[ Page 3175 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Real Property Tax Deferment Act (Bill 16). Hon. Mr. Barrett.

Amendments — 3175

British Columbia Coastal Zone Commission Act (Bill 136). Mr. Steves.

Introduction and first reading — 3175

Oral questions

Response to telegram on gasoline price guidelines. Mr. Wallace — 3175

Right of immigrants to sit on community resource boards. Mr.
Chabot — 3175

State of organized crime. Mr. Phillips — 3175

Impact of construction strike on housing construction. Mr.
Gibson — 3176

ICBC cheques sent in error. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3176

B.C. drivers used for bus purchase pick-up. Mr. McClelland — 3176

Ferry modifications and ferry facilities work. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3177

Motor regulations hindering deliveries of blood plasma. Mr. Curtis — 3177

Freeze on rental accommodation. Mr. Wallace — 3177

Phasing out of natural gas use at Burrard thermal plant. Mr. Phillips — 3177

Cut in student-teacher ratio. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3177

Government purchase of Reid property. Mr. L.A. Williams — 3178

Request of B.C. school trustees for federal winter works money. Mr. Wallace — 3178

Committee of Supply: Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources estimates.

On vote 161

Mr. Phillips — 3178

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3178

On vote 162.

Mr. Smith — 3179

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3179

On vote 163.

Mr. Gibson — 3179

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3179

On vote 164.

Mr. McClelland — 3179

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3180

Mr. Schroeder — 3180

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3180

On vote 165.

Mr. Phillips — 3180

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3180

Mr. Phillips — 3181

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3181

Mr. Fraser — 3181

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3181

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3182

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3182

Mr. Smith — 3182

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3183

Mr. Smith — 3183

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3183

On vote 168.

Mr. Richter — 3183

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3183

Mr. Richter — 3183

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3184

On vote 169.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3184

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3184

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3184

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3185

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3185

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3186

On vote 172.

Mr. Rolston — 3186

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3186

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3187

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3187

Mr. Wallace — 3188

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3188

Mr. Fraser — 3188

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3189

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3189

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3190

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3190

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3191

Department of the Provincial Secretary estimates.

On vote 188.

Mr. Phillips — 3191

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3193

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3194

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3195

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3195

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3196

Mr. Fraser — 3196

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3198

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3198

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3199

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3199

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3200

Mr. Smith — 3200

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3201

Mr. Curtis — 3201

Mr. Gibson — 3201

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3202

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3203

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3203

Mr. Smith — 3203

On vote 190.

Mr. Curtis — 3203

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3203

On vote 192.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3203

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3203

On vote 193.

Mr. Curtis — 3204

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3204

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3204

On vote 195.

Mr. Gibson — 3204

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3204

On vote 196.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3204

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3204

On vote 198.

Mr. Curtis — 3204

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3204

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3204

On vote 199.

Mr. Curtis — 3205

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3205

On vote 200.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3205

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3205

On vote 204.

Mr. Curtis — 3205

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3206

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3206

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3206

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3207

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3207

Mr. Curtis — 3207

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3207

On vote 205.

Mr. Fraser — 3207

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3208

Mr. McClelland — 3208

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3208

On vote 207.

Mr. Gibson — 3208

On vote 209.

Mr. Curtis — 3208

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3208

On vote 210.

Mr. Chabot — 3208

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3209

On vote 214.

Mr. Chabot — 3209

Department of Travel Industry estimates.

On vote 246.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3209
Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3210
Mr. Curtis — 3210
Hon. Mr. Hall — 3211
Mr. Chabot — 3211
Hon. Mr. Hall — 3212
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3212

On vote 248.

Mr. Chabot — 3212

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3213

Mr. Chabot — 3213

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3213

THURSDAY, MAY 16, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome some very special guests along with my mother today.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today there are a group of students from the Province of Ontario who are here as part of the Canada Project programme. I'd like the House to join with me in welcoming them.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Good afternoon. It's another beautiful Nicola Valley afternoon because there are a group of Merritt elementary students who travelled all the way down here and brought the sunlight and the shine. I'd ask you to welcome them with their principal, Mr. Gage.

Introduction of bills.

REAL PROPERTY
TAX DEFERMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Barrett presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: amendments to Bill 16, intituled Real Property Tax Deferment Act.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the said message and the accompanying amendments to the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill 16.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

BRITISH COLUMBIA
COASTAL ZONE COMMISSION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Steves, Bill 136, British Columbia Coastal Zone Commission Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

RESPONSE TO TELEGRAM ON
GASOLINE PRICE GUIDELINES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Attorney-General or the Premier, whichever cares to answer, what response if any the government has had to the telegram sent yesterday suggesting guidelines for the price hike in gasoline to 8 cents a gallon?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The response has been generally favourable.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I was wanting a specific answer to a clearly specific question. Perhaps I could follow it up by asking what plans the government has if in fact the guidelines are ignored by the oil companies?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the answer was that the response has been generally favourable. If the response was unfavourable then we'd have other plans.

RIGHT OF IMMIGRANTS TO SIT
ON COMMUNITY RESOURCE BOARDS

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): To the Minister of Human Resources: has the Minister received any requests, specifically from the Kitsilano area, which would permit landed immigrants to serve on community resource boards? What is the Minister's decision in respect to such a situation in terms of present policy?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): We did receive a request. I spoke to the Vancouver Resource Board about it. They're not in favour of it, and neither am I. Does that answer your question?

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary. In view of the fact that legislation is before this House, what is the statutory basis for not only the current efforts of the community resource boards task force, but for the community resource boards, which results from their current activities?

MR. SPEAKER: It seems to me that legal opinions are not required in question period by Ministers.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary. I just wondered under what guidelines they are operating in the Kitsilano area, due to the fact that we have legislation making them a legal entity. What is their role at the moment?

HON. MR. LEVI: They do not have a resource board at Kitsilano. All they have is a task force, and it's trying to get a board together.

STATE OF ORGANIZED CRIME

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my little question to the

[ Page 3176 ]

Attorney-General. Stewart McMorran, recently designated by the Attorney-General as the chief of the new provincial strike force against organized crime, has said he did not get a chance to tell his story. Could the Attorney-General advise the House as to the state of organized crime within the Province of British Columbia at this time?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I don't presume to absorb the whole question period and begin a description of organized crime which would have to be very general. So I'm afraid I can't say anything more at this time.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question to the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker: does the Attorney-General agree with McMorran when he states that the situation in British Columbia has become more serious?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.

MR, PHILLIPS: Finally, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister gave the new designated successor terms of reference which would include full public disclosure of what McMorran has said he would have told had he not been appointed judge, is the new successor going to be allowed to tell the story of where organized crime is at in British Columbia so that the people will know?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It'll be a highly visible operation — this coordinated crime unit.

IMPACT OF CONSTRUCTION STRIKE
ON HOUSING CONSTRUCTION

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, over a week ago I asked the Minister of Housing if he could advise the House as to the impact of the current construction strike on the housing construction situation in British Columbia, particularly multiple-family rental dwellings. I wonder if, after a week, he now has some information to give us.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Well, Mr. Speaker, the first thrust of our department has not been to create a department of statistics.

However, I have taken the Member's question into account and made inquiries of Central Mortgage and Housing, who could not give me any firm estimate. They've been in the business for a long time and have that type of capacity, but they could not give a firm statement other than to estimate that perhaps about 50 per cent of housing starts in British Columbia are presently being held up in one form or another.

ICBC CHEQUES SENT IN ERROR

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Transport and Communications. Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that cheques are being sent out by ICBC computers, in their kindness, to people who have no knowledge of why they are receiving these cheques, may I ask the Minister how many cheques have been issued erroneously by your computers and what the total amount of money is that has been happily paid out to the citizens of British Columbia for no reason that they are able to determine? I have one here if you would like to look at it.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I'll take that question as notice. I think you realize in putting the question that if there was an error, we can't possibly know how many. But I would appreciate receiving that from you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, if this is an error, may I ask the Minister whether they have any procedure whereby the people who are less honest than my informant who sent me this copy of the cheque, which I will return to ICBC…what procedures he has to check on those who have simply cashed these cheques and pocketed the money?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Of course, you were the one who said that it had been sent in error. That's why I would like to take and check it.

B.C. DRIVERS USED FOR
BUS PURCHASE PICK-UP

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, on May 7 the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) took as notice a question that I asked about Vancouver Island Coach Lines. I asked if drivers of that company were being used to pick up new and/or used buses for the provincial government in either Saskatchewan or Manitoba. I wonder if the Minister has an answer yet.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I want to thank the Member, Mr. Speaker, for asking me again. It's the first time I've had his question since he last asked it. (Laughter.)

I understand there were 14 buses driven back on a contract with the coach lines. There were, I understand, four drivers sent out on three different occasions to pick up the buses. Those buses are being used basically on the ferry runs.

MR. McCLELLAND: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the answer, would the Minister be able to tell us from whom the buses were bought and

[ Page 3177 ]

whether or not they were bought by tender?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, they were not bought by tender. We'll buy anything that is for sale providing the price is right. It is very difficult to get buses of any kind — new or used. We are scouring throughout North America trying to find used buses that are suitable for our operation. It has been very, very difficult to get them. So anyone who has a good bus for sale, we will be very, very interested.

MR. McCLELLAND: Just one further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Minister indicated on an earlier occasion that the buses they were buying were by tender. I wonder, would the Minister be prepared to table all the details of tenders or non-tendered purchases relating to the purchase of buses, both new and used, for the House so that we could have a look at it ourselves?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not prepared to table anything of that sort. I will tell you that any new buses are on tender. Second-hand buses are not because, as I say, there is a scarcity of them and we will pick up anything we can find that will run and has four wheels.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Transport and Communications on an answer to a question.

FERRY MODIFICATION AND
FERRY FACILITIES WORK

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I took notice from the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) on two questions. One was whether I could tell the House if the shipyard or ship-repair yard has been selected to do the modification work which was indicated with the new ferry that has been purchased. The answer is yes — Burrard drydock; and time has been booked for the estimated time of arrival of the ship.

The second question he asked me was whether I could inform the House of the now likely completion date of expanded facilities and ships at the Tsawwassen terminal. The dredging of the basin is completed. The sea wall and holding compound will be completed, we expect, 90 days after work is resumed by the pile-driving trade, but they are held up right now.

MOTOR REGULATIONS HINDERING
DELIVERIES OF BLOOD PLASMA

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, thank you to the Minister, through you, for the answers to those questions.

On another subject for the same Minister: is he aware of and will he comment on the fact that if the motor carrier commission regulations are strictly enforced, presumably there would be difficulty in the delivery of blood supplies or plasma over municipal boundaries by taxi?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm afraid I will have to take that one as notice. I'm not aware that there are any inhibitions in the Motor-vehicle Act that would interfere in any way with the transport of blood across municipal boundaries.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister aware of the fact that this subject has arisen in discussions in Vancouver within the last couple of days?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. I'll check into it.

FREEZE ON RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Attorney-General, in light of the fact that long-term leases up to 99 years are being used to circumvent the Strata Titles Act and the provincial rent freezes, if the Minister is giving consideration to a total freeze on all conversion of rental accommodation until government policy has been finalized.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly giving consideration to it and we are giving consideration to perhaps amending the legislation now before the House to cover this particular situation of a 99-year lease — probably an amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act.

PHASING OUT OF NATURAL GAS
USE AT BURRARD THERMAL PLANT

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to direct just a small question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. In his capacity as a director of B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, has the Minister or has B.C. Hydro any plans for phasing out the B.C. Hydro thermal plant at the head of Burrard Inlet — the Burrard thermal plant — from using natural gas in view of the shortage of hydrocarbons in the world and in view of the tremendous horsepower still to be developed in sites C, D, and E on the mighty Peace River?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh.

[ Page 3178 ]

CUT IN STUDENT-TEACHER RATIO

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister could inform me if she has anything further to report on the question of cutting the student-teacher ratio which she indicated a month ago she did not expect to take place. She said that if indeed it did take place, she didn't expect to receive any blame. Could she tell me whether or not there have been any new developments to cut the ratio at this time?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I don't really follow your question, particularly the second part, at all.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. The Minister recently made a statement that no one would be to blame if she was unable to cut the student-teacher ratio. She made that statement a couple of weeks ago. I wonder if she could now inform us if her fears at that time — that she would be unable to cut the student-teacher ratio — have been proved groundless, or whether or not it will be possible indeed to do it.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: First of all, that is not a completely accurate quote of mine that you are referring to. I said that we may not be able to meet all the expectations. I know you are taking it from one excerpt in the paper. If we can't reduce the class size right down by the 1.5 this year in every district, I said no one can be blamed. In no way does this mean that there will be no reduction in class sizes.

As a matter of fact, the reports I have are that of the boards that have already received supplementary assistance many have already shown that they are going to be able to have considerable reductions in their school districts this fall. My point was that you can't expect this to be in every district immediately.

I'm quite satisfied that I will be able to report to the House, when I get the opportunity, when all the results are in from the various boards and they have finished hiring their new teachers, a substantial reduction.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF REID PROPERTY

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): To the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister or his department concluded an agreement for the purchase of property in the Inner Harbour generally known as the Reid property?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: No.

REQUEST OF B.C. SCHOOL TRUSTEES
FOR FEDERAL WINTER WORKS MONEY

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Education whether she has had an official request from the B.C. school trustees association asking school districts for a share in the $37 million in federal winter works allocated to British Columbia?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, I haven't received it officially but I was aware, having been at their convention, that this was discussed at the convention

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister tell the House whether the $37 million has been allocated to municipalities and regional districts, or is the final disbursement of these funds undecided?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I can't give you an answer on that. I would have to check with the other departments in government who are involved to see just how much they have taken.

MR. WALLACE: Would the Minister like to take that as notice?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF LANDS,
FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES
(continued)

On vote 161: Water Resources Service, Water Rights Branch, $1,429,368.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd just like to ask the Minister if the surveys by the Water Rights Branch have been concluded on sites C, D and E on the Peace River. Who is going to be paying for the moving of the hydro transmission line across the Peace River, or does it have to be moved behind site 1? Who will be paying for the cost of moving the Westcoast Transmission gas pipeline which crosses the Peace River above the proposed site 1dam?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I'm frankly not familiar with those specific problems regarding the two transmission lines, but the normal course of events would be for the utility to bear the responsibility, since they're the new people in the field. That's

[ Page 3179 ]

something that I'd have to check further, though.

MR. PHILLIPS: What about the surveys, Mr. Minister, on sites C, D and E?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Studies essentially are being carried on by B.C. Hydro rather than the Water Resources Service.

Vote 161 approved.

On vote 162: Water Resources Service, assistance to improvement districts, $25,000.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Just one quick question on this vote, Mr. Chairman. Last year in the debate on this particular vote, the Minister agreed that $25,000 was not enough by way of assistance to improvement districts. I think the exact quotation was on page 1894 of Hansard. Then the Minister went on to say that in the coming year he would review and perhaps integrate the activities between the Department of Municipal Affairs and the improvement districts. What steps have been taken along these lines, Mr. Minister?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, I didn't get the last part of the question.

MR. SMITH: You said that $25,000 was really not enough in this vote and that you would perhaps take steps to integrate activities between Municipal Affairs and the improvement districts. I just wondered what steps had been taken along these lines.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's a matter of ongoing discussion between the Minister of Municipal Affairs and myself. While the funding is very slight, if there were serious problems we would probably take the matter up by warrant in the case of a small local area that was really strapped. Discussions are being carried on.

Vote 162 approved.

On vote 163: Water Resources Service, Canadian Council of Resource Ministers, $52,750.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, a question for the Minister. The Canadian Council of Resource Ministers was a body that started out with a great deal of flourish and promise. We've heard rather less of it in recent years. I wonder if the Minister would advise the House what the council is up to these days.

Also what has happened within this vote? It would seem that the moneys provided for British Columbia delegates to attend such conferences have been lifted out of the estimate, or else it has all been consolidated into one vote.

HON. R, A. WILLIAMS: I frankly don't spend that much out of it myself, Mr. Member, because the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers now has been going through a period of turmoil and difficulties. Because of my lack of involvement in their earlier years, I've avoided some of their recent discussions. I expect to attend the next conference and the agenda is being determined by Mr. Grossman, one of the Ministers from Ontario. We've had some input on the priorities of discussions and programmes for the coming year and I look forward to being involved in those. They've also lost I think, Mr. Deleve, their senior official, so it's really a new ball game. We intend to be involved in that process in the coming year.

Vote 163 approved.

