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, JUNE 26, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4007 ]

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Department of Travel Industry estimates

On vote 263.

Hon.

Mr. Hall — 4007

Mr. Phillips — 4007

Hon.

Mr. Hall — 4007

Mr. Fraser — 4007

Hon.

Mr. Hall — 4008

Mr. Morrison — 4008

Hon.

Mr. Hall — 4009

Mr. Lewis — 4009

On vote 265.

Mr. McClelland — 4009

Hon.

Mr. Hall — 4009

Mr. McClelland — 4009

Hon.

Mr. Hall — 4009

On vote 266.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4010

Hon.

Mr. Hall — 4010

On vote 267.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4011

Hon.

Mr. Hall — 4011

Department of Public Works estimates

On vote 231.

Hon. Mr. Hartley —

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4012

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4013

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4013

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4013

Mr. Bennett — 4014

Motion to reduce Minister's salary.

Mr. Bennett — 4014

Division on motion to reduce Minister's salary — 4014

On vote 231.

Mr. Wallace — 4015

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4015

Mr. Gardom — 4016

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4016

Mr. Gardom — 4016

Mr. Curtis — 4016

Mr. Chabot — 4017

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4018

Mr. Phillips — 4019

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4019

On vote 232.

Mr. Wallace — 4020

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4020

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4020

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4020

On vote 233.

Mr. Wallace — 4021

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4021

On vote 235.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4021

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4021

On vote 237.

Mr. Wallace — 4021

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4021

Department of Recreation and Conservation estimates

On vote 239.

Mr. Chabot

— 4022

Hon. Mr. Radford — 4023

Mr. Gardom — 4023

Mr. Fraser — 4023

Hon. Mr. Radford — 4024

Mr. Fraser — 4024

Hon. Mr. Radford — 4024

Mr. Phillips — 4024

Hon. Mr. Radford — 4024

Mr. Phillips — 4024

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4025

Hon. Mr. Radford — 4025

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4025

On vote 244.

Mr. Chabot — 4026

Hon. Mr. Radford — 4026

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4026

Hon. Mr. Radford — 4026

THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

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

ESTIMATES:

DEPARTMENT OF TRAVEL INDUSTRY

(continued)

On vote 263: Minister's office, $22,430 — continued.

HON. E. HALL (Minister of Travel Industry): Mr. Chairman, I

was asked some questions yesterday. I would like to answer

them.

First of all, the question of revenue of the tourist

industry to the province was asked. You will recall, I think,

in the Speech from the Throne or in some material early on in

the year, that the department's figures were given as $790

million. Since then, of course, we have had the final figures

for the year, and we can now report that they were in the

neighbourhood of $840 million of revenue generated by this

industry in the province for the calendar year 1974.

The other questions were about the Royal Hudson. I point out

to the Member that much of his material has been answered by

question 146 that was asked by the Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Bennett) to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett),

and you'll find the results in Votes and Proceedings , answered

a long time ago. But the specifics that were not answered by

that question are: the Royal Hudson train is owned by the

province and is operated by the Department of Travel Industry.

Secondly, the insurance aspect: whenever the train runs on the

B.C. Rail, it's covered by the standard policy of B.C. Rail. We

don't have to carry a specific liability policy or anything

like that.

As far as the insurance of the train itself is concerned,

we're unable as yet, even with a very large company like ICBC,

to strike a value and a figure, a premium figure, for the

intrinsic value of the train. That's got nothing to do with it

running, nothing to do with its liability, but simply as you

and I would insure a possession, you know, against fire or

theft — if one can imagine those things. It is not insured in

that sense of the word, but it is insured in the sense of the

word "train."

Where was it purchased from? It was purchased from the

Canadian Pacific Railway. You will remember that it lay around

in the roundhouse for.... The City of Vancouver acquired it in

1964 but it never became the museum showpiece that was

intended, and it reverted back to the CPR. For nearly 10 years

it stood in the CPR roundhouse in Vancouver. And in 1973 we purchased the locomotive.

Then you were asking, I think, who operated it. The

Department of Travel Industry does.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): It was purchased from

the CPR, then. Do you have a separate company operating the

Royal Hudson, or is it just a

section of the Department of

Travel Industry? Does the revenue come into the Department of

Travel Industry to offset the operating costs? I asked you what

kind of an agreement you had with the BCR with regard to rental

of rail space. How do you handle that? Do you rent from the BCR

at so much a run, or do you give the BCR all the revenue? How

is that aspect of it handled?

HON. MR. HALL: No, first of all, it's not a separate

company. The actual item, Mr. Member, is vote 266, code 041. We

simply get invoices from B.C. Rail, Mr. Member, and it's so

much per day. That is for the operating of the railway. And we

just pay the invoices out of that code 041, vote 266.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Dealing with Travel Industry: I

didn't catch it but it's probably our second industry in the

province today — close?

I think the Travel Industry department is doing all it can

to promote travel. But I would like to relate here the concern

of the small resort operators, what is happening to the small

resort area. I would think it's throughout the province.

Certainly it is in the interior of the province. I'll read a

portion of a letter here I have from a family resort located at

Loon Lake, just north of Cache Creek in the central interior.

It says as follows:

"We as fishing resort operators feel that we aren't getting

a fair deal in British Columbia today. Being as tourism is fast

becoming our second industry, one would think our government

would not be trying so hard to discourage us and squeeze us out

of business. Firstly, we strongly object to our tax dollars

going towards free campsites that are in competition with us,

some of which are a disgrace and they have no facilities nor

supervisors."

Now, Mr. Chairman, I realize this comes under Recreation and

Conservation, but it shows the overall effect of some

government policies.

"While regulations would not allow private campsites to

operate in this manner, this does not apply to the free

government parks. To this end we propose that the Loon Lake

provincial campsite be used for day-use only as there are six

tables and two dry toilets, not supervised, yet as many as 60

campers can be counted there on weekends. Private campsites

nearby on the lake,

[ Page 4008 ]

meanwhile, are practically empty.

"Secondly, pollution laws seem to be non-existent not only

as far as the free campsites are concerned, but there are many

wide spots along the highway where campers stay and dump

refuse, holding tanks, et cetera, and nothing has been done to

stop this.

"Soon B.C. will become very unpopular, not only due to the

garbage-dump conditions, but if our highways keep getting a

cut-back on spending, which has happened to this area lately,

our roads will not be fit to travel on either. In this respect

we speak of the local roads as well as our main highways. The

road is in bad condition.

"Between the enormous hike in property taxes" — this brings

another government policy in line, and I think this relates

back to Bill 71 — "lease rentals and other operating expenses,

electricity, gas, heating oil, we would have to double our

rates, thus discouraging tourists, just to make ends meet.

"Is this what the Department of Travel Industry wants? There

is no doubt many department heads are aware of the problems,

yet nothing is being said."

I would just say to this Minister that I know he has been in

discussions with the tourist people. I'd like to hear from him

if they can expect any relief or further support. They have had

support, but they seem to be getting squeezed from four or five

other directions that this Minister probably hasn't got any

control over, but it is becoming serious because some of these

resorts are actually closing up today.

HON. MR. HALL: Thank you, Mr. Member. You are quite right,

there has been a very informed, intelligent position and brief

put forward to us, spearheaded by the Cariboo region of the

hotels and motels people.

MR. FRASER: I'm well aware of that.

HON. MR. HALL: You are well aware of that, as you should be

as the MLA for the area.

Basically, they raise some valid points. They were here for

a number of days; they interviewed Ministers; they interviewed

government Members. I'm sure they probably spoke to your

group.

Eventually, their case breaks down in a number of areas.

First of all, Department of Finance: no question at all that

there are some motel and hotel and resort operators that are

land-rich and cash-poor, and the cash flow on a 75-day season

is now not sufficient to pay if they are really going to make

it a credible resort — upkeep and all the rest of those

things.

I'm trying to lengthen the season by every advertising dollar I have....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: Everybody knows that.

They had been closeted with Department of Finance officials

for a couple of days at the end of their trip. I haven't had a

report as to what is churning forward in that area. I'm

sanguine about the immediate future, but we're looking into

it.

Health questions. I view with those allegations and those

charges seriously. It's now my responsibility to follow it up

with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) who happened to be

away those two days that they were meeting with me.

Similarly, since their arrival, we've now got a committee of

Ministers forming — the Minister of Recreation and Conservation

(Hon. Mr. Radford) and so on — to talk about what the

government's policy is and should be regarding charging in the

accommodation part of the campsite facility. We have no

intention of charging anybody for beaches, for walks, for

trees, for grass, but there is a point that they're making

about the accommodation section. I am rethinking my own

particular personal position on that.

I've often wondered. I used to ask the question when I sat

over there, and the Minister was over here: why are we charging

those moneys? Because, obviously, the money you were getting

isn't really going to pay for collecting it. It doesn't make

much sense. So those three areas are certainly on my desk as

matters of concern.

