Leader of the
Opposition asked the Minister of Public Works about a lease of
office space in the 900 block of Ellery Street in Esquimalt.
Space was leased at 929 Ellery Street in Esquimalt for the
Queen's Printer, the Department of Public Works and the
Department of Mines.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
Interjections.
MR. BENNETT: That's disgraceful; you're supposed to be a
watchdog.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Hon. Premier and the
Hon. Leader of the Opposition not to interrupt the Minister of
Public Works.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: The space for the Department of Mines is
now being renovated for the headquarters of the provincial
emergency programme of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.
Hall). They were evicted by the federal government from their
quarters on Dallas Road; that building is now being
demolished.
Now there's as full an answer as I can give on the various
properties. I would like to state this, Mr. Chairman: early in
the programme we recognized that we had problems. First we
recognized that we had space problems, then we recognized that
certain systems under which we were trying to operate were not
as efficient as we would like. So last September we instructed
our property people to adopt a turnkey system so that all
renovations would be completed before occupancy. These
recommendations have been implemented. We have also made
certain recommendations to Treasury Board. You will notice that
this year, if you study it, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, for
the first time we have a global budget. Instead of going for
each separate unit before Treasury Board, we are given a
budget, and believe me, we will be responsible.
MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Is that a
promise?
HON. MR. HARTLEY: In January, at the first of this year, we
changed our procedures to extend the authority of the rental
co-ordinators to extend to all aspects of the leases, including
all departmental moves.
We intend to further extend the authority of our six
superintendents. We intend to move the responsibility from our
bureaucracy in Victoria and from all departmental bureaucracies
and replace it with the six superintendents in the field so
that they can have a closer touch with every area in the
province. The Department of Public Works divides B.C. into six
zones. Each zone has a district superintendent who is
responsible to the director of maintenance and construction. We
feel that this will give a much tighter control over all
workings of this department.
We further intend to introduce legislation that we feel will
provide innovations in the approach to all aspects of the
construction and maintenance branches of this department. There
were problems when we took office. We set up new departments.
There were fantastic space shortages.
[ Page 1725 ]
AN HON. MEMBER: Waste!
HON. MR. HARTLEY: The public service had been crowded in
cheek-to-jowl.
AN HON. MEMBER: Waste! Waste!
HON. MR. HARTLEY: It is not waste. Mr. Chairman, to give the
public service, the working people of this government, proper
working conditions is not waste. I think we should let the
public service know what the Leader of the Opposition is
saying, that it is waste to give our employees and our
colleagues adequate working services. That's another remark
just somewhat like what he said before. He gets up and says he
doesn't want improved facilities for his colleagues, his
elected Members and his staff. Then we show a letter he wrote a
few months previously and requested it. It's complete
inconsistency.
MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman,
perhaps the Leader of the Opposition needs to follow up on a
remark or two that were made about him.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If it's agreeable to the Hon....
MR. McGEER: If he could just follow through, then we would
like to....
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition on a couple
of follow-up questions.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say that it's
even worse than we suspected. The Minister not only is wrong
and incompetent, but he doesn't even know enough to blush when
he makes those lame excuses to this Legislature.
HON. MR. COCKE: What are you blushing about?
MR. BENNETT: I just heard the Minister say that the Allstate
building at 3876 Norland is now occupied. This afternoon that
building was empty. That space was empty this afternoon. That
space was empty.
Secondly, it's shocking to me, as it must be to all people
in this House and the people of British Columbia, that the
Minister can treat this so lightly and try and hide behind...
Interjections.
MR. BENNETT: ...a missing digit in Hansard and try and hide behind his
own
interpretation about the space allocation for the opposition offices in
this building.
Interjection.
MR. BENNETT: I'll deal with that, and I'll deal with it very
clearly.
Late last fall a very significant event took place. The
Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) crossed the
floor in this Legislature. There wasn't adequate space in the
opposition offices to give him his own office. As we had been
in discussion with some members of the Department of Public
Works, we wrote a letter asking for a change in the office
space to house this Member. We suggested cutting down on the
size of the office of the Leader of the Opposition to make this
space available. In discussion with the architects from that
department, they suggested that, yes, they were already
concerned about the space allocated to the opposition in these
buildings. Perhaps it's because they had a premonition that now
that they had fixed up the offices for themselves as government
they had better prepare a place for themselves as opposition.
They know what the public thinks of them.
Those architects further said to me in discussion that they
were going to prepare to make the whole space flexible, because
right now it houses three parties. Who knows how the
representation may be divided in the future? At no time did I
question the cutting down of the size of my office, because it
was too big. We're glad to welcome new Members such as the
Member for Saanich; and I'll make my office smaller next time
if there are any defections from the government benches.
What we turned down was not the redistribution of space in
the opposition offices to make space for more Members. We
turned down an offer of fancy furniture and desks and couches
and things such as adorn the cabinet Ministers' offices. We
said that the furniture we have is adequate. The job to be done
will be done in here and out there with the people of B.C. We
don't have to stay in our offices and not be aware of empty
office space developing around this province.
I'd ask this Minister if he'd like to clarify his remarks
about the space in Burnaby that he said tonight was full,
because this place was personally inspected by a member of my
staff today. That space is empty as of this afternoon — 3876
Norland.
Further, I find it shocking that after a documentation of
space has been made and an explanation of the single-digit
figures on the King George Highway, an explanation that was not
only made to the press but would have been made to the Minister
if he hadn't stayed absent from the House the last two days,
perhaps to duck further questions on housing, on empty office
space.... The explanation would have been offered to him in
the House. But it's well evidenced that he or his
[ Page 1726 ]
department should know that when space is identified, both
as to the amount of space and the price of the space, when it's
right adjacent, that's the space that was being discussed.