On vote 164: Water Resources Service, inspector of dikes, $57,192.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I'd like to ask the Minister if he would comment a bit on the Cowichan River flooding. I'd like to know how much money was spent on improvements to the Cowichan River this year because the people in that area are desperately worried about future flooding. This year was the worst in history, the worst ever on both the Koksilah and the Cowichan, with 3,000 acres of farmland threatened at the moment. The people in the area seem to think that the department is working backwards in making the improvements there, working from upstream to down instead of the other way around, which seems to compound the problem.

In November, December and January last year and this year, Mr. Chairman, the worst flooding conditions were experienced. Houses were evacuated, animals had to be moved off farms and $25,000 worth of dikes were breached at one farm in mid-January. The river crested again March 15 and we're told that the next flood crest could see both rivers completely out of control, flooding out of their own channels with the whole area covered with between two to five feet of water, which would rip off the topsoil and leave gravel in its place, as has been done in the past. Unfortunately, it seems that the Indian lands in that area will be the hardest hit.

I know that one of the senior engineers of Water Resources has done an extensive study of the Cowichan; yet nothing seems to have been done yet, That survey, I understand, was brought up to date for 1973. Water Resources seems to have all the answers at hand, but so far there doesn't seem to have been too much done. If nothing is done in the very near future, December, 1974, and January, 1975, could be disastrous.

I understand that the cost of improvements is $3 million, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to know: has that

[ Page 3180 ]

money been allocated and, if not, when will it be allocated?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the funds spent either by Highways or the Department of Water Resources in the past year would be roughly around $60,000. $91,000 was expended out of the disaster fund with respect to flooding mainly in the Cowichan.

It's true that a major report was prepared by Water Resources in 1967. The recommendations have been accepted by the fisheries people in our Fish and Wildlife Branch, but we still have not received federal approval with respect to the fisheries on the Cowichan, and that is the main problem at the moment.

The matter has been gone into quite thoroughly between the Minister of Transport and Communications, (Hon. Mr. Strachan), who is also the MLA for the riding, and myself and we hope to receive federal approval regarding the scheme in the reasonably near future.

I think that covers the points raised.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I'd like to report to the Minister that the dikes in the Chilliwack area, upon inspection, seem to be in extremely good condition this year and that the expected high water levels, should it not go over and above the height of the dikes…likely the dikes will be strong enough to hold. I'd also like to express the appreciation of the people in the area for the Minister's keen attention to the problem of the diking this year, particularly the labour dispute that existed. We're grateful that work has resumed and that pumping will begin in a little while.

However, as a result of the pumps being idle for a great length of time, some water damage has occurred in the dike areas. The question is: is there any compensation available because of the loss of crop — perhaps a half a year's loss of crop in these areas — and through what department would this compensation be made available?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The disaster fund is seen essentially as a fund for major disasters that involve numerous people on a fairly broad scale, but if the Member would pursue the matter by correspondence with me, we'd certainly investigate it.

Vote 164 approved.

On vote 165: Water Resources Service, Water Investigations Branch, $1,666,333.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask the Minister if he would give consideration to a little problem. There is in that Peace River area a lake that's known as Moberly Lake. Recreational lakes in that area are not that prevalent — I'm talking about the northeastern part of British Columbia. There are hundreds and hundreds of them in northwestern British Columbia, well stocked with sporting fish, but in northeastern British Columbia, out on great plains, there aren't that many recreational lakes, but there is one known as Moberly Lake. It doesn't have too many fish in it, but it is a good lake for boating and water skiing.

There's one problem, Mr. Chairman, with the lake, and that is that in the spring of the year when the water flows down out of the mountains, the level of the lake rises several feet above normal.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Not in all lakes. I'm not talking about a river, I'm talking about a lake. There's a great deal of erosion going on around the banks of the lake. The other thing is that nobody can put any permanent boat ramps or anything in there because if they do, in the spring of the year they're washed out. What I would like the Minister to do is have a survey done of the water levels of this lake and determine how much construction would have to be done to widen the outlet?

I have been down the outlet, and I have reason to believe that it's mainly landslides and log jams in there in the spring of the year that will not allow the water out of the lake.

Maybe with a little bit of construction, a little bit of widening, Mr. Minister, we could allow that water to get out of the lake faster in the spring of the year. Also we could determine what it would cost to put a weir at the outlet to maintain the level of the lake in the summertime, because it goes down so low. There are a lot of benches in this lake and in several of the areas you can't even water-ski because you go for 300 yards and you only have two and three feet of water. It's dangerous in that area.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that the Peace River–Liard Regional District would be most happy to set up a taxation area. The people who have property around the lake, or who lease around the lake, would be most willing to pay for whatever construction it would take to maintain the level of lake closer than what it is now. But we need an engineer to go in there and give us some facts and figures as to what construction would be necessary and then, of course, the regional district would need a permit.

I'd like the Minister's cooperation on this very, very worthwhile project for the people of that area who don't have that many recreational lakes.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: If it looks like it's in the ballpark, the branch would carry out a feasibility study with the idea that the cost of the feasibility

[ Page 3181 ]

study would be applied with respect to whatever works were recommended out of the study. So the first step, probably, is to work with the regional district in forming a local improvement district and then deal with the branch.

I wouldn't want you tripping water-skiing and bringing more problems down here than you've already caused.

MR. PHILLIPS: What I'm saying is: I should go to the regional district and say, "Form a water district first and then work through the Water Rights Branch."

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes. Get a consensus, a petition of owners around the lake with respect to their support for the idea of an improvement district, and then proceed with the branch. If it looks like it's a ballpark kind of proposition, they would proceed with the feasibility study.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, just one further note. I had at one time a complete petition signed by every owner of property on the lake. The fellow who was given the job worked for B.C. Hydro, and after the dam was finished he's taken off and I haven't been able to find the petition, So we have to do that work again then — get a signed petition again.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, I think that would be worthwhile. It's good organizational work anyway.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): This is the department of government that comes in and helps with the bank revetment and so on, I believe. Is that correct?

I'd like to go back to 1972 when we had a lot of trouble in this province on the Fraser and the Thompson Rivers — a lot of damage was done and settlements were made where property was lost. I suggest that this department hasn't done anything to correct this occurring again. It shortly is going to; it already has started on the Fraser system in 1974. I'd like to know why, Mr. Chairman, some positive steps weren't taken to organize and get bank revetment work done because the damage is going on again in these same places.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Where?

MR, FRASER: Where were they settled for? Well, I can give you several, Mr. Minister, on the Fraser. I'm not that aware on the Thompson or the Quesnel River — but the erosion is taking place. This is what happened in 1972 and now the river is at it again.

The Fraser River is changing course, which caused the trouble in 1972. Now we have farmland going into the river, acres and acres of it.

I have correspondence which shows here from this department that probably it wasn't feasible…. I don't think anything was done by this department to try and organize a permanent solution to this problem. There certainly is a permanent solution to it and it is costly.

It's my information…. I asked the Minister yesterday…. The people also know this is a 75-25 sharing formula. In the case of some farms, I know they're quite willing to pay but they can't get anything going with the department. In the case of one farm, within the next couple of weeks they're going to their farm home.

I can't understand why things deteriorate to this point. We had normal conditions in 1973. Now I'm told by the Water Investigations Branch that it's too late this year because the velocity of the Fraser River has already increased and nothing can be done, so just let it go down the river. I'd like to hear the Minister's comments about it.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that there have been very few people turned down who were prepared to pay the 25 per cent. Frequently the problem is that the cost of the work far exceeds the value of the land protected. That's simply a real problem. The funding has not been great, but generally the problem has been that the people weren't even prepared to pay the 25 per cent of the cost of works to maintain their land. If that's the case, they're making a serious judgment about the value of their lands themselves.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, just a supplementary here. Does the Minister's department feel it's too late to get something done now in the next two to three weeks? The Fraser River has risen. It's fallen slightly, but we all know it's going to come up probably higher than it was in 1894.

Can we get something organized to get some of these bad situations corrected now? The loan is available; the contract is available. They want to pay their 25 per cent, but they can't get any clearance out of your department on the 75 per cent.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: If the Member would like to talk to me privately, I'd be prepared to follow that specific question up. If there's material available and the person involved is ready to go, and if it makes sense from our staff point of view, then we'll seriously consider it.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. How do I get an appointment with you?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, well, if the estimates are over I'd be glad to join you for coffee sometime later this afternoon.

[ Page 3182 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, the Water Investigation Branch has carried on studies for a number of years into the levels of Lillooet Lake and the influence on those levels of extreme high flows and low flows in the Lillooet River. There doesn't seem to have been any result ever published from those studies even though level stations were maintained throughout the length of the lake.

I'm sure the Minister is aware, or he should be aware, that the delta being formed at the mouth of the lake, where the river enters the lake, is growing at such rapidity that it has become a matter of international curiosity.

Water investigation people and people concerned with the growth of deltas visited the Lillooet Lake a year ago to see what exactly what has happening.

Now, while it may be an international curiosity, one of the consequences of the growth of the delta is to bring about flood conditions in areas in the Pemberton Valley which are not protected by the dikes which were built many years ago.

In particular, the influence of this flood is most seriously felt on the Indian lands in the Mount Currie reserve. I know that the federal government, the community generally and, I believe, the provincial department have been interested in the construction of further dikes throughout the reserve lands.

I would like to know whether the Minister has had a report from the department on this particular problem, also whether or not the department has given consideration to one of the corrective measures which might be undertaken — namely, to improve the outflow from the southerly end of Lillooet Lake thereby stopping the major rises in the lake levels at the time when the river is in flood.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I understand that in the early '50s something similar was done and it was not too effective. The judgment of the professionals is that it isn't too practical an idea. They have an ongoing research project regarding that particular delta, which in the long run may be valuable but probably not too useful now. There was preliminary work regarding protecting the area. The costs appear to be uneconomic from the landowner's point of view — that is, the local diking area. I don't know that I can provide much more information beyond that.

MR. SMITH: There's a matter I wish to discuss with the Minister concerning a potential problem with flooding in the Kamloops area. I was wondering if I could be guided to the vote under which I could take this up. We have flood control in the Okanagan area but not in this specific area of Kamloops. Would it be proper to discuss this matter under vote 165?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, I missed the question.

MR. SMITH: Would this be the proper vote to discuss a problem with potential flooding in the Kamloops area? Is there some other vote that you would wish to discuss it under?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think the previous one, 164. (Laughter.)

MR. SMITH: Yes, but perhaps it's…. Well, if I may be permitted.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: By all means.

MR. SMITH: I had a conversation with a gentleman in Kamloops this morning, a Mr. Roger Hook, who was very concerned about a specific problem in the area of Kamloops which used to be known as Brocklehurst. It's part of Kamloops proper now. In 1972, Nu-West Homes constructed a dike adjacent to the area that he is concerned about. This dike was constructed by John Gatsby, the engineer on the job, and placed there by Nu-West Homes which is responsible for constructing this dike.

It held during the 1972 flood, but subsequent to that time I presume the Water Rights Branch or the inspector of dikes or somebody in the department, in cooperation with the Department of Highways, has suggested that they do not think the dike is strong enough or up to specifications or standards to withstand another major flood, They would like to install five headgates in the dikes. The Department of Highways say they are going to undertake this work starting next week.

These people own lot No. 1, plan 17979; lot 2, plan 17979; lot 2, district lot A, group 2, plan 19072; and district lot A, group 2, Kamloops district, the Yale district. Their concern is that if these headgates are installed and the decision of the Water Rights Branch or the inspector of dikes or anyone else is that the gates must be opened to allow water to escape, their land is the escape route for floodwater being released through the headgates which will be built and put in place by the Department of Highways.

This may prevent flooding in some other areas of Kamloops but it's going to directly flood all of this land. These people are very concerned to the extent that they're presently checking to see if they can get a court order. Their land will become the safety valve and the escape route for excess flood waters and they'll be wiped right out.

They're very, very concerned citizens at the moment, Mr. Minister. What I would like is some assurance from the Minister that, if this happens, these people will be properly looked after and compensated for their losses. The way they look at the situation right now, they're going to be wiped out

[ Page 3183 ]

if those headgates are opened to release floodwaters.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The intent of the department is to see to it that if flooding has to be faced in that area, it be on a control basis, working toward equalizing the pressures and the like. It would be controlled flooding if that kind of contingency is upon us.

But let's not kid ourselves about the coloured history of Cinnamon Ridge and that particular mess, that particular ranch and that particular council. We had to hold a special public hearing in Brocklehurst regarding the cleanup of that Social Credit mess.

We are not involved in approving a secondary line of defence and a new dike. If things had gone their merry way under the former administration, there would have been a zillion houses in that flood plain rather than what we have now which is essentially a ranch and hayfields. I make no apologies. The department intends to take a firm hand and position with respect to policy in the Kamloops area. The kind of games that one individual landowner might want to play will not be tolerated. There will be a provincial position regarding flooding in Brocklehurst, and the Hook Ranch will have to consider the provincial interest as the primary interest.

MR. SMITH: Once again we hear the Minister get up and, instead of answering a question put on behalf of a concerned citizen who has every much a right as any other citizen in this province to be concerned about the flooding of his property, the Minister gets out a big harangue. He doesn't in any way help to alleviate that man's problem or any one else who is living behind that dike if their area is flooded out.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, just the people of Brocklehurst.

MR. SMITH: All he has said and all he is asking for is, if this happens and you destroy his land, will he be fairly compensated for that destruction? You have to make a decision as to whether you're going to open those gates so that you give protection to a larger number of people than those located in that particular area. But if that's the decision, will those people who own land there be compensated for that damage? That's all he's asking.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Those people have been very handsomely compensated in the past through the various arrangements that they've made. General policies, however, will prevail.

Vote 165 approved.

Vote 166: investigations, hydraulic surveys and projects, $ 1,662,487 — approved.

Vote 167: environmental quality studies, $300,000 — approved.

On vote 168, Okanagan flood control, $95,000.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): I wonder if I could ask the Minister if his department or the government has made any approaches to the U.S. authorities to enlarge the capacity of the Okanagan River of the American side of the boundary to accommodate the flow of water at the confluence of the Similkameen and the Okanagan to a capacity that would be more commensurate with what the Okanagan flood control channel and the Similkameen River discharges? This has a rather unfortunate effect on the land around Osoyoos Lake in that the flow of the Similkameen River backs the Okanagan flood-control waters back up into the lake. Now we have a decision that no building can take place around Osoyoos Lake unless it's at a level of 921 feet above sea level.

As I recall some years ago in appearing before an International Joint Commission, the Okanagan River on the American side was to be enlarged to meet the capacity that would be discharged. Not only would it be a help to British Columbia and the Okanagan Valley but it would be a help to the Americans themselves who suffer considerably from flooding down towards Omak, Washington and the communities all the way along the route.

My main thrust of this is: have we as a province approached the Americans as to enlarging the capacity of the channel?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I wrote the Hon. Mitchell Sharp, the Minister of External Affairs, on April 22 this year regarding the Zosel dam and taking that to the International Joint Commission for the possibility of some improvements there. That, however, is still not fundamental; it might improve it at the extremes.

It appears the real solutions, because flooding basically cannot be avoided on Osoyoos Lake, lie in zoning and land policies around the lake in relation to future development. We have a special group comprised of the Department of Municipal Affairs staff and Water Resources staff working on that particular question.

MR. RICHTER: Another short question. Some years ago, Mr. Minister, a survey was done at the request of the department of water rights as to the possible damming of the Similkameen River with flood control reservoirs, and also pertaining to the Ashnola River. I know there are a number of sites that were approved as having potentiality. I believe one was at Similkameen Falls and one was closer to

[ Page 3184 ]

Princeton and others in the Ashnola. Is your department considering in any way the reactivation of flood control dams on the Similkameen which would alleviate the situation around the Osoyoos area?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I gather that there was a joint study, all right, Mr. Chairman, on the possibility of damming on the Similkameen in order to avoid the back water effect on Osoyoos Lake across the border, and that one location in the United States was the best in terms of the impact on flooding in Osoyoos Lake.

But the consequences in the Cawston Valley were unacceptable. That is, it would mean flooding up to Cawston itself. That would involve Indian lands and other questions in Canada. So while it might resolve some of the problems in Osoyoos Lake, it would create an unacceptable situation in the Cawston Valley.

MR. RICHTER: I fully realize that I opposed that same proposal because I would have been completely flooded out on my ranch. It was not that; it was the Kendrick Study that was in higher reaches of the Similkameen.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, the higher you go, the less impact you have on Osoyoos Lake. That's the problem.