The fourth area they raised is the possibility of leasing

Crown facilities to private sectors who operate. It is

intriguing, but that's got to wait for some real determination

policy. I share your concern. It's the concern in the Okanagan,

the Shuswap and in the Cariboo, a concern about land-rich,

cash-poor small business people who, by a long crazy history of

assessment and taxation, now find themselves in the

squeeze.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I'd like to ask the Minister

about some of these campsites. I understand that this year

there are fewer people being employed in them.

Interjection.

MR. MORRISON: It's not under that

section of your

department? Okay.

The other question I'd like to ask is: could you give us

some advice as to what new offices you might be contemplating,

either in California or London? Have you got another office

that you are considering, and where?

[ Page 4009 ]

HON. MR. HALL: Yes, we're very seriously looking at

Tokyo.

MR. MORRISON: Tokyo. Could you give us an indication of the

amount of traffic that would justify that kind of a...?

HON. MR. HALL: We're no longer just looking at it

nationally, we're looking at it regionally.

Certainly the potential for trade and industry and tourism

in the southeast Asian area is mind-boggling. Tokyo would be

perhaps the logical place to go. The only trouble is that the

cost of doing business in Tokyo is almost prohibitive.

MR. MORRISON: That's not included in this present

budget?

HON. MR. HALL: No.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Chairman, I would just like to

say a few words, too, in regard to the problems faced by the

small campsite/tent operator in the province. In the Shuswap

riding I have many of these because of the beauties of the Lake

that are evident in that area. The problems faced by these

people are numerous. I am certainly heartened by the words of

the Provincial Secretary that he is taking a serious look at it

and will be having further meetings with the groups in the near

future.

The problems they face, I think, are numerous due to the

fact that inflation is hitting them rapidly. They provide about

80 per cent of the accommodation for tenting and recreational

vehicles. They just can't compete with the prices that are

charged by the government campsites at the present time.

There's just no way that they can provide accommodation for $2

a day. So they only end up with people staying in their

accommodations during the peak period of the season.

I think it's regrettable that there's no charge whatsoever

by the province on the government accommodations once the

summer holidays are over. It definitely would spin out the

period of time in which the people with the small campsites

could at least charge something for their accommodations.

I'd like to thank the Minister for the attention he has

given to this problem. I realize that in both areas the

Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) is

involved. I'm certainly hoping that something concrete can

happen in the next few months to assist these people.

Vote 263 approved.

Vote 264: general administration, $60,150 — approved.

On vote 265: community recreation branch, $873,928.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I only have a

brief comment. I understand that under this vote grants to

various sports organizations and the B.C. Federation of Sports

and things like that.... That's what you told me before.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Okay, I want to talk about sport and

recreation.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HALL: The funny thing is that the very grants you

are talking about came out of a perpetual fund. As you

appreciate, we never really discuss the perpetual funds in this

House unless the opposition decides to belabour the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) about them.

MR. McCLELLAND: I don't want to talk about money anyway —

it's okay. I just want to talk about sports. I don't know

whether the Minister has any opportunity to correct this

situation or not, but if he does, whether it's through grants

or what, I hope he will.

The B.C. Federation of Sports has ruled that every young

hockey player in British Columbia who plays minor league hockey

has to apply for a social insurance number now regardless of

the age of that youngster. In the Langley–White Rock area,

four-year-olds are being forced to get social insurance numbers

before they are allowed to play hockey. I have had a lot of

parents....

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: A lot of parents are very concerned about

it. It sounds funny but it isn't, because a lot of parents are

really concerned about this. They feel that they don't want

their children numbered at four years of age.

Regimentation comes soon enough in our society; it's

getting worse and worse every day. I think this is going a

little bit too far. We have to allow young people to be

individuals as long as possible. With little league and minor

league hockey, we are forced into that kind of regimentation as

it is. As the Minister said, they already have a number on

their front or back. I think they are being forced into a

conformist role too quickly. If the Minister has any

opportunity to correct this situation, I think a lot of parents

would be very happy with some kind of a solution.

HON. MR. HALL: Thank you for bringing it to

[ Page 4010 ]

my attention. I find it a little weird. You will notice,

however, in my announcement the other day that I have appointed

Dr. Eric Broom as the Associate Deputy Minister, whose

responsibilities will be to try and co-ordinate and bring

together under one umbrella leisure services in this province.

That means that the community recreation branch will probably

leave Travel Industry, where it should never have been in the

first place. It's completely unsystematic to have this vote in

the middle of Travel Industry. It will go to the Provincial

Secretary. I think I'll have some success in negotiating that

with the Provincial Secretary.

MR. McCLELLAND: You're saying that you'll ask him to look

into this matter?

Vote 265 approved.

On vote 266: travel division, $6,339,062.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, under this vote

comes the Royal Hudson. I'd like to congratulate the Provincial

Secretary for the Royal Hudson; I think it's a great asset to

the province. I would like to pose this question to him,

however. How is it that the Princess Marguerite, which is a

very similar operation and has been justified almost entirely

in terms of its effect upon tourism rather than any other

results it may have, is not also operated in the same manner as

the Royal Hudson?

It seems to me that these two operations are very similar,

and if you can work out a scheme with the BCR for the Royal

Hudson, it should be similarly possible to work out a scheme

for the Princess Marguerite with the B.C. Ferries, from the

point of view of crews and things of that nature.

I ask this question not to suggest that the Minister embark

upon a navy of his own, but now we have the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) sitting over there who's

just commissioning ships to run across harbours. We've now got

four Ministers involved in the ferry business, not one. It

would seem to me that this Minister would be a logical one. If

he's to run trains for tourists, surely he should run tourist

ships. Could he comment on this and indicate why he didn't get

this particular vessel? Was it just cabinet in-fighting, or

what was it?

HON. MR. HALL: I guess I must have missed that cabinet

meeting. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I ....

HON. MR. HALL: I'm sorry. When you smiled when you sat down,

I thought you were being facetious. I forgot the serious part

of your question to begin with.

The fact of the matter is that these things develop in

different ways, and you often times have to have different

tools to inject the government presence. This thing came along

nicely; it was smooth, there were no hassles, everybody was in

favour of it and there was no crisis about it. It was created

in the sense that we were building something from the start. In

the case of the Princess Marguerite, we needed the muscle and

we needed some negotiating power in the sense of the Inner

Harbour, the land and everything else that we are attempting to

put together. Now that we've got these things, however, it's

not to be said that they're going to remain there for all

time.

Certainly you could develop your argument further by

pointing out.... I think this week the museum train set off on

its exploits under the control of the Minister of Recreation

and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford). So you're right in

pointing out that we should probably now be looking at

regulating or rationalizing the government's policies and

active programmes under, maybe, one department or, certainly,

moving them around. I think that's a good point. However, a lot

of these things have happened recently and I suggest that when

we get into cabinet, when we can spend a little bit more time

there, we will probably get it all together a bit better. As

we're now sitting 11 times a week, we are having little time to

discuss some of these very problems you're talking about.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: One other question, Mr. Chairman, would

be the minimum wage and the effects upon the 75-day-a-year

resort the Minister talked about. Has he received any

information from his department about difficulties being

encountered for these resort operators getting student labour?

There have been some comments come to me. It's difficult to

assess, I get no overall picture, and I wonder whether the

Minister could comment on this point.

HON. MR. HALL: I had a couple of random, isolated letters

regarding the difficulties that some restaurant operators were

having in securing waitresses — that's the way they put it —

once the minimum wage had gone up, and also once my

colleague's, the Minister of Labour's, programme of 1974 was in

operation. We checked those out and found out there was no

widespread difficulty — the community at large wasn't bothered.

I think it was a couple of isolated examples.

However, at the provincial tourist advisory council meeting, there

were a couple of resolutions which came through to me regarding the

effect of minimum wages on student employment and also the effect on

some low-paying establishments. I can only use that general expression.

It was rather cheap labour they

[ Page 4011 ]

were looking for, frankly — the effect on that by the

Careers '75 Programme. I pointed out to them, without blushing

at all, that I wasn't going to go to bat for that particular

viewpoint. So there's been no general area of complaint about

either minimum wage or Careers '75 from this industry. In fact,

I think the Careers '75 Programme has helped the industry a

great deal in that they've been able to regulate themselves a

Vote 266 approved.

On vote 267: California and London offices, $179,335.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, this is only listed as the

California and London offices. I might also make a comment

about another overseas office in Japan which the Minister was

thinking of opening. Could I ask the Minister whether, with

respect to either Japanese office or these two, he has

considered putting the officer in charge of the B.C. government

promotion involved inside either the Canadian embassy or high

commission offices? The reason's very simple — you'll never,

never get an office in Tokyo under a quarter of a million bucks

a year. Even if you spend $250,000, the man will not be doing

very much effective work promoting, he'll be just

administering.

It would seem to me that we should adopt the practice which

Quebec has started to negotiate with the federal government —

having one of their officers in the Canadian government embassy

or high commission, which for administrative purposes is far

more sensible in terms of cost. It cuts down enormously on the

overhead. I wonder if the Minister has gone into any

negotiations at all with the federal officials on this

particular point.