[Mr. Liden in the chair.]
It's shocking that he would hide behind or attempt to hide behind and would
have that excuse condoned not only by the cabinet but by the Minister of Finance
(Hon. Mr. Barrett), who is supposed to be the watchdog on the finances of all
departments, and that he would attempt to deal with Hansard and a mistake in
a date in Hansard . I must say this. There has been a lot of talk about doctored
Hansard s or types of Hansard . I will never make changes in Hansard . If we're
going to have a Hansard , let it be as it's recorded and not as now it's corrected
by Members after the Hansard staff has dealt with it. I refuse to make corrections.
The Minister must have known that March 24 was the date
because he was the Minister that said:
Mr. Speaker, in many cases, even in new buildings, if we lease
space we have to design it to suit the particular needs. I just cannot accept
what has been said. But I would be pleased to take this as notice and give a
full report at a future sitting.
Mr. Chairman, he knew very well what space we were talking
about and what date we were referring to.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: I presume, Mr. Chairman, that the Leader
of the Opposition was referring to the question of Monday,
April 21. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister of
Public Works about the lease of a two-storey office building at
3876 Norland Avenue in Burnaby. Is that correct?
Interjection.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: My information — and I just had word sent
in to me — was that while the people were expected to occupy
....
Interjections.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: The phones have not been installed. As
soon as the phones are installed, it will be occupied.
Interjections.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: My friend the Leader of the Opposition
stood up here in the House and, you know, I thought he did know
a few things. But he doesn't even know when that Conservative
Member walked across the floor. The letter that you wrote to me
was in December of 1973 — December 13, 1973.
Now you stand up and tell us when the Member of the
Conservatives walked over. Was that prior to 1973? No.
Interjection.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: When did you need additional space?
Interjections.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Okay, why is that letter dated December
13, 1973? I'll send the press up a copy so they can see. That
letter was written to me prior to Christmas in 1973.
Interjection.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: No, you can't fire Dan. He's gone.
Interjections.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, we have problems. Many of
these problems we inherited. This government is building
buildings and buying property. The previous administration kept
selling property and buildings to pay the mortgage on the
home.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Minister of Public Works has the
floor.
Interjections.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, why did the previous
administration sell that historical courthouse right in
downtown Victoria here that should have been preserved as a
fine, historic architectural structure? No, they sold it. They
sold it to help make a payment on the mortgage, the mortgage of
this province.
Why did they sell the Bay Street Hydro property? They sold
it for a song, and the developers came back and tried to sell
it to us for over $1 million more than his daddy sold that
property for. They jacked it up $1 million and tried to peddle
it to us. We checked at the land registry office and we said:
"No, you're asking $1 million more than what you paid the Hydro
for it." Now there was a perfectly good piece of property that
could have been converted to office space. But because of the
short-sighted policy of that government, they sold it. They
sold the courthouse.
What did they do up in my constituency? There the B.C. Hydro
had a beautiful experimental farm that the old B.C. Electric
had developed so that they
[ Page 1727 ]
could help the farmers use Fraser River water for
irrigation so that they could experiment in new crops and help
agriculture to survive. The B.C. Electric was doing more to help the
farmers than that government did. The Leader of the Opposition's daddy
sold that B.C. Hydro farm to get some cash so he could brag about a
surplus. These are the things that we inherited.
AN HON. MEMBER: What about the Belmont Building?
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, I would like to tell you about the Belmont Building too.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, boy! That's a beaut!
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Just a short piece up Government Street is
the Belmont Building. My friend's daddy was offered the Belmont
Building, a federal government building, for $500,000. So what
did they do? When I took over this office, I found we were
locked into a lease with a developer whereby the previous
administration had agreed to pay $250,000 a year on a five-year
lease.
MR. BENNETT: You can look after the waste in your department
right now.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: We are going to have to pay $250,000 in
rent for a property that the previous administration could have
bought for $500,000. That was the kind of business that you and
your daddy were heading up.
MR. BENNETT: You're incredible.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: These are the things that we inherited.
The previous administration, rather than building new office
space and buying new properties, were selling the people down
the river. They were selling properties that the people owned
rather than converting them, renovating them and providing
space.
MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it's 10:10 p.m. and the Minister
this evening has taken, so far, about one hour and 10
minutes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I remind the Member that I know the rules of
the House. You have the floor to deal with estimate 231.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I recognize the First Member for
Vancouver–Point Grey on vote 231.
MR. McGEER: I'm going to stay on vote 231 but, Mr. Chairman I
hope we can continue with this vote beyond the two and a half hours
originally scheduled by the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.
Gabelmann). The Premier told us that he was quite willing to have the
votes of any Minister presented to the House if the opposition
requested. I would think, right at this moment among the opposition, we
could have a unanimous request that tomorrow morning....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, you are not dealing with vote 231. I remind the Member, if you want to deal with vote 231, you do
so. Otherwise, you take your seat.
MR. McGEER: Oh, Mr. Chairman, don't you run interference for
that Minister. We have a commitment from the Premier and we
don't want you sitting in that chair trying to railroad this
House. That Minister has been filibustering his estimates...
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!
MR. MeGEER: ...for an hour and 10 minutes. He has refused
to answer questions. You sit in that chair and listen to vote
AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!
MR. McGEER: If the Premier put commitments on this House,
you honour them just like anybody else.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!
MR. McGEER: We want to hear from that Premier and from you
that tomorrow morning, because of a unanimous request of the
opposition Members, we will continue to deal with vote 231.
AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order!
MR. McGEER: I have the floor now and I am dealing with vote
231, and I don't want to have interference from the Chair!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! What I am telling you is that you
should be dealing with vote 231, not the rules of the
House.
MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr.; Chairman, I am on vote 231. You know
it, and don't you interfere with free speech in this House. It
is not your job as Chairman to interfere with free speech!
[ Page 1728 ]
HON. MR. BARRETT: Point of order.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!
MR. McGEER: Now, Mr. Chairman, look at this thing
impartially.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will the Member for Vancouver-Point
Grey take his seat? There is a point of order.
AN HON. MEMBER: Send him back where he came from.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you take your seat?
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. If the
Member is speaking for the total opposition and puts the
request in writing, that Minister will be called tomorrow.
AN HON. MEMBER: That's not a point of order!
HON. MR. BARRETT: You put it in writing.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That's not a point of order.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay, Mr. Chairman....
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are dealing with vote 231.
MR. McGEER: I serve notice to the House...
MR. CHAIRMAN: And you're on vote 231.
MR. McGEER: ...that I request....
MR. CHAIRMAN: You're not dealing with the vote.
Interjection.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You should be dealing with vote 231, not the
rules.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I am on vote 231.
HON. MR. BARRETT: You put it in writing.
MR. McGEER: Keep that in mind. That'll be in writing. We
want that Minister back here tomorrow morning.
HON. MR. BARRETT: You put it in writing, signed by the three parties,
and he will be on tomorrow!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!
HON. MR. BARRETT: He'll be on tomorrow!
MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 231, I recognize the First Member for
Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer).
HON. MR. BARRETT: You put it in writing....
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Put that Chairman away again. It's the
first step to a better House. Send him to Europe. He's better
off there.
HON. MR. BARRETT: You put it in writing, and he will be on
tomorrow.
MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has taken up a great
deal of time this evening, but not in answering questions of
the opposition, not in being accountable for the public purse.
He has talked about greenbelts, he has talked about the Health
department, he has talked about rentals of the
Attorney-General's department; he has done everything but deal
with the serious charges laid by the Leader of the
Opposition.
The Minister of Public Works presented a report to the House
and I commend him for this. The Members have had an opportunity
to read this report, which was distributed over the dinner
hour. It is signed by William L. Hartley, Minister of Public
Works...
MR. FRASER: It's 13 months late.
MR. McGEER: ..Parliament Buildings, December 30,
MR. FRASER: Where was it?
AN HON. MEMBER: Where have you been hiding it?
AN HON. MEMBER: Where was it?
AN HON. MEMBER: It was one of those lost years he didn't
know he had.
MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, this is the document that the
public has been given to discuss this evening, signed not by
the Queen's Printer or by anybody in the civil service but
signed by the Minister on December 30, 1973 — 15 months.
MR. FRASER: Big deal! Open government!
MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, there's a marvelous
[ Page 1729 ]
picture of the wild-eyed Minister here. The thing that I
find ironic about this picture — it's a handsome portrait — is
the hounds tooth jacket. If any Minister of the Crown was less
like a tiger with the public purse, it's that Minister. His
accountability for his department and his defence of charges,
whether in question period or whether in his opening statement
this evening or whether in answer to questions raised by the
Leader of the Opposition, is a little like what you might
expect from Zero in the Beetle Bailey comic strip.
The Leader of the Opposition, I thought, documented his case
reasonably well when he passed around pictures of the empty
office space to the Minister and other Members. I think if
you've actually got that kind of evidence, it doesn't become a
Minister to defend himself by saying that the dates of the
question were wrong, that the address that was given was wrong,
or something that's completely away from the point at issue.
The point of issue is that somebody in government, namely the
Minister, has been completely careless and irresponsible with
the funds that have been given to him in trust under the
estimates that we are voting tonight, and which a year ago we
voted to that Minister.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister has not given any satisfactory
answers at all as to how he or any Member of his staff could
have gone around British Columbia, waving a fistful of
taxpayers' dollars, leasing space here and leasing space
there without it ever being needed. It even motivated the
leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) to enter into
that Fearless Fosdick escapade of doing his own private
investigation. But even he was able to come across another
empty building rented by the government.
I want to raise with the Minister a completely separate
issue. He stood up this evening defending the position of his
department, telling us how much his department was saving the
cities and municipalities in British Columbia by their paying
the rental on buildings that would have to otherwise be leased
by these cities and municipalities.
Just a few days ago cities and municipalities of this
province were presented with a bill that absolutely shocked
them. This was a bill of 1.17 mills on their assessment to
cover the cost of assessors' offices. In the City of Vancouver
this is going to cost that city an increase in their budget of
from $900,000 to $2 million. No indication given by the
government as to why something which cost less than half the
year before should have doubled in cost, even after the Premier
had promised the cities and municipalities that that increase
in cost would be borne by the provincial government.
In the municipality of Delta what is going to happen is that office space taken
by the provincial government to house assessment is going to be left vacant.
Perhaps some of the buildings that the Minister and his department are renting
will be to take over for officials who will leave city and municipal offices.
I'd like to ask the Minister if the government has rented, leased or built any
space for assessment authority that will be taken over by officials leaving
city and municipal offices that are currently being rented by the provincial
government.
I'd further like to ask whether, when these officials leave.... The indications I have from the municipal office in Delta,
as one example, are that they are leaving and that they're
leaving behind expensive office equipment which has been
purchased by the cities and municipalities to service the
assessment officials. In other words, part of this 1.17 mill
levy that is going on property taxes all around the province
will be to take over new office space for assessment officials
who will then leave vacant office space in city and municipal
halls, and unused office equipment. Again, it's a senseless
waste of taxpayers' money.
The Premier and Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) just
passed the bill on to the cities and municipalities after
having given them a solemn pledge that the provincial
government was taking over the full costs of administering this
programme.