MR. RICHTER: I realize what you are trying to convey to me, Mr. Minister, but the fact is that if some of the waters in the head waters could be retained until a later time of the year, then you would have a continuity of flow. For instance, if say 50 per cent of the flow of the Ashnola at peak period was cut off…these reservoirs would not be very sightly once they were brought it down. They would act as a catch basin to control the main flow. This is an area in which, I think, to maintain a continuity of flow and at the same time cut down the crests….

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I gather that that possibility is still being investigated, Mr. Chairman. The staff aren't too hopeful, but they're still looking at the possibility.

Vote 168 approved.

On vote 169: Water Resources Service, Canada–British Columbia Joint Development Act, $12,670,000.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A quick question to the Minister on vote 169. This vote virtually doubles. Of course, I imagine there is a substantial compensating increase in federal commitments because this is, after all, Canada–British Columbia Joint Development Act.

I wonder whether the Minister can inform me, then, of the present situation with respect to the municipalities. Are they required to finance anything under this joint federal-provincial programme? Have we been able to wipe out the municipality portion, which used to be involved, I understand?

I wonder whether he would also indicate the dates which we have taken over the municipalities' portion, because a doubling here would indicate that it must be very recent. I wonder if the Minister has information on that.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It actually has been back-dated, and it is a total-sharing, provincial and federal. So all of the communities will benefit from that. The communities still have the responsibility regarding rights-of-way.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On the question of rights-of-way, I wonder if I could at this point….

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's a special case.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There is a special case which the Minister is aware of. It is a man by the name of Baumgartner, whose name has come up and I….

The point is this, we do have a bit of legislation. The Attorney-General is smiling happily, pleased that it is not him that is being asked this question at this time.

We have the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act, which is chapter 261.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes. It is also another Minister probably that you are trying to pass the buck to, but you are on the spot now, Mr. Minister.

I would like to ask you whether or not you would find some way of arranging compensation in cases where land is not expropriated, but is simply taken away without any possibility of compensation at all, under chapter 261 of the Statutes of British Columbia.

Please, it is not a compensation question under expropriation. We had a lot of nonsense on that previously. This is a straight confiscation bit of legislation, something opposed bitterly by the NDP at the time when….

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It was a Social Credit bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, it was a Social Credit bill, bitterly opposed by the NDP when it came forward. I wonder what steps you are taking, Mr.

[ Page 3185 ]

Minister, to have that changed.

It essentially ties in with diking and with canals. The problem arises because an individual whose land is needed, apparently, for right-of-way or for diking purposes, can get no compensation for either the right-of-way or the diking. Therefore the man in question, a man by the name of Baumgartner, whom I wrote to the Attorney-General about back on February 1 of this year, could have many, many thousands of dollars worth of land disappear on him to all intents and purposes. He would simply lose the value of his property due to government action under Bill 261.

The reply I got from the Attorney-General or from his department indicated that it was because of a federal-provincial-municipal agreement….

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It is very complicated.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, it's very complicated. And that's why it had to be that way. But whether it has to be that way or not according to the letter of the law, I wonder whether the Minister, who I believe personally opposed that statute when it came in years ago, but who certainly will agree with me that it is wrong in principle, could indicate to us whether compensation could be paid to people in cases such as that of Mr. Olaf Baumgartner.

Perhaps you would like to comment on this.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I have reviewed the matter with the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) and discussed the matter with the mayor of Richmond and his engineering staff. We have agreed the question of compensation is essentially a matter of municipal policy. I think about half of Mr. Baumgartner's land is affected. But it is considered by the government to be a matter for municipal policy.

I am not aware of any proposals by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) to change the statute.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I agree that there may well be a case of the sort of executive action being delegated to the municipality, but the fact is that they are acting under a provincial statute.

When we are dealing with $12,670,000, the amount of money involved in cases such as Mr. Baumgartner's is not great. In his particular case it is a matter of something like $25,000 to $30,000. However, for him personally, that is an enormous loss. It is a loss of 50 per cent of the value of his property which disappears without any hope of compensation. Were this expropriated, to use the terrible word, there would be some chance of compensation. But because it is confiscation, he gets nothing. Now, can you not figure out some way of giving him some assistance or help?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It is my understanding that the municipality is prepared to discuss compensation in Mr. Baumgartner's case. That is certainly the word that I have had from them. It is just a matter of whether they can come to some mutually satisfactory arrangement.

The fact that as much of his land is affected seems to me to be some justification for compensation in that case. But that is up to the municipality.

The special cases that I was referring to earlier are where the Crown sees a recreational interest in the land. For example, the sea dikes in the municipality of Delta around Boundary Bay would become fee simple assets of the Crown provincial. So the entire Boundary Bay shoreline, for example, wouldn't just be a dike, but in fact would be a recreational embankment with a different cross-section and the like so that all the people of the region would have the benefit of that recreation area.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister encourages me by his statement that Mr. Baumgartner does seem to be getting a pretty hard deal. The choice the municipality is offering the man is really no choice at all. He has the choice either of a 45-foot right-of-way running right through his property or, alternately, to have his property taken away.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Or being flooded.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, there is the possibility of flooding too, but that is something that he is willing to go along with because he has waterfront.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Wait till the river comes up.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that's one of those things. Rivers rise; rivers go down. But the difficulty that he faces….

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Let's ask him in about a month and a half.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I will be happy to do that, but your estimates will, I trust, be through by then. I would like to see them through in a couple of minutes. To aid me in seeing them through in a couple of minutes, perhaps you would give the commitment to the House that you will take this matter up with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) with a view to having chapter 261 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia struck from our statute books. It is an iniquitous bill. It is an Act which allows property to disappear without any

[ Page 3186 ]

compensation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that it is not permissible to ask one Minister to recommend something to another Minister.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps I could recommend it to him individually to take this upon himself, if that is the case. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that it is fine to have federal-provincial or dominion-provincial agreements and municipal agreements as well, but when it is the individual getting it in the neck, there seems to be nothing that can be done. I have raised this issue three times under three different Ministers. Really and truly, the legislation which permits not expropriation but straight confiscation should disappear from the statute books of British Columbia.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There is historical precedence in British Columbia regarding Crown-granted lands, the right to take back for road allowances and that kind of thing — on a limited percentage basis, I recognize.

The matter has been discussed with the municipality and we suggested that there should be a policy established in the municipality with respect to compensation in cases such as this. I think they are taking our suggestions positively.

Vote 169 approved.

On vote 170: Water Resources Service, B.C. hydrometric stream-gauging, $200,000.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We've passed the wrong thing.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's vote 170 we just passed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could we confirm that it is the B.C. hydrometric stream-gauging that we passed?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, that's what it was. I should have read that part, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You may be reading the title of the section rather than the title of the specific vote.

Vote 171: Water Resources Service, Southern Okanagan lands project, $362,791 — approved.

On vote 172: pollution control, $3,023,920.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, maybe the Minister could bring us up to date on the debate. The Pollution Control Branch is a very zealous group as far as defending the environment and the ecology and is technically really tops, but also philosophically it's tops as far as this precious earth…this earth which, you know, we seem to do so well to destroy.

How is that debate going? I personally can't see why it isn't under the Department of Health, quite frankly. I think you have a conflict, really, as the resource Minister, having this Pollution Control Branch in your department. But that is my own personal feeling, and doesn't necessarily affect the party. Health in the wider sense of the word…. If I could just illustrate. We really have conflicts; we could use all kinds of illustrations.

We're still thrashing around with the coal industry, the CPR and coal dust out in my riding. We've had meeting after meeting. We've had people doing tests on top of the schoolhouse out in Dewdney and Agassiz to measure the precipitation of coal dust, which is considerable. Yet there isn't even the persuasion — I would like to see policing, but there isn't even the persuasion — that I would like to see.

I only use this as an illustration, Mr. Chairman. I think we have got to deal with the apparent conflict between a resource industry and the Pollution Control Branch. I illustrate it with coal dust, but there are all kinds of other illustrations. I think we have a responsibility. I really hope that the people in pollution control are neutral and are really tops.

I would like to ask you if you are able to attract top technicians into this department. I understand that in some departments — like in the Water Investigations Branch — you have difficulty getting water engineers, civil engineers and hydraulic engineers. How well are you doing in attracting the best people? This really is a motherhood issue. It shouldn't be a problem to you. In no way should we, as a resource-rich industry, compromise here.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I would say this, Mr. Chairman: there is a great demand for top professional people. I think, by and large, that we are doing reasonably well. But I am putting the Pollution Control Branch on my agenda as the highest priority matter of this summer. There will be a full review of the section, its role, the problems that they face, the question of the separation of functions — the police function, for example, compared to the research and baseline studies that are really the initial work that is necessary in critical regions like the west Kootenays or the Kitimat valley or elsewhere. We are taking a very serious look.

The economic institute at the University of

[ Page 3187 ]

Victoria will be holding a major conference in June, chaired by Dr. Irving Fox from the West Water Institute at UBC, involving people from the State of Michigan who have done some of the better work in policing and others from around the continent and elsewhere, particularly in the field of effluent charges and the whole range of approaches that are being applied around the world at the moment.

The intent is to see the conference as the first step toward looking toward reorganization and further work throughout the summer that might result in legislative and administrative changes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, the vote here is a big one. It involves $22,695,000. Quite recently a member of the Minister's department in this area quit; his name was Maxwell. He said:

"I'm appalled at the waste of public funds and human resources that exist in the Pollution Control Branch…. Expenditures of large sums of money are approved for unnecessary and inane projects." He further added: "A great deal is being done to establish this great bureaucratic government agency known as the Pollution Control Branch, but very little is being done about pollution."

There are many other charges made by this gentleman about the fact that your 191-man staff could be reduced by at least 50 per cent. He said there could be enormous improvements. He suggests many changes.

The point I would like to make is this: I'm not endorsing all his criticisms. I'm quite sure that within any branch there are people who have genuine and very firmly held desire for change, who may well see only perhaps their own area of responsibility and not necessarily the whole picture. But the charges are fairly serious ones.

The man in question was not a minor employee in the department; he was a man of some importance. I wonder if the Minister could be a little more forthcoming in information on this particular vote — $22.5 million which is described as being spent in an inane way and with 191 men in the department — there are probably more now — which this man suggests could be reduced by 50 per cent and get the same amount of work done.

These are statements that the Minister should certainly reply to. We haven't yet heard him reply — or at least I haven't — in this house or elsewhere. Surely the time is now if he is going to defend this vast chunk of money — three minutes if you like — to say a few words about the need for change and what he is doing to make the branch more responsive, what he is doing to change it from the old attitude of the branch which, rightly or wrongly, used to be called the "Pollution Approval Branch" rather than the Pollution Control Branch by some people, and what he is doing to make sure that it is an effective agency.

The suggestion has been made that it should be shifted to another Minister. I agree. I think perhaps it should go to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford). In other words, this responsibility should be separated from the Minister who is also responsible for such polluting mills as Can-cel and Ocean Falls. But that is another matter. As he has the responsibility at the present time, could he please say a few words about what steps he has taken to improve this particular branch?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: One of the things that we have certainly been doing is working toward greater decentralization so that there are more field people on the ground in the main regions of the province. That's taken place over the last year, certainly.

I think it is fair to say that the Pollution Control Branch has concentrated in the past too much on the rather simple aspect of permits and the number of permits as a measure of performance. I personally and, I'm sure, the government don't see the production of permits as the right kind of measure of productivity.

Beyond decentralizing we are looking at reorganizing and at what is being done elsewhere on the continent. We think that with the right staff and with the right approaches we can break new ground in this field and that it is desirable.

I did meet with Mr. Maxwell, the young engineer that you mentioned, when he did resign. I had a good discussion with him. I think it was worthwhile. I think it is unfortunate that we have lost people like that. He was quite a young man and ready to travel in Europe. I wouldn't knock that at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want to travel in Europe?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You get $10,000 for travelling. Surely you could fit it in.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Maybe I could join the Minister of Municipal Affairs or something like that.

At any rate, we regard this now as probably our highest priority in terms of action on the part of myself as the Minister. I'm sure that it will result in significant changes later this year.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What type of changes?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm not going to prejudge it. I indicated a minute ago that it appears to us at this state that there is an obvious need for breaking up two functions that are presently mixed within the branch — that is, the research and baseline analyses of an environmental nature and the policeman function

[ Page 3188 ]

that the branch also carries on.

That's an obvious first step as we see it, along with the decentralization that we have been carrying out.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I had intended to raise this same issue and I am interested in the Minister's reply. It relates a little, I think, to the point I was trying to make yesterday on the Forest Service that highly skilled technical and engineering people, in the case of the foresters, don't seem to be out doing their job in the forests at the actual site of the action.

It seems to be the same in the case of Mr. Maxwell. I had a quote where he stated that all the work he did was boring and frustrating trivia. He said, "I refuse to continue to check spellings, correct grammatical errors, fill in details for standard letters, et cetera, for three-washer laundromats in Oyama."

Certainly if we have men as qualified engineers who are using their time in this manner, the reassurance the Minister has given is very welcome that there will be a basic review of the function of the department and the better use of skilled personnel.

The only other point I wanted to raise, and it's one I'm surprised has not been discussed a little bit, is the question of discussion or cooperation with the State of Washington about the possibility that was raised that the tankers from Alaska might put into Port Angeles instead of the proposed route to Cherry Point through the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Now I realize this is a very complicated issue and I would think, as a layman, that all the money that's been spent at Cherry Point in preparing refineries and so on, or that kind of money and expertise and effort, is likely to mean that there will not be any basic change of plan. But on the other hand, one of the consulting engineers was quoted a month or two ago as saying that Port Angeles would certainly be the best alternative among possible sites in northwest Washington for unloading oil transported from Alaska.

The gentleman's name was Wolf Bower, of Seattle, and he was talking to the Skagit Valley College. I'm a little surprised, too, and I don't say this with the intention of trying to be smart after the event, but it's rather interesting that after all the song and dance that has been made about our concern for oil down the coast, it's very interesting that with the oil crisis we have the tankers sailing out of Vancouver to help the situation in eastern Canada.

It would seem to me that we run the real risk of being branded as — if not hypocrites — at least inconsistent in our attitude. We're very concerned about tankers coming from Alaska, but when our own national well-being is in danger, there's nothing wrong with tankers sailing out of the harbour of Vancouver from Burnaby.

I'm quite willing to admit that this is an inconsistent position. So really what I'm saying now is: have we just given up the battle? In other words, are we resigned to the fact that these large tankers will be coming from Alaska and, as far as we can determine, will go through the straits to Cherry Point? If that is the case, if it's something we don't want and didn't want and have resisted — but now see it as unavoidable — maybe the Minister could tell us to what degree the next constructive step has been followed: namely, to deal with the federal government on the whole question of communications and monitoring of vessels and stepping up the efficiency of land-to-ship communication and vice versa, and all the other traffic-lane problems and navigation problems which will be so vital, if in fact these tankers are to sail down here, and finally the degree to which Port Angeles, either by the Americans or by the Americans and ourselves jointly…. Is it seriously being studied as an alternative?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not familiar with Port Angeles being looked at seriously at all by other authorities. I'm not sure that that source is that reliable a source.

The point, however, regarding tankers on the coast: the federal government has a significant inter-departmental task force working on the question, and they have met with provincial staff. The province, however, has taken the view that the federal government has not seriously looked at the alternatives, that they have accepted as a fait accompli the question of tankers on the coast linking Valdez and Cherry Point. As a result, it's not possible for the Government of British Columbia to carry on a satisfactory dialogue with the federal government.

It seems clear that they've made up their mind but that they haven't investigated the alternatives adequately enough. We've indicated that to them, but their group is pursuing their work at this time.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about beehive burners for a minute. Due to the fact that the Pollution Control Board is issuing permits to pollute as usual — I refer to Cariboo Pulp — I think they made a grave error there….

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Certainly they had to have a burner but why did they have to have it in the location they put it in? What is the Pollution Control Board doing granting permits like this in built-up areas whether it's non-polluting or not — and I don't believe that for one minute.

The only other thing I have to say, Mr. Chairman, is about the beehive burners that exist. The Minister has indicated…. I believe I remember that the

[ Page 3189 ]

sawmill industry has been given till 1975 to clean up these burners. A lot of them are operating illegally without even tops on them and the fly ash is heavy. A lot of communities feel that this day and age has long gone.

What I would like to know from the Minister…. The industry has been notified they must have burners satisfactory for pollution standards by 1975. Are you going to grant extensions when they say "Sorry, we haven't had time to look into all this"?

How many years extension do you intend to give to the beehive burners because there are communities in this province right now with quite a few burners around them and the indications are that not very much is going on. They're not paying any attention to the directive the Pollution Control Branch gave them, I believe, in 1973.