HON. MR. HALL: The answer is yes. Frankly, the relationships

between my department and the Canadian government office of

tourism have improved immeasurably in the last three or four

years.

That is due to a couple of things, one of which is obvious,

and one of which is that the Canadian government has now, I

think, got a first-class operation going with a great deal more

empathy and sympathy with its provincial counterparts. Tom

Fletcher, roughly at the Deputy Minister level in Gillespie's

department, has been here a number of times, and we have an

excellent relationship with him and his staff.

Certainly, when we are talking about the Far East and Tokyo, your point is

well made. Unless we get into combination with an already current Canadian presence,

the cost is prohibitive. There is no question in my mind but that we will be

joining and asking for assistance from CGOT in some way or another.

As to whether we revamp Log Angeles and San Francisco, I

don't know. We've come off the rather flossy arrangement we had

before, you know — ground level, big entrance offices — and we

are now operating in a much more functional way. I don't

particularly want somebody sitting down at a desk smiling at

B.C. tourists who come into the office. That's what used to

happen. Curiously enough, Dr. Downard, who for six years was in

Los Angeles, is on the floor today to assist me in questions on

the Royal Hudson. Dr. Downard, since he returned to British

Columbia, has taken up new duties, his main duties being in

vote 266 and looking into the Royal Hudson.

Dr. Downard was in Los Angeles for six years and assures me

that the way they operate there now, out of a smaller office at

less cost, is much better than it was previously. If we go into

anything new, particularly in Tokyo, there is no way we go in

unless we go in with some assistance from the Canadian

government.

If, however, other departments of government are going to

come along as well — and my colleague of Economic Development

(Hon. Mr. Lauk) is discussing how we approach this thing — then

we would have to look at it as well and see what possibilities

there are with the Canadian government

section on trade and

industry.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: One final question, Mr. Chairman. Could I

take from the Minister's remarks about Japanese tourism that he

has decided that major operations such as skiing resorts are

now desirable? The government attitude a couple of years ago

was that we should not encourage relatively short stays by

relatively high-spending tourists, and that we should go for

the family tourists from the States rather than the Japanese or

European skiing tourists. Do I take it there has been some

further discussion of this, and the government now sees some

merit in having the Japanese tourist, who tends to come for a

short period of time and spends a bundle of money?

HON. MR. HALL: The view is that we can, by going into

overseas markets, lengthen our season. It is not specifically

for skiing. In fact, I am disturbed over a couple of things

that have happened when large Japanese groups have arrived at

some facilities that weren't ready for them. That's one of our

problems with the industry.

No, the overseas market shows the greatest potential for

extending the season, and that is why we are going.... We are

not going to have the kind of industry we need and we're not

going to enjoy the kind of hotels, restaurants and resorts that

we would like unless we can extend that 75-day season into a

six-month season. The overseas market is amenable

[ Page 4012 ]

and malleable as far as that.

Vote 267 approved.

Vote 268: film and photographic branch, $586,360 —

approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

(continued)

On vote 231: Minister's office, $88,895 — continued.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): I see in the

local papers that there is a great to-do about someone wanting

a hamburger stand or a beanery. I don't know what kind of games

they are playing. This government, as you know, has gone all

out to do everything it could to help the City of Victoria,

everything from assistance with their sewage.... Certainly

what has been done and what is being done with the Marguerite

is the type of cooperation that I'm sure no previous

government has ever shown this city.

Now shortly after we took office we were approached to

acquire the old Esso site at the corner of Government and

Wharf. On November 23, 1973, I wrote to Treasury Board and

asked for some $232,750, and that was approved. Following that,

a certificate of indefeasible title was issued to the Queen in

the right of the province. More recently, at the last CIDC

meeting, their minute re Imperial station, Government and

Wharf, January 23, 1975, 3:30 p.m.:

"A proposal by the City of Victoria for the beautification

of the site was considered and members discussed alternate use

of the buildings after acquisition.

"Preliminary plans and sketches were studied and following

further discussion it was moved that the matter be referred to

the Department of Public Works," it goes on.

So I thought I should just state that for the record, in

view of certain games that appeared to be played by certain

....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: No. Here are the documents, you can see

them if you wish.

Do you have questions?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, I have a question....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I think the Hon. Leader of the

Opposition.... The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Try and clear up this one matter that the

Minister raised. What did the province buy from Esso? Did they

buy the property outright, or did they simply buy the rights to

the property which are subject to a sale agreement between Esso

and the Capital District Improvement Commission?

Now, there's a big difference. Mr. Minister, I appreciate

what you said, but as far as I can tell from looking at the

documentation that I've received, all you really purchased was

the right to sell it to the commission and you didn't purchase

it outright because in actual fact the commission had

previously made a payment of — I'm guessing — roughly $15,000

to Esso, had put the down payment down and in actual fact had

an agreement-for-sale for the property. There is no way Esso

could back out of that by turning the property over to you.

They could only sell it to you subject to that agreement, point

one.

Point two,

section 10 of the Act which set up the commission

makes it impossible, as I understand it, for them to hand over

property to you in this way. But I don't know whether this is a

subject which is all that profitable to canvass at great

length, but will you tell me precisely what you purchased?

It would appear to me you're under a misunderstanding. You

think you purchased property, but in actual fact you purchased

the property subject to a sale agreement to the commission and

it is a very different thing. In other words, you didn't have

the right, having purchased the property, to turn around and

sell it to Gulf or anybody else. You purchased the rights to

the property subject to an absolute agreement to sell it to the

commission and if that was the case surely the property is in

the hands of the commission.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: This is a good point. I'd be pleased to

show the Hon. Member a sketch attached to the indefeasible

title. It indicates that we have purchased Lots 2 and 3 on

Wharf Street. Now, further to the point that the Second Member

for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) has raised, under

section 6 of

the Capital Improvement District it does state this: "6(l). The

Commission is for all purposes of this Act an agent of Her

Majesty and its powers under this Act may be exercised only as

an agent of Her Majesty."

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Read 10 as well.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Okay. Now with regard to the ownership,

there is something to what the Member says — that it was

purchased in conjunction with CIDC and I have a statement from

our lawyer....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But did they not make

[ Page 4013 ]

the purchase agreement with Esso?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Not to my knowledge.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: They didn't?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Not to my knowledge. The city was

involved. They started things moving and then we took it

over.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Not purchased...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Could the Hon. Member wait so

we can have the benefit of Hansard ?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't mind if the Hon. Member puts the

question so long as he rises so that his microphone is on in

this question-and-answer situation.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: This is with regard to the correspondence

that I have dated March 5, 1975 from our legal adviser, Mr.

Beltz, to our property manager, Peter Gregory.

"Conveyance, Imperial Oil Limited, Causeway Garage, to the

Crown.

"This matter has been completed and the deed registered under 27960 and 27961. The title was vested

in the Provincial Crown subject to an agreement-of-sale of May

9, 1974 to the Corporation of the City of Victoria which was

subsequently assigned August 6, 1974 under C 99158 to the

Capital Improvement District Commission.

"This agreement was exercisable on January 31 and since the

Commission did not choose to exercise it (not having had the

funds to do so), it can probably be regarded as forfeited."

Now that is the legal point that the Second Member for

Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) raised. But I would be pleased to

discuss it with him privately if he wishes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to

talk this over with the Minister privately because there really

is a tremendous amount of confusion and the Minister's

colleague, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), indicated

to me on page 857-3 of Hansard of Tuesday, that my research

wasn't that far out.

In fact, he said, he congratulated the Member — me — "I

congratulate the Member on his research. That's entirely where

I am at the moment." Now it appears that he agrees with my

interpretation of the facts. You've got different ones.

Well, the Provincial Secretary and I and you perhaps should

all meet together and we'll try and hash it out because really

we're not going to finish finding out about a legal agreement

in this Chamber and I'm going to leave it at this stage and

take up the Minister's suggestion that he and I get together

with, perhaps, the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I can tell you that I have discussed this

with the Provincial Secretary.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On Tuesday he tells me I'm right; today

you tell me I'm wrong.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I discussed it with the Provincial

Secretary this morning before coming into the chamber. So far

as this sidewalk cafe, I'm pleased to understand that the

brother of the Second Member for Victoria, Alderman Anderson,

supports this idea of beautification of the harbour. We're

going to have some planters built, some flowers, some trees,

shrubs and some tables and chairs, so that anyone who wishes to

go in and have a sandwich and a glass of milk or a cup of tea

(laughter) can sit out and look over the waters, watch the

ships come in and the planes fly out.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'll get my violin.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, if the Hon. Member for Oak Bay would

bring his violin, I'll provide the hat.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Okay, you've changed your concept.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Pardon?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You're going to have to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: No, this is our plan — it is a temporary

plan. When CIDC gets together with the plan for the completion

of the causeway — at this point in time the causeway ends just

where the property in question starts. No doubt — I hope that

causeway can be extended right on around by the Black Ball

Ferry, the Reid property and so on.

I should state that we have taken up the matter of the Reid

property freeze with the Environmental and Land Use Committee.