That's not what's happening at all. The provincial
government is applying a new tax, placed on property owners,
for this service. While they're doing that, they're vacating
office space in city halls and municipal halls which will now
remain vacant and unused; furthermore, they're wasting valuable
office equipment. I'm not sure what is worse: for the
government to take on new office buildings on a lease basis and
leave them empty, or to take on new office buildings and fill
them up with redundant people, because, while the latter course
of action would make it appear that at least there was some
usefulness, when it comes to departments like Human Resources —
and the Minister did say some of the buildings he was renting
were for that department — it's really to saddle the public
with even higher costs. What we really have in the Department
of Public Works is waste layered upon waste.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) was quite correct
in saying the things that he's brought to light are only the
tip of the iceberg. Underneath it — office buildings that we
haven't yet discovered that are vacant. Underneath it — useful
facilities, complete with equipment, in city and municipal
halls, that will soon become vacant.
The purchase of new buildings and equipment, long-term
leases for an overloaded civil service for jobs that aren't
necessary — all this in a continuing overlay of government
costs without additional services being offered to the people
of British Columbia. It's a runaway situation brought on by a
Minister and a government that have no concept of authority, no
sense of responsibility, and no respect
[ Page 1730 ]
for the taxpayer's dollar. The Minister is the one who must
answer for the things that his department is doing, tonight and
tomorrow and perhaps long after that.
Mr. Chairman, it's fair to ask: where has Treasury Board
been? What kind of a Treasury Board do we have operating in
this province? We have a Treasury Board....
MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): A good one.
MR. McGEER: A good one?
MR. KELLY: You bet.
MR. McGEER: A good one, says the Member from the north. Is
it a good Treasury Board that halfway through a fiscal year
discovered that one Minister has made a $103 million clerical
error? Have we ever had a Treasury Board in this province, or
anywhere in Canada, that made that kind of an error? A Treasury
Board is supposed to keep careful watch on Ministers who want a
key to the vault and a shovel, like the Minister of Human
Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) or a Minister like the Minister of
Public Works, who couldn't compete with Zero in the Beetle
Bailey comic strip. (Laughter.) It's a second line of
defence.
But, Mr. Chairman, we have no second line of defence in this
province. We do not have a Treasury Board with any greater
sense of responsibility than some of the weakest Ministers in
the cabinet. That places the additional burden on an opposition
that already feels overworked in considering about a billion
dollars in additional expenditure and is limited only to 135
hours for consideration of that expenditure. When you add to
that the routine filibustering of estimates, which seems to be
part of the government's strategy, you can see that we're down
to just a very few minutes to talk about huge sums of money
which are being squandered by Ministers and by departments.
We would like to have from the Minister this evening, first
of all, an explanation of what's going on with regard to the
assessment authority, the office space being requested by these
officials of government and what unused space is going to be
left open by provincial government moves.
The next thing is that we want to have a point-by-point
explanation by the Minister of Public Works of those buildings
for which we saw pictures this evening — not that the address
might be wrong or the date that the question was asked might be
in error, but what the devil we are doing with these empty
office buildings?
MR. McCLELLAND: Nothing.
[Mr. Dent in the chair.]
MR. McGEER: Almost every other day we get some kind of
announcement by the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson),
Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.
Williams), or the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) of some real
estate purchase. It's like the government had a satchel full of
money that it could buy farms ...
MR. MORRISON: Monopoly.
MR. McGEER: ...cruise ships, housing developments,
properties.
AN HON. MEMBER: Chicken factories.
MR. McGEER: Here's another one: a wonderful sketch of the
$17.5 million government building. Can anybody be left with a
different impression than a cabinet full of individuals running
around with a satchel full of money, with $1,000 bills spilling
out all over the street, offering to buy this, that and the
other thing, giving no thought at all as to whether or not it
was needed or whether, after that satchel full of money was
empty, there would be another one?
MR. FRASER: Shame on you!
MR. McGEER: Why are we leasing office buildings when we are
buying cruise ships, when we are buying ranches that raise race
horses, when we are buying islands...?
MR. FRASER: Playing on the stock market.
MR. McGEER: Playing the stock market is quite right. And
losing on the stock market. It's not like the B.C. Tel shares
were going up; they're going down. Yes, the Minister of
Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) got up in
black rages in this House about one jet aircraft that was
leased. I think we've got as many jet aircraft now as we have
ferries.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member try to
speak to the vote, please?
MR. McGEER: I don't want to speak about the profligacy of
the Minister of Transport and
[ Page 1731 ]
Communications or any of the other Ministers. I think it's
sufficient for the moment to concentrate on the bowling lanes,
the empty office space and all the other purchases and leases
by the Minister of Public Works. For heaven's sake, Mr.
Minister....
HON. MR. HARTLEY: What's your question?
MR. McGEER: My question, Mr. Minister, is what are we doing
on the assessment situation and what are you doing about these
individual office buildings that you've leased and left empty?
It's not enough to say that he got the address wrong or he got
the date wrong or some other trivial detail. Stand up and tell
us what the devil your department was doing in the first place
and what they are going to do now to correct the situation.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I was really surprised by
the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson), really
surprised. Here he was....
MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You're in for a lot of
surprises.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: You sure won't provide them, though. The
representative of the Liberal Party gets up and criticizes the
acts of the assessment commission, and yet he is a Member in
the House along with his party and along with all opposition
parties who voted in support of the assessment authority
legislation. Under that legislation, authority was set up that,
through the Department of Public Works acting as an agent, to
rent space so they could carry out their assessment work. All
we are doing is acting as an agent. The authority, in the
legislation, was empowered to do this and to provide the cash.
The cash isn't in this budget. You should have been called to
order. Prior to this authority being set up — and this is
correct....
