CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Department of Travel Industry estimates

On vote 263.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4007

Mr. Phillips — 4007

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4007

Mr. Fraser — 4007

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4008

Mr. Morrison — 4008

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4009

Mr. Lewis — 4009

On vote 265.

Mr. McClelland — 4009

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4009

Mr. McClelland — 4009

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4009

On vote 266.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4010

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4010

On vote 267.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4011

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4011

Department of Public Works estimates

On vote 231.

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4012

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4012

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4013

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4013

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4013

Mr. Bennett — 4014

Motion to reduce Minister's salary.

Mr. Bennett — 4014

Division on motion to reduce Minister's salary — 4014

On vote 231.

Mr. Wallace — 4015

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4015

Mr. Gardom — 4016

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4016

Mr. Gardom — 4016

Mr. Curtis — 4016

Mr. Chabot — 4017

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4018

Mr. Phillips — 4019

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4019

On vote 232.

Mr. Wallace — 4020

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4020

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4020

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4020

On vote 233.

Mr. Wallace — 4021

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4021

On vote 235.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4021

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4021

On vote 237.

Mr. Wallace — 4021

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 4021

Department of Recreation and Conservation estimates

On vote 239.

Mr. Chabot — 4022

Hon. Mr. Radford — 4023

Mr. Gardom — 4023

Mr. Fraser — 4023

Hon. Mr. Radford — 4024

Mr. Fraser — 4024

Hon. Mr. Radford — 4024

Mr. Phillips — 4024

Hon. Mr. Radford — 4024

Mr. Phillips — 4024

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4025

Hon. Mr. Radford — 4025

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4025

On vote 244.

Mr. Chabot — 4026

Hon. Mr. Radford — 4026

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4026

Hon. Mr. Radford — 4026

    THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

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

ESTIMATES:
DEPARTMENT OF TRAVEL INDUSTRY
(continued)

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

HON. E. HALL (Minister of Travel Industry): Mr. Chairman, I was asked some questions yesterday. I would like to answer them.

First of all, the question of revenue of the tourist industry to the province was asked. You will recall, I think, in the Speech from the Throne or in some material early on in the year, that the department's figures were given as $790 million. Since then, of course, we have had the final figures for the year, and we can now report that they were in the neighbourhood of $840 million of revenue generated by this industry in the province for the calendar year 1974.

The other questions were about the Royal Hudson. I point out to the Member that much of his material has been answered by question 146 that was asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), and you'll find the results in Votes and Proceedings, answered a long time ago. But the specifics that were not answered by that question are: the Royal Hudson train is owned by the province and is operated by the Department of Travel Industry. Secondly, the insurance aspect: whenever the train runs on the B.C. Rail, it's covered by the standard policy of B.C. Rail. We don't have to carry a specific liability policy or anything like that.

As far as the insurance of the train itself is concerned, we're unable as yet, even with a very large company like ICBC, to strike a value and a figure, a premium figure, for the intrinsic value of the train. That's got nothing to do with it running, nothing to do with its liability, but simply as you and I would insure a possession, you know, against fire or theft — if one can imagine those things. It is not insured in that sense of the word, but it is insured in the sense of the word "train."

Where was it purchased from? It was purchased from the Canadian Pacific Railway. You will remember that it lay around in the roundhouse for.... The City of Vancouver acquired it in 1964 but it never became the museum showpiece that was intended, and it reverted back to the CPR. For nearly 10 years it stood in the CPR roundhouse in Vancouver. And in 1973 we purchased the locomotive.

Then you were asking, I think, who operated it. The Department of Travel Industry does.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): It was purchased from the CPR, then. Do you have a separate company operating the Royal Hudson, or is it just a section of the Department of Travel Industry? Does the revenue come into the Department of Travel Industry to offset the operating costs? I asked you what kind of an agreement you had with the BCR with regard to rental of rail space. How do you handle that? Do you rent from the BCR at so much a run, or do you give the BCR all the revenue? How is that aspect of it handled?

HON. MR. HALL: No, first of all, it's not a separate company. The actual item, Mr. Member, is vote 266, code 041. We simply get invoices from B.C. Rail, Mr. Member, and it's so much per day. That is for the operating of the railway. And we just pay the invoices out of that code 041, vote 266.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Dealing with Travel Industry: I didn't catch it but it's probably our second industry in the province today — close?

I think the Travel Industry department is doing all it can to promote travel. But I would like to relate here the concern of the small resort operators, what is happening to the small resort area. I would think it's throughout the province. Certainly it is in the interior of the province. I'll read a portion of a letter here I have from a family resort located at Loon Lake, just north of Cache Creek in the central interior. It says as follows:

"We as fishing resort operators feel that we aren't getting a fair deal in British Columbia today. Being as tourism is fast becoming our second industry, one would think our government would not be trying so hard to discourage us and squeeze us out of business. Firstly, we strongly object to our tax dollars going towards free campsites that are in competition with us, some of which are a disgrace and they have no facilities nor supervisors."

Now, Mr. Chairman, I realize this comes under Recreation and Conservation, but it shows the overall effect of some government policies.

"While regulations would not allow private campsites to operate in this manner, this does not apply to the free government parks. To this end we propose that the Loon Lake provincial campsite be used for day-use only as there are six tables and two dry toilets, not supervised, yet as many as 60 campers can be counted there on weekends. Private campsites nearby on the lake,

[ Page 4008 ]

meanwhile, are practically empty.

"Secondly, pollution laws seem to be non-existent not only as far as the free campsites are concerned, but there are many wide spots along the highway where campers stay and dump refuse, holding tanks, et cetera, and nothing has been done to stop this.

"Soon B.C. will become very unpopular, not only due to the garbage-dump conditions, but if our highways keep getting a cut-back on spending, which has happened to this area lately, our roads will not be fit to travel on either. In this respect we speak of the local roads as well as our main highways. The road is in bad condition.

"Between the enormous hike in property taxes" — this brings another government policy in line, and I think this relates back to Bill 71 — "lease rentals and other operating expenses, electricity, gas, heating oil, we would have to double our rates, thus discouraging tourists, just to make ends meet.

"Is this what the Department of Travel Industry wants? There is no doubt many department heads are aware of the problems, yet nothing is being said."

I would just say to this Minister that I know he has been in discussions with the tourist people. I'd like to hear from him if they can expect any relief or further support. They have had support, but they seem to be getting squeezed from four or five other directions that this Minister probably hasn't got any control over, but it is becoming serious because some of these resorts are actually closing up today.

HON. MR. HALL: Thank you, Mr. Member. You are quite right, there has been a very informed, intelligent position and brief put forward to us, spearheaded by the Cariboo region of the hotels and motels people.

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

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

Basically, they raise some valid points. They were here for a number of days; they interviewed Ministers; they interviewed government Members. I'm sure they probably spoke to your group.

Eventually, their case breaks down in a number of areas. First of all, Department of Finance: no question at all that there are some motel and hotel and resort operators that are land-rich and cash-poor, and the cash flow on a 75-day season is now not sufficient to pay if they are really going to make it a credible resort — upkeep and all the rest of those things.

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

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: Everybody knows that.

They had been closeted with Department of Finance officials for a couple of days at the end of their trip. I haven't had a report as to what is churning forward in that area. I'm sanguine about the immediate future, but we're looking into it.

Health questions. I view with those allegations and those charges seriously. It's now my responsibility to follow it up with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) who happened to be away those two days that they were meeting with me.

Similarly, since their arrival, we've now got a committee of Ministers forming — the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) and so on — to talk about what the government's policy is and should be regarding charging in the accommodation part of the campsite facility. We have no intention of charging anybody for beaches, for walks, for trees, for grass, but there is a point that they're making about the accommodation section. I am rethinking my own particular personal position on that.

I've often wondered. I used to ask the question when I sat over there, and the Minister was over here: why are we charging those moneys? Because, obviously, the money you were getting isn't really going to pay for collecting it. It doesn't make much sense. So those three areas are certainly on my desk as matters of concern.

The fourth area they raised is the possibility of leasing Crown facilities to private sectors who operate. It is intriguing, but that's got to wait for some real determination policy. I share your concern. It's the concern in the Okanagan, the Shuswap and in the Cariboo, a concern about land-rich, cash-poor small business people who, by a long crazy history of assessment and taxation, now find themselves in the squeeze.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I'd like to ask the Minister about some of these campsites. I understand that this year there are fewer people being employed in them.