We're making no structural changes. We're just cleaning it up,

beautifying it and putting it to use so that we can have some

revenue from it.

[ Page 4014 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You'll have a loss at first.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I hope not — I hope not. I hope that no

one — certainly no Member of this House, I'm sure — would be so

small as to try and step in the way of the further

beautification of this beautiful city and the development of

the harbour. Good work has been done but we feel that instead

of having that old Esso station just standing there, we'll

beautify it and make it a very pleasant spot for visitors and

citizens alike. Tourists that come up on the Marguerite or come

over on the ferries or fly in can sit there and have a nice

lunch as they would do in many of the cities in Europe. I think

this would be doing a great deal....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, and Holland and other parts of

Europe. So I thought I would just like to lay that on the table

because that is the way that it appears to be. But if any of

the Members have further questions on it, I'd be pleased to

answer them either privately or across the floor.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman,

it's great to see the Minister in such a cooperative mood

because earlier this year we started a series of questions

identifying waste in his department. Although the whole

government is characterized by waste it's more identifiable

with this Minister because he deals with all departments.

As far back as March we started a series of questions on

empty office buildings, Mr. Chairman, that had been leased far

in advance, buildings on which there was no answer given and in

which waste of taxpayer's money was identified.

We started in Prince George; we went through a series of

properties attempting to find out from the Minister if he had a

policy for leasing property in advance for various departments,

if there was a lack of correlation, which apparently there is,

and why over $300,000 of the taxpayers' money was wasted on

empty space.

Many of these questions are still unanswered. While I, upon

checking, find that some of the properties have finally been

filled, such as the Oxford Building in Prince George, no

satisfactory explanation for the waste of approximately $27,000

in that filled one has ever been given to the Legislature.

This Minister has treated this matter very lightly — very, very

lightly. We still have buildings in Vancouver and we still have

buildings on the King George Highway that are still empty after being

identified to this Minister. From time to time — in fact, the last time

I asked him a question in question period he said he had brought

answers into the House during some particular period. But I checked the

Blues and, of course, he hadn't. We have property in Burnaby where the

lease was signed in April, 1974. We brought this matter to his

attention — the building is still empty. There are a few boxes piled on

the floor as of June 9 — there's a person in there — but this is very

expensive space for just one person and a pile of empty boxes. It's

costing thousands of dollars.

In light of the fact that the Minister has not dealt with

this problem — I don't want to review all the pieces of

property because we only brought them to his attention to

identify a problem of not only apparent waste but real waste of

taxpayers' money. This Minister typifies the casual and

irresponsible manner in which this government deals with the

taxpayers' money. It's the very reason — this waste of money —

why many worthwhile programmes have had to be curtailed in the

government's freeze in many areas of this province. Those

people have lost services because much of the taxpayer's dollar

gets stuck in waste, in administration and just straight

nonsense by Ministers such as this Minister who do not take

their responsibilities as they should, or meet them, and in

fact are responsible for a serious waste. As far as I'm

concerned, this Minister typifies this government.

I don't expect answers today. We didn't get answers during

the last brief period we had at his estimates. We certainly

haven't had answers during the question period. But I think

this Minister should be accountable. I think it should be

recognized by the government that hundreds of thousands of

dollars, their dollars, this Minister has allowed to be wasted,

the hundreds of thousands of dollars that relate to every

department of this government...this waste can be identified.

It can be catalogued in this department. But the public knows

that it runs into millions as it extends into poor

administration and irresponsibility in all other

departments.

Because of this Minister's disregard for providing answers,

his inability to control the expenditures in his department, I

would move, Mr. Chairman, that the salary of the Hon. Minister

of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) as provided for in vote 232

be reduced by $23,998.51.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Fraser

Gibson

Anderson, D.A.

Wallace

Richter

Curtis

McClelland

Morrison

Gardom

McGeer

[ Page 4015 ]

NAYS — 32

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Mr. Bennett requests that leave be asked to record the

division in the Journals of the House.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. I'd like to

know about this 1 per cent of the cost of construction of

public works buildings which is used to buy art. We have just

read in the newspapers about a $10,000 mural which is going to

a government building in Nelson. It seems to be rather

appropriately titled "Inside and Outside." I think that means

that the government's on the inside right now and will be on

the outside after this Minister gets through with them.

The thing that puzzles me is: why 1 per cent, and is that no

limit? If the building costs $5 million, does that mean that

$50,000 will be spent on art? Who decided the 1 per cent?

What's the magic formula of 1 per cent?

The other question I'd like to ask is about the cost of the

functioning of the selection committee. I understand they have

an office on Broughton, or Blanshard or somewhere. It seems to

me that while we've got the Provincial Secretary busy trying to

cut down on the budget, through Arts Access, we've got this

Minister spending a fair amount of money on art on some kind of

formula which seems to have been plucked out of the air. I

wonder if we could have some accounting of that expenditure.

While the Minister is getting the explanation I'll pause for a

moment.

The other question I have is: could you give us an

up-to-date accounting of the money that has been spent on the

restoration of the parliament buildings? With continuing

inflation, what is the new projected cost? The costs were

projected at being $5 million, somewhere along the line, and I

presume that with continuing inflation it will be considerably

in excess of that. Could the Minister give us these two

figures?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: With regard to our art policy, we started

this prior to the Provincial Secretary's Arts Access. In direct

answer to the question of 1 per cent, that is a maximum. If,

say, the block 61 project goes $50 million or $100 million, whatever the overall cost, it would apply. But if it's a

$100 million project, we don't have to spend $1 million. The

federal government has had a policy similar to this and....

MR. WALLACE: You mustn't follow the federal government, for

goodness sakes.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: But other governments have had it, and

we've had very good response throughout the province.

Last year we held some 12 art viewings in various centres

throughout the province where local artists were encouraged to

bring in their various works of art. We had a group of judges

who were appointed for one year. This year we will appoint or

reappoint another panel of judges to sit in. All the art is

brought before them and they hold up a card as to whether it is

good art and should be acquired, or it should not be acquired.

We did have some complaints that the judges were too tough,

they were being too selective.

We appreciate that comment, but I believe that when you are

spending taxpayers' money in selecting art, we have to try and

buy good art. The piece of art that the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) referred to, which will be displayed in the new

provincial building in Nelson, was done for us by one Donald

Harvey, a professor of art at UVic, and an artist who is

nationally and internationally known.

We feel further that by the provincial government acquiring

art and displaying it in provincial buildings, it will do

several things. It will give the residents of B.C.,

particularly those of us who were raised here and probably

don't have the same exposure to and appreciation of art as many

of the people raised in the old lands.... This is one of the

things that I've noticed personally — you chat and discuss art

with people who were raised and received their schooling in the

old lands, and they have a far greater appreciation for art

than do the people who were raised in British Columbia, as many

of us here were. So it will give an awareness of art. It will

also give exposure and encouragement to the local artists, and

arouse considerable interest in the art community. And we've

had a very good response. We have had the odd criticism that

we're being too selective, but that's something that, I guess,

we'll have to live with. I'm just sorry that previous

governments haven't had a policy like this in the day of Emily

Carr.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Yechhh!

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The Member for Columbia says "Yechhh!"

Well, maybe the artists up in Columbia River should know about

that — that he doesn't appreciate us encouraging the

artists.

MR. CHABOT: I don't appreciate what's in the

[ Page 4016 ]

dining room, I'll tell you that.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: No? You know beauty is in the eye of

...

AN HON. MEMBER: The beholder.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: ...the beholder. Thank you, my

friend.

But we feel this is worthwhile; by and large, the response

has been good. At our first art viewing in Burnaby, I believe

there were some 1,500 pieces that were displayed. No artist is

asked or allowed to show more than three pieces. No judge or

person working on the art committee is allowed to show any of

his own art, yet all of those on the panel are artists,

sculptors, of great renown, and we feel that we can place

confidence in their judgment.

MR. WALLACE: But what are the management costs of the

project?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'll get those for you. The person, Jack

Wilkinson, whom we have doing this, was on our staff,

previously in the design department. He's still on staff, and

one of his duties is to manage our art division for us. He's

currently setting up a programme of art viewings throughout the

province for this coming summer. Those dates will be posted

very shortly. I'd be pleased to give you the details of the

cost.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, while

we're talking about the beautification of the harbour, do I

have the Hon. Minister's ear? Again, Mr. Minister, I wish to

refer to the desecration of the aesthetic qualities of these

beautiful buildings by all of these four-cylinder, six-cylinder

and eight-cylinder putrefactions that we find outside there

from Detroit and Dusseldorf — the Fords, the Falcons, the

Dodges and the Darts, the Pintos and the dintos — and all the

25, or maybe upwards of 30, selections of chrome and tin that

are completely fouling up the beauty of these delightful

buildings. It was never, ever the vision of Mr. Rattenbury that

the front of this assembly would become a second-rate parking

lot.