Mr. Leader of the Liberal Party, if you weren't so lame
you'd get up and speak on it rather than leaving it to one of
your lieutenants.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm not the only guy around.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Well, why did you let the ex-leader get
up? If you are such a smarty-pants, why don't you do it? Why
don't you do it?
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Minister address the Chair,
please?
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, this assessment authority that the representative
of the Liberal Party was speaking about was set up by
an Act of this Legislature.
The paper, the stationery that he is using now, is paid as capital costs out
of that legislation. It is paid by the assessment commission and not by this
vote.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'll bet you the Premier would like to
take your job over and do it himself.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: So as far as the details of that are
concerned, it is the responsibility of the commission.
MR. FRASER: Ma Murray won't be very proud of you
tonight.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: There were two or three matters that I
should have mentioned earlier on with regard to the
Okanagan.
In Kelowna we have met with Mayor Tredgold to work out a
joint city and provincial facility that will serve both
parties, and I hope that before too long we can announce a
location that will be mutually satisfactory.
In Vernon the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and I
have worked out, in consultation with representatives of the
Okanagan College.... We have agreed to allow them to use 25
acres of the old Harvey farm for the use of Okanagan
College.
On the matter of facilities for the Social Credit Party, I
have had correspondence sent in to me where the staff of the
Social Credit had contacted our architect, Mr. Hodgson, and
they had requested four items: a planter....
Interjection.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Oh, it was a good place for it. There is
no greater need anywhere than in your office, my friend.
They had requested a planter, a coat-tree, five chairs and
one table. But after that request, Mr. Chairman, the leader of
the Social Credit Party called a press conference in the hall
and tried to call this extravagant waste, after he had had the
audacity to request it. Now we feel that he is entitled to
those facilities. But to call a press conference and try and
make political mileage out of a few chairs, a coat-tree and a
planter — that shows how destitute they are of good, positive,
political input.
MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'm happy to take my place in
the late show. I've always felt it was a basic concept of any
government that no matter what the ideology or policies might
be, how good or bad the government, the one area in which you
never make mistakes if you can help it, and if you make
[ Page 1732 ]
them you try and deal with them, is in spending the
taxpayers' dollars in any way that looks the least bit
irresponsible. That really has to be, as I see it, the No. I
rule of any government.
There is a story the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound
(Mr. L.A. Williams) told me tonight about Diefenbaker. At one
time one of the Members who had been made the financial critic
of the Conservative Party had made a long speech, talking about
millions and billions of dollars. Diefenbaker made the point
very clear. He said what you should really say is that the
Minister of Finance has an ashtray on his desk that cost $125,
and he doesn't even smoke. That principle, I think, in the
identifying way in which the man in the street looks at the way
government is spending money surely has to be the biggest and
the most potent reason that this government will be
defeated.
You have made lots of mistakes, and you may well be defeated
anyway. But if there is one overriding factor — and I've said
it a hundred times in this House — it's based on the image that
you are creating a vast army of civil servants and that you are
wasting the taxpayers' money. If you did some of the best
things that any government ever did, and you still continue to
make these two mistakes, you will be defeated. When the citizen
who is struggling to make a living, trying to keep up with the
cost of living, reads of this kind of situation, the political
ideology just disappears into the mists, because it is the
dollar that the taxpayer is paying to this government that he
sees being wasted.
My assistant just sent me in a note: "What are the odds of
you getting on the floor tonight?" (Laughter.) Well, I've got
the floor. What the odds are on making any real progress I
don't know.
Seriously, I'll try to be constructive. It would seem to me
that some of the mistakes the Minister has made that have been
demonstrated tonight.... I think it's disappointing that he
hasn't been more specific in his answers.
Very quickly, I just want to refer to the particular
building in my riding that has been mentioned. I was just a
little disappointed by the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson)
who said that even the Conservative leader took some initiative
in his own riding — as though I am some kind of strange or
weird individual who isn't concerned about spending government
money in my riding, as if only the Leader of the Opposition had
any grey cells enough to make him think that maybe he should do
some of his own homework. That's all I was trying to do in the
building on Cadboro Bay Road.
I just want, very quickly, to point out that that building was bought for $435,000
on March 4. Subsequently, the Minister issued a press release dated February
28, saying that there would be $67,370 worth of additional work. When you add
all that up and divide by 11,400, which is the square footage, you come up with
a figure of $44 a square foot. I just made some other inquiries, and another
contractor tells me today that he just finished a four-storey, air-conditioned
office building for $31 a square foot. I agree there are differences; there
are buildings and buildings. I would just like the Minister to tell us whether
he considers the particular building that I'm referring to at 2588 Cadboro Bay
Road good use of money that finished up at $44 a square foot, On that issue,
despite all the reasonable good humour that's been attached to my little experience
last night, no one was to blame, really, but myself. I don't expect any apologies
from government. I would be very upset if the individual who got involved in
this incident in any way was considered to have been at fault. This is not the
case and I hope the issue can be left at that point.
What I would like to ask the Minister is: does the
government have some overall policy? It would seem to me that a
Public Works department should either decide to rent property
or build space. The incredible thing that we see is that you're
doing both and you're doing it on a gargantuan scale.
Very quickly, I have to refer to our own capital region
where the fourth building has just been announced today with a
picture in the paper, which will ultimately provide one million — am I right — one million square feet of the four buildings
that have been announced, according to the report tonight. This
is the fourth of a series of pretty large buildings in the
greater Victoria area which we're building. This one will be
$17.5 million. I don't have the projected figures for the other
three buildings.