So I can read between the lines that when the deadline that they have been given comes along, they'll come to you as the Minister and say:"Due to all kinds of circumstances beyond our control, we haven't been able to do anything. Would you give us another two years?"

I'd like you to indicate just how tough you're going to be. Would you remind them in 1974 of the reminder they had in 1973 that these things are going to go, and that's so by whatever period of 1975?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We'll certainly be tougher than the previous government in this regard.

It is clear that there are problems in terms of the availability of steel and materials just to meet the goal. So it's possible that some modifications will be needed, and in some areas they will be more justified than in others. Nevertheless, it's a fairly serious goal and, although there will be modifications, we recognize the need for change.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I was questioning earlier the structure of the Pollution Control Branch. The difficulty that seems to come up from time to time, in view of the letters we have received, is the lack of authority for that branch, perhaps, as opposed to other branches.

Perhaps the Minister, before he gets his vote, would like to say a word or two about the opportunity there is for the Pollution Control Branch to pursue an independent course, whether it be critical of a government agency, Highways department or any other with respect to their operations or something approved by it.

My fear is that this agency simply doesn't have enough clout in the government to overrule decisions, either within the Minister's department in other branches, or indeed over other Ministers and Ministers' departments. I wonder if he would say a few words about that.

I raised this question because I have in my hand a letter dated March 4, 1974, to Mr. and Mrs. Norman Thyer, Nelson, B.C., signed by Leo Nimsick, Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. He said:

"I'm writing in reply to your letters regarding your operation of a gravel pit…." — et cetera, et cetera. "You will understand that the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources only deals with the reclamation of such an area, and the granting of a permit to excavate the gravel does not come under the jurisdiction of my department. It is handled by the Department of Lands."

Now I have another letter dated April 9, signed by Robert Williams, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, which says in the second paragraph:

"Firstly, I must advise that the operation of a gravel pit does not come under the purview of my department but is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources. I am advised that you have already had considerable correspondence and discussion with officers of that department and it would appear redundant for me to comment on this matter."

So you washed your hands of it and Leo said — good old Leo, he's laughing there; he's smiling away — he said it was all your job. You said it was nothing to do with you. Now what does this poor couple do when they're faced with the problem? — which I will now, of course, have to describe, Mr. Chairman. It is as follows. Let me read you a couple of paragraphs of their letter.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Whereabouts is this case, the location?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The location? Nelson, B.C. R.R.2, Nelson; Mr. and Mrs. Thyer — Norman and Anna. It's dated May 14. It's a copy of a letter to you, I presume.

"Dear Sir:

"We live in in the country and our domestic water supply comes from a spring which is on our own property but close to the border with a neighbouring lot. The water supplies of four other households also originate close to this lot. A few months ago this neighbourhood lot was bought by someone whom we shall refer to as 'Mr. Z.' Soon afterwards, 'Mr. Z' started to operate a gravel pit."

Now, Leo, will you please listen?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK: (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I've already listened to that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, I'm sure you have.

"He ignored our protests about the risks of

[ Page 3190 ]

the operation disrupting our water supply. He merely declared 'll bought the land and I'm going to do what I want with it.' "

What happened of course was…. Perhaps I better read the next paragraph:

"The Mines Regulation Act should provide for some control over such operations. According to section 11 of this Act, a gravel pit operator should submit reclamation plans referring to the effects of the operation on watercourses, farms, nearby inhabited places and the appearance of the site, and the programme must be approved by the Ministers of three other departments of the provincial government. This approval and subsequently a permit should be obtained before work starts on the operation.

"We informed the local inspector of mines of the operation soon after it started. Two months later, he had done nothing about it.

"Neither had the Water Rights Branch complied with our request for protection of our water supply. Indeed, there is considerable vagueness as to whether our water is classed as ground water or surface water.

"By now our protests had reached the Ministerial level. At this point, the chief inspector of mines in Victoria granted 'Mr. Z' a permit…"

You see, later on he granted a permit. Shameful thing.

"… apparently without the approval of the three other departments. There has certainly been no consultation whatsoever with ourselves or other residents who might be affected. After all, in the words of the chief inspector, 'Mr. Z' was 'doing this for the good of the country.' "

I won't read the whole of the letter, but the question that we're really faced with is: who's responsible? You've washed your hands of it, according to one letter.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, you're all pointing at one another saying, "after you, Alphonse" or whatever it is that Ministers say. Who do these people go to to get a clear decision? It's perhaps amusing to us at the moment, or to some people in the House, but they're having their drinking water affected by the operation of one of their neighbours.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Minister, your estimates are through, you lucky fellow. This poor chap has to reply. That's not a factual statement, Mr. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick).

They feel their water supplies are affected and they would like to know what to do about getting some kind of redress. You've washed your hands, Mr. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. The Minister of Mines washed his hands of the matter. Both of you passed the buck to the other, or tried to, leaving Mr. and Mrs. Thyer in the unhappy position of having what they consider to be a damaged water supply, affected water, and no redress from a government agency. I just leave this with you right now and hope that you'll be able to reply. What can I recommend to Mr. and Mrs. Thyer as to how they should go about getting some sort of redress?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I suppose the first line of defence is local in questions like this. It's essentially in the first instance a land zoning question within the regional district. If the region was doing its job, then they would have a pretty careful look at any proposed gravel pit operation. It appears that the region also doesn't regulate gravel pits within terms of a land use zoning and the like. That's probably where as much of this problem lies as any.

I gather that the local district engineer in the Water Resources Branch at Nelson has visited the site and the staff have visited the site and have not in fact confirmed that the water source for these people is adversely affected. So the problem as much as anything is really a land zoning question which related directly to the regional district.

MR. D, A. ANDERSON: Yes, but this brings up the question I raised at the very beginning.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: None of the three Ministers….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: None of the three Ministers are guilty, of course not. Perhaps it's the Minister of Consumer Services. (Ms. Young) — they're consuming water.

But, Mr. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, what authority…?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Navigable Waters Protection Act, possibly.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There are all sorts of possibilities, yes.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Premier has suggested that it would be a federal Liberal piece of legislation. Well, I trust that after July 8, that's where they may be able to go for help. But the fact is that the Water

[ Page 3191 ]

Resources Branch is the pollution control agency of the government, and it appears to me from your answer that they are subordinated to a large number of other authorities, including municipal authorities. I don't think that's necessarily good enough.

The point I was making to you earlier — and I think Mr. Maxwell made it in that resignation letter which I referred to earlier — is that the branch simply doesn't have enough clout in the government to have its views heard. Instead you have a number of other departments quite able to overrule it. Even within your own department it appears to me that your Pollution Control Branch doesn't have enough authority.

This is undoubtedly something rather more structural than we can deal with at this time, but I do trust that by this time next year when we're discussing your estimates on this, you've had an opportunity to change this, because to give it such low priority is of course to give the whole work of that branch low priority. It leads to the frustration that Mr. Maxwell made clear in his resignation.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm sympathetic to what the Member is saying, Mr. Chairman. That's why we are considering the Pollution Control Branch as a high priority project this summer. It may very well be that more clout, in fact, is needed.

Vote 172 approved.

Vote 173: Water Resources Service, laboratory services, $963,094 — approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
THE PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

On vote 188: Minister's office, $52,524.

MR. PHILLIPS: Things are moving fairly rapidly here this afternoon. I just want to say a few brief words about the civil service, which comes under this Minister's estimates.

Mr. Chairman, in the 18 months since this government has come to office — to power, as they like to phrase it — the civil service in British Columbia has increased by some 33 per cent, approximately one-third over what it was for a number of years. That's what I would term a substantial increase for that period of time.

The reason I bring this up, of course, is the increase in cost in the civil service to the taxpayers of British Columbia. The increase in the cost of this civil service in 1974 over 1973 is over $70 million. That's an astronomical amount of money in one year for increased employees — twice the amount of money that we give to the entire Department of Agriculture, including supplementary allotments for special funds.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I think, Mr. Member, that your excellent suggestions and comments are probably more appropriate under 210 when we zero in on that specific matter.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm quite willing to wait, but it's under the Minister's estimates and what I bring up might not be that specific.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm sure that the Minister would respond specifically to your questions.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, let me get it over with and then I'll get out of your hair.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're doing a fine job.

MR. PHILLIPS: We know, Mr. Chairman, that among the hierarchy of the civil service, and particularly among the upper echelon, there are a great deal of known party supporters which have been hired. Maybe all of these aren't civil service employees, but a lot of them have been hired on commissions and it all ties into the same bag. I'm beginning to wonder, Mr. Chairman, if you have to have a degree in political science to work in the upper hierarchy of the socialist government employment now. Or do you have to be a graduate of the London School of Economics? Or do you have to have a degree from Harvard University? Because all of these are sort of tied in to the socialist philosophy.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Harvard is a socialist university?

MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't say that. I said that certain graduates were tied into the socialist philosophy.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shades of Joe McCarthy. Harvard is a socialist university. Ho, ho, ho!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will the Member continue?

MR. PHILLIPS: Will you, Mr. Chairman, please call the Premier to order? He's upsetting me. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: You may continue with your remarks.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We also know that many socialists have flocked here from other provinces and they're put on the payroll. I sometimes have to wonder about the capability and the training and qualifications of these government employees.

This has never had to be questioned in the past,

[ Page 3192 ]

and I don't want to have to question it now. So I want the Minister to assure us that all of these 8,000 new persons who have been employed in the civil service are well qualified for their jobs.

I also want him to assure the House that it's not going to be a requisite for a promotion in the civil service to carry a New Democratic Party card. I wouldn't want that to be the only door that would be open to promotion, because not necessarily carrying a New Democratic card would qualify you for promotion.

I didn't think, Mr. Chairman, that the government would start firing people in the civil service who have been doing a good job, and replacing them with party supporters. I don't know of any cases where this has happened where there's been a full-time employee. But certainly where there are part-time employees, Mr. Chairman, it offers an excellent opportunity to replace some of these part-time employees who have been efficient with party supporters. I think this is very arrogant on the part of the government, very arrogant indeed. Some of the party supporters who might be hired might not be as efficient in the new job as the person who has held that job for a number of years.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you suggesting we bring back Ron Worley?

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to read into the record a case in which I feel a great injustice was done. I'd like the Minister to comment on that. This letter was recently sent to me from a constituent in the Peace River area. This might be an isolated case, and if the government's willing to take a look at it and if an injustice has been done rectify that injustice…. I certainly hope this is an isolated case and isn't happening elsewhere in the province, Mr. Chairman. But I'd just like to read you some excerpts from this letter, because I feel it's incumbent…and I'm glad the Premier's in the House. This man, I feel, has been unjustly treated.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Named Phillips?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, his name is not Phillips. No, I don't have any relatives in the area. I'm a lone wolf up there. All my relatives are still back in the hinterland, back in New Brunswick.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The yea team.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to quote from this letter of May 7, Mr. Chairman:

"In 1969, my brother-in-law had the job of park attendant at Sudeten Park, Tomslake. He quit when he got a steady job. My wife took the job over under his name for two months at $35 per month with the verbal understanding that I would have got the job permanently on a seasonal basis.

"From 1970 I have had this job" — that's from 1970, three years — "for four seasons and presumed I was getting it this year, as my work has been satisfactory, according to my superiors. I can obtain a petition from the general public stating that whenever they were there, they had no complaints. Also I have the register for 1973 with signatures and comments on the park."

HON. MR. HALL: Which department?

MR. PHILLIPS:

"I was promised a company vehicle during the past years, which I never did get."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Which department?

MR. PHILLIPS:

"I never made an issue of it because I was happy with the job and used my own vehicle. I usually commence my job in mid-May.

"This year I presumed the job was mine and was surprised to see a company vehicle in the park on May 1…"

Now, you must remember that he never started his job until May 15.

"… and Mr. William (Bill) Kuenzle working in the park.

"When I saw him I phoned George Schwartz, Parks Branch, in Fort St. John, to verify the situation. He said the job went to Mr. Kuenzle as he was more suitable. How can Mr. Kuenzle be more suitable, as my job was always satisfactory? Mr. Kuenzle is approximately 60 years old. I am 20 years younger and I feel more capable of work production and efficiency.

"I would like to know what I can do about this situation. I would like to know why I didn't get the job. I have always been conscientious, and for peace of mind would like to know the reason for this. Why did I have to do without a company vehicle and he gets one? I cannot see the justice of this, as I have previously said my work was satisfactory and I had no notification or idea the job wasn't mine for 1974.

"As Mr. Kuenzle started earlier than I had in prior years and he received a company vehicle, I feel there is political involvement. Mr. Kuenzle is president of the local NDP club.

"I was paid approximately 16 cents a mile for use of my pickup. It seems the taxpayer has the protection as the mileage has to be accurate, et cetera. Mr. Kuenzle has not got a

[ Page 3193 ]

pickup and he received a company vehicle May 1 for doing the Sudeten Park, and prior the Parks Branch didn't think that Sudeten Park warranted a company vehicle for economic purposes."

Now, this is a case where a political supporter, the president of the NDP club in Tornslake, has been given this job over and above a man who has done the job satisfactorily for the last four years. I think this man has been done an injustice.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We'll look into it.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want you to look into it, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Send the staff over and we'll look into it immediately.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want it looked into and I want justice done for this man!

HON. MR. BARRETT: You bet.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is that a promise from the Premier that justice will be done?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Minister will look into it immediately. Why didn't you bring the facts out sooner?

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly hope so, because this might be an isolated case, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right. Send it over and we'll look into it immediately.

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly will send you a copy of this letter.

HON, MR. BARRETT: That's what we want — action, not talk. Send it out.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want action in this particular case and I intend to follow it up. I intend to find out if there are other such cases throughout the province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Hear, hear! You send it over here right away.

MR. PHILLIPS: This is not justice, Mr. Chairman — not justice at all. I don't want to see this Mr. Kuenzle, if he's been planning on this job for the summer, fired either.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Get over here.

MR. PHILLIPS: Don't rush, don't rush.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Every minute you're losing is delay.

MR. PHILLIPS: We're all right. I checked out the time, Mr. Premier — we're okay. You can go fishing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How long have you had that case?

MR. PHILLIPS: How long have I had this case?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR, PHILLIPS: I got this case in the mail, I think it was Monday morning.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You should have been to see the Minister right away. You wasted four days. Shame!

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, no, Mr. Premier! Mr. Premier, you brought up a very important subject that I didn't wish to discuss here this afternoon, but if you keep on prodding me, I'll tell you about some of the letters I've written to some of the Ministers. So don't taunt me!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you threatening me?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, and I don't want you to threaten me, either!

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I love you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'm sure you do. All right. Now, I'd like the Provincial Secretary to respond and put it in the record that if I bring you this, you will check into it and justice will be done for this man.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Hear, hear!

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Chairman, there's no question that if the Member gives me that information I'll check into it personally. But I want to just make sure everybody in the House realizes one thing, because I don't want the Public Service Commission per se to carry any of the criticism that the Member has, in his own right, justifiably presented to the House. This employment, which I understand is in the Department of Recreation and Conservation for a temporary employee, will come out of the temporary vote in the estimates, and that is the departmental hiring. I just want to make sure that my staff — Mr. Richardson the chairman of the Public Service Commission, isn't here yet — realize that that is a local decision thing with the department. I certainly want to assure you that in terms of full-time employees, in terms of

[ Page 3194 ]

permanent, continuous and so on, that's a different route of getting into the public service than the one you've explained, which is a temporary appointment.

Having got the record straight on that one, I want to reassure the Member that if he'll give me that information I will personally….

MR. PHILLIPS: You have the letter now.

HON. MR. HALL: Oh, this is the one you have just given us, is it?

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right.

HON. MR. HALL: The next thing I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, in answer to the Member's particular remarks about the growth of the public service, is that nobody is as concerned as I am. My colleagues, both in the cabinet and in the Treasury Board, will attest to my concern over the growth of the work force that is our machine, for two reasons. One is that it underscored the deficiencies that were there when we came in. There's no question about that, and I think everybody would agree with that. Secondly, it reflects the new programmes that we're putting in. And we're picking up now in a very different way the temporary appointments that used to be a feature of the government.

The next thing is the relationship that now exists between the work force and ourselves in terms of a contract, which is currently being negotiated, in terms of putting an end to that kind of "permanent temporary" and "part-time continuous." The names they used to give to categories are just unbelievable.

I think it is fair to say that we shouldn't expect, as Members, to see a continuation of that kind of growth curve. I would point out that indications from other jurisdictions also show growth but they don't show the kind of growth that you've referred to. I think that is a reflection of a new government and a new programme.

I want to show my concern. I'm already getting something of a reputation among my colleagues of being, to use the colloquial, a bit of a red-neck about this. I think it is probably the best department….