You know it's so bad, Mr. Minister, that in some of the late

evening sessions a few of the Members have mentioned to me that

they've noticed the statue of Queen Victoria even turning

around and viewing all of those cars with complete disdain and

contempt. I'd say to you, Mr. Minister, will you clean them

out? Will you clear them out? The only king that we wish to

have in front of these buildings is "No Par King".

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Very good. I agree with what the Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey has raised. I think it's valid.

MR. GARDOM: That's what you said last year.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I think you will agree that we are taking

steps to do something about parking, and do something about

transit. Many of the public employees are now scheduling their

hours. Considerable money has been spent in providing buses,

and we hope that before too long there will be a park-and-ride

situation.

MR. GARDOM: It's 25 cars — move them out. That's all you've

got to do. Just make a decision.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: And if it happens to be your car, you'd be

the first to scream.

MR. GARDOM: Fine. Move it out. Move them all out.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Okay. We'll ask all of you who are parking

in front of the buildings to remove your cars.

MR. GARDOM: Give me the Attorney-General's keys and I'll

move his car right now.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips), if he can nip in here and get a parking place

tonight, he's right in there; yet he wants the cars towed

away.

MR. GARDOM: Get them all out!

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I agree that this is the way to go, and we

have plans for that.

MR. GARDOM: It only means 25 people, Mr. Minister, that 25

cars have got to find new places, and they can certainly do

that. It is not going to hurt some of your more ebullient

cabinet Ministers to have a block walk.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Briefly, in

support of the statement from the Hon. Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey, the Minister surely could accomplish this

with a verbal order and a stroke of the pen and clear out the

cars. Yes, various Members' cars are parked there from time to

time because if we are in a hurry or if we feel particularly

lazy that day, we will take advantage of this space if it is

available. But if there is no parking permitted in any part of

the front of the buildings, then clearly no

[ Page 4017 ]

one will park there. So let's not have fun about whose car

is there and why and how often someone parks there. It's a

simple, straightforward suggestion, and I think that the

Minister should and could act on it forthwith.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHABOT: Just a few things. I have been trying to get up

for some considerable period of time. Just a few questions to

the Minister regarding some of his policies.

I wonder what criteria the Minister uses to determine which

letters he answers and which letters he acknowledges and which

letters he ignores that are sent to his office. I wrote to him

last year on three occasions dealing with one subject matter —

on June 19, then on August 31 and then on October 22. To this

day I haven't received a reply, and I don't know what the

criteria is for replying to correspondence.

Another question, Mr. Chairman, deals with the Public Works

department at 4570 Canada Way in Burnaby. Certainly there is a

memo which forbids and disqualifies moving companies that are

non-union from doing business with the Department of Public

Works. Is this firm policy in the Department of Public Works to

ignore those people who are paying taxes in this province and

who have the right to employ people who might, because of their

dictates and their wishes, not want to belong to a union? Are

you going to deny these people their legitimate right to not

belong to unions? Are you going to deny the legitimate right of

the employer to conduct his business? Are you going to deny him

the opportunity of being employed on certain government

projects?

When discussing this matter of government projects, it

brings to question phase two of the construction of the

government building in the community of Kimberley. Now I'm

really concerned. I asked in the oral question period and the

Minister told me at the time that a firm called Carlson

Construction from Cranbrook did not meet the requirements of

the Public Works Fair Employment Practices Act, which they

emphatically do in my opinion because there is one employee and

the owner; so they certainly meet the guidelines. Yet the

tender, their bid, which was the lowest, was turned down on the

basis that they didn't meet the Public Works Fair Employment

Practices Act requirements.

You can't have it both ways. There are times that you utilize non-union contractors

and there are other times that you don't. Here In Victoria, or in my community

of Invermere, you have a non-union contractor doing a job. What is the guideline

for the employment of contractors? Here the contractor from Cranbrook was the

low bid on the phase two project for Kimberley, right next door. What do you

do — pick the next bidder, who might come from Vancouver and who might cost

the taxpayers thousands of dollars?

Now you have got to be consistent in your approach to these

problems and to these projects — either one policy or the

other.

I was wondering if you could tell me who was awarded the

contract on the renovation of the provincial government

building, phase three, at Revelstoke, project 452B1, and the

amount of that contract. Also project — no project number — but

this has to do with the St. Eugene school in Cranbrook. There

is being spent in the neighbourhood of $180,000 for

renovations, according to your annual report. Now I'm wondering

what your intentions are with this building at St. Eugene

Mission. After having spent $180,000, do you intend doing

something with it? I drive by it almost every week and I see it

sitting there — the taxpayers' money just sitting idle.

Just one other question. We were talking about paintings

here. I have a copy of the letter sent to the Minister dealing

with the paintings that the Minister has been purchasing. This

individual is very concerned regarding Mr. Wilkinson's

committee and the kind of paintings he is buying. I'll read it

very quickly:

"The latest newspaper reports show that $10,000 provincially – commissioned mural which proved my accusation right, that Mr.

Wilkinson's committee are looking after their own without any

concern of what art is or what is appropriate for a building.

Of course they do not care what the public likes because

they've got paid for it already and there is a no-money-back

policy if the public does not like that so-called art. It's so

much more appropriate to paint a mural on the wall that shows

how the country was conquered and how mines were built."

What's wrong with miners in this province?

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: You're against miners?

Interjection.

MR.CHABOT:

"It should show the farmer out in the fields. It should show the Indians. All this is completely ignored. The same

here on the west coast. You should have pictures of the industries like

fishing and logging, et cetera, and mainly the pictures should be

recognizable. But all this has been declared no good and old-fashioned

by Mr. Wilkinson and his committee.

"You only have to examine Mr. Harvey's record from April,

1974 " — this letter was

[ Page 4018 ]

written on June 25, incidentally — "till now. This man has

never missed the month in selling his work to the

government."

Never missed a month since April 1974. Has he got an in with

Wilkinson's committee? Does he have an in with the

Minister?"

Interjection.

MR.CHABOT:

"He has sold about 35 of his so-called pictures, plus a

$10,000 grand prize. This is only surprise No. 1. There are 16

more to come and I can guarantee you it will be 16 more

abstract wonders. I call this a rip-off in the highest degree.

The public is being fooled by the committee. Yours,

disgustedly."

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that from Jones?

MR. CHABOT: No, it's not. It's signed Hans E. Birch.

This man is concerned with the kind of stuff you buy, that

kind of stuff that he can't recognize and can't see anything

that depicts the history, the nature, the environment of this

province.

When I look at that mural upon the wall — that $6,000 one I

believe it is — in the dining room, I almost make it a point

when I go in the dining-room to sit the other way so I won't

have to look at that $6,000 abortion up there.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Abortion's a federal matter. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Really, let's get some art that the people in

this province will appreciate, will cherish and will

recognize.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Of course, one of the reasons we undertook

an art policy was just this: to arouse people that had never

been interested in the past — to arouse some interest; and

we're doing it. We're succeeding.

MR. LEWIS: You sure aroused me. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'm aware that there is a difference of

opinion. Some people like certain types of art, I agree. We

have some parts of the west coast, the fishermen, the marine

scenes that I think are beautiful. I appreciate that, more than

some of the other abstract forms, that that's up to the eye of

the beholder.

Now I think the fact that artists are writing as they have

written to this Member...and the gentleman who wrote that

letter dropped in to see me. I viewed some of his private art

showings. He's a very fine chap and does some good work.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you look at his etchings?

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. HARTLEY: His sketchings? His sketchings, yes.

Now with regard to the contractor that the Member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) referred to with regard to the

Kimberley provincial building, he was low tender but he did not

comply with the public works fair employment legislation. I

understand that he has now taken the necessary steps to comply

with the Public Works Fair Employment Practices Act. If this is

correct — it's in the course of being checked out with the

foreman yesterday — then he will receive the tender, but we do

try and do all our construction work wherever possible in

compliance with the Public Works Fair Employment Practices

Act.

MR. CHABOT: You made him force his employees to join a

union, that's what you did. That's coercion on the part of an

employer.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, it's really very interesting, Mr.

Chairman, to find such an anti-union attitude emanating from

the ex-Minister of Labour. I realize he wasn't in that post

very long.

MR. CHABOT: It's not true.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We certainly get his attitude very

quickly. He gets very upset.

Now with regard to certain movers, these are auxiliary

services and there are exceptions within the Public Works Fair

Employment Practices Act which is our auxiliary services. So

it's a problem, and if the Member would like to let me have it — either across the floor or privately...

MR. CHABOT: You're supposed to have it already.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. HARTLEY: ...I'd be pleased to look into it,

because in that area there are exceptions.

As far as the Saint Eugene School, yes, there has been

considerable work done. This was a federal building and it has

been renovated, I believe, for Mental Health.

While it was still under the control of the federal

government, it was allowed to freeze up. It was, I believe, a

hot-water system so that had to be replaced and the building

has been and is being rebuilt for Mental Health.

[ Page 4019 ]

There was a question with regard to work on the buildings.