At the same time, you look at the budget, and rentals are
going up from $8 million to $15 million. Maybe there is an
explanation, I don't know. It's very puzzling to consider that
we seem to be building a large amount of square footage, and
presumably the amount of renting is being doubled in the coming
year. When you put these two together, the ordinary citizen,
looking at the buildings that are already empty, has to wonder
if the Minister has any overall plan that he started with, that
he has X number of employees to house and Y number of square
feet. The public is left with the impression that it's a
completely haphazard, hit-or-miss situation with a building
here and a building there, some of them leased, some of them to
be built and owned by the government, but no overall
outline.
If there is an overall outline or policy, maybe the Minister
could tell us what it is. Is it a 50-50 situation where the
Public Works has decided to rent half the space they need and
to build the other half? If so, within what period of time?
Could you tell us, with all these large buildings to be built
in the capital city of Victoria, which departments are going
where, or do you have a game plan? Are you just building
the
[ Page
1733 ]
space in a sort of approximate fashion where you think
you'll need certain buildings and certain space without
defining which departments are to be housed there and what
numbers of people are involved?
This building that's depicted on the front of the Victoria
Times tonight certainly looks very attractive. But, as I say,
the price already at present cost — or does this include
escalation costs — is at $17.5. When is it to be built? I'll
start here: "It is estimated to begin construction in the
middle of May and completed in 30 months." Is that $17.5
million the price when it's completed or is there the kind of
escalation of costs we are seeing in the construction industry
30 months from now?
If the figure of a million square feet is wrong, maybe the
Minister could tell us what is the accurate number that will be
encompassed in these four buildings. That's just Victoria.
Maybe the Minister could tell us about these other
buildings.
What's his latest plan for the very large building that was
to have been built in Vancouver and which I believe is being
scaled down? But the capital spending projected in the budget
is $40 million for this year. Rentals are to be doubled from $8
million to $15 million.
The Minister doesn't seem to realize what the man in the
street wonders about when he sees these huge sums of money in
one year for both renting and capital construction. I think
that the points made by the Leader of the Opposition are
absolutely valid and should be explained even over and beyond
the fact that we have the vast expenditure of sums of money and
no clear outline of what seems to be an overall plan — an
integrated and co-ordinated plan, a three-year plan, a
five-year plan or whatever.
There are one or two specific issues I'd like to touch upon
quickly. I wonder if the Minister, either today or tomorrow,
could give us some idea of the progress within the parliament
building itself. How much money has been spent? To what degree
are costs escalating beyond the costs that were projected? When
is the project scheduled to be complete? What are the specific
plans for the precincts? We've heard previously about the
increasing traffic problems around the parliament buildings,
the parking problem. Frankly, I think that's a far more urgent
issue perhaps than the attention that it is being given simply
because of the distracting nature of these other issues that
we've tackled the Minister about tonight. The last point I had
in mind.... There are two or three smaller points that can
wait till another time.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Thank you, Mr. Member for Oak Bay. I
believe that this has been about the most sensible approach and
certainly the most sensible questions from the opposition
tonight.
Interjection.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: That's right. I agree.
The first question was our policy with regard to an overall
plan. Yes, we do; we have a plan for the precinct area. Only
yesterday we sat down with the city planners, our planners,
architects and some of the elected representatives, including
the mayor. In this precinct plan we're trying to work out
traffic patterns. On certain buildings the city — when we first
started talking about building new buildings, and this includes
the building that's in the paper tonight — would ask that
instead of making a great high-rise, solid office structure we
keep it low density, down to five, not more than six, storeys
in that area and that we use the bottom floor for commercial
purposes so that business firms that would like to establish in
that area could. This way you have a mix of the public and the
private economy.
This building brings to a half-million the square feet of
office space; our projection is one million. The buildings that
are mentioned in that
article will bring the office space that
is now under construction up to a half-a-million square feet.
We have other buildings we hope to be announcing in due
course.
You asked about Block 61. I had dealt with that earlier.
Block 61, 71, the downtown Vancouver courthouse and
administrative centre complex, is moving on schedule. In
Vancouver, as in Victoria, we have sat down with the mayor and
council and discussed what they wished and presented our plans
for low density green space with trees and shrubs right in the
heart of Vancouver.
Interjection.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Basically we feel that governments should
own their buildings. We've had to rent space so that we could
refurbish this building, particularly in Victoria, to make
space for our new departments — Consumer Affairs, Transport and
Communications, Housing, and so on — and extra staff that
departments like Human Resources needs to implement medicare
and so on. This took many extra people, so we needed more
space.
I had mentioned — possibly the Member was out — that on the
budget in our rentals some $7 million had been carried by the
city prior to this year. That's the chief reason that our
rental budget has escalated so much over last year.
Does that cover all your questions?
Interjections.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Oh, yes. Your figure was a little out. I
think you said that we paid $430,000 or $440,000; we paid
$410,000, I believe. We feel that about $40 per square foot was
a pretty good price
[ Page 1734 ]
for building construction at that time.
If you'd like to give me the address of your friend, I'd be
pleased to invite him to compete on future tenders. All of
these jobs are either under construction management, or we put
the entire building or sections of the building out to tender.
We were concerned: after being in office one year we found that
of about 60 per cent of the tenders we had let, there had been
two or less tenders submitted. So we met with the B.C.
contractors and discussed this problem. They made certain
suggestions whereby they thought that we could get better
participation in our tenders; they suggested certain times of
the year that we should be letting tenders. We have acted on
their suggestions and we find that more interest is being
shown.
MR. WALLACE: Who was on the panel that awarded the bids for
this building? You say there's a panel which picks and chooses
the lowest bidder.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: No, this is construction management.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister repeat
a question when it's asked in that manner?
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Minister repeat the question
for the benefit of Hansard when it is asked in that
manner?
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Would you repeat your question?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps if the Hon. Minister
takes his seat, the Hon. Member for Oak Bay could properly put
the question.
MR. WALLACE: I'll ask it very quickly, Mr. Chairman. The
report on the building that's mentioned in the papers tonight
said that the lowest bid wasn't necessarily accepted and that
there was a panel of people who looked at the bids. I just
wanted to know who's on the panel that would make this kind of
decision. I would have expected it to be made at the highest
level in the Minister's office.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes. Well, we have a competent staff of architects
and planners, and this building is a construction-management project. We called
for various interested parties to submit their proposals for the management
of this project, and our staff made the decision as to which, in their professional
opinion, would be the best firm to manage this project for us. Under construction
management they will roust about and try and see that we have many tenders for
the electrical, the plumbing, the air-conditioning, for the excavation and so
on. This is one of the services. We are trying this to try and get greater interest
in our work, and, we hope, lower the cost of building buildings, lower the cost
per square foot of the construction of buildings.
MR. CHABOT: Just a few questions to the Minister.
I'd like to ask the Minister a question regarding the
government building in Kimberley, which was started in 1972:
where it presently stands in its phase of construction; whether
the government intends completing the building or whether the
government is playing games with this building in the community
of Kimberley.
I notice in your report that there's a statement which says:
"The year has been an extremely busy one for the whole staff,
yet with all the pressures of the moment, time was taken to
reflect on the direction of the department, to reshape our
goals as a service agency of the government, to reassess our
responsibilities to the public."
Well, that was said in 1973. I haven't seen any new
directions as far as reassessing your responsibilities to the
public because we have witnessed a tremendous amount of waste
and arrogance in 1974 in your department, and a continuation of
that policy of waste and arrogance in 1975. I wish I could put
a little bit of faith in the statement in your annual report of
1973, but from the evidence we have, there's no faith that can
be put in that statement.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to raise one issue here
regarding a building in Revelstoke — renovation of a provincial
government building in Revelstoke. Tenders were called;
contract was not awarded; there were two bids. I understand
renovations are underway. They've been underway for some
considerable time. The bids were $593,000 and $791,000, to
renovate the provincial government building in that
community.
HON. MR. LEA: What would you do without that book?
MR. CHABOT: I was wondering if the Minister could tell me
how much the renovations of that public building have cost to
date and how long renovation has been underway. I understand
it's some considerable time. I'd like to know, as well, how
much the government has spent leasing or renting space while
the government building was vacated — how much they spent in
leasing of space in the community of Revelstoke.
Regarding the St. Eugene Mission School near
[ Page 1735 ]
Cranbrook, two contracts were awarded for alterations. One
in the amount of $158,000 was awarded to Kirkwood Construction
Ltd.; the renovation to the water supply of the St. Eugene
School was awarded to Kirkwood Construction, apparently the
only bidder, on a contract of $24,858. We have invested now, in
1973, in the St. Eugene school, $183,000. How much was expended
in 1974? When does the government propose to utilize this space
for which the taxpayers have paid over $183,000 in 1973 and
possibly considerably more in 1974? Is there any intention on
the part of the government to utilize this space and, if so,
for what purpose?
I understand the idea of its being used has been rejected by
the Department of Human Resources. I am wondering whether this
is additional money that has been wasted in your
department.
This afternoon the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mr.
Hall) talked about the tourist information booth. I think it is
appropriate that I raise the issue here. I realize there is a
need for a tourist information booth in Golden. I am not going
to deny there is a need. But the kind of extravagance and the
lavishness that has been superimposed on that community is just
unreal. I just can't understand how the government can possibly
award a contract for a building that costs in the vicinity of
$80 per square foot.
I know of a building that was built in that general region
that is as well built. I am sure it is as well designed. It was
designed by an architect from Calgary, a post-and-beam,
air-conditioned, rock-faced building, and it was constructed
for $25 a square foot. And I thought that was extravagant!
MR. KELLY: When was this?
MR. CHABOT: One year before this building that is costing in
the neighbourhood of $80 per square foot in Golden. And it is
as nice a building any day as that one in Golden. I am
wondering why it would cost so much money. Why do you need
3,000 square feet? Are you going to have banquets there? Are
you going to turn it into a steak house or something? You don't
need 3,000 square feet to distribute tourist pamphlets.
Even the newspapers in Golden frown on this kind of
expenditure. They call it a $224,000 boo-boo.
MR. MORRISON: Bill's boo-boo.
AN HON. MEMBER: He put his boo-boo there with the taxes.
MR. CHABOT: It is extremely extravagant. That was the
contract price. I wonder what the ultimate price is. What is
the landscaping cost? It was built on Crown land. There is no cost involved in land, thank God,
because they probably would have paid about 10 times the going
price. They don't realize the going price in many communities.
They always pay way too much, like they did for the Molson hop
farm.
We have 3,000 square feet of tourist information booth
constructed by the Department of Public Works in the wrong
place. It is on a hill in a congested area just east of Golden.
It should have been built on the flat adjacent to the weigh
scales in Golden. That is the criticism that has been leveled
against the tourist information booth. The issue of lavishness
might never have arisen had it been placed in the right
place.
I have attempted to secure information from that Minister on
numerous occasions. I'm not going to go to his office because I
might get the same kind of treatment that he gets in the
Stampede Cafe in Lytton. When the owner told him not to come
back, the Minister goes back three weeks later, just about
three weeks ago. He was bodily removed in his own
constituency.
AN HON. MEMBER: Well!
MR. CHABOT: I wouldn't want that kind of treatment to be
leveled at me.
MR. BENNETT: And that's just a forerunner of what is going
to happen.
MR. CHABOT: No, Mr. Franks wasn't very happy about the
Minister coming to his cafe again after he had told him he
didn't want to see him.
I didn't want to go through that procedure of maybe the
Minister throwing me out of his office after my having written
him three letters which he has never even so much as
acknowledged.
AN HON. MEMBER: That's fantastic.
MR. CHABOT: He never so much as acknowledged my letters. I
wrote to him on June 19, I wrote to him on August 3 and
October 22, trying to get a reply from the Minister regarding
my letter of June 19. Never so much as an acknowledgement. How
arrogant can you be?
MR. BENNETT: Don't ask him in question period. He doesn't
answer then either.
MR. CHABOT: On June 19, I wrote to you "Re: provincial
tourist information booth." I said: "File 132074." I said:
"Further to our conversation in my office on Thursday,
May 16, 1974, in which you indicated that the provincial tourist
information booth should be located in the
[ Page 1736 ]
vicinity of the new weigh scales on the Trans-Canada Highway,
strong objections have been raised in the community of Golden on the original
proposed location. Would you kindly confirm by return mail if the new structure
will be located as agreed in our conversation May 16 adjacent to the new weigh
scale?"
Do you recall coming to my office and telling me that it was
to be built adjacent to the weigh scales in Golden?
HON. MR. HARTLEY: No.
MR. CHABOT: You don't? You deny it. In other words, I can't
take your word for nothing, then. You came to my office and
said specifically that it was going to be built near the weigh
scales. Despite what the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mr.
Hall) said this afternoon, the mayor of Golden objects very
strenuously to its location.
On November 13, 1973, long before construction started, long
before tenders were called, a letter was directed to the
director of design, Public Works, and it said: "This will
acknowledge your letter of November 2 concerning...."
HON. MR. COCKE: You're haywire!
MR. CHABOT: I'm reading a letter sent by the mayor of
Golden. Are you suggesting he's haywire? I wish you would stop
attacking municipal officials. Leave that to your Minister over
there who gives them nothing.
"This will acknowledge your letter of November 2 concerning
the proposed B.C. visitors' centre located at Golden and
disposition of former Department of Highways' property in
Golden. We are looking forward to receiving your study re the
disposition of the Department of Highways building and
property. We are pleased this study will include proposals for
the possible addition to the courthouse.
"We must, however, continue to argue against the proposed
location of the B.C. visitors' centre east of Golden. Previous
correspondence and previous discussions point out that the
proposed location east of Golden is not suitable. There are
three main reasons for this, and they are as follows:
"
(1) Poor visibility to westbound traffic.
"
(2) The proposed location is at the junction of the Trans-Canada
Highway and a very well-used secondary highway along which is located the Department
of Highways shop, as well as considerable residential development. Location
of the visitor centre at this intersection will increase traffic congestion
and thereby increase the danger of accidents in that area. There is a very considerable
amount of traffic through Golden from Highway 95 south. These people will be
able to avail themselves of this visitors' centre if located east of Golden.
We strongly urge you to reconsider the location of this facility. Either the
old weigh scale property or perhaps a spot adjacent to the new weigh scale would
be much more desirable in terms of the facilities carrying out the intended
function. Perhaps it may be worthwhile to send the site inspector from your
department to investigate these sites first hand.
"Thank you for your cooperation and look forward to hearing
from you in this regard.
"Yours truly, Walter Zazuluk, mayor."
There are strong objections raised as well by other
concerned residents in the community about its location. The
Golden and District Chamber of Commerce wrote as well, long
before tenders were called, even before the Minister came into
my office and told me that they had reconsidered its location,
and the location would be adjacent to the weigh scale. Despite
coming to my office, I was shocked when I arrived in Golden to
find that the construction was underway after having had a firm
verbal commitment from the Minister.
Interjection.
MR. CHABOT: The Minister came to my office just a few hours
before his estimates were to be debated in this House.
Consequently, having taken his word as the truth, I didn't
raise the issue in the House because I trusted him, as I
should. Absolutely. But I am losing my trust in you, Mr.
Minister. Your word doesn't appear to be very good. You don't
even answer your correspondence. I've had to write to you three
times, and never had so much as an acknowledgment on the
question. Don't you answer your correspondence? Three times I
have written to you on that issue, and not so much as an
acknowledgment.
I pointed out to you that you had come into my office....
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. CHABOT: That's a falsehood. He didn't come to my office
at my request. That's not true. You came on your own volition.
You came there and told me a lie about the location of the
tourist information booth.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member if
he is imputing an improper motive to
[ Page 1737 ]
the Hon. Minister.
MR. CHABOT: I'm suggesting that the Minister misled me in my
office. I don't know whether it was deliberate or not. It
appears to be.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member withdraw
any imputation that the Minister deliberately misled him?
MR. CHABOT: Do you know what I should have done, Mr.
Chairman, when that Minister came into my office?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. CHABOT: Give him the same kind of treatment that he
received at the Stampede Cafe in Lytton three weeks ago.
Interjections.
[Mr. Chairman rises.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Bennett) made a good point in suggesting that I apply the rule
in the same manner, and I will. I will ask the Hon. Member for
Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), if he made an accusation that the
Minister deliberately misled him, to withdraw his
imputation.
[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. These are precisely the same
words the Chair is using as before: that he deliberately misled
the Hon. Member.
MR. CHABOT: I never suggested for one moment that the
Minister deliberately misled me. I am not aware whether he
deliberately misled me, so I am not going to impute the fact
that he might have deliberately misled me.
I was misled by that Minister. I was misled — there is no
doubt about that. He came just shortly before his estimates so
that I wouldn't raise the issue here, which I didn't
either.
Interjections.
MR. CHABOT: Then we find that his word isn't worth too much.
I'll tell you, Mr. Minister, don't bother coming to my office
again.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications
(Hon. Mr. Strachan) on a point of order.
HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): On a
point of order....
MR. CHABOT: I'll give you the same kind of treatment as the
owner of the Stampede Cafe i