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you say "red-neck"?

HON. MR. HALL: That's what I said. I used the colloquial term that you know so well.

Now, let's discuss the other remarks you make about political appointees. I don't want to get into a furious debate with the Member because I know he didn't really want to leave the impression that political appointees are to be found riddled throughout the public service of this department. He knows, as you know, Mr. Chairman, and as I know, that that is not a fact.

The fact of the matter is that we make no apologies whatsoever for appointing people whom we know, whom we trust, who have the same or similar political ideals and programmes that we have. We appoint them by order-in-council for specific jobs. Everyone of them is listed. You have, as a matter of fact, read out the list of those appointees who are political appointees who will live and die with this government. We make no apologies at all.

What I did object to — and I wish I had an opportunity to respond to your speech earlier…. You read out a list, Mr. Member, which, if you had just done 10 seconds of thinking, you knew included government agents and previous appointments by your administration to hospital boards. I can think of a senior vice-president of the Social Credit Party who was appointed by one of those orders-in-council that you read out, not too far from my constituency. You read out names of young girls who work for this government and who, for a period of a month, have to take over the duties of a senior person in order that the various legal forms can be dealt with at the financial offices, the government agents' offices that the Premier looks after, the length and breadth of this province for a month. You read those names out. You read 1,700 names, I think; it is possible that 1,700 of those names could not really be described in the way you did do.

If you want the list of political appointees, ask me for it; I've got them. They're in orders-in-council. I think you should sort out those orders-in-council a little better than you did last time. We make no apologies for it; it's done in every jurisdiction that I can think of. As long as we all understand that, we don't need to get very up-tight and very distraught about it. I think those are the answers to the questions of the Member for Peace River.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I welcome the words of the Provincial Secretary. He and I argued last year that some of these political appointments — I'm thinking now specifically of people hired because of their connection with the NDP and for positions of confidential relationship….

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The point that I am trying to make, Mr. Premier, before you think you are being criticized, was that my original point last year to the Provincial Secretary was to allow some of these people who feel they have qualities, despite their political affiliation, which could be useful to the public service, to be switched to the public service. He turned down that proposal last year by way of amendment which I think is wrong. I think that many of the people who may well have political connections might be of value to the public service

[ Page 3195 ]

after a change of government. But that is a point I won't argue again.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't think you'll find that kind of maturity there. I accept your argument; there needs to be some maturity in accepting that. I accept your argument. There needs to be maturity to accept that.

MR, D.A. ANDERSON: Well, nor does the Provincial Secretary accept it, curiously enough.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's because of what we are dealing with there. They aren't mature enough.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the Provincial Secretary is curbing growth and is showing maturity at this stage, and I appreciate that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Think of Pearse, for example. He's invaluable.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Exactly.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, if this is not all on Hansard, the Premier has mentioned a person such as Peter Pearse being a very valuable person.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He was obviously not hired for his political background, I would think, unless you wished to hire Liberals. But when you hire an NDPer who is qualified, my point last year was that if that person is qualified and happens to have been hired by an NDP cabinet Minister for his own office and he is definitely a political appointment — for which I have no quarrel — that person, if — through some mischance or accident or anything else — this government should no longer remain the government, should have the opportunity of swinging into the public service if he is qualified in and the public service wants him.

HON. MR. BARRETT: By competition.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, by competition. I put in an amendment to that effect and it was unfortunately turned down last year. I think we are going to have a more responsive government now that maturity has hit the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no, no. Get that in writing from over there.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, okay. We'll try also to get the official opposition to agree. But it was the Provincial Secretary who turned it down last year. I am pleased to see that there is more flexibility in the government's position.

By the way, before I finish on the subject, the Provincial Secretary said he would send us a list of direct political appointees. May I ask him at this time, formally, for such a list? I would appreciate having a copy of it.

Now, may I turn to a debate under the Public Service Labour Relations Act of last year, p. 1318 of Hansard, November 6, 1973, in which I requested that certain people with a confidential relationship with the government be excluded from being members of bargaining units. Again, a technical subject which the Provincial Secretary knows well.

I asked at that time that people who were in an executive position, people who were in the personnel departments and involved in personnel work and people who have to deal formally on behalf of the government with a grievance, which may be put in accordance with the grievance procedures under this Act, be in a special capacity. The Provincial Secretary replied to me saying that he could not accept it. He said,

I congratulate the Member for a well-thought-out amendment — an amendment which would find acceptance, I suppose, in almost every board room of the province, but not this one. It is a different philosophy, and I think nothing points up the philosophy difference better than this amendment.

It's our desire, when making sure that work people have full and free collective bargaining arrangements, that the privilege, right or access be guaranteed to as many people as possible…. We don't see as a government, in a philosophical way, the need to exclude people who are in a confidential capacity….

In fact, the Premier is often on record as saying everyone should be in the union right up to the Deputy Minister.

I would like to congratulate him for changing his mind. As I see in the April 29 edition of The Provincial, there are, indeed, 800 employees excluded. I see from a letter dated April 26, 1974, from the Speaker to all personnel in the service of the Legislative Assembly, there are six categories of people who are listed as being excluded.

I would like to thank the Minister at this time for changing his mind. I wish he had accepted my amendment because it would have made a great deal more sense to have had this in writing and as part of the law. But he has changed his mind from his statement of November 6, 1973 in a relatively short period of time. We appreciate that he has accepted the fact that there are people in confidential capacities who should not be involved in the collective bargaining process.

The second item I would like to ask him a few

[ Page 3196 ]

questions on is the emergency programme. We changed the name of this last year from civil defence. Again, I would like to start out by congratulating the Minister. I believe the programme and the people in it are doing a good job; I believe they are doing their very best. I even believe the Minister has given them support and help and, indeed, it is working well.

The question I raise for him is this: are we spending enough time thinking about future disasters which might call upon this organization for assistance? I'm thinking, for example, of a plane crash of a major nature, say, in Saanich near the Victoria airport. Say, for example, there was a major crash at that time. Would the B.C. emergency programme be able to assist in a meaningful way? Would it be possible for them to play a role and, indeed, should they play a role? My feeling is that the emergency programme began when civil defence was the major concern of people and basically it was preparing for nuclear disaster. When it was assumed that nuclear disaster was less imminent than had previously been thought and the name "Civil Defence" was dropped, the programme began to lose any real purpose.

I wonder if he could indicate what efforts are being made to re-evaluate its role in terms of disasters such as a plane crash — I give that only as an example — which might well occur in British Columbia and require something more than the assistance that can be provided by local fire departments, police departments and the regular airport or other services. I wonder whether he might at this time give us a few words on what the role will be in the future and whether or not it will have the opportunity of revamping itself and finding some sort of new opportunities in the future.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the questions raised by the Liberal leader in the order in which he raised them: I haven't changed my mind about exclusions, so be careful how you congratulate me. I said at the time of the debate that I believe that anybody has the right to be in a trade union, but I believe in collective bargaining, period.

Those exclusions were negotiated by collective bargaining on the desire of the union, even for exclusions. I, in fact, overruled a number of departments who wanted exclusions because they were claiming they were in a confidential capacity. I regret in some ways that the union has applied to the Labour Relations Board for the exclusions that they have done.

I think you are quoting from the union, not my magazine. I think you're quoting from the union magazine.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: That's the union magazine. Mine's a different one altogether for the Public Service Commission.

I think it's fair to say that my position remains the same as before. However, the union in its desire to cooperate on the establishment flowing out of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, to negotiate those 13 components themselves…and that was done with a committee of the union and a committee comprised of senior people in the Public Service Commission.

I want to go on record as being, frankly, at times a little unhappy about some of the exclusions. I know that Ministers have come to me already asking why a junior staff person in their office should be excluded. My reply is that that was the demand of the union, that was full and fair collective bargaining; they took votes, they took their decisions in that way. And that was the philosophy I was describing to the Member last session.

As for the emergency programme — I am glad the Member brought it up because for years we tended to just simply vote against that department because it was called Civil Defence, and tended to be oriented towards the period of 1940 to 1945, and perhaps the cold war and other things.

Because of that feeling, one of the first things I did was discuss with the members in the emergency programme a new thrust, a new style, a new stance. I am happy to report that we have had a number of conferences of staff people — one as recently as a month ago which I addressed on Dallas Road — and they've been working out some of these new ideas in conjunction with the federal people, the police people, the army and others.

I am meeting in a very short time, on June 4, with the head of the Emergency Measures Organization who is coming from Ottawa and meeting me in Nanaimo on June 4. It's at those meetings we are, I think, changing the thrust of the department.

In direct response to your questions as to whether a department could involve itself in such a thing as a plane crash, the answer is yes.

As a matter of fact the communication section and the aeronautical division — which is being very useful in coordinating plane searches — I am assured by my people, would play a role in a disaster such as you say.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to change the subject a bit, I want to talk about library services in the Province of British Columbia, which comes under this Minister, and the change that is taking place. I refer to the regionalization of library services in the province.

As I understand it, somebody here in Victoria, I assume after discussion at the regional levels and local levels, decided that it would be regionalized and that there would be 11 regions in the province. I don't

[ Page 3197 ]

know for sure that I'm correct on that, but that's my understanding.

In the case of the Kamloops and the Cariboo, it was decided to put the Thompson-Nicola Regional District in with the Cariboo Regional District. So, I again assume that's one of the 11 regions that was to be renegotiated.

The Thompson-Nicola went ahead; they had their vote in their region. I believe it passed by 88 per cent to join and regionalize the library service which in prior times has been, in the rural areas, handled by the province. In the municipalities there were varying types of municipal library services.

Then when it went to the Cariboo Regional District — that's where it still is — the Cariboo regional board wouldn't even give the citizens a vote on the subject. That's the impasse we are at at this present time.

In other words, the elected Members of the Cariboo Regional District decided in their wisdom that they would not allow the taxpayers of the Cariboo Regional District to vote whether or not to opt in and with the Thompson-Nicola district for a regional library service, which would probably improve the service of the library functions.

There has been a real breakdown and I'm quite concerned about it. I've tried to help, with your department, Mr. Minister. I have had a lot of help from them and I have taken it back to the regional level and council level and so on, but things are at an impasse.

The worry is that you intend to inaugurate this in, I believe, 1975 and all grants and so on will be on that basis. Anybody that hasn't opted the way it was suggested by the Library Development Commission — if they haven't opted into this, well, all provincial funds will be cut off.

I notice in one of the votes here that it's up from some $900,000 to $2,200,000 — I assume that's what it is for. But when we have a situation like this, I don't know what you can do. I have had a lot of correspondence from citizens demanding their rightful vote, and I have taken the position publicly that they are entitled to a vote. But the elected Cariboo Regional District say they won't have a vote.

Now the root of the trouble is this: a decision was made for them that they would opt into the Thompson-Nicola Regional District. It probably was discussed, but I don't think they liked this. I would say we have different thoughts from the Thompson-Nicola Regional District who are pretty free, high and mighty spenders. They are certainly higher spenders than, say, the Cariboo regional board, so we have a different philosophy entirely. Trying to meld them is the problem.

But getting by the fact that they haven't had a vote, the people would be asked to vote to a maximum of 1.5 mills. I think the elected people of the Cariboo Regional District feel this is far too costly an impost on the taxpayer for the function of library. This could well be and it has been determined that the Thompson-Nicola Regional District don't feel that way. They've got lots more money, and they're well willing to pay up to a maximum of 1.5 mills, I might say.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

So there we have the impasse. Now the most recent development is that the Cariboo regional board are, I believe, going to approach you to see whether they can go on their own, not go in the function with the Thompson-Nicola for a library. As I see it at a provincial overview, I was wondering what your feelings on it are because no doubt this would upset the provincial plan. It is a controversy raving on all through the Interior. I would just point out to you in the mention of 1.5 mills as far as taxation is concerned for library — where one area might agree they can afford and are willing to pay for it, and others won't — the Cariboo regional board total operation is less than 1 mill which would be assessed for administration purposes. This is something that they see, again, adding another function.

I would also like to know if this is the maximum, 1.5 mills, and if it did come to pass, what is the percentage the province feels they will be paying under this new regionalization of library services? That is, overall is it 20 per cent, or what?

In some areas they are saying that the load of library services is being transferred from the province to the local taxpayer. I'd like to know whether this is such. There are indications through the correspondence I have that this is not the case, that in fact the province will be contributing more than they ever contributed before. But statements are being made that there is definitely a transfer here from the province back to the local level. Again I think this is the problem.

I might say that the dilemma really is the fact that the elected Cariboo regional board won't allow a vote to take place. I have checked with Municipal Affairs and found out that there isn't much they can do about it either, so it could probably end up in the municipal elections in the fall.

But there is an impasse, and I see trouble ahead — loss of provincial funds that have been coming through to particularly the municipalities in the Cariboo. They'll be cut off if there is no vote taken in 1974; then it will switch over because they haven't opted in to the regionalization of the Thompson-Nicola — and everybody suffers. This is most unfortunate. I don't know whether this has developed in other parts of the province, but it is a very controversial item up there.

I repeat: from the Cariboo Regional District

[ Page 3198 ]

directors' point of view, they are looking at the cost of their operation. In my opinion, the Cariboo Regional Board is really loaded a little heavily on the rural side, and that is where the vote was close that they had within the board itself to hold a plebiscite. The vote was 12 to 10. There are 22 votes on the regional board, but it failed by a vote of 12 to 10.

Now after this and the pressure on them by a lot of citizens of the area, they have now come up with the idea that rather than opt in with Thompson-Nicola, they want to go it on their own. They are coming to see you.

There are several questions there but it is quite a controversy. Really, I think in both areas, the Thompson-Nicola and the Cariboo, they will be the sufferers, because an upgraded library service will not be available because of the stand taken. I would like to hear the views at this juncture from the Minister.

HON. MR. HALL: First of all, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for the work he's done in trying to reverse that decision. I know he's done the work because on Friday last I addressed the library association, some hundreds of delegates meeting in convention in Richmond.

In a little get-together prior to the meeting I had the opportunity of talking to a great number of delegates at that convention in private. And a number of delegates, who were very upset, as you are, Mr. Member, about the situation, praised you for your efforts.

I think I would be less than doing my duty if I didn't convey that message to you.

The vote you refer to indicates the seriousness of the situation, when a 50-50 split on having a vote seems to me to be really cocking one's snoot at democracy. Obviously to decide anything, you should have a vote. It is a little odd to understand.

It is true to say if you examine the estimates over the three books that are currently before us, I think it is fair to say that percentage-wise the amount of money the government is giving to the development of libraries has increased probably more than almost any of the votes in government. I am rather proud of that.

I have also got a commitment from the cabinet and the Treasury Board that the vote will be increased as the systems come in. I am sending over to you the booklet on the systems which answers most of your questions about funding.

If you join the system you get all sorts of grants — basic $10,000 grants, $1 per capita for this, $2 per capita for that and you get…. Frankly, it is one of the most attractive formula proposals I have ever seen. It was worked out prior to my assuming office. I'm not taking credit; this was the Library Commission which was toiling away unnoticed, unheralded and not supported in the sense of a government decision to support the system.

I made that decision. The government made that decision. And now they are away and we are running. The first one on line…. You beat Vancouver easily, by being ready in the Cariboo and the Thompson-Nicola area.

I provided money. In fact, money was provided first of all, extra to that which was in the book. But at the last minute, as you say, the Cariboo area backed out.

We are on stream now — $600,000 ready for the Thompson-Nicola. I can't answer your questions until I discuss it, obviously, with the board members. But it seems to me that when you get a deal going that gives this kind of money, we have got to use, frankly, that sort of incentive to get people to at least have a vote.

I am going to be a bit tough and a bit hard. But certainly we won't let the library service necessarily deteriorate. When you consider what you get, how you are plugged into the audio systems, all the non-print media and the resources centre theory that is behind this programme, they are very foolish not to allow it.

I again congratulate you. Perhaps we can jointly see them when they come in. Perhaps we can all get together, and I invite you, obviously as an important part of that decision-making process, to join me in trying to persuade them.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the Provincial Secretary has a number of varied responsibilities. One that often goes unnoticed, except every three or four years, is his responsibility for the electoral process in the Province of British Columbia.

I think sometimes that the department is incorrectly named. It should be the department of the political commissar, or something.

Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, chasing this secretary around the desk?

At any rate, may I ask the Hon. Provincial Secretary, if the government and his department, through the Registrar of Voters, has under active consideration of redrawing of the constituency boundaries of this province? We have had since 1965-66 a significant increase in the population of the province. Not only have we had an increase in our overall population, but there have been some significant and startling shifts of population.

I don't need to remind the Provincial Secretary of that because his own constituency is one which has experienced a growth which I suppose some might call phenomenal. I don't think it is phenomenal; it is natural growth in the Surrey constituency.

Therefore, I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the Provincial Secretary could indicate when we may expect to see an independent, impartial commission

[ Page 3199 ]

established to consider the matter of electoral boundary reforms, so we can approach even more closely than was the case following the last distribution some equality of vote representation by population in British Columbia.

HON. MR. HALL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound. You put your case well. When he talks about spectacular growth in the Provincial Secretary's department, I always get a little sensitive.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: In your constituency.

HON. MR. HALL: I want to tell you as simply and succinctly as I can that I anticipate producing for your debate amendments to the Constitution Act, based on a commission inquiring into redistribution, and also a new elections Act in the spring session of 1975.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I just have one other subject, and I think we can thank the Attorney-General for that clear indication. I am sure that all Members on all sides of the House will welcome the concept of an impartial, responsible commission concerning themselves with something as important as that.

I turn to another one of the Minister's varied responsibilities. I congratulate him and the Deputy….

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, I am in a very congratulatory mood, Mr. Chairman. I want the Provincial Secretary to recognize the opportunity he has been given.

But I am being very serious. Today, May 16, saw the kick-off of the sports festival. As usual, the Provincial Secretary's department and his Deputy and his staff are to be congratulated on the manner in which they conduct events of this nature. They do credit to the Minister and to the department and to the province.

But the Minister has had a study made into the concept of a festival of sports and there was delivered to all Members a report by Mr. Broom, which makes some critical but constructive comments with respect to the way the festival has been carried on in the past. He outlines some ways in which he believes it might be improved.

I would like to know from the Minister the extent to which the recommendations of Mr. Broom are being implemented.

I appreciate that the report was only recently received, and therefore we cannot expect that any of the changes — or many of them at any rate — would have been incorporated in the festival which commenced today.

I wonder if the Provincial Secretary could tell the committee, however, how much has been expended for advertising and promotion in this current festival period. It is one of the major recommendations of Mr. Broom that a study be made of this advertising programme. He recommends as well that the awards programme be discontinued. I think it would be interesting to know the extent to which expenditures are presently taking place in that respect, and what saving and what alternatives there may be.

I'm not certain that I agree entirely with Mr. Broom when he suggests that the awards programme should be dispensed with. I've had the opportunity, as have many Members, of participating in events connected with the Festival of Sports. I certainly know that for our younger citizens the receipt of an award for successful performance in the festival is quite meaningful to those young people. While it may not need to be as extensive as it was in the past, I think some recognition of their contribution to each festival should nonetheless be continued.

I also recognize that there has been, as part of the tourist attraction aspect, a spin-off in value for the Festival of Sports. Mr. Broom would seem to be recommending that that should not continue and that there should really be a different direction taken. I don't want to go on — the Minister has read the Broom report. I would just like to know how soon we may be able to see some of his exciting recommendations brought into being.

HON. MR. HALL: I am in something of a dilemma, Mr. Chairman, in responding to the Member right off the bat, although I have, I think, what he wants. At least I've got an answer. Because this is basically a Travel Industry department, I just want some guidance as to whether you want to open up my responsibilities as Minister of Travel Industry at this point in time.

The trouble is that the Broom Commission was commissioned by me as Provincial Secretary because I have some responsibilities about awarding funds, and also as Minister of Travel Industry because under that department comes the Community Recreation Branch, and thereby hangs a number of problems.

If the Chair will guide me, I'm perfectly willing to accept all the general remarks about both portfolios now, or split them up. I just want to be fair to all Members, that's all.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: On a point raised by the Minister, Mr. Chairman — I recognize that it comes, perhaps, under vote 248, but since the Minister's office is involved as Provincial Secretary, and we won't necessarily have the opportunity under Travel Industry, therefore I raised it now. But I have no

[ Page 3200 ]

objection to the Minister postponing his response to the questions I posed in this regard until we come to vote 248, because other Members may want to join in that debate at that time.

HON. MR. HALL: I think I would prefer it that way.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we should let the Minister's vote go by without congratulating him on yet another thing which he has managed to achieve remarkably well in the last few days. Despite all the troubles we've had previously — back in February, January, around that time — we got in Daylight Saving with no trouble at all. I was asleep when it happened, and the sky didn't fall in — it all was automatic.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right. No trouble. I was asleep. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) was probably asleep too. I would like to say that the third time was lucky; I congratulate him for it. I hope that in the future he's able to bring it in the same way that he did the final time and not bring it in as he didn't do the first two times.

I think he deserves our congratulations on a very fine performance the third time around.

HON. MR. HALL: It is an experience I'll never forget.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, it seems that everyone has been handing bouquets, more or less, to the Hon. Provincial Secretary. We just can't let the Minister get his salary that easily, that quickly and not bring to his attention a few of the things that we don't really agree with. Not that it's a problem that couldn't be corrected very quickly either, I would suggest to the Provincial Secretary.

It is this matter, Mr. Provincial Secretary, of the government's apparent hangup with regard to the ponderous way we now handle requisitions for orders-in-council. For some reason it became sort of a bureaucratic nightmare in the last six months around the premises here, where Members of the official opposition, or the opposition party, or the government party, or the press seem to have to go to a great deal of trouble to receive copies of orders-in-council which have been passed.

I would suggest that sitting in the Provincial Secretary's department exists the necessary machinery and staff to process orders-in-council very quickly, and that they should be as quickly available to the Members of this House, including Members of the opposition. It should be no trick to get a copy of them immediately.

It seems to me that the function of parliament requires that particularly the Members of the opposition have quick access to the actions of the government which may be taken through orders-in-council.

I must also suggest to the Minister, regardless of the attitude of the Premier when he was in opposition and decried the number of orders-in-council passed by the former administration, that your track record as government has certainly exceeded anything that was ever done in the way of orders-in-council by the previous administration. As a matter of fact nearly 5,000 orders-in-council have already passed by the government. I think it illustrates the need for more instantaneous communication between government and the Members of the opposition when they request copies of orders-in-council, and for that matter, when the members of the Fourth Estate, the press, request copies of orders-in-council because we have seen in the past 12 months not only a large succession of orders-in-council, but orders-in-council which have provided special warrants of substantial amounts of money for specific purposes.

For instance, I can recall in funding ICBC, warrants in amounts of $5,000 and larger amounts that went through to set up the necessary funding — things which, perhaps, should have rightfully been done by statute.

I don't know whether it is wilful or not, but you seem to use orders-in-council with reckless abandon, in my opinion. And if the opposition is to play the watchdog role that it should play and be fully informed of what is going on, it is not really fair to suppress that information or keep it from the Members of this House for any length of time. It shouldn't be necessary to fill out a lengthy, detailed requisition form, and request it in certain specific terms in order to get an order-in-council.

I see the Minister is just waiting to get to his feet. I suppose perhaps he has come up with some simplified form. I hope he has. We feel it was a backward step, Mr. Minister, introducing the bureaucracy that was done in a moment of, perhaps, anger at the opposition, to require the opposition and members of the press to go to the extent that they do to get orders-in-council quickly.

I would like to hear from the Minister with respect to the attitude of the government, particularly when you do pass a large amount of money each year by order-in-council. You are continually investing and moving into the private sector of business, far more than the previous government did. You've set up commissions; you've set up many areas where orders-in-council seem to be the order of the day for passing funds.

As a matter of fact, if we wanted to reflect on last year's budget I would have to say that the budget itself was no reflection of the true expenditure of the

[ Page 3201 ]

province because over and above those expenditures covered by budget, orders-in-council passed expenditure of many, many millions of dollars in excess of budget, so it was really not a true document in that respect.

If that is to be continued, will the Provincial Secretary give some assurance to this House that there will be no restrictions on obtaining copies of orders-in-council, and that there will be some thought given to streamlining the present system?

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I am going to resist the temptation to get across because the Member for North Peace River has repeated a speech of his leader, which is entirely incorrect, entirely erroneous. The system for getting orders-in-council is exactly the same system that has been in operation for 20 years.

The complicated form which the Member talks about is this piece of paper. It isn't in fact so complicated. All you have to do is scribble a number on it and sign it.

Why we're sticking to this, Mr. Member, is because Mr. Richard P. Toews, the research assistant of the office of the official opposition, borrowed and took away, took away, original orders-in-council, which are legal documents, which should never leave the possession of the Department of the Provincial Secretary.

After a long time, we found one was misplaced. Regrettably, it was returned to us from your office, Mr. Member, torn. I don't know where it had been. It might have been up to the restaurant and back again. Who knows where these things go to? But it is because of that irresponsibility on the part of a research assistant of the official opposition that I insisted that the system instituted by the Social Credit administration be adhered to in every case.

Mr. Member, if you can tell me you've had to wait any length of time at all for an order-in-council, I will certainly feel much more kindly disposed towards checking the system. But not only does the official opposition want orders-in-council, so do all the departments.

The orders-in-council go directly from the cabinet room to the Lieutenant-Governor in Government House. They are signed and returned, and they're immediately available in the office of my deputy for the press and everybody else. If you want a photostat, scribble a number on that piece of paper, and within minutes you'll get it. But I'm afraid I must reject the argument which the Member for North Peace gives us. In actual fact, it was the behaviour and I can only say irresponsibility of members of your staff that occasioned me to get tougher and more protective of what happens to orders-in-council.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. chairman, I want to publicly congratulate the Minister for the manner in which he operates his department. I think the Minister knows that philosophically we're separated by a very wide gulf, but he has an extremely good department, he inherited very competent individuals. I feel at times that some of them, through you, Mr. Chairman, are badly overworked and hopefully that can be corrected when you have an opportunity. I suppose the Minister at times is overworked.

It's very easy to stand on this side of the House and throw criticisms toward various departments and we've done so and I've participated in those attacks. But I wouldn't want this opportunity to pass without, at the risk of harming his career in the NDP, of congratulating him for his function, for his administrative ability and for the way he's put together an extremely competent team.

HON. MR, HALL: Thank you.

MR. GIBSON: Just a very short couple of comments, Mr. Chairman. One of the subjects that has to come up under the Hon. Provincial Secretary's vote is the question of the status of women in British Columbia. I know that he has no formal responsibility for this matter but in view of his responsibilities for the public service and the general assumption that there is at least one Minister that we can talk to in that regard, perhaps I might make some brief comments.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He has a special interest n it.

MR. GIBSON: I would draw to his attention an excellent brief presented to the Hon. Premier in April by the Business and Professional Women's Clubs of B.C. and the Yukon, and two resolutions in particular n that brief.

The first one: "Be it resolved, the Business and Professional Women's Clubs of B.C. and the Yukon petition the provincial government to reprint the booklet 'Women and the Law in British Columbia' with amendments and new Acts passed since 1969 since 1969, included."

The history of this, of course, is that such a publication had been developed over the years in the past and it had proved a useful compendium of the special ways in which the laws of British Columbia affect women in British Columbia. So I would ask the Minister if he has any response to that representation.

The brief goes on to commend the government for many of the recommendations affecting provinces under the Royal commission on the status of women, the federal royal commission, that have been implemented by this government. I add my congratulations to that brief.

[ Page 3202 ]

For example, persons of both sexes are now covered in our Minimum Wage Act, prohibition as a ground for discrimination in hiring, the Human Rights Commission with a woman as commissioner and so on.

Then they go on to point out that there are some recommendations of that commission that have not yet apparently received provincial government attention. They ask that that now be done, and I refer in particular to recommendation 3 which is essentially that the province makes greater use of women's voluntary associations, recommendation 27 related to the increase in the number of women on boards, commissions, corporations, councils and so on. The Minister might have some statistics in that regard.

Recommendations 66, 67 and 68 relate to minimum wage and workmen's compensation Acts being amended to include household workers. Recommendation 69 is that school text books should portray women as well as men in diversified roles and occupations. Recommendation 107 relates to the concept of equal partnership in marriage becoming the legal reality, and recommendation 123 is related to family planning clinics and public health units.

This particular section of the brief ends with this resolution on which I hope the Minister might make some specific comment. "Be it resolved the government of the Province of British Columbia appoint a committee to study these recommendations and to submit a report to the government which will include definite suggestions for the implementation of these recommendations."

It certainly has been the experience in other governments that the existence of a particular committee or group charged with this specific responsibility has been helpful in the expeditious carrying out of these measures which I believe to certainly be the philosophical disposition of the Minister. This could be a useful device for his department to forward this general area of responsibility.

HON. MR. HALL: The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano refers of course to one singular document which contains much good work and many good recommendations. We have not confined ourselves, however, to that document. We have indeed, I think, gone further.

While I'm not happy with all the progress that's been made to date — I don't think anybody should be satisfied about the progress to date. I do want to say to you that we have that recommendation, in fact, only as recently as this week, that particular section that you read out was responded to by the chairman of the Public Service Commission to the local Victoria branch, in which we indicated that subject to negotiation with our employees generally, we think we can move along those lines.

The government Members have not been silent on this subject. You remember — and I suppose I'm doing a bit of boasting in a way — that government Members on their own had a travelling commission. The Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) was its secretary. The Members for Comox (Ms Sanford) and Vancouver-Burrard (Hon. Mr. Levi) were very active in that.

Also, once I tabled in the spring session last year the draft document which was the Public Service Labour Relations Act, I set up a committee to start to facilitate collective bargaining. It seemed to me at that time I should have a committee advising me about women in the public service. A committee of five women was established representing the Public Service Commission, the department and the union. They presented me with a report, with a whole list of observations and I'm happy to report to you, although I haven't got it with me, that at the time the report was given to me, we had actually accomplished a great many of the things upon which they made comment. I think we have in pension legislation and others gone further along satisfying their remarks.

We still have the attitudinal problem that we all know about. Funnily enough, that can also make trouble for myself when the attitude changes quickly and I was told off just a little while ago because an advertisement in another department, in Travel Industry, said only women need apply. Someone was getting very earnest about the head start or the catch up.

Certainly, the Member for Victoria, the Liberal Leader, drew to our attention — I still think he tends to get lost in the complications — what was happening in the Queen's Printers where we were not paying different amounts of money for the same work, which is what he tried to indicate I think, but in fact we were limiting jobs one to the other, which in some ways is worse. This was of course an offence against the thing, and now we're renegotiating with the ITU to make sure that didn't happen because you know at that time, they had just celebrated, Mr. Member, the first time they'd ever had a contract.

You can imagine the chagrin both of the sides had when that kind of thing sort of slips in, which is the traditional clause in every ITU agreement over this country.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they going to change it?

HON. MR. HALL: Yes. I'm insisting. Negotiations are just starting with the ITU. I'm giving you the details now. We're not negotiating with a single union in the Queen's Printer because I've been around a bit. I'm not being whipsawed around.

We're negotiating with the council of which they

[ Page 3203 ]

are members. They do their own jurisdictional work, not me. We're certainly going to make that a condition because that's the law of the land.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I certainly appreciate the Provincial Secretary's remarks. I'm sure that well over half of the province does. Certainly the women might, but I think the men as well appreciate the fact that he is taking steps to end discrimination in the public service.

Could he give us some quick information on the number of women in the public service who have hit the top ranks? I've seen all sorts of Deputy Ministers, heads of departments, and all sorts of people sitting behind Ministers. I think there was one who was female whom I can recollect in the last few months. The fact is that there seem to be very, very few women who seem to have managed to get to the top of the public service. Are you trying to recruit from outside the service to change this or are you trying to continue to promote from within? What steps are you taking to break the fact that men dominate all of the upper ranks of the public service.

HON. MR. HALL: The steps we've taken will probably bring fruition in some years. It is a question of availability; it's a question of competition; it's a question of the fact that years of discrimination have kept women in a subsidiary position in terms of getting the experience.

The most senior position, I think, that is now occupied by a woman in terms of salary and position is one of the commissioners of the Public Service Commission. It was my appointment — Phyl Campbell. She is in charge; her horizontal duties are to negotiate and to work as a commissioner out of the Public Service Labour Relations Act. Her other duty in a vertical way is training, and that's a pretty good way of going.

I want to tell you that it is our intention to make sure that women are encouraged to join the public service. The next group of high-salaried women will be found in the professions — engineers, dentists and doctors. But we've a long way to go yet.

MR. SMITH: I can't let the comments of the Provincial Secretary go by when he replied to the matter of orders-in-council and the way they are obtained by Members of the opposition or anyone else. I think perhaps it should be read into the record that, while he blames the staff of the official opposition for his decision to tighten up on the rules and regulations and reinstitute practices that have been out of date for a number of years, that if a copy of an order-in-council was torn…

HON. MR. HALL: The original.

MR. SMITH: That's right; the original. I'll correct it. If the original was torn, I can assure the Provincial Secretary that that happened before it ever came into the possession of the opposition. Wherever it was torn was certainly not in the offices of the opposition. I think that is one point we must have read into the record.

Vote 188 approved.

Vote 189: general administration, $192,600 — approved.

On Vote 190: Central Microfilm Bureau, $528,410.

MR. CURTIS: Would the Minister just comment on the photographic technicians which appear to be new on this year's vote?

HON. MR. HALL: They are to provide staff for microfilming a backlog of land registry work in Vancouver, New Westminster and Victoria. It's a four-year project which commenced out of temporary staff in the 1972-73 fiscal year. It is also to commence a programme to microfilm documents in the Vancouver law office.

MR. CURTIS: Is the Minister reading that material?

HON. MR. HALL: Yes.

Vote 190 approved.

Vote 191: Postal Branch, $2,200,072 — approved.

On Vote 192: Provincial Library, $392,078.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like to take a moment of the Committee's time, as I'm sure the Provincial Secretary will agree, to extend from all of us an appreciation of the work of Jim Mitchell, who has now been appointed to the post of Provincial Librarian. He was previously the assistant and has done fine work for us all in that capacity. I feel that we all will be working closely with him in the future. We wish him the very best and certainly have full confidence in that appointment.

HON. MR. HALL: I was able to do that at the library conference on Friday and surprise him. For a period of a couple of hours, Jim Mitchell was almost speechless.

Vote 192 approved.

On Vote 193: Provincial Archives, $407,914.

[ Page 3204 ]

MR. CURTIS: Does the Premier have a rugby game or practice? Code 040, the last item. Could the Provincial Secretary just give the committee some details on this $55,000 expenditure?

HON. MR. HALL: We have been interested for some time in this new form of archival procedure and exercise — that is, of getting down on tape and on film the history of this province. I have been approached over the years in other capacities on this kind of work and when I became Provincial Secretary I was again approached. We decided to go into this to the tune of $55,000. I hope that the benefits of it will accrue to the prosperity of the province for the rest of time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like the Provincial Secretary to confirm or deny the rumor that he has been able to purchase a large amount of used tape for this from President Nixon's office and that this second-hand tape is now available.

Vote 193 approved.

Vote 194: Library Development Commission, $765,852 — approved.

On vote 195: library and library association grants, $2,225,000.

MR. GIBSON: There is a large increase in vote 195. It sounds like a very good purpose but I wonder if the Provincial Secretary could outline just exactly what it is.

HON. MR. HALL: Basically it represents a fulfilment of the government's endorsation of the library system. If they come in with a system they get the money. The money's in there for Thompson, Nicola, and maybe the Cariboo and greater Vancouver. All Members should have had the booklet. I'm sorry, Mr. Member, maybe you didn't because of your recent arrival. I'll make sure you get a copy of that book.

Vote 195 approved.

On Vote 196: Queen's Printer, $10.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like to ask about Hansard — not the question that may come to mind, namely the unofficial draft Hansard. But the fact is, we print Hansard and it is a great service — or at least it used to be. However, in 1973 I think there was a total of 1,202 people in the province who went out and signed up for Hansard. This year there are apparently much the same. Of course we have 58 so that's another 1,100. So we print this thing and it goes out to a very, very small number of people within the Province of British Columbia. Presumably of those 1,202 quite a number go to libraries anyway.

For the purpose of informing the public of what goes on here I think Hansard should be more widely distributed. To do so I feel that the $15 being charged per session is extremely high. I wonder whether the Provincial Secretary would either indicate that he will lower the price or indicate some other means of making sure that this is more widely distributed.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I am in something of the position of a subcontractor of Hansard. As you know, the Speaker has the traditional rights and regulations over this. It just happens to come out of the Queen's Printer once it has been done by Mr. Chazottes. I'll take the question, if I may, as notice, and perhaps just add one thought — maybe it's the content that doesn't sell.

Vote 196 approved.

Vote 197: Government House, $93,996 approved.

On vote 198: Agent-General's office and British Columbia House, London, England, $284,426.

MR. CURTIS: Again, on a specific vote number — 004 — we could ask who is being transferred and oriented. I rather would like an explanation there. I assume it does not refer to a present Minister of the Crown.

HON. MR. HALL: No, Mr. Speaker, we looked at what was happening in terms of the staff who work abroad for us. We found there was no assurance that they could come back. There was no assurance that they could be brought up to date. There was no domestic leave back here. There was no regular schedule of visits by senior people working abroad. After my visit to B.C. House, talking to the employees there and further consultation with the Public Service Commission, we have now in the vote sufficient money to allow those people who are posted abroad to come back every so often, get caught up with what is happening here, and on a longer period of time than one trip back here with their families.

MR, D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I just wonder whether it was a Freudian slip from the Provincial Secretary when he addressed you as "Mr. Speaker" when we were talking about people travelling under this particular vote.

Nevertheless, the 003 — sorry, 205 — has a more than double representation allowance. Is this because

[ Page 3205 ]

the Premier plans a trip to London and wishes to throw an extremely fine party, or is it because it's necessary, or because in past years he's overspent, or is it simply because the price of Scotch whisky is expected to go up? What is the reason for more than doubling the representation allowance for the Agent-General in London?

HON. MR. HALL: Some weren't getting any representation allowance, and those that were were getting such a pittance I was ashamed of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

Vote 198 approved.

On vote 199: Indian Advisory Act, $52,644.

MR. CURTIS: Is there not merit in this responsibility eventually being transferred to the Department of Human Resources? It seems to be a tag-end in this Minister's context.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Member, I realize it is difficult for cabinet Members to have personal opinions, but I would like to see this Act rescinded. I don't think it serves any real, useful purpose, other than that which we may do — such as things like looking after the First Citizens Fund and some community development projects.

I don't like the Indian Advisory Act. I don't like the concept. As soon as my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), and the cabinet get the final approach and policies worked out, I hope that we'll see the end of that Act.

Vote 199 approved.

On vote 200: Workmen's Compensation Act, $1.5 million.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's a 220 per cent increase. May I ask the Provincial Secretary whether this is related directly to increase in numbers or is it related to an increase in expected contributions from employers?

HON. MR. HALL: Vote 200, assessment on class 13, workmen's compensation…. It's a more realistic figure. I think the previous figure was just not the correct one, and I'm advised that that represents what it's likely to be.

Vote 200 approved.

Vote 201: unemployment insurance (public service), $3.5 million — approved.

Vote 202: incidentals and contingencies, $150,000 — approved.

Vote 203: grants, etc., $2 million — approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Votes 204 to 212.

MR. CURTIS: If you would encourage the Premier to hold it a bit, Mr. Chairman, it would be helpful.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, he's going faster than the Chairman.

On vote 204: Capital Improvement District Act, $250,000.

MR. CURTIS: Your speed is the preferable one, Mr. Chairman.

May I make a couple of comments with respect to the Capital Improvement District Commission, particularly the government's intention…or the likelihood of a capital commission, which was proposed by a backbencher of the present government some time ago and which has, I think understandably, caused considerable interest and concern and discussion over the past few months?

In the newspapers through the winter the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) was quoted as saying that the capital commission idea was just that. On the other hand, in the Victoria Times for November 16 last: "There is persistent evidence to indicate the provincial government may soon establish a provincial capital commission in Victoria." That story quoted Alderman Mike Young of the City of Victoria.

Now quite apart from a capital commission or not, its merits or disadvantages, I still would like to make the point that the Capital Improvement District Commission, as it has been constituted for a number of years, so far as I have been able to determine — and I no longer sit on that commission — still operates in a relative vacuum.

It has membership from municipalities; it has provincial government appointees from the Department of Public Works and the Provincial Secretary's Department. But far too often, in my view, Mr. Chairman, it is off on its own. This may not be its fault, but it is not coordinating or being coordinated with activities of the Capital Regional District or the municipalities or, indeed, in some instances, key departments of government.

Far too often it has been unable to determine what is going on or what is being worked upon in other local or regional jurisdictions. So if the government is not going the capital commission route, then I would be delighted to see some means whereby the CIDC could be pulled back into mainstream.

[ Page 3206 ]

I emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that I in no way fault the efforts of individual commission members or the many achievements of the commission itself under the former administration and this one. But it is in a state of isolation, I think, and perhaps the Minister would comment on that.

Also, the Minister was pretty critical last year, I think, when I introduced a private Member's bill which recommended that the boundaries of the CIBC, its jurisdiction, be extended to include the municipalities of Central Saanich, North Saanich and Sidney. That is not the case now, has not been the case and, in spite of the fact that a little bit of work has been undertaken from time to time, particularly along the Patricia Bay Highway, the commission as it is now constituted overlooks the fact that virtually every visitor from other parts of British Columbia or Canada enters the capital area through Swartz Bay or the Patricia Bay airport.

The three smaller communities on the peninsula could very easily make use of funds through the CIBC. In this way I think we would see the entrance to Victoria now beautified considerably.

The Town of Sidney was in search of funds not too long ago with respect to Beacon Avenue, which is another main entrance to the greater Victoria area. As I recall, they were unfortunately told that the terms of reference of the CIBC prohibited any direct financial involvement or participation. The Minister's comments on those two or three points would be appreciated.

HON. MR. HALL I remember the last meeting you attended as the mayor of Saanich at the turn of the year. You remember that I advised the commission that I wasn't happy entirely with the protection that we can afford some of the areas that are in the capital precincts.

I also advised that I wanted the commission to go its best pace in providing me with some ideas and some legislative proposals. It may not be necessary to go as far as a complete capital commission structure as we see in Ottawa.

On the other hand, recent happenings have disturbed us. Somewhere along the line the communication gap that you talk about is very present. I've done my best in the sense that I have attended the meetings. I think you'd agree that it's the first time Ministers have attended meetings of CIBC.

It does need pulling together, and I'm under a great deal of advice from the Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) who's done a first-class job in bringing evidence to me of the need to be further protected. I'm concerned about what's going on.

I have some legislative proposals now that I can perhaps recommend to cabinet. I don't know whether they will receive the tick that's required to get them in the House.

I think that if I'm able to get some legislative council time and some time out of a busy schedule now, we may be able to see some proposals about heritage, about this area, that should be exciting.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the words of the Provincial Secretary about the communications gap disturb us. It worries me a little. Does he feel that at the present time he's not having adequate information from the city? Or does he feel that at the present time there is inadequate information to the City of Victoria — as well, of course, as the other municipalities?

The reason I ask this is that the municipal council in Victoria and the mayor, and mayors before him, have realized their very special position in the Province of British Columbia in that they do have responsibility for the capital of the whole province. I believe that they are very conscious of the need to work with the provincial government. I'm worried to hear the Provincial Secretary say that there are such communications gaps.

My own view is that it might be better to try and deal with the individual problems rather than restructure the whole business by putting in something new and different along the lines of the National Capital Commission, which I feel would be a mistake, personally, but that is a personal view.

Could he perhaps inform us of what he is talking of when he talks of communications gaps which are so disturbing?

HON. MR. HALL: I referred to the debate in which you had taken part in a minor way, Mr. Member — about the Reid Centre, about the misunderstanding and the meetings which were referred to by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and others. I am saying that an important situation like that, in my view — and I apply no fault to anybody — shouldn't have been allowed to happen. And that's the communication problem. Whose fault? — at what time? — who should step in? — what structures could correct that? I don't know.

I have meetings with the mayor scheduled. I have meetings with CIDC scheduled. I am also very conscious of the fact that this Capital Improvement District Commission at the moment doesn't have some of the powers it has to have to do some of the work I would like to see it do.

I see the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) agreeing with that.

That is the area I am in. If I have used strong language that has disturbed the Member… I hope I don't exercise it too much. But when things like that happen, when chances are missed, when structures are torn down or put up, and we have seen what has

[ Page 3207 ]

happened to this capital precinct in the years that I've been coming here, obviously we have got to do a bit better. That's really what I am saying.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I appreciate the fact that the Minister is not indicating that all the gaps are not necessarily between the two levels of government. There may well be gaps within the levels of government.

May I ask why, in the light of fairly substantial increases in expenditure in every department and on just about every vote, this one remains the same? Indeed, in absolute terms, in terms of purchasing power, it will be substantially less. If we take into account the increasing cost of land in this area, probably very substantially less than last year will be available under this $250,000.

Could you indicate why this has not been adjusted in accordance with either inflation or with other regular government increases?

HON. MR. HALL: When I was making recommendations to the Treasury Board on this one, we were in the middle of the discussion I just referred to. We had enough money in this vote to complete the current project which is the beautification of the Inner Harbour. There is nothing really firmed after that. The cabinet and, obviously, the Treasury Board wanted to know what was firmed up. I said that I am now awaiting further information because of the kind of difficulties I have just said.

But I am assured, and I want to assure you, that if there is further work indeed, I am going to go to the Treasury Board and I am going to fight for money to do the various individual projects.

It is on the same line, Mr. Member, that I find myself, for instance, on the purchase of treasures. I can't go to the Premier, Minister of Finance, and tell him I know of five Emily Carrs, give me $5 million. I have to go to him when I have found them. It is that ballpark that I am really referring to.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Are you looking?

MR, CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the problem may be in that the government has the feeling that it is being pulled two ways. I think there is, first of all, the government precinct here — the parliament buildings and adjacent blocks. Obviously, this area has occupied a great deal of attention on the part of private Members of the present government, members of the Treasury Board as well, and the Minister whose estimates are now being debated.

The problem is, as the second Member for Victoria has indicated so clearly, that $250,000 will not do a very major job in this precinct alone. And if the concentration of funds is on the precinct in this fiscal year and in the next few fiscal years, then other very deserving areas of the greater Victoria area, which after all formed the capital district and are of interest to residents and visitors alike, then those projects will suffer.

Now in fairness, in the past the CIDC, with the approval of the cabinet, has tended to spread the money around. I make it clear that I'm not here seeking dollars purely for the constituency I represent, but there may well be a project in Esquimalt municipality or further work along the Dallas Road waterfront, or — dare I say Oak Bay with the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) present? — or at the Swartz Bay ferry terminal or in the vicinity of the Patricia Bay airport.

If the CIDC, the Provincial Secretary, the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) and others are concentrating on this precinct alone, this small area, then the other areas which I have mentioned are surely going to suffer in terms of provincial enthusiasm and dollars made available. I think that would be most unfortunate.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Member, I think you know that the expenditures last year were far in excess of $250,000. I can only, in effect, repeat what I said before: I'm fairly sure that if we need the money to do a particular project, we can get it.

Vote 204 approved.

On vote 205: Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection Act, $1,610,000.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, this is the vote where restoration of historic sites is carried out. I'm happy to see here a big increase from $630,000 to $1,610,000. That's excellent and a lot of good work has been done in the past, but I'd like to have a breakdown on this. I think a lot of this money applies to Fort Steele — that's somewhere in British Columbia. And the main place is Barkerville.

I'd like to have a breakdown of what is expected to be spent this year on the continuing restoration of these two places.

Last year Barkerville had its largest year ever, over 200,000 visitors. This year the road will be completely paved to Barkerville and will only increase the visitors there, so I hope there's ample funds in here for 1974 to continue with the excellent restoration projects that are going on.

I also would like to mention something else that I brought up last year. At one time the provincial government had a great farm out at Essondale, and they decided to get rid of the Clydesdale horses. They sent them to, of all places, Fort Steele. I understand they can't even get proper feed up in that country. I would like to know…. I asked last year. I think it

[ Page 3208 ]

would be quite fitting if those horses were taken to Barkerville.

AN HON. MEMBER: You leave those horses alone!

MR. FRASER: Well on by…let them go up there at least for a visit. I was told last year that it was just not practical because of transportation problems….

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Well, in the Interior there's nothing less than 100 cattle line-trucks that can be hired overnight and whip that whole outfit up there. I still think the horses should be shared with Barkerville. I would like to hear the Minister's views on that.

The other thing I'd like to know, just in closing, is the Barkerville show on again? It's been so successful for so many years.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: The Barkerville show will be on again, Mr. Member.

I don't know where you ever heard about Clydesdales in Barkerville. You've got to remain somewhat true to the history of the place. They've had a couple of camels up there I understand, but I don't think you're going to get Clydesdales in Barkerville.

The spread of the vote is: Barkerville Historic Park, $225,000, with $95,000 coming from Rec and Con; Cottonwood House, $30,000. Shall I send you the paper across? Fort Steele — $285,000, matched by $65,000 from Rec and Con.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I just want to take the opportunity to thank the Minister, and also to invite anyone who wants to see some great draught horses to come out to Langley. We've got some good ones out there.

I'd like to thank the Minister for his action in issuing an order-in-council, back in February of this year, protecting the Alexander Lodge. I had occasion to write to the Premier and to the Minister's department when I learned of the impending sale of Alexander Lodge. And I'd like to thank them very much because this is an important historical area and it deserved to be protected. Thankfully it now is.

The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) wants to know if they've taken the hamburger sign down yet, and if not, when will you?

HON. MR. HALL: If I ever get out of here, I'll find out.

Vote 205 approved.

Vote 206: provincial emergency programme, $787,008 — approved.

On vote 207: Provincial Elections Act, $165,028.

MR. GIBSON: I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say that from recent experience, the chief electoral officer is doing a wonderful job. I welcome the foreshadowing that the Provincial Secretary made earlier on of the change in this Act next spring. I'm not going to discuss the great issues like disclosure, expenditure limits, or public funds.

I do want to make one small representation when the Provincial Secretary is considering this. Could the voters' list be drawn up on street-number basis rather than an alphabetical basis? It would be a great convenience to all.

Vote 207 approved.

Vote 208: Public Inquiries Act, $100,000 — approved.

On vote 209: metric conversion, $30,000.

MR. CURTIS: Obviously this is the start-up money for metric conversion.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I just want to bring to your attention that there is a bill on this where we will have thorough debate.

MR. CURTIS: Could the Minister responsible for metric conversion indicate the kind of dollars we're looking at in following fiscal years?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ten cents, 20 cents, 50 cents….

HON. MR. HALL: I can't answer that question at the time; I'll have to get that kind of information for discussion on the bill.

MR. CURTIS: I would appreciate that.

Vote 209 approved.

On vote 210: Public Service Commission, Administration, $1,239,346.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): This is the one where we have the collective bargaining between government and BCGEU (British Columbia Government Employees Union). I am just wondering if the Minister would give us a report. There hasn't been too much in the press as to how the negotiations

[ Page 3209 ]

are going. I wonder if they're progressing very well and just when the first agreement will be concluded.

I hope the Minister or the Public Service Commission will take into consideration the recommendation made some time ago regarding those people in the low-paying bracket. It was to give them this minimum in the salary adjustment so they can have a larger increase percentage-wise than those people who are at the top of the scale such as Deputy Ministers and Associate Deputy Ministers. I'm fighting for the little guy who is working in the public service….

HON. MR. BARRETT: You never did before.

MR. CHABOT: I'm not fighting for the Deputy Ministers or the Associate Deputy Ministers. I think they're well paid and well looked after. Look after the little people. How are negotiations really going?

HON. MR. HALL: (Mike not on.) I understand there is no reason to suppose the negotiations of the 13 components will be any different than the situation you find today. The commissioners have been very busy these last two weeks responding to the proposals.

I want the House to accept this not in any spirit of not wanting to tell you anything, but we have made an agreement that we will not talk about negotiations during the negotiations.

Vote 210 approved.

Vote 211: Public Service Commission, grants re public service — gratuities under section 77 of and other government employees, $275,000 — approved.

Vote 213: Superannuation Branch, administration, $545,676 — approved.

On vote 214: Superannuation Branch, public service superannuation and retirement benefits, $22,030,000.

MR. CHABOT: Just a brief question. I remember, not too many months ago when the Premier came into office, he said there was a new era in government, a new day. There would be consideration to early retirement for public employees…

HON. MR. BARRETT: And politicians.

MR. CHABOT: That's the next vote. (Laughter.) …commencing at age 55 without any loss of pension. Yet we don't see any action on the part of the government, even though we have legislation on the order paper dealing with pensions. There is no indication whatsoever that the government will carry through with the promise made by the Premier of British Columbia that civil servants will have an opportunity of retiring at age 55 without being subject to a cutback in pay. I hope the Premier or the Minister will take this into consideration and that in due course these people who have dedicated their lives to the public service will be given some consideration.

Vote 214 approved.

Vote 215: Superannuation Branch, Members of the Legislative Assembly Superannuation Act, $150,000 — approved.

Vote 216: Superannuation Branch, Public Services Medical Plan Act, $1,450,000 — approved.

Vote 217: Superannuation Branch, Public Services Group Insurance Act, $263,572 — approved.

Vote 218: Superannuation Branch, Municipal Superannuation Act, $55,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT
OF TRAVEL INDUSTRY

On vote 246: Minister's office, $21,232.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This is an opportunity which should not be overlooked for the government getting straight its policy towards tourist travel.

I have no wish to revive debate which has taken place within the cabinet probably and certainly by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) in northern British Columbia and by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), who indicated very clearly in this House that the Minister of Highways was not giving us government policy when he spoke in the north and talked about our tourist facilities being overstrained by Americans coming here.

I have a report with a gentleman on the front bearing a striking resemblance, though he is far fatter than the present Minister — he must have been taken about 20 pounds ago. The Minister has lost weight since that photograph was taken. It's an annual report which has on the back of it: "Tourists take away only memories — memories worth 100,000 jobs."

Here we have an opportunity for the Minister to stand up, first of all, and give his views on the role played by tourism in British Columbia and on the great contribution made to our economy not only by the tourists who come but those 100,000 British Columbians who have been accused of carrying on degrading jobs. I think "menial and degrading" were the words he used. I think it is time we had a clear statement from the government, certainly from this

[ Page 3210 ]

Minister, as to their attitudes.

I make this request because this morning I had a phone call from a motel operator here in Victoria. He said a friend of his had received three letters in the mail, one from Texas, all of which said they were thinking of coming to British Columbia but they weren't sure if they would be welcome.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We like Texans.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Premier, basking in his new degree from the States….

HON. MR. BARRETT: What have you got against Texans? There you are, attacking the Americans.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Second Member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I just hope the Provincial Secretary understands; the Premier is certainly taking a strong stand in this regard. I can see the Minister of Highways quite pale beneath his beard. He is being stared at by the Premier, who is going to fire him shortly.

The Premier has made it perfectly clear that he is for the high jump very soon if he keeps making rude remarks about the people who give the Premier all these free degrees and fine entertainment.

Nevertheless, what is the government's position? Are we planning on having a tourist industry in the future, say five years from now, 10 years from now, which can absorb double the number of people we now play host to in British Columbia? Tourism from the States has increased enormously in the last 10 years. I don't have the exact figures but I would imagine it is probably four to five times what it was previously. I would like to know the Minister's attitude.

What should the people in the industry in British Columbia expect? Should they continue to expand? Should they continue to assume tourists will have equal opportunity to use our ferries and highways and to receive gasoline from our pumps in B.C. at the same price as British Columbia citizens? Is this the government's attitude or is it something different? The industry itself is concerned.

Another concern is this. The Provincial Secretary can probably say a word about it. I received one letter two days ago from a person who is attempting to hire employees for the summer. They complain somewhat sadly that in their area the number of government jobs given has been given out with no relationship or thought to the effect it will have on the tourist facilities of the area. They find they have come in too late for the hiring of the local students. The government has pretty well taken the works.

This is something which perhaps could not be anticipated. I wonder if the Minister, who is also undoubtedly aware of this problem, would say a word or two to us and to those people in the industry who are suffering from this particular problem.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I want to assure the Member that we welcome all tourists, especially Liberal MLAs, to Victoria. We want them to come as often as they can, even if they find it difficult to attend.

We don't look upon them as tourists all the time, and they're welcome to come over here and spend their money three days a week. I wish they'd get along better with their leader so they'd find more time to visit with us while he's sitting in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CURTIS: The Premier's contribution this afternoon doesn't help at all.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now look….

MR. CURTIS: I wonder, Mr. Chairman; are you recognizing the Premier or…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I recognize the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Trying to be political. Bringing politics into this Legislature! (Laughter.)

MR. CURTIS: It's about time something was brought into this Legislature.

The little repartee and the excitement in cabinet, I think, this afternoon suggests that the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) has touched on an extremely important point. The people of British Columbia who have come to appreciate the visitor industry, the people engaged in that industry and employees and senior civil servants who have developed that industry in British Columbia must share the concern and indeed the annoyance that many of us feel with respect to comments and indeed the annoyance that many of us feel with respect to comments by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) on the tourist industry.

The time is right — today, this afternoon — in this House for us to hear from the Minister of Travel Industry precisely which policy of this government is the policy. Is it the careless and often very, very thoughtless remarks of the….

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: Go ahead, Mr. Minister. Is it the careless remarks of the Minister of Highways — later retracted. or clarified or amended or interpreted when

[ Page 3211 ]

he has an opportunity to think over precisely what he said? Or is it the carefully-thought-out statements by people involved in tourism in the provincial government? Because you can't have it both ways, Mr. Chairman.

You can't have attacks on tourists and visitors and the visitor industry by the Minister of Highways and then a weak defence by the Premier and the Provincial Secretary in his role of Minister of Travel Industry.

So let's hear it. Let's hear it clearly and without equivocation and without comments about MLAs who come here three days a week. Let's hear directly what the policy is of this provincial government in terms of visitors and the money they bring to this province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: This place is above politics.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I think the Members are trying to be divisive here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Including that one — including that one!

Interjections.

HON. MR. HALL: This chamber should be above politics like that. I've not even got red in the face about what they said. Somebody should check, you know, whether my colleague did say those things before you start to get carried away. The only real objection I'm taking to the last speaker's remarks…. He's talking about a weak defence.

I was pretty clear in what I said. I've addressed my provincial tourist advisory council as recently as two weeks ago. They know where the government stands. They can see the budget which sees a 20 per cent increase in the Travel Industry department. They know that the concerns and the worries of Ministers of this cabinet in dealing with tourism are heartfelt and are causing them the kind of concern that's been expressed.

Nevertheless, the report that was issued cooperatively with my good friend the Minister of Industrial Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) pointed out the benefits of tourism. We know what they are — $600 million and 100,000 jobs. We wouldn't have a department of tourism if you….

Interjections.

HON. MR. HALL: Now the fun's over. Let's get down to the thing.

The second thing I want to say is that if the Member will give me the details about those summer jobs, I would look into them, because the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) and myself can probably do something about that.

There was a question earlier about the festival which opened today. We have brought the festivals truly under the aegis of the department. We've taken a number of recommendations of Professor Broom to heart and we're making them truly festivals. We're departing from the singular sports theme.

I have the details of expenditures. We haven't really reduced a great deal the expenditures in advertising. We've changed the nature of the advertising. Instead of shouting to everybody that there's a festival of sports going on, we're telling people in all communities what's going on in their local communities. It's a much more sophisticated programme.

I have the figures if the Member wants to follow this up — the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). I certainly will give them to him and a full report on the last two festivals. It's a new approach. It's one that's based on participation and not tourism. We know the research shows that tourism is benefited by these festivals. Nevertheless, I think that we should carry on the participation route and get people active.

MR. CHABOT: Certainly the Minister must have his tongue in his cheek when he suggests that the Minister of Highways did not say, "Yankee go home," because I think everyone in British Columbia recognizes that he made that statement. They were made in public and they're there for posterity.

He has made other statements as well regarding tourism and he has caused the commission to examine certain aspects of tourism in British Columbia, which must be embarrassing indeed to officials and people in the Department of Travel Industry.

That is that search of those American campers and trailers coming in British Columbia. The Minister, when he was speaking during his estimates, suggested that American tourists bring to British Columbia gasoline, food and bathtubs. I'm wondering….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't they have any bathtubs in your riding?

MR. CHABOT: I'm wondering whether the Department of Travel Industry knows just how this search is going to be undertaken. Is it going to be at the border that they're going to search these campers and trailers to see whether they have gasoline, food and bathtubs? I don't know just how you're going to do it.

I was wondering if the Minister would tell us just how he intends to carry out this search of American vehicles and whether it will be at the border, how long this investigation will take place and when the

[ Page 3212 ]

reports will be made available to the people of British Columbia who are concerned about the possibility of this kind of endeavour, this kind of search — frightening Americans away from the Province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: You can laugh all you want. I should laugh. You should cry, Mr. Minister, at the foolishness of this survey; you should cry. Absolutely foolish!

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Well, the Premier says, "how many bathtubs?" I'm just repeating the words uttered by the Minister of Highways, that they pack bathtubs into British Columbia. I'm wondering whether you're going to carry through with the threat by the Minister of Highways regarding American vehicles using the ferry service of British Columbia — whether he's going to throw them to the tail-end of the line and give British Columbians first chance to board the ferries. Or are they they going to be taken on a first-come, first-serve basis?

I think it's most important, because I would suggest that this information is seeping down into the States that they're not welcome here, that they're going to be mistreated. I'm wondering just how the Minister's going to handle this situation regarding Yankees attempting to ride the ferries on the B.C. ferry service.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, because the word "research" was mentioned, I think, somewhere in there, I just want to repeat what I announced before — and I think all Members got a copy of it. The Department of Travel Industry is undertaking seven research projects, one of which is the benefits of recreational vehicle travel to this province. I think that that is of interest and that that's the kind of information the Member wants.

MR. D. A. ANDERSON: One or two questions. Twice a specific question of ferry priority has been asked….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The matter of ferry priority would be more properly addressed to the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, well, we can ask him later at that stage, but surely this is the Minister responsible for travel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question should be addressed to the Minister's responsibilities….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, well, what is his attitude? He, after all, has the responsibility for the people who are going to be put at the end of the line.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: And I wonder if that is the case. I don't think it should be.

HON. MR. HALL: You're asking the question about the people put at the front of the line.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The people put at the front of the line will obviously be Vancouver Islanders. The rest of you people from the mainland will come second. Then the tourists will come third. But is this going to be government policy? What will the Minister…. ?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have pointed out to the Hon. Second Member for Victoria that the question should be addressed to the Minister of Transport and Communications.

Vote 246 approved.

Vote 247: general administration, $50,592 — approved.

On vote 248: community recreation branch, $631,294.

MR. CHABOT: Community recreation branch. I was wondering, under this vote Mr. Minister, what aspects of the Broom report will be implemented by your department. There's one recommendation here…. I'm not going to go through all the recommendations, such as the establishment of a leisure service portfolio and so forth.

But there is the one recommendation that sounds interesting — the one of putting leisure services or recreational services under a regional concept instead of the hit-and-miss, small community-oriented kind of programme that exists at the moment. I'm wondering just whether you are giving some consideration to putting this under the established regional districts in the province. Unfortunately, I marked down in the other book just what recommendation it was; unfortunately I don't have it in this book that I'm looking at at the moment, but there was a recommendation regarding putting leisure services under the auspices of the regional district.

[ Page 3213 ]

I'm wondering if the government is giving serious consideration to that suggestion.

HON. MR. HALL: Yes we are because it is a continuation of the policy that has been in operation a long time, only it should be strengthened because at the moment the community recreation branch, with its head office here in Victoria, has recreational consultants based on a region, and we've increased those numbers from seven to eight. They are situated in Abbotsford, Burns Lake, Kamloops, Kelowna, Nelson, Prince George, Vancouver and Victoria. We've got the province already split up into areas; we want to get greater consultation between the municipalities, cities and villages that have recreation commissions and recreation directors. We want to strengthen that up and we want the Community Recreation Branch now to do a far more energetic job than it has been allowed to do before because of financial difficulties. So it has got to be regionalized.

MR. CHABOT: You're suggesting that it will be done under the established regional districts in the province.

HON. MR. HALL: No, not under the established regional districts as you know them from the Minister of Municipal Affairs — under the Community Recreation Branch regional districts.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, they won't be under the other regional districts.

I hope at the time when you do establish these regional districts for leisure services that you don't forget to take into consideration those people who have contributed a lot toward recreation and leisure services in the various communities, municipalities and regions in the province. I would like to strongly recommend that when you do establish this kind of a function on a regional basis, you establish as well an advisory board of people who are familiar with the kinds of services that are presently there as well as the kinds of services that are required; not just to put them in place in a community for the operation of the existing facilities which the region might feel should be within those communities.

I think they should be taken into consideration on an advisory basis — those people who have contributed so much to community services in the province.

HON. MR. HALL: That's an excellent idea; one that should certainly be followed up. I thank the Member for it.

I should point out that one of the difficulties we are facing now — not only in this department, but the Provincial Secretary under culture and other areas — is the way we are putting districts together, they have to become more rational and we have to have a great deal more coterminous planning by the districts. You remember, those of you who were on the assessment commission, that calls for districts. The Health Department has got different-shaped districts; so have I. I think there has to be an effort by government to get some of those districts coincidental one to the other.

Vote 248 approved.

Vote 249: travel division, $4,195,606 — approved.

Vote 250: California and London offices, $12,964 — approved.

Vote 251: film and photographic branch, $437,941 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett files answers to question 183.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.