Yes, we had an estimate in the early stages of the restoration

of the Legislature of $5 million. It appears now that the

estimate now to complete this work by June, 1976, will be

something in excess of $6 million.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

The matter of parking was raised again. It's very easy to

zero-in on the Ministers whose cars are parked there, but it's

part of an overall problem. Yes, it's all very well for a

person to say with one sweep of the hand: "Clear them all out."

The answer is not quite just that easy.

It's all right for those of you that commute daily between

Vancouver and Victoria by plane and can walk up from the

harbour — okay. But the Ministers particularly often have to

get into the car and nip out to get the ferry or to go uptown

to do other departmental business.

We are concerned about this. We are building several new

buildings in which there will be a certain amount of parking

but we just haven't that much spare parking space. Some of the

buildings that we have built are built on properties that were

being used for parking at the time so that's putting pressure

on our parking, too.

It's a good point, I appreciate it, and we will act on it as

quickly as possible.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask the

Minister how much money in this budget is allotted for

landscaping the new government building in Dawson Creek.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'm sorry, I didn't catch that.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll ask the question again, Mr. Chairman. How

much money have you allotted in this budget for landscaping the

new provincial government building in Dawson Creek?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I don't believe that contract has been

let but the landscaping is to be done. The work will be done by

public tender in compliance with the Public Works Fair

Employment Practices Act. I'd be pleased to let the Member have

the amount when the tenders are let. It's in the budget but I'm

not just sure about the amount.

There was a further point that was raised by the Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot) with regard to correspondence. I checked my file — he raised this

when our estimates were up before. I have a copy of a reply to him. If he didn't

receive it or if it has been misplaced I'd be pleased to give him a further

copy.

MR. PHILLIPS: A further follow-up. It is now June 26. I'd

like the Minister to assure me that the tenders will be let

immediately or if they are going to be let this summer for the

landscaping of that building. Why haven't they been let prior

to this date?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: On the Dawson Creek provincial building

that was opened last year there is an item of $30,000. It may

not take all that; it may take a little more. But that's the

approximate figure. When the tenders are let they will be

published and I will make a note to see that the Member for

South Peace River has the exact tender.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not really that much

concerned about the cost. I just want to ensure that the work

is going to be done in its entirety this year. Why have you not

let it go to tender? As you know, the building season is short

up there. It's now the end of June — when do you intend to let

this work go to tender?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I understand that the tenders are to be

called very shortly. I appreciate what the Member says — it is

a short growing season for the north. I believe there has been

somewhat of a problem with regard to this tendering. But I'll

have it checked out and see that the tenders are let just as

soon as possible.

I suspect because of the time of the year we're in now as

far as the lawns and the grass — if they don't place sod, if

they seed the grass — it'll have to be a fall seeding. But

there's no reason why the shrubs and other plants could not be

planted now.

MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate the Minister's remarks. I take it

from your remarks that you are definitely going to go ahead and

it will be landscaped this year because at the present time the

grounds are growing up in stinkweed and wild oats.

Really, it's not a very pleasant sight for a provincial

government building, particularly when you look at the

beautiful landscaping in the surrounding public buildings, such

as city hall and the library and the swimming pool and all the

other public buildings. They're very well landscaped and we're

very proud of our city and we just don't like to see this

beautiful new provincial building going without landscaping. So

I'm assured then by the Minister that the work will proceed as

soon as possible, and that it will be landscaped this year?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I appreciate the Member for South Peace

River (Mr. Phillips) drawing this matter to my attention, and

I'll see that the tenders

[ Page 4020 ]

are called as soon as possible, and that the work is done as

much as possible this year.

Vote 231 approved.

On vote 232: general administration, $1,073,810.

MR. WALLACE: Just one or two very quick questions, Mr.

Chairman. There's a very substantial increase, I notice, for

printing and publications in particular, and we have also a

substantial increase for office furniture.

I just wish it was for the furniture you promised for my

office back in January. I've got a moth-eaten old carpet on the

floor of my office, and I've been promised just one table that

people can sit around and talk when they come to my office, and

I've been promised that for ages. We've criticized this

government for spending too much money, but you certainly

haven't spent it on the furniture for my office. I just want

that on the record.

The other factor that I've got marked down here is printing

and publications. These two main items are up by very

substantial amounts. The furniture and equipment is up.

Travel's up by 129 per cent, and I think that we're entitled to

know just why they're up, and how the money's going to be

spent.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'll look into the piece of furniture. I

don't know whether you're commending us or criticizing us for

economizing, but I'll certainly look into that. You're entitled

to your share of furniture.

We have not renovated any of the caucus rooms, with the

exception of the Social Credit caucus, and the Leader of the

Social Credit Party (Mr. Bennett) did write and ask that

renovations be made in his office, and that is the only

renovation that has been made in any of the caucus rooms,

including government or opposition caucus rooms.

That floor covering that is down in that area, I realize

it's a disgrace, but when I tell you that that was placed ready

for occupancy in January, 1972, I think it just indicates that

when we do renovations, that we should do those renovations

with top-quality products. I hope this rug will be here for

many, many years. Of course it cost a little bit more than the

rug that went down in the caucus rooms, both government and

opposition, but I think it's something worthwhile.

I believe when we are renovating a building of this historic nature and of

this architectural beauty, that we're well advised to use top-quality products.

It takes no longer to put down top-quality floor covering than an inexpensive

one, and when it's done, it's done for many years to come. But I'll certainly

look into the piece of furniture that the Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr.

Wallace) referred to.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, while we're on the subject, would

you please deliver those bookcases you promised me a dozen

times? It's just really necessary. The paper boxes, the

cardboard boxes are falling apart and it will be most helpful

if you could provide me with just one small piece of furniture,

the only one I've asked you for, and I've never asked for six

months.

Nevertheless, apart from my own personal views about your

operation, these cost control studies that you have done here,

$25,000. Are you using them at all? Is this the vote where we

will find the Minister of Public Works finding out whether he's

got rental space which is vacant? Or what is that cost control

study for? Clearly your department has been among the leaders

in criticism for failure of control. I wonder whether $25,000

is enough. It's exactly the same as last year.

I think the Minister is trying to find out what the cost

control money, $25,000, will be used for. It's the same as last

year, Mr. Chairman, and some indication would be helpful.

Perhaps he needs more.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: This money in question, $25,000, was money

that was set up under the old administration, and it was set up

at that time to work with the then Minister of Health, the Hon.

Ralph Loffmark, helping lay out health facilities. We've kept

it in the vote so that we can apply this on any construction

project where we feel that it should be applied.

At this point I would just like to comment on some of the

buildings that are underway.

AN HON. MEMBER: You said that three times.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We have opened new buildings this past

year in Fort St. John, Nelson, Powell River, Dawson Creek, and

in the City of Victoria we have the following buildings. We

have acquired the Hydro building on Pandora Street. We are

building an additional 200,000 square feet there. We have a

major building at Courtenay and Blanchard, 250,000 square feet.

An addition to the law court building in Victoria at 30,000

feet. The Dowell Building, which is an historic building on the

site of historic Fort Victoria, we will build into that 20,000

square feet of floor space, and in the Blanchard-Burdett

Building, another 30,000.

This gives over 530,000 square feet, over 0.5 million square

feet of floor space. We have 200 square feet of floor space in

the Block 61 building in Vancouver.

Now because of these projects, in Victoria this is the first

major building programme for office space since the Douglas

Building was built about 20 years

[ Page 4021 ]

ago.

MR. GARDOM: You remind me of Isobel Dawson, but go

ahead.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Thank you. That's right, 20 years ago.

You've got a long memory. Her office was there, wasn't it?

Now with this programme of constructing new office

buildings, the amount of space that we have leased for office

space should be at its peak. As we complete these buildings and

as leases terminate, we should have to lease considerably less

space in the future than what we are doing at this time.

Because of the new programmes we had to find space.

When you realize that such departments as Recreation and

Conservation, that have more than doubled the number of

biologists and have more than tripled the number of

conservation officers, space had to be found for them, and to

do it quickly we had to lease it rather than build. But we do

have a substantial building programme that will provide this

space on a more permanent basis.

Vote 232 approved.

On vote 233: government buildings (maintenance),

$27,325,461.

MR. WALLACE: Just one question. I notice there is a new item

for heavy equipment, $223,000. Is the department going into the

building business, too, with its own equipment?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: This relates to the new buildings that we

have built throughout the province, maintenance equipment,

equipment to remove the snow in the northern communities, and

so on.

Vote 233 approved.

Vote 234: construction of provincial buildings, $40,000,000 — approved.

On vote 235: rentals, $15,000,000.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I wonder whether the Minister would

explain why the rental contingency is up so substantially. Two

years ago we had $50,000 for rental contingencies, this year we

have $2,240,000 — a 40-fold increase, more or less. I wonder

whether the Minister could tell us why there is this enormous

increase there.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Two of the chief reasons, when we formed

the government we took over the law courts and justice

responsibilities from the cities, and similarly in many of the

larger centres, Human Resources. So that I think last year the JDCs alone had a

budget equivalent to this. We have taken over their rental

responsibilities.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This doesn't really explain

contingencies. I appreciate the fact — I think the Minister is

talking about the total vote, and the total vote certainly has

gone up. It's gone up about four times in two years, four-fold.