Interjection.

MR. MORRISON: It's not under that section of your department? Okay.

The other question I'd like to ask is: could you give us some advice as to what new offices you might be contemplating, either in California or London? Have you got another office that you are considering, and where?

[ Page 4009 ]

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

MR. MORRISON: Tokyo. Could you give us an indication of the amount of traffic that would justify that kind of a...?

HON. MR. HALL: We're no longer just looking at it nationally, we're looking at it regionally.

Certainly the potential for trade and industry and tourism in the southeast Asian area is mind-boggling. Tokyo would be perhaps the logical place to go. The only trouble is that the cost of doing business in Tokyo is almost prohibitive.

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

HON. MR. HALL: No.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say a few words, too, in regard to the problems faced by the small campsite/tent operator in the province. In the Shuswap riding I have many of these because of the beauties of the Lake that are evident in that area. The problems faced by these people are numerous. I am certainly heartened by the words of the Provincial Secretary that he is taking a serious look at it and will be having further meetings with the groups in the near future.

The problems they face, I think, are numerous due to the fact that inflation is hitting them rapidly. They provide about 80 per cent of the accommodation for tenting and recreational vehicles. They just can't compete with the prices that are charged by the government campsites at the present time. There's just no way that they can provide accommodation for $2 a day. So they only end up with people staying in their accommodations during the peak period of the season.

I think it's regrettable that there's no charge whatsoever by the province on the government accommodations once the summer holidays are over. It definitely would spin out the period of time in which the people with the small campsites could at least charge something for their accommodations.

I'd like to thank the Minister for the attention he has given to this problem. I realize that in both areas the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) is involved. I'm certainly hoping that something concrete can happen in the next few months to assist these people.

Vote 263 approved.

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

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

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I only have a brief comment. I understand that under this vote grants to various sports organizations and the B.C. Federation of Sports and things like that.... That's what you told me before.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

HON. MR. HALL: The funny thing is that the very grants you are talking about came out of a perpetual fund. As you appreciate, we never really discuss the perpetual funds in this House unless the opposition decides to belabour the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) about them.

MR. McCLELLAND: I don't want to talk about money anyway — it's okay. I just want to talk about sports. I don't know whether the Minister has any opportunity to correct this situation or not, but if he does, whether it's through grants or what, I hope he will.

The B.C. Federation of Sports has ruled that every young hockey player in British Columbia who plays minor league hockey has to apply for a social insurance number now regardless of the age of that youngster. In the Langley–White Rock area, four-year-olds are being forced to get social insurance numbers before they are allowed to play hockey. I have had a lot of parents....

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: A lot of parents are very concerned about it. It sounds funny but it isn't, because a lot of parents are really concerned about this. They feel that they don't want their children numbered at four years of age.

Regimentation comes soon enough in our society; it's getting worse and worse every day. I think this is going a little bit too far. We have to allow young people to be individuals as long as possible. With little league and minor league hockey, we are forced into that kind of regimentation as it is. As the Minister said, they already have a number on their front or back. I think they are being forced into a conformist role too quickly. If the Minister has any opportunity to correct this situation, I think a lot of parents would be very happy with some kind of a solution.

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

[ Page 4010 ]

my attention. I find it a little weird. You will notice, however, in my announcement the other day that I have appointed Dr. Eric Broom as the Associate Deputy Minister, whose responsibilities will be to try and co-ordinate and bring together under one umbrella leisure services in this province. That means that the community recreation branch will probably leave Travel Industry, where it should never have been in the first place. It's completely unsystematic to have this vote in the middle of Travel Industry. It will go to the Provincial Secretary. I think I'll have some success in negotiating that with the Provincial Secretary.

MR. McCLELLAND: You're saying that you'll ask him to look into this matter?

Vote 265 approved.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, under this vote comes the Royal Hudson. I'd like to congratulate the Provincial Secretary for the Royal Hudson; I think it's a great asset to the province. I would like to pose this question to him, however. How is it that the Princess Marguerite, which is a very similar operation and has been justified almost entirely in terms of its effect upon tourism rather than any other results it may have, is not also operated in the same manner as the Royal Hudson?

It seems to me that these two operations are very similar, and if you can work out a scheme with the BCR for the Royal Hudson, it should be similarly possible to work out a scheme for the Princess Marguerite with the B.C. Ferries, from the point of view of crews and things of that nature.

I ask this question not to suggest that the Minister embark upon a navy of his own, but now we have the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) sitting over there who's just commissioning ships to run across harbours. We've now got four Ministers involved in the ferry business, not one. It would seem to me that this Minister would be a logical one. If he's to run trains for tourists, surely he should run tourist ships. Could he comment on this and indicate why he didn't get this particular vessel? Was it just cabinet in-fighting, or what was it?

HON. MR. HALL: I guess I must have missed that cabinet meeting. (Laughter.)

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

HON. MR. HALL: I'm sorry. When you smiled when you sat down, I thought you were being facetious. I forgot the serious part of your question to begin with.

The fact of the matter is that these things develop in different ways, and you often times have to have different tools to inject the government presence. This thing came along nicely; it was smooth, there were no hassles, everybody was in favour of it and there was no crisis about it. It was created in the sense that we were building something from the start. In the case of the Princess Marguerite, we needed the muscle and we needed some negotiating power in the sense of the Inner Harbour, the land and everything else that we are attempting to put together. Now that we've got these things, however, it's not to be said that they're going to remain there for all time.

Certainly you could develop your argument further by pointing out.... I think this week the museum train set off on its exploits under the control of the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford). So you're right in pointing out that we should probably now be looking at regulating or rationalizing the government's policies and active programmes under, maybe, one department or, certainly, moving them around. I think that's a good point. However, a lot of these things have happened recently and I suggest that when we get into cabinet, when we can spend a little bit more time there, we will probably get it all together a bit better. As we're now sitting 11 times a week, we are having little time to discuss some of these very problems you're talking about.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: One other question, Mr. Chairman, would be the minimum wage and the effects upon the 75-day-a-year resort the Minister talked about. Has he received any information from his department about difficulties being encountered for these resort operators getting student labour? There have been some comments come to me. It's difficult to assess, I get no overall picture, and I wonder whether the Minister could comment on this point.

HON. MR. HALL: I had a couple of random, isolated letters regarding the difficulties that some restaurant operators were having in securing waitresses — that's the way they put it — once the minimum wage had gone up, and also once my colleague's, the Minister of Labour's, programme of 1974 was in operation. We checked those out and found out there was no widespread difficulty — the community at large wasn't bothered. I think it was a couple of isolated examples.

However, at the provincial tourist advisory council meeting, there were a couple of resolutions which came through to me regarding the effect of minimum wages on student employment and also the effect on some low-paying establishments. I can only use that general expression. It was rather cheap labour they

[ Page 4011 ]

were looking for, frankly — the effect on that by the Careers '75 Programme. I pointed out to them, without blushing at all, that I wasn't going to go to bat for that particular viewpoint. So there's been no general area of complaint about either minimum wage or Careers '75 from this industry. In fact, I think the Careers '75 Programme has helped the industry a great deal in that they've been able to regulate themselves a bit better than just happening to put a sign in the window.

Vote 266 approved.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, this is only listed as the California and London offices. I might also make a comment about another overseas office in Japan which the Minister was thinking of opening. Could I ask the Minister whether, with respect to either Japanese office or these two, he has considered putting the officer in charge of the B.C. government promotion involved inside either the Canadian embassy or high commission offices? The reason's very simple — you'll never, never get an office in Tokyo under a quarter of a million bucks a year. Even if you spend $250,000, the man will not be doing very much effective work promoting, he'll be just administering.

It would seem to me that we should adopt the practice which Quebec has started to negotiate with the federal government — having one of their officers in the Canadian government embassy or high commission, which for administrative purposes is far more sensible in terms of cost. It cuts down enormously on the overhead. I wonder if the Minister has gone into any negotiations at all with the federal officials on this particular point.

HON. MR. HALL: The answer is yes. Frankly, the relationships between my department and the Canadian government office of tourism have improved immeasurably in the last three or four years.

That is due to a couple of things, one of which is obvious, and one of which is that the Canadian government has now, I think, got a first-class operation going with a great deal more empathy and sympathy with its provincial counterparts. Tom Fletcher, roughly at the Deputy Minister level in Gillespie's department, has been here a number of times, and we have an excellent relationship with him and his staff.

Certainly, when we are talking about the Far East and Tokyo, your point is well made. Unless we get into combination with an already current Canadian presence, the cost is prohibitive. There is no question in my mind but that we will be joining and asking for assistance from CGOT in some way or another.

As to whether we revamp Log Angeles and San Francisco, I don't know. We've come off the rather flossy arrangement we had before, you know — ground level, big entrance offices — and we are now operating in a much more functional way. I don't particularly want somebody sitting down at a desk smiling at B.C. tourists who come into the office. That's what used to happen. Curiously enough, Dr. Downard, who for six years was in Los Angeles, is on the floor today to assist me in questions on the Royal Hudson. Dr. Downard, since he returned to British Columbia, has taken up new duties, his main duties being in vote 266 and looking into the Royal Hudson.

Dr. Downard was in Los Angeles for six years and assures me that the way they operate there now, out of a smaller office at less cost, is much better than it was previously. If we go into anything new, particularly in Tokyo, there is no way we go in unless we go in with some assistance from the Canadian government.

If, however, other departments of government are going to come along as well — and my colleague of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) is discussing how we approach this thing — then we would have to look at it as well and see what possibilities there are with the Canadian government section on trade and industry.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: One final question, Mr. Chairman. Could I take from the Minister's remarks about Japanese tourism that he has decided that major operations such as skiing resorts are now desirable? The government attitude a couple of years ago was that we should not encourage relatively short stays by relatively high-spending tourists, and that we should go for the family tourists from the States rather than the Japanese or European skiing tourists. Do I take it there has been some further discussion of this, and the government now sees some merit in having the Japanese tourist, who tends to come for a short period of time and spends a bundle of money?

HON. MR. HALL: The view is that we can, by going into overseas markets, lengthen our season. It is not specifically for skiing. In fact, I am disturbed over a couple of things that have happened when large Japanese groups have arrived at some facilities that weren't ready for them. That's one of our problems with the industry.

No, the overseas market shows the greatest potential for extending the season, and that is why we are going.... We are not going to have the kind of industry we need and we're not going to enjoy the kind of hotels, restaurants and resorts that we would like unless we can extend that 75-day season into a six-month season. The overseas market is amenable

[ Page 4012 ]

and malleable as far as that.

Vote 267 approved.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
(continued)

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

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): I see in the local papers that there is a great to-do about someone wanting a hamburger stand or a beanery. I don't know what kind of games they are playing. This government, as you know, has gone all out to do everything it could to help the City of Victoria, everything from assistance with their sewage.... Certainly what has been done and what is being done with the Marguerite is the type of cooperation that I'm sure no previous government has ever shown this city.

Now shortly after we took office we were approached to acquire the old Esso site at the corner of Government and Wharf. On November 23, 1973, I wrote to Treasury Board and asked for some $232,750, and that was approved. Following that, a certificate of indefeasible title was issued to the Queen in the right of the province. More recently, at the last CIDC meeting, their minute re Imperial station, Government and Wharf, January 23, 1975, 3:30 p.m.:

"A proposal by the City of Victoria for the beautification of the site was considered and members discussed alternate use of the buildings after acquisition.

"Preliminary plans and sketches were studied and following further discussion it was moved that the matter be referred to the Department of Public Works," it goes on.

So I thought I should just state that for the record, in view of certain games that appeared to be played by certain ....

Interjection.

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

Do you have questions?

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I think the Hon. Leader of the Opposition.... The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Try and clear up this one matter that the Minister raised. What did the province buy from Esso? Did they buy the property outright, or did they simply buy the rights to the property which are subject to a sale agreement between Esso and the Capital District Improvement Commission?

Now, there's a big difference. Mr. Minister, I appreciate what you said, but as far as I can tell from looking at the documentation that I've received, all you really purchased was the right to sell it to the commission and you didn't purchase it outright because in actual fact the commission had previously made a payment of — I'm guessing — roughly $15,000 to Esso, had put the down payment down and in actual fact had an agreement-for-sale for the property. There is no way Esso could back out of that by turning the property over to you. They could only sell it to you subject to that agreement, point one.

Point two, section 10 of the Act which set up the commission makes it impossible, as I understand it, for them to hand over property to you in this way. But I don't know whether this is a subject which is all that profitable to canvass at great length, but will you tell me precisely what you purchased?

It would appear to me you're under a misunderstanding. You think you purchased property, but in actual fact you purchased the property subject to a sale agreement to the commission and it is a very different thing. In other words, you didn't have the right, having purchased the property, to turn around and sell it to Gulf or anybody else. You purchased the rights to the property subject to an absolute agreement to sell it to the commission and if that was the case surely the property is in the hands of the commission.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: This is a good point. I'd be pleased to show the Hon. Member a sketch attached to the indefeasible title. It indicates that we have purchased Lots 2 and 3 on Wharf Street. Now, further to the point that the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) has raised, under section 6 of the Capital Improvement District it does state this:  "6(l). The Commission is for all purposes of this Act an agent of Her Majesty and its powers under this Act may be exercised only as an agent of Her Majesty."

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

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Okay. Now with regard to the ownership, there is something to what the Member says — that it was purchased in conjunction with CIDC and I have a statement from our lawyer....

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

[ Page 4013 ]

the purchase agreement with Esso?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Not to my knowledge.

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

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Not to my knowledge. The city was involved. They started things moving and then we took it over.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Could the Hon. Member wait so we can have the benefit of Hansard?

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't mind if the Hon. Member puts the question so long as he rises so that his microphone is on in this question-and-answer situation.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: This is with regard to the correspondence that I have dated March 5, 1975 from our legal adviser, Mr. Beltz, to our property manager, Peter Gregory.

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

"This matter has been completed and the deed registered under 27960 and 27961. The title was vested in the Provincial Crown subject to an agreement-of-sale of May 9, 1974 to the Corporation of the City of Victoria which was subsequently assigned August 6, 1974 under C 99158 to the Capital Improvement District Commission.

"This agreement was exercisable on January 31 and since the Commission did not choose to exercise it (not having had the funds to do so), it can probably be regarded as forfeited."

Now that is the legal point that the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) raised. But I would be pleased to discuss it with him privately if he wishes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to talk this over with the Minister privately because there really is a tremendous amount of confusion and the Minister's colleague, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), indicated to me on page 857-3 of Hansard of Tuesday, that my research wasn't that far out.

In fact, he said, he congratulated the Member — me — "I congratulate the Member on his research. That's entirely where I am at the moment." Now it appears that he agrees with my interpretation of the facts. You've got different ones.

Well, the Provincial Secretary and I and you perhaps should all meet together and we'll try and hash it out because really we're not going to finish finding out about a legal agreement in this Chamber and I'm going to leave it at this stage and take up the Minister's suggestion that he and I get together with, perhaps, the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I can tell you that I have discussed this with the Provincial Secretary.

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

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I discussed it with the Provincial Secretary this morning before coming into the chamber. So far as this sidewalk cafe, I'm pleased to understand that the brother of the Second Member for Victoria, Alderman Anderson, supports this idea of beautification of the harbour. We're going to have some planters built, some flowers, some trees, shrubs and some tables and chairs, so that anyone who wishes to go in and have a sandwich and a glass of milk or a cup of tea (laughter) can sit out and look over the waters, watch the ships come in and the planes fly out.

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

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, if the Hon. Member for Oak Bay would bring his violin, I'll provide the hat.

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

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Pardon?

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: No, this is our plan — it is a temporary plan. When CIDC gets together with the plan for the completion of the causeway — at this point in time the causeway ends just where the property in question starts. No doubt — I hope that causeway can be extended right on around by the Black Ball Ferry, the Reid property and so on.

I should state that we have taken up the matter of the Reid property freeze with the Environmental and Land Use Committee. We're making no structural changes. We're just cleaning it up, beautifying it and putting it to use so that we can have some revenue from it.

[ Page 4014 ]

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

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I hope not — I hope not. I hope that no one — certainly no Member of this House, I'm sure — would be so small as to try and step in the way of the further beautification of this beautiful city and the development of the harbour. Good work has been done but we feel that instead of having that old Esso station just standing there, we'll beautify it and make it a very pleasant spot for visitors and citizens alike. Tourists that come up on the Marguerite or come over on the ferries or fly in can sit there and have a nice lunch as they would do in many of the cities in Europe. I think this would be doing a great deal....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, and Holland and other parts of Europe. So I thought I would just like to lay that on the table because that is the way that it appears to be. But if any of the Members have further questions on it, I'd be pleased to answer them either privately or across the floor.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, it's great to see the Minister in such a cooperative mood because earlier this year we started a series of questions identifying waste in his department. Although the whole government is characterized by waste it's more identifiable with this Minister because he deals with all departments.

As far back as March we started a series of questions on empty office buildings, Mr. Chairman, that had been leased far in advance, buildings on which there was no answer given and in which waste of taxpayer's money was identified.

We started in Prince George; we went through a series of properties attempting to find out from the Minister if he had a policy for leasing property in advance for various departments, if there was a lack of correlation, which apparently there is, and why over $300,000 of the taxpayers' money was wasted on empty space.

Many of these questions are still unanswered. While I, upon checking, find that some of the properties have finally been filled, such as the Oxford Building in Prince George, no satisfactory explanation for the waste of approximately $27,000 in that filled one has ever been given to the Legislature.

This Minister has treated this matter very lightly — very, very lightly. We still have buildings in Vancouver and we still have buildings on the King George Highway that are still empty after being identified to this Minister. From time to time — in fact, the last time I asked him a question in question period he said he had brought answers into the House during some particular period. But I checked the Blues and, of course, he hadn't. We have property in Burnaby where the lease was signed in April, 1974. We brought this matter to his attention — the building is still empty. There are a few boxes piled on the floor as of June 9 — there's a person in there — but this is very expensive space for just one person and a pile of empty boxes. It's costing thousands of dollars.

In light of the fact that the Minister has not dealt with this problem — I don't want to review all the pieces of property because we only brought them to his attention to identify a problem of not only apparent waste but real waste of taxpayers' money. This Minister typifies the casual and irresponsible manner in which this government deals with the taxpayers' money. It's the very reason — this waste of money — why many worthwhile programmes have had to be curtailed in the government's freeze in many areas of this province. Those people have lost services because much of the taxpayer's dollar gets stuck in waste, in administration and just straight nonsense by Ministers such as this Minister who do not take their responsibilities as they should, or meet them, and in fact are responsible for a serious waste. As far as I'm concerned, this Minister typifies this government.

I don't expect answers today. We didn't get answers during the last brief period we had at his estimates. We certainly haven't had answers during the question period. But I think this Minister should be accountable. I think it should be recognized by the government that hundreds of thousands of dollars, their dollars, this Minister has allowed to be wasted, the hundreds of thousands of dollars that relate to every department of this government...this waste can be identified. It can be catalogued in this department. But the public knows that it runs into millions as it extends into poor administration and irresponsibility in all other departments.

Because of this Minister's disregard for providing answers, his inability to control the expenditures in his department, I would move, Mr. Chairman, that the salary of the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) as provided for in vote 232 be reduced by $23,998.51.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

[ Page 4015 ]

NAYS — 32

Mr. Bennett requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. I'd like to know about this 1 per cent of the cost of construction of public works buildings which is used to buy art. We have just read in the newspapers about a $10,000 mural which is going to a government building in Nelson. It seems to be rather appropriately titled "Inside and Outside." I think that means that the government's on the inside right now and will be on the outside after this Minister gets through with them.

The thing that puzzles me is: why 1 per cent, and is that no limit? If the building costs $5 million, does that mean that $50,000 will be spent on art? Who decided the 1 per cent? What's the magic formula of 1 per cent?

The other question I'd like to ask is about the cost of the functioning of the selection committee. I understand they have an office on Broughton, or Blanshard or somewhere. It seems to me that while we've got the Provincial Secretary busy trying to cut down on the budget, through Arts Access, we've got this Minister spending a fair amount of money on art on some kind of formula which seems to have been plucked out of the air. I wonder if we could have some accounting of that expenditure. While the Minister is getting the explanation I'll pause for a moment.

The other question I have is: could you give us an up-to-date accounting of the money that has been spent on the restoration of the parliament buildings? With continuing inflation, what is the new projected cost? The costs were projected at being $5 million, somewhere along the line, and I presume that with continuing inflation it will be considerably in excess of that. Could the Minister give us these two figures?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: With regard to our art policy, we started this prior to the Provincial Secretary's Arts Access. In direct answer to the question of 1 per cent, that is a maximum. If, say, the block 61 project goes $50 million or $100 million, whatever the overall cost, it would apply. But if it's a $100 million project, we don't have to spend $1 million. The federal government has had a policy similar to this and....

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

HON. MR. HARTLEY: But other governments have had it, and we've had very good response throughout the province.

Last year we held some 12 art viewings in various centres throughout the province where local artists were encouraged to bring in their various works of art. We had a group of judges who were appointed for one year. This year we will appoint or reappoint another panel of judges to sit in. All the art is brought before them and they hold up a card as to whether it is good art and should be acquired, or it should not be acquired. We did have some complaints that the judges were too tough, they were being too selective.

We appreciate that comment, but I believe that when you are spending taxpayers' money in selecting art, we have to try and buy good art. The piece of art that the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) referred to, which will be displayed in the new provincial building in Nelson, was done for us by one Donald Harvey, a professor of art at UVic, and an artist who is nationally and internationally known.

We feel further that by the provincial government acquiring art and displaying it in provincial buildings, it will do several things. It will give the residents of B.C., particularly those of us who were raised here and probably don't have the same exposure to and appreciation of art as many of the people raised in the old lands.... This is one of the things that I've noticed personally — you chat and discuss art with people who were raised and received their schooling in the old lands, and they have a far greater appreciation for art than do the people who were raised in British Columbia, as many of us here were. So it will give an awareness of art. It will also give exposure and encouragement to the local artists, and arouse considerable interest in the art community. And we've had a very good response. We have had the odd criticism that we're being too selective, but that's something that, I guess, we'll have to live with. I'm just sorry that previous governments haven't had a policy like this in the day of Emily Carr.

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

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The Member for Columbia says "Yechhh!" Well, maybe the artists up in Columbia River should know about that — that he doesn't appreciate us encouraging the artists.

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

[ Page 4016 ]

dining room, I'll tell you that.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: The beholder.

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

But we feel this is worthwhile; by and large, the response has been good. At our first art viewing in Burnaby, I believe there were some 1,500 pieces that were displayed. No artist is asked or allowed to show more than three pieces. No judge or person working on the art committee is allowed to show any of his own art, yet all of those on the panel are artists, sculptors, of great renown, and we feel that we can place confidence in their judgment.

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

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'll get those for you. The person, Jack Wilkinson, whom we have doing this, was on our staff, previously in the design department. He's still on staff, and one of his duties is to manage our art division for us. He's currently setting up a programme of art viewings throughout the province for this coming summer. Those dates will be posted very shortly. I'd be pleased to give you the details of the cost.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, while we're talking about the beautification of the harbour, do I have the Hon. Minister's ear? Again, Mr. Minister, I wish to refer to the desecration of the aesthetic qualities of these beautiful buildings by all of these four-cylinder, six-cylinder and eight-cylinder putrefactions that we find outside there from Detroit and Dusseldorf — the Fords, the Falcons, the Dodges and the Darts, the Pintos and the dintos — and all the 25, or maybe upwards of 30, selections of chrome and tin that are completely fouling up the beauty of these delightful buildings. It was never, ever the vision of Mr. Rattenbury that the front of this assembly would become a second-rate parking lot.

You know it's so bad, Mr. Minister, that in some of the late evening sessions a few of the Members have mentioned to me that they've noticed the statue of Queen Victoria even turning around and viewing all of those cars with complete disdain and contempt. I'd say to you, Mr. Minister, will you clean them out? Will you clear them out? The only king that we wish to have in front of these buildings is "No Par King".

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Very good. I agree with what the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey has raised. I think it's valid.

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

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I think you will agree that we are taking steps to do something about parking, and do something about transit. Many of the public employees are now scheduling their hours. Considerable money has been spent in providing buses, and we hope that before too long there will be a park-and-ride situation.

MR. GARDOM: It's 25 cars — move them out. That's all you've got to do. Just make a decision.

Interjection.

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

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

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Okay. We'll ask all of you who are parking in front of the buildings to remove your cars.

MR. GARDOM: Give me the Attorney-General's keys and I'll move his car right now.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), if he can nip in here and get a parking place tonight, he's right in there; yet he wants the cars towed away.

MR. GARDOM: Get them all out!

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

MR. GARDOM: It only means 25 people, Mr. Minister, that 25 cars have got to find new places, and they can certainly do that. It is not going to hurt some of your more ebullient cabinet Ministers to have a block walk.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Briefly, in support of the statement from the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, the Minister surely could accomplish this with a verbal order and a stroke of the pen and clear out the cars. Yes, various Members' cars are parked there from time to time because if we are in a hurry or if we feel particularly lazy that day, we will take advantage of this space if it is available. But if there is no parking permitted in any part of the front of the buildings, then clearly no

[ Page 4017 ]

one will park there. So let's not have fun about whose car is there and why and how often someone parks there. It's a simple, straightforward suggestion, and I think that the Minister should and could act on it forthwith.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHABOT: Just a few things. I have been trying to get up for some considerable period of time. Just a few questions to the Minister regarding some of his policies.

I wonder what criteria the Minister uses to determine which letters he answers and which letters he acknowledges and which letters he ignores that are sent to his office. I wrote to him last year on three occasions dealing with one subject matter — on June 19, then on August 31 and then on October 22. To this day I haven't received a reply, and I don't know what the criteria is for replying to correspondence.

Another question, Mr. Chairman, deals with the Public Works department at 4570 Canada Way in Burnaby. Certainly there is a memo which forbids and disqualifies moving companies that are non-union from doing business with the Department of Public Works. Is this firm policy in the Department of Public Works to ignore those people who are paying taxes in this province and who have the right to employ people who might, because of their dictates and their wishes, not want to belong to a union? Are you going to deny these people their legitimate right to not belong to unions? Are you going to deny the legitimate right of the employer to conduct his business? Are you going to deny him the opportunity of being employed on certain government projects?

When discussing this matter of government projects, it brings to question phase two of the construction of the government building in the community of Kimberley. Now I'm really concerned. I asked in the oral question period and the Minister told me at the time that a firm called Carlson Construction from Cranbrook did not meet the requirements of the Public Works Fair Employment Practices Act, which they emphatically do in my opinion because there is one employee and the owner; so they certainly meet the guidelines. Yet the tender, their bid, which was the lowest, was turned down on the basis that they didn't meet the Public Works Fair Employment Practices Act requirements.

You can't have it both ways. There are times that you utilize non-union contractors and there are other times that you don't. Here In Victoria, or in my community of Invermere, you have a non-union contractor doing a job. What is the guideline for the employment of contractors? Here the contractor from Cranbrook was the low bid on the phase two project for Kimberley, right next door. What do you do — pick the next bidder, who might come from Vancouver and who might cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars?

Now you have got to be consistent in your approach to these problems and to these projects — either one policy or the other.

I was wondering if you could tell me who was awarded the contract on the renovation of the provincial government building, phase three, at Revelstoke, project 452B1, and the amount of that contract. Also project — no project number — but this has to do with the St. Eugene school in Cranbrook. There is being spent in the neighbourhood of $180,000 for renovations, according to your annual report. Now I'm wondering what your intentions are with this building at St. Eugene Mission. After having spent $180,000, do you intend doing something with it? I drive by it almost every week and I see it sitting there — the taxpayers' money just sitting idle.

Just one other question. We were talking about paintings here. I have a copy of the letter sent to the Minister dealing with the paintings that the Minister has been purchasing. This individual is very concerned regarding Mr. Wilkinson's committee and the kind of paintings he is buying. I'll read it very quickly:

"The latest newspaper reports show that $10,000 provincially – commissioned mural which proved my accusation right, that Mr. Wilkinson's committee are looking after their own without any concern of what art is or what is appropriate for a building. Of course they do not care what the public likes because they've got paid for it already and there is a no-money-back policy if the public does not like that so-called art. It's so much more appropriate to paint a mural on the wall that shows how the country was conquered and how mines were built."

What's wrong with miners in this province?

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: You're against miners?

Interjection.

MR.CHABOT:

"It should show the farmer out in the fields. It should show the Indians. All this is completely ignored. The same here on the west coast. You should have pictures of the industries like fishing and logging, et cetera, and mainly the pictures should be recognizable. But all this has been declared no good and old-fashioned by Mr. Wilkinson and his committee.

"You only have to examine Mr. Harvey's record from April, 1974 " — this letter was

[ Page 4018 ]

written on June 25, incidentally — "till now. This man has never missed the month in selling his work to the government."

Never missed a month since April 1974. Has he got an in with Wilkinson's committee? Does he have an in with the Minister?"

Interjection.

MR.CHABOT:

"He has sold about 35 of his so-called pictures, plus a $10,000 grand prize. This is only surprise No. 1. There are 16 more to come and I can guarantee you it will be 16 more abstract wonders. I call this a rip-off in the highest degree. The public is being fooled by the committee. Yours, disgustedly."

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that from Jones?

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

This man is concerned with the kind of stuff you buy, that kind of stuff that he can't recognize and can't see anything that depicts the history, the nature, the environment of this province.

When I look at that mural upon the wall — that $6,000 one I believe it is — in the dining room, I almost make it a point when I go in the dining-room to sit the other way so I won't have to look at that $6,000 abortion up there.

Interjection.

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

MR. CHABOT: Really, let's get some art that the people in this province will appreciate, will cherish and will recognize.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Of course, one of the reasons we undertook an art policy was just this: to arouse people that had never been interested in the past — to arouse some interest; and we're doing it. We're succeeding.

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

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'm aware that there is a difference of opinion. Some people like certain types of art, I agree. We have some parts of the west coast, the fishermen, the marine scenes that I think are beautiful. I appreciate that, more than some of the other abstract forms, that that's up to the eye of the beholder.

Now I think the fact that artists are writing as they have written to this Member...and the gentleman who wrote that letter dropped in to see me. I viewed some of his private art showings. He's a very fine chap and does some good work.

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

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

Now with regard to the contractor that the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) referred to with regard to the Kimberley provincial building, he was low tender but he did not comply with the public works fair employment legislation. I understand that he has now taken the necessary steps to comply with the Public Works Fair Employment Practices Act. If this is correct — it's in the course of being checked out with the foreman yesterday — then he will receive the tender, but we do try and do all our construction work wherever possible in compliance with the Public Works Fair Employment Practices Act.

MR. CHABOT: You made him force his employees to join a union, that's what you did. That's coercion on the part of an employer.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, it's really very interesting, Mr. Chairman, to find such an anti-union attitude emanating from the ex-Minister of Labour. I realize he wasn't in that post very long.

MR. CHABOT: It's not true.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We certainly get his attitude very quickly. He gets very upset.

Now with regard to certain movers, these are auxiliary services and there are exceptions within the Public Works Fair Employment Practices Act which is our auxiliary services. So it's a problem, and if the Member would like to let me have it — either across the floor or privately...

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

HON. MR. HARTLEY: ...I'd be pleased to look into it, because in that area there are exceptions.

As far as the Saint Eugene School, yes, there has been considerable work done. This was a federal building and it has been renovated, I believe, for Mental Health.

While it was still under the control of the federal government, it was allowed to freeze up. It was, I believe, a hot-water system so that had to be replaced and the building has been and is being rebuilt for Mental Health.

[ Page 4019 ]

There was a question with regard to work on the buildings. Yes, we had an estimate in the early stages of the restoration of the Legislature of $5 million. It appears now that the estimate now to complete this work by June, 1976, will be something in excess of $6 million.

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

The matter of parking was raised again. It's very easy to zero-in on the Ministers whose cars are parked there, but it's part of an overall problem. Yes, it's all very well for a person to say with one sweep of the hand: "Clear them all out." The answer is not quite just that easy.

It's all right for those of you that commute daily between Vancouver and Victoria by plane and can walk up from the harbour — okay. But the Ministers particularly often have to get into the car and nip out to get the ferry or to go uptown to do other departmental business.

We are concerned about this. We are building several new buildings in which there will be a certain amount of parking but we just haven't that much spare parking space. Some of the buildings that we have built are built on properties that were being used for parking at the time so that's putting pressure on our parking, too.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask the Minister how much money in this budget is allotted for landscaping the new government building in Dawson Creek.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll ask the question again, Mr. Chairman. How much money have you allotted in this budget for landscaping the new provincial government building in Dawson Creek?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I don't believe that contract has been let but the landscaping is to be done. The work will be done by public tender in compliance with the Public Works Fair Employment Practices Act. I'd be pleased to let the Member have the amount when the tenders are let. It's in the budget but I'm not just sure about the amount.

There was a further point that was raised by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) with regard to correspondence. I checked my file — he raised this when our estimates were up before. I have a copy of a reply to him. If he didn't receive it or if it has been misplaced I'd be pleased to give him a further copy.

MR. PHILLIPS: A further follow-up. It is now June 26. I'd like the Minister to assure me that the tenders will be let immediately or if they are going to be let this summer for the landscaping of that building. Why haven't they been let prior to this date?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: On the Dawson Creek provincial building that was opened last year there is an item of $30,000. It may not take all that; it may take a little more. But that's the approximate figure. When the tenders are let they will be published and I will make a note to see that the Member for South Peace River has the exact tender.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not really that much concerned about the cost. I just want to ensure that the work is going to be done in its entirety this year. Why have you not let it go to tender? As you know, the building season is short up there. It's now the end of June — when do you intend to let this work go to tender?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I understand that the tenders are to be called very shortly. I appreciate what the Member says — it is a short growing season for the north. I believe there has been somewhat of a problem with regard to this tendering. But I'll have it checked out and see that the tenders are let just as soon as possible.

I suspect because of the time of the year we're in now as far as the lawns and the grass — if they don't place sod, if they seed the grass — it'll have to be a fall seeding. But there's no reason why the shrubs and other plants could not be planted now.

MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate the Minister's remarks. I take it from your remarks that you are definitely going to go ahead and it will be landscaped this year because at the present time the grounds are growing up in stinkweed and wild oats.

Really, it's not a very pleasant sight for a provincial government building, particularly when you look at the beautiful landscaping in the surrounding public buildings, such as city hall and the library and the swimming pool and all the other public buildings. They're very well landscaped and we're very proud of our city and we just don't like to see this beautiful new provincial building going without landscaping. So I'm assured then by the Minister that the work will proceed as soon as possible, and that it will be landscaped this year?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I appreciate the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) drawing this matter to my attention, and I'll see that the tenders

[ Page 4020 ]

are called as soon as possible, and that the work is done as much as possible this year.

Vote 231 approved.

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

MR. WALLACE: Just one or two very quick questions, Mr. Chairman. There's a very substantial increase, I notice, for printing and publications in particular, and we have also a substantial increase for office furniture.

I just wish it was for the furniture you promised for my office back in January. I've got a moth-eaten old carpet on the floor of my office, and I've been promised just one table that people can sit around and talk when they come to my office, and I've been promised that for ages. We've criticized this government for spending too much money, but you certainly haven't spent it on the furniture for my office. I just want that on the record.

The other factor that I've got marked down here is printing and publications. These two main items are up by very substantial amounts. The furniture and equipment is up. Travel's up by 129 per cent, and I think that we're entitled to know just why they're up, and how the money's going to be spent.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'll look into the piece of furniture. I don't know whether you're commending us or criticizing us for economizing, but I'll certainly look into that. You're entitled to your share of furniture.

We have not renovated any of the caucus rooms, with the exception of the Social Credit caucus, and the Leader of the Social Credit Party (Mr. Bennett) did write and ask that renovations be made in his office, and that is the only renovation that has been made in any of the caucus rooms, including government or opposition caucus rooms.

That floor covering that is down in that area, I realize it's a disgrace, but when I tell you that that was placed ready for occupancy in January, 1972, I think it just indicates that when we do renovations, that we should do those renovations with top-quality products. I hope this rug will be here for many, many years. Of course it cost a little bit more than the rug that went down in the caucus rooms, both government and opposition, but I think it's something worthwhile.

I believe when we are renovating a building of this historic nature and of this architectural beauty, that we're well advised to use top-quality products. It takes no longer to put down top-quality floor covering than an inexpensive one, and when it's done, it's done for many years to come. But I'll certainly look into the piece of furniture that the Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) referred to.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, while we're on the subject, would you please deliver those bookcases you promised me a dozen times? It's just really necessary. The paper boxes, the cardboard boxes are falling apart and it will be most helpful if you could provide me with just one small piece of furniture, the only one I've asked you for, and I've never asked for six months.

Nevertheless, apart from my own personal views about your operation, these cost control studies that you have done here, $25,000. Are you using them at all? Is this the vote where we will find the Minister of Public Works finding out whether he's got rental space which is vacant? Or what is that cost control study for? Clearly your department has been among the leaders in criticism for failure of control. I wonder whether $25,000 is enough. It's exactly the same as last year.

I think the Minister is trying to find out what the cost control money, $25,000, will be used for. It's the same as last year, Mr. Chairman, and some indication would be helpful. Perhaps he needs more.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: This money in question, $25,000, was money that was set up under the old administration, and it was set up at that time to work with the then Minister of Health, the Hon. Ralph Loffmark, helping lay out health facilities. We've kept it in the vote so that we can apply this on any construction project where we feel that it should be applied.

At this point I would just like to comment on some of the buildings that are underway.

AN HON. MEMBER: You said that three times.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We have opened new buildings this past year in Fort St. John, Nelson, Powell River, Dawson Creek, and in the City of Victoria we have the following buildings. We have acquired the Hydro building on Pandora Street. We are building an additional 200,000 square feet there. We have a major building at Courtenay and Blanchard, 250,000 square feet. An addition to the law court building in Victoria at 30,000 feet. The Dowell Building, which is an historic building on the site of historic Fort Victoria, we will build into that 20,000 square feet of floor space, and in the Blanchard-Burdett Building, another 30,000.

This gives over 530,000 square feet, over 0.5 million square feet of floor space. We have 200 square feet of floor space in the Block 61 building in Vancouver.

Now because of these projects, in Victoria this is the first major building programme for office space since the Douglas Building was built about 20 years

[ Page 4021 ]

ago.

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

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Thank you. That's right, 20 years ago. You've got a long memory. Her office was there, wasn't it?

Now with this programme of constructing new office buildings, the amount of space that we have leased for office space should be at its peak. As we complete these buildings and as leases terminate, we should have to lease considerably less space in the future than what we are doing at this time. Because of the new programmes we had to find space.

When you realize that such departments as Recreation and Conservation, that have more than doubled the number of biologists and have more than tripled the number of conservation officers, space had to be found for them, and to do it quickly we had to lease it rather than build. But we do have a substantial building programme that will provide this space on a more permanent basis.

Vote 232 approved.

On vote 233: government buildings (maintenance), $27,325,461.

MR. WALLACE: Just one question. I notice there is a new item for heavy equipment, $223,000. Is the department going into the building business, too, with its own equipment?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: This relates to the new buildings that we have built throughout the province, maintenance equipment, equipment to remove the snow in the northern communities, and so on.

Vote 233 approved.

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

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I wonder whether the Minister would explain why the rental contingency is up so substantially. Two years ago we had $50,000 for rental contingencies, this year we have $2,240,000 — a 40-fold increase, more or less. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us why there is this enormous increase there.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Two of the chief reasons, when we formed the government we took over the law courts and justice responsibilities from the cities, and similarly in many of the larger centres, Human Resources. So that I think last year the JDCs alone had a budget equivalent to this. We have taken over their rental responsibilities.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This doesn't really explain contingencies. I appreciate the fact — I think the Minister is talking about the total vote, and the total vote certainly has gone up. It's gone up about four times in two years, four-fold. But contingencies is 40-fold, and new buildings would not explain the contingencies.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The explanation for that, Mr. Chairman, is many of the recent rental contracts have an escalation clause, and we had to make allowance for that. As costs to the landlords go up, then we have to compensate.

Vote 235 approved.

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

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

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister just explain this item? I assume that....

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

MR. WALLACE: Yes, it's the come-clean vote. Glendale laundry operation, I had assumed this would be under the Department of Health. It's a hospital, an extended-care hospital, and while I know it is regionalizing now the laundry for other hospitals, and I see the wisdom of that, why is it under Public Works? Should it not be under the Minister of Health?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: This is one of the steps we have taken to try and build more accountability into government service. It had been in our regular overall vote previously, but, as the Member for Oak Bay has suggested, this being a specialized service to a particular department of government — in this case, Health — we thought we should list it separately so that it can be unit-costed. In this way we have better control and we can give you a fuller report on any problems relating to that service to that department.

MR. WALLACE: This $833,000 — does that represent the total cost of operating the Glendale laundry, or is that some net cost after you get some payments from the Victoria General, Jubilee or any other hospital that uses the facility? I just want to know what the $833,000 represents. I don't know why the Department of Public Works goes into the

[ Page 4022 ]

laundry business, does the work and is not being paid by the people and the source that uses the laundry.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: This is in addition to the revenue. The revenue goes into the consolidated revenue — this is an addition.

Vote 237 approved.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
RECREATION AND CONSERVATION
(continued)

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

MR. CHABOT: Just a few brief questions to the Minister. I notice now that he has proceeded from game-management areas to management units. We see all the fancy yellow signs all over the province — there must be 250 of them. They're cluttering the highways. It reminds me of when I used to drive in the United States a few years ago — there was a little jingle as you went along the highway and then it said "Burmashave." That's what this looks like. The highways are cluttered with management unit signs which really say nothing.

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

MR. CHABOT: At least they said something — they said that there was some construction underway. I wish we had some more of those signs telling us that there was construction on the highways of this province, fixing up the potholes.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: What particular significance or what particular purpose do all these signs serve? If you go up the highway and you come to game management unit 9-25, as you walk off the highway either north, south, west or east, you don't know where you're going — whether you're in 9-25 or 9-26. If you deviate by six feet, you could be in the wrong management unit. I wonder if the Minister will tell me what useful purpose these serve.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: While the Minister was speaking at the annual convention of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, he stated....

HON. MR. KING: He did a good job.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, I like that Minister of Recreation and Conservation. I think he's a good Minister; I think he's doing a good job. I've never criticized that Minister — I criticized the government that is so stingy with him, though.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stand up and take a bow, Slim.

MR. CHABOT: This year the parks branch allotment for Careers '75 is down by 50 per cent when unemployment has never been higher in this province. Here was an opportunity to do something worthwhile.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much did you give?

MR. CHABOT: We almost had full employment — there's a difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: We're talking about the highest unemployment rate ever experienced in this province right now. Over 100,000 people in this province are unemployed. The Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) appears unconcerned about this. Here is an opportunity to do something — something meaningful, something constructive, something that would...

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want him back? (Laughter.)

MR.CHABOT:...give an opportunity to people to enjoy employment. In this province there are young people graduating from the secondary schools and universities who have to go out of province to find a job. I'll give you an example — I have a daughter who just graduated from grade 18 — she had to go to Regina to get a job.

AN HON. MEMBER: She graduated from grade 18?

MR. CHABOT: Grade 12 — I'm sorry. Grade 12 — she's age 18. She had to go to Regina to get a job because there are no jobs in this province because of the policies of your government. What do you propose to do regarding this severe cutback in allocation? A 50 per cent cutback in Careers '75.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): We'll bring her back. (Laughter.)

MR. FRASER: You're breaking up this House.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, do we have a new Premier here? (Laughter.)

[ Page 4023 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Seriously, we could have done something constructive in the parks branch this year. But no, we decided to cut it back at a time when we need employment in this province.

The Minister, while he was speaking at the B.C. Wildlife Federation annual convention, also suggested that there would be 31 new positions in the fish and wildlife branch. I don't see those 31 new positions in your estimates, Mr. Minister. In fact, I see a decrease of one position, according to your estimates, yet at the B.C. Wildlife Federation you stated that there would be 31 new ones. I wonder what these positions will be. Will they be conservation officers? Are there new positions for conservation officers being created? When will these positions be established, and where will they be established in the province?

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I'm surprised at the Member for Columbia River asking me about the signs, because in the previous debate on estimates he was asking the question of how we were going to identify the 201 management-unit areas. I said that there would be, in the near future, signs along the road to identify with and to help the people correlate that information of signs with their new licence procedures.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RADFORD: These signs, as you mentioned, denote two numbers. For example, 4 and 11 — the 4 identifies the resource region, the next number will identify the management unit that these people will be recreating in.

You also mentioned, Mr. Member, the 31 positions. This is covered in the salary contingency. These 31 positions will primarily be required for expanding the enforcement and technical staff of this branch to cope with the greater demands from the other environmental agencies. They will be working on habitat protection areas, and also in the new resource regions.

MR. CHABOT: Just a follow up question, Mr. Chairman. Are you anticipating an increase in your allocation for the parks branch, which has been severely cut back? Your colleagues who control the cash in government, and who control the taxpayers' purse, have you been able to convince them, or are you willing to accept this severe cutback at a time of high unemployment?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Mr. Member, there has been no severe cut back. As a matter of fact, I met with all the senior staff in my department two or three months ago and asked them to watch their spending and to make sure that we didn't overspend, that we didn't have overruns. As the Member well knows, inflation is setting in in many areas, and not due to the provincial government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, primarily. Primarily.

HON. MR. RADFORD: We have many changes in spending. I've asked my staff to gauge their spending. We are looking at our spending quarterly, to make sure that we watch the new problems that may come about in our branch.

MR. CHABOT: Filibuster!

HON. MR. RADFORD: We've had a recent increase in the gas price by the federal government, and we aren't sure yet how that's going to affect government...

AN HON. MEMBER: And the provincial.

HON. MR. RADFORD:...in the provincial enterprises. But I think many of the other departments are also concerned about inflation and about spending, and are watching their estimates very carefully.

MR. GARDOM: Just a couple of words, Mr. Chairman. B.C. citizens, Mr. Minister, are still thoroughly, completely and utterly dismayed, disillusioned and disappointed with this government's lack of progress, and this particular Minister's lack of progress concerning the abolition of that mechanism of continuing and daily repeated cruelty. I'm talking of the leg-hold trap. It's an instrument of viciousness, as we all know.

There have been routine expressions of concern in this House, and very minor suggestions of improvement. But they always seem to be coupled with delay, delay, delay. I do hope that today, and the final hours and days of this session, the Minister will be able to stand up and offer the public something concrete and something firm concerning the removal of this instrument of torture.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few things to this Minister regarding his park policy, or lack of policy.

I'm not sure of the grade of parks, but of great concern to the private operators of resorts is your policy of not having attendants in parks. It's causing no end of pollution. Where you have a government campsite that accommodates 10 vehicles, because you haven't got an attendant there are as many as 50 or

[ Page 4024 ]

60 getting in there. I would like to know why you don't have attendants there. I realize that it isn't economic, but I don't think you consider the private operators' side of the story at all. They're all resident taxpayers in British Columbia, and you're gradually driving them out of business by this lack of control on these campsites. It's happening all over the interior. I would like to know the reasoning behind the fact where you have had attendants, now you don't have any attendants at all.

There is nobody there to clean up after the mess they make, and they are all going into a bad state of disrepair. I'm referring to the campsites in the interior of the province. I'd like to hear whether you are going to correct that by putting attendants on to bring this back to where it used to be.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Mr. Member, our staffing on the parks has just about doubled and maybe more than doubled since 1972 when your government was in control.

I should also remind you that our parks budget has increased since 1972 from a total of $4.1 million in 1972 when your government was in to $25.7 million this year. It's quite an increase. We have had a great increase in staff and the quality of the parks have been upgraded.

It is true that there are many areas in many parks where we do not have attendants. It is impossible. We now have 134 campgrounds in the Province of British Columbia. We have 6,584 individual camping units in the province. There are many areas, as I said, that we cannot put attendants in. In many places it doesn't even pay us to put a collector on for collecting camp fees. This is why in many parks we do not require camp fees.

Most of the public that go into the parks are looking after their parks and are keeping them clean. But if the Member has any particular parks he has in mind that are not being kept up, I would appreciate knowing about it.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, there are definitely parks that are not being kept up and I refer to Loon Lake, for instance, where there is no observation....

The other thing is that I realize you can't make a profit on these, but I can't see why you haven't got a minimum charge on some of these campsites, particularly thinking of the private operator. I don't say a gouging charge, but a nominal charge. Then have somebody there, because that will help keep these campsites clean.

Regarding your increase in budget, we appreciate that — from $4 million to $25 million. But as you view around, the class A parks, yes, they are excellent; there is no question about that. But maybe a lot of this money is being eaten up by bureaucracy at head office and you still haven't got enough to get out and do the field work.

I would like to know if the Minister is entertaining any nominal charge on these campsites where they are now free.

HON. MR. RADFORD: We are looking into the problems that the private camp owners have. You must realize that he has more facilities than a provincial campground. He has showers — more facilities that people want. If they want those facilities, they can go to a private campground. In many of our campgrounds we have very limited facilities, and this suits many people. We at the present time don't see how or why we should put a charge on some of these areas that have very few services. We do appreciate the problems that some of the private camp owners are having and we are considering in the future looking into this, and we know that we may have to increase our camp fees. But there are no plans for increasing provincial park camping fees for this year.

MR. PHILLIPS: Can the Minister assure the House that the same fees will be charged this year as were charged last year in all provincial campsites and that where there were attendants last year collecting these fees there will be attendants this year?

HON. MR. RADFORD: No, I can't make that commitment, Mr. Member, because the usage of some of these parks change. There are some parks that we add fees to. There are some parks where we take the fee off. It just depends on the amount of usage of that park for the particular time or as we see it in the future.

MR. PHILLIPS: What the Minister is really telling me, then, is that an owner of a private campsite doesn't know whether he's going to have competition one year or not from the provincial parks.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's exactly what you are telling me.

MR. FRASER: You're breaking them all, breaking them all.

MR. PHILLIPS: He doesn't know how to budget. If you've got a campsite that one year is being charged for and there is an attendant there and it is a provincial government campsite, there is less competition to that private owner who is right next door than if you don't. So this private owner can't budget. You have a flagrant disregard for those free enterprisers who have built up those facilities. Now you have a complete disregard for them. You are

[ Page 4025 ]

changing from one year to the next. Why don't you have a sound policy and continue on so that these people who are going to provide these facilities can provide them with some security that they know whether they are going to have competition from the public?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, why don't you go back to the United States where you come from!

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: If you knew anything about it, if you were so interested in consumer affairs, you'd be interested in protecting these people. But you're only interested in grinding your own axe.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're so full of spit and venom....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: That Minister's so full of spit and venom that it comes out her eyes every time she looks at me.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we should have cautionary messages for Hansard before these speeches are made.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would ask the Minister about the Roberts Bank causeway and whether his department did any studies of that particular area and whether they received any from the federal Department of the Environment, fisheries branch, and whether or not these were brought to the attention of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) who got up in this House and assured us that all was well. What information was in the hands of this Minister about that causeway construction which, of course, is destroying a large area of that marshland?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Yes, I believe the Member is talking about the proposed dike that will be instituted between the Tsawwassen causeway and the Roberts Bank coal causeway.

This was a situation where the federal government allowed accreted land on Roberts Bank some four years ago. Our government passed an order-in-council a year ago. I visited that site two days ago, as a matter of fact, Mr. Member, and met some federal fisheries people out there, by the way, and they were quite surprised at where the accretion was allowed. I believe they are taking steps to have the work stopped. They are concerned about environmental damage.

It seems that the federal government did have information. The federal fisheries did have the information about the values and the value loss in the area, but the accreted line that was put in was not put in the place where they thought it was going to be. There is some concern over that.

The only part the provincial government played was to agree to pay a 50-50 cost of building that dike. That was the only part that the provincial government did play. But the values were known by the federal fisheries.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister hasn't really answered my question.

He has indicated he's spoken with two biologists, I guess of the federal fisheries, but has he actually received any report himself, or has he done any studies himself in this area? Has his department done anything? In fact, if he is concerned, as he apparently seems to me to be, is he taking this up with his cabinet colleague who seems quite content to have this thing take place, to have the causeway, the dike, put in and indeed to, we suspect, have some saw-off arrangement whereby some of the Indian reserve land will go to the Highways department for the approaches to that Tsawwassen–Swartz Bay ferry?

HON. MR. RADFORD: I am discussing this now with the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. I understand that he was asked the question the other day and said that he was taking it up with his department. That's all I can say at this time. We are concerned about it and we are working with the other Minister on it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I would be a lot happier if you were working against the other Minister on it, because it appears that his attitude is that it's going to go ahead.

Can we get from this Minister a commitment that he will have his people on site and get them involved in terms of analyzing whether this is good or bad from the point of view of the wildlife and fish in the area?

Vote 239 approved.

Vote 240: general administration, $1,072,930 — approved.

Vote 241: information and education, $330,042 —

[ Page 4026 ]

approved.

Vote 242: Provincial Museum, $2,815,961 — approved.

Vote 243: marine resources, $451,587 — approved.

On vote 244: fish and wildlife branch, $10,335,767.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, just a brief question on wildlife here. Regarding the new management units, how are hunters going to be able to identify the areas? Are maps going to be issued and, if so...?

HON. MR. LEA: It's not the kind of wildlife you think it is.

MR. CHABOT: If so, will these be made available to hunters when they purchase their hunting licence? I hope that there's not going to be a special fee for the fact that you have subdivided the province into 200-odd management units. Are these maps going to be available? Are the maps available now so that hunters can familiarize themselves with the areas in which they might want to hunt? Are these maps now available?

HON. MR. RADFORD: They will be available, Mr. Member.

MR. CHABOT: When?

HON. MR. RADFORD: By August. I'm informed by my department that they will be ready by August.

MR. FRASER: Free?

HON. MR. RADFORD: And they will be free.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RADFORD: They will be free, as always. "Nothing is freer than free, my friends." (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like the Minister to confirm that the cuts he was talking about — the careful examination of expenditures that he was talking about — will not resolve in a reduction of that $10,335,000 figure. I've heard rumours that the Minister is planning to cut back on the expenditure in his department by cutting in this particular area, and I would like his public confirmation that that's not the case.

HON. MR. RADFORD: There will be cutbacks in some areas and in some other areas there will be increases.

This year we have more money to spend in each of the regions. But, as I said earlier, money this year doesn't buy as much as it did last year, and there will be some cutbacks in some areas. I can't deny that. We are in a time when inflation is here. Compared to other jurisdictions across Canada, compared to other jurisdictions in the United States, the Province of British Columbia has more to spend in the Department of Recreation and Conservation than anywhere in North America.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The only trouble was that the question wasn't answered. The Minister tells me that there are going to be cutbacks and he tells us this halfway through the estimates, which we assumed were reasonably accurate. But I wonder whether he would indicate whether there are any cutbacks in this area which he now knows about which would alter the expenditure under this particular vote.

HON. MR. RADFORD: What we're talking about here, Mr. Member, is the estimates. I want to make sure that I come in right on the figure that you're attempting to pass in my estimates, and that's what it's all about. I want to make sure that I don't have an overrun. I want to make sure that there's no overspending. In order to do that, because of the sudden change in costs, I have to have some reductions and some cutbacks in certain areas, but there will be increases in other areas. The reason there are increases is because a lot of the costs have gone up.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister's avoiding the question. He knows full well that the B.C. Wildlife Federation has grave concern that there may be a cutback in this specific vote. All I want from him is a public commitment that within reasonable limits, a few per cent, this amount of money, $10,335,000, will be spent in this area and we will not see a transfer of money from this area into the parks branch, for example.

HON. MR. RADFORD: As I said, I'll try and come in as close as I can to the $10,335,767. That is already an estimate; that's what it's all about. They're called estimates.

Vote 244 approved.

Vote 245, Creston Valley management authority, $143,750 — approved.

Vote 246: parks branch, $25,708,931 — approved.

Vote 247: Grants in aid of regional parks development and recreational centres, $5,220,000 —

[ Page 4027 ]

approved.

Vote 248: youth training programme, $1 million — approved.

Vote 249: outdoor recreation branch, $200,000 — approved.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:05 p.m.