[ Page 3277 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Municipal Amendment Act, No. 2,1976 (Bill 87)

Introduction and first reading. Mr. Gibson — 3277

Public Service Act (Bill 8 1) Second reading.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3277

Mr. King — 3279

Mr. Gibson — 3279

Mr. Barrett — 3279

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3280

Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 82) Second reading.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3280

Mr. King — 3281

Committee of Supply: Department of Highways and Public Works estimates.

On vote 98.

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3281

Mr. Lea — 3282

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3282

Ms. Sanford — 3283

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3283

Mr. Gibson — 3284

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3286

Mr. Rogers — 3286

Mr. Nicolson — 3287

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3287

Mr. Wallace — 3288

Mr. King — 3290

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3291

Mr. Bawtree — 3291

Mrs. Wallace — 3293

Mr. D Arcy — 3294

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3295

Mr. Kahl — 3295

Mr. Lea — 3296

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3297

Ms. Sanford — 3298

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3299

Mr. Shelford — 3299

Mr. Hewitt — 3299

Mr. Lea — 3300

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3300

Mr. Lloyd — 3300

Mrs. Jordan — 3302

Mr. Barnes — 3302

On vote 99.

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3304

Mr. Davidson — 3304

On vote 102.

Ms. Brown — 3305

An Act to Incorporate the British Columbia Association of Colleges (Bill 51) .

Committee stage.

Report and third reading — 3306

An Act to Incorporate the Bishop of the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of New

Westminster and His Successor in Office a Corporation Sole (Bill 50) .

Committee stage.

Report and third reading — 3306

Public Service Act (Bill 81) Committee stage.

On section 5.

Mr. King — 3306

Mr. Barrett — 3307

On section 6.

Mr. King — 3308

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3308

On section 8.

Mr. King — 3309

Amendment to section 20.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3309

On section 20 as amended.

Mr. King — 3309

On section 26.

Mr. King — 3310

Amendment to section 28.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3310

On section 35.

Mr. Wallace — 3310

On section 37.

Mrs. Wallace — 3311

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3311

On section 57.

Mr. King — 3311

On section 67.

Mr. King — 3311

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3311

Report and third reading — 3311

Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 82) Committee stage.

Amendment to section 3.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3312

Report and third reading — 3312

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 78) .

Committee stage.

On section 5.

Mr. Gibson — 3312

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 3312

Amendment to section 6.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 3312

On section 8.

Mrs. Wallace — 3313

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3313

Amendment to section 12.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 3313

Amendment to section 13.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 3313

Amendment to section 16.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 3313

Amendment to section 23.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 3313

Report and third reading — 3313

The House met at 8 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT,
NO. 2, 1976

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill intituled Municipal Act Amendment Act, 1976 (No. 2) .

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I see a bill on the order paper which says Municipal Amendment Act, 1976, but not No. 2.

MR. GIBSON: Oh. Well, I had it down as Municipal Act Amendment Act and then I wanted to change the wording around a bit, but I'll introduce that one, if you'd rather. I can change that wording so it's on the notice paper, then. I ask leave.

Leave granted.

On a motion by Mr. Gibson, Bill 87, Municipal Amendment Act, No. 2, 1976, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of non-urgent public business, but very significant private business, and indeed on a point of order, because this happens to be the birthday of the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), with whom I may say I had a marvellous dinner, and I'd like to wish him a very, very happy birthday on behalf of all the members.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary) Second reading of Bill 81, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Before beginning my remarks on this bill, I really would like to draw the House's attention to two of the members of the Public Service Commission seated on the floor of the House this evening: the chairman of the commission, Mr. Richardson, and Mr. Dick Higgins, who will this evening perhaps be seated on the floor for the last time before his retirement. As you know, Dick Higgins joined our Public Service Commission in 1939. He has given 38 years of outstanding service to our province and I would appreciate it if the House would recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, in reference to Bill 81, as well as Bill 82, which is on the order paper, I want to refer you to a report made by Mr. Higgins in 1972 when he headed a commission of inquiry in some employer-employee relations in the public service of British Columbia. That commission recommended that the opportunity for collective bargaining be extended to most public servants and made a number of recommendations as to the structure for collective bargaining. Among those was a recommendation that the Treasury Board be made the bargaining agent for the government, and a strong recommendation that the Civil Service Commission, as it was then called, should have no role in collective bargaining. The Higgins Commission pointed out the essential function of a Public Service Commission is to act as an independent body to ensure the maintenance of certain standards in personnel administration within the public service and the role of the Public Service Commission in applying the merit principle in recruitment.

In 1973, Mr. Speaker, the Legislative Assembly passed the Public Service Labour Relations Act and therein granted collective bargaining rights to the public service. However, the strong recommendation of the Higgins Commission as to the proper bargaining agent for the government was substantially ignored. The Public Service Commission was named as the bargaining agent for the government. Although the Treasury Board was to have a supervisory role, the fact is that the Public Service Commission became the employer's representative at the bargaining table.

Thus the Public Service Commission, Mr. Speaker, was thrust into a dual role, on the one hand being expected to act as an impartial and independent body concerned with high standards of personnel administration in the public service, and yet on the other hand having to act as a very partial advocate and agent in the bargaining process, an area in which it had little chance to develop any expertise.

This Act then, Mr. Speaker, embodies three specific recommendations. They are:

1. The bargaining agent for the government should be the Treasury Board which should discharge its duties, as such, upon the advice of and through an employee relations bureau which should be a special branch of the Treasury Board, and whose chief executive officer should have the status of a deputy minister, and should report directly to the chairman of the Treasury Board.

2. The other labour relations functions of the Public Service Commission, as opposed to recruitment, promotion and other matters related to the merit system and other personnel functions, should be transferred from the

[ Page 3278 ]

Public Service Commission to the Treasury Board, which, once again, should act upon the advice of its employee relations bureau.

3. The public service grievance board, which was created by the Public Service Act but which has never been constituted, should be constituted under a different legislative framework and under the name public service adjudication board. This board should act as the board of arbitration for grievances filed by employees not covered by the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and for grievances relating to those matters which are not negotiated under the Public Service Labour Relations Act, with the exception of those matters failing within the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission, and with the consent of the parties to a collective agreement for grievances relating to the interpretation, application or any alleged violation of the collective agreement.

Bill 81 has been designed to give effect to those recommendations, and is divided into four parts. The first part of the bill, which deals with the development and maintenance of the public service and outlines the duties and powers of the Public Service Commission, alters those duties by confining the commission to its role as guardian of the merit principles and matters related thereto.

Section 4 of the present Public Service Act imposes upon the Public Service Commission duties related to labour relations and collective bargaining. These have been removed.

Some of the commission's present duties with respect to the organization of public service, the classification and evaluation of positions in the public service, public service establishments and compensation, have been transferred to the Treasury Board under Part II of this bill. However, in each of those areas the Public Service Commission would retain duties where they relate to the preservation of merit system and related matters.

The Public Service Commission would have continued responsibility for recruitment, promotion and related personnel matters as well as some functions with respect to training but will be relieved of its labour relation responsibilities and