But contingencies is 40-fold, and new buildings would not

explain the contingencies.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The explanation for that, Mr. Chairman, is

many of the recent rental contracts have an escalation clause,

and we had to make allowance for that. As costs to the

landlords go up, then we have to compensate.

Vote 235 approved.

Vote 236: safety inspection division, $3,178,276 —

approved.

On vote 237: Glendale laundry operation, $833,558.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister just explain

this item? I assume that....

HON. MRS. DAILLY: It's the come-clean vote.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, it's the come-clean vote. Glendale laundry

operation, I had assumed this would be under the Department of

Health. It's a hospital, an extended-care hospital, and while I

know it is regionalizing now the laundry for other hospitals,

and I see the wisdom of that, why is it under Public Works?

Should it not be under the Minister of Health?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: This is one of the steps we have taken to

try and build more accountability into government service. It

had been in our regular overall vote previously, but, as the

Member for Oak Bay has suggested, this being a specialized

service to a particular department of government — in this

case, Health — we thought we should list it separately so that

it can be unit-costed. In this way we have better control and

we can give you a fuller report on any problems relating to

that service to that department.

MR. WALLACE: This $833,000 — does that represent the total

cost of operating the Glendale laundry, or is that some net

cost after you get some payments from the Victoria General,

Jubilee or any other hospital that uses the facility? I just

want to know what the $833,000 represents. I don't know why the

Department of Public Works goes into the

[ Page 4022 ]

laundry business, does the work and is not being paid by the

people and the source that uses the laundry.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: This is in addition to the revenue. The

revenue goes into the consolidated revenue — this is an

addition.

Vote 237 approved.

Vote 238: salary contingencies, $2,500,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

RECREATION AND CONSERVATION

(continued)

On vote 239: Minister's office, $121,032.

MR. CHABOT: Just a few brief questions to the Minister. I

notice now that he has proceeded from game-management areas to

management units. We see all the fancy yellow signs all over

the province — there must be 250 of them. They're cluttering the

highways. It reminds me of when I used to drive in the United

States a few years ago — there was a little jingle as you went

along the highway and then it said "Burmashave." That's what

this looks like. The highways are cluttered with management

unit signs which really say nothing.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): P.A. Gaglardi — "Sorry

for the inconvenience."

MR. CHABOT: At least they said something — they said that

there was some construction underway. I wish we had some more

of those signs telling us that there was construction on the

highways of this province, fixing up the potholes.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: What particular significance or what particular

purpose do all these signs serve? If you go up the highway and

you come to game management unit 9-25, as you walk off the

highway either north, south, west or east, you don't know where

you're going — whether you're in 9-25 or 9-26. If you deviate

by six feet, you could be in the wrong management unit. I

wonder if the Minister will tell me what useful purpose these

serve.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: While the Minister was speaking at the annual

convention of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, he stated....

HON. MR. KING: He did a good job.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, I like that Minister of Recreation and

Conservation. I think he's a good Minister; I think he's doing

a good job. I've never criticized that Minister — I criticized

the government that is so stingy with him, though.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stand up and take a bow, Slim.

MR. CHABOT: This year the parks branch allotment for Careers

'75 is down by 50 per cent when unemployment has never been

higher in this province. Here was an opportunity to do

something worthwhile.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much did you give?

MR. CHABOT: We almost had full employment — there's a

difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: We're talking about the highest unemployment

rate ever experienced in this province right now. Over 100,000

people in this province are unemployed. The Member for Dewdney

(Mr. Rolston) appears unconcerned about this. Here is an

opportunity to do something — something meaningful, something

constructive, something that would...

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want him back? (Laughter.)

MR.CHABOT: ...give an opportunity to people to enjoy

employment. In this province there are young people graduating

from the secondary schools and universities who have to go out

of province to find a job. I'll give you an example — I have a

daughter who just graduated from grade 18 — she had to go to

Regina to get a job.

AN HON. MEMBER: She graduated from grade 18?

MR. CHABOT: Grade 12 — I'm sorry. Grade 12 — she's age 18.

She had to go to Regina to get a job because there are no jobs

in this province because of the policies of your government.

What do you propose to do regarding this severe cutback in

allocation? A 50 per cent cutback in Careers '75.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): We'll bring her back.

(Laughter.)

MR. FRASER: You're breaking up this House.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, do we have a new Premier here?

(Laughter.)

[ Page 4023 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Seriously, we could have done something

constructive in the parks branch this year. But no, we decided

to cut it back at a time when we need employment in this

province.

The Minister, while he was speaking at the B.C. Wildlife

Federation annual convention, also suggested that there would

be 31 new positions in the fish and wildlife branch. I don't

see those 31 new positions in your estimates, Mr. Minister. In

fact, I see a decrease of one position, according to your

estimates, yet at the B.C. Wildlife Federation you stated that

there would be 31 new ones. I wonder what these positions will

be. Will they be conservation officers? Are there new positions

for conservation officers being created? When will these

positions be established, and where will they be established in

the province?

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

I'm surprised at the Member for Columbia River asking me about

the signs, because in the previous debate on estimates he was

asking the question of how we were going to identify the 201

management-unit areas. I said that there would be, in the near

future, signs along the road to identify with and to help the

people correlate that information of signs with their new

licence procedures.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RADFORD: These signs, as you mentioned, denote two

numbers. For example, 4 and 11 — the 4 identifies the resource

region, the next number will identify the management unit that

these people will be recreating in.

You also mentioned, Mr. Member, the 31 positions. This is

covered in the salary contingency. These 31 positions will

primarily be required for expanding the enforcement and

technical staff of this branch to cope with the greater demands

from the other environmental agencies. They will be working on

habitat protection areas, and also in the new resource

regions.

MR. CHABOT: Just a follow up question, Mr. Chairman. Are you

anticipating an increase in your allocation for the parks

branch, which has been severely cut back? Your colleagues who

control the cash in government, and who control the taxpayers'

purse, have you been able to convince them, or are you willing

to accept this severe cutback at a time of high

unemployment?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Mr. Member, there has been no severe cut back. As

a matter of fact, I met with all the senior staff in my department two or three

months ago and asked them to watch their spending and to make sure that we didn't

overspend, that we didn't have overruns. As the Member well knows, inflation

is setting in in many areas, and not due to the provincial government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, primarily. Primarily.

HON. MR. RADFORD: We have many changes in spending. I've

asked my staff to gauge their spending. We are looking at our

spending quarterly, to make sure that we watch the new problems

that may come about in our branch.

MR. CHABOT: Filibuster!

HON. MR. RADFORD: We've had a recent increase in the gas

price by the federal government, and we aren't sure yet how

that's going to affect government...

AN HON. MEMBER: And the provincial.

HON. MR. RADFORD: ...in the provincial enterprises. But I

think many of the other departments are also concerned about

inflation and about spending, and are watching their estimates

very carefully.

MR. GARDOM: Just a couple of words, Mr. Chairman. B.C.

citizens, Mr. Minister, are still thoroughly, completely and

utterly dismayed, disillusioned and disappointed with this

government's lack of progress, and this particular Minister's

lack of progress concerning the abolition of that mechanism of

continuing and daily repeated cruelty. I'm talking of the

leg-hold trap. It's an instrument of viciousness, as we all

know.

There have been routine expressions of concern in this

House, and very minor suggestions of improvement. But they

always seem to be coupled with delay, delay, delay. I do hope

that today, and the final hours and days of this session, the

Minister will be able to stand up and offer the public

something concrete and something firm concerning the removal of

this instrument of torture.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few things to this

Minister regarding his park policy, or lack of policy.

I'm not sure of the grade of parks, but of great concern to

the private operators of resorts is your policy of not having

attendants in parks. It's causing no end of pollution. Where

you have a government campsite that accommodates 10 vehicles,

because you haven't got an attendant there are as many as 50

[ Page 4024 ]

60 getting in there. I would like to know why you don't have

attendants there. I realize that it isn't economic, but I don't

think you consider the private operators' side of the story at

all. They're all resident taxpayers in British Columbia, and

you're gradually driving them out of business by this lack of

control on these campsites. It's happening all over the

interior. I would like to know the reasoning behind the fact

where you have had attendants, now you don't have any

attendants at all.

There is nobody there to clean up after the mess they make,

and they are all going into a bad state of disrepair. I'm

referring to the campsites in the interior of the province. I'd

like to hear whether you are going to correct that by putting

attendants on to bring this back to where it used to be.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Mr. Member, our staffing on the parks has

just about doubled and maybe more than doubled since 1972 when

your government was in control.

I should also remind you that our parks budget has increased

since 1972 from a total of $4.1 million in 1972 when your

government was in to $25.7 million this year. It's quite an

increase. We have had a great increase in staff and the quality

of the parks have been upgraded.

It is true that there are many areas in many parks where we

do not have attendants. It is impossible. We now have 134

campgrounds in the Province of British Columbia. We have 6,584

individual camping units in the province. There are many areas,

as I said, that we cannot put attendants in. In many places it

doesn't even pay us to put a collector on for collecting camp

fees. This is why in many parks we do not require camp

fees.

Most of the public that go into the parks are looking after

their parks and are keeping them clean. But if the Member has

any particular parks he has in mind that are not being kept up,

I would appreciate knowing about it.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, there are definitely parks that

are not being kept up and I refer to Loon Lake, for instance,

where there is no observation....

The other thing is that I realize you can't make a profit on

these, but I can't see why you haven't got a minimum charge on

some of these campsites, particularly thinking of the private

operator. I don't say a gouging charge, but a nominal charge.

Then have somebody there, because that will help keep these

campsites clean.

Regarding your increase in budget, we appreciate that — from $4 million to

$25 million. But as you view around, the class A parks, yes, they are excellent;

there is no question about that. But maybe a lot of this money is being eaten

up by bureaucracy at head office and you still haven't got enough to get out

and do the field work.

I would like to know if the Minister is entertaining any

nominal charge on these campsites where they are now free.

HON. MR. RADFORD: We are looking into the problems that the

private camp owners have. You must realize that he has more

facilities than a provincial campground. He has showers — more

facilities that people want. If they want those facilities,

they can go to a private campground. In many of our campgrounds

we have very limited facilities, and this suits many people. We

at the present time don't see how or why we should put a charge

on some of these areas that have very few services. We do

appreciate the problems that some of the private camp owners

are having and we are considering in the future looking into

this, and we know that we may have to increase our camp fees.

But there are no plans for increasing provincial park camping

fees for this year.

MR. PHILLIPS: Can the Minister assure the House that the

same fees will be charged this year as were charged last year

in all provincial campsites and that where there were

attendants last year collecting these fees there will be

attendants this year?

HON. MR. RADFORD: No, I can't make that commitment, Mr.

Member, because the usage of some of these parks change. There

are some parks that we add fees to. There are some parks where

we take the fee off. It just depends on the amount of usage of

that park for the particular time or as we see it in the

future.

MR. PHILLIPS: What the Minister is really telling me, then,

is that an owner of a private campsite doesn't know whether

he's going to have competition one year or not from the

provincial parks.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's exactly what you are telling me.

MR. FRASER: You're breaking them all, breaking them all.

MR. PHILLIPS: He doesn't know how to budget. If you've got a

campsite that one year is being charged for and there is an

attendant there and it is a provincial government campsite,

there is less competition to that private owner who is right

next door than if you don't. So this private owner can't

budget. You have a flagrant disregard for those free

enterprisers who have built up those facilities. Now you have a

complete disregard for them. You are

[ Page 4025 ]

changing from one year to the next. Why don't you have a

sound policy and continue on so that these people who are going

to provide these facilities can provide them with some security

that they know whether they are going to have competition from

the public?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, why don't you go back to the United States

where you come from!

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: If you knew anything about it, if you were so

interested in consumer affairs, you'd be interested in

protecting these people. But you're only interested in grinding

your own axe.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're so full of spit and venom....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: That Minister's so full of spit and venom that

it comes out her eyes every time she looks at me.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we should have cautionary messages for

Hansard before these speeches are made.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would ask the Minister about the

Roberts Bank causeway and whether his department did any

studies of that particular area and whether they received any

from the federal Department of the Environment, fisheries

branch, and whether or not these were brought to the attention

of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon.

R.A. Williams) who got up in this House and assured us that all

was well. What information was in the hands of this Minister

about that causeway construction which, of course, is

destroying a large area of that marshland?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Yes, I believe the Member is talking about

the proposed dike that will be instituted between the

Tsawwassen causeway and the Roberts Bank coal causeway.

This was a situation where the federal government allowed accreted land on

Roberts Bank some four years ago. Our government passed an order-in-council

a year ago. I visited that site two days ago, as a matter of

fact, Mr. Member, and met some federal fisheries people out

there, by the way, and they were quite surprised at where the

accretion was allowed. I believe they are taking steps to have

the work stopped. They are concerned about environmental

damage.

It seems that the federal government did have information.

The federal fisheries did have the information about the values

and the value loss in the area, but the accreted line that was

put in was not put in the place where they thought it was going

to be. There is some concern over that.

The only part the provincial government played was to agree

to pay a 50-50 cost of building that dike. That was the only

part that the provincial government did play. But the values

were known by the federal fisheries.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister hasn't really answered my

question.

He has indicated he's spoken with two biologists, I guess of

the federal fisheries, but has he actually received any report

himself, or has he done any studies himself in this area? Has

his department done anything? In fact, if he is concerned, as

he apparently seems to me to be, is he taking this up with his

cabinet colleague who seems quite content to have this thing

take place, to have the causeway, the dike, put in and indeed

to, we suspect, have some saw-off arrangement whereby some of

the Indian reserve land will go to the Highways department for

the approaches to that Tsawwassen–Swartz Bay ferry?

HON. MR. RADFORD: I am discussing this now with the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. I understand that he was

asked the question the other day and said that he was taking it

up with his department. That's all I can say at this time. We

are concerned about it and we are working with the other

Minister on it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I would be a lot happier if you

were working against the other Minister on it, because it

appears that his attitude is that it's going to go ahead.

Can we get from this Minister a commitment that he will have

his people on site and get them involved in terms of analyzing

whether this is good or bad from the point of view of the

wildlife and fish in the area?

Vote 239 approved.

Vote 240: general administration, $1,072,930 — approved.

Vote 241: information and education, $330,042 —

[ Page 4026 ]

approved.

Vote 242: Provincial Museum, $2,815,961 — approved.

Vote 243: marine resources, $451,587 — approved.

On vote 244: fish and wildlife branch, $10,335,767.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, just a brief question on wildlife

here. Regarding the new management units, how are hunters going

to be able to identify the areas? Are maps going to be issued

and, if so...?

HON. MR. LEA: It's not the kind of wildlife you think it

is.

MR. CHABOT: If so, will these be made available to hunters

when they purchase their hunting licence? I hope that there's

not going to be a special fee for the fact that you have

subdivided the province into 200-odd management units. Are

these maps going to be available? Are the maps available now so

that hunters can familiarize themselves with the areas in which

they might want to hunt? Are these maps now available?

HON. MR. RADFORD: They will be available, Mr. Member.

MR. CHABOT: When?

HON. MR. RADFORD: By August. I'm informed by my department

that they will be ready by August.

MR. FRASER: Free?

HON. MR. RADFORD: And they will be free.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RADFORD: They will be free, as always. "Nothing is

freer than free, my friends." (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like the Minister to confirm that

the cuts he was talking about — the careful examination of

expenditures that he was talking about — will not resolve in a

reduction of that $10,335,000 figure. I've heard rumours that

the Minister is planning to cut back on the expenditure in his

department by cutting in this particular area, and I would like

his public confirmation that that's not the case.

HON. MR. RADFORD: There will be cutbacks in some areas and in some

other areas there will be increases.

This year we have more money to spend in each of the

regions. But, as I said earlier, money this year doesn't buy as

much as it did last year, and there will be some cutbacks in

some areas. I can't deny that. We are in a time when inflation

is here. Compared to other jurisdictions across Canada,

compared to other jurisdictions in the United States, the

Province of British Columbia has more to spend in the

Department of Recreation and Conservation than anywhere in

North America.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The only trouble was that the question

wasn't answered. The Minister tells me that there are going to

be cutbacks and he tells us this halfway through the estimates,

which we assumed were reasonably accurate. But I wonder whether

he would indicate whether there are any cutbacks in this area

which he now knows about which would alter the expenditure

under this particular vote.

HON. MR. RADFORD: What we're talking about here, Mr. Member,

is the estimates. I want to make sure that I come in right on

the figure that you're attempting to pass in my estimates, and

that's what it's all about. I want to make sure that I don't

have an overrun. I want to make sure that there's no

overspending. In order to do that, because of the sudden change

in costs, I have to have some reductions and some cutbacks in

certain areas, but there will be increases in other areas. The

reason there are increases is because a lot of the costs have

gone up.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister's avoiding the question. He

knows full well that the B.C. Wildlife Federation has grave

concern that there may be a cutback in this specific vote. All

I want from him is a public commitment that within reasonable

limits, a few per cent, this amount of money, $10,335,000, will

be spent in this area and we will not see a transfer of money

from this area into the parks branch, for example.

HON. MR. RADFORD: As I said, I'll try and come in as close

as I can to the $10,335,767. That is already an estimate;

that's what it's all about. They're called estimates.

Vote 244 approved.

Vote 245, Creston Valley management authority, $143,750 —

approved.

Vote 246: parks branch, $25,708,931 — approved.

Vote 247: Grants in aid of regional parks development and

recreational centres, $5,220,000 —

[ Page 4027 ]

approved.

Vote 248: youth training programme, $1 million —

approved.

Vote 249: outdoor recreation branch, $200,000 — approved.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:05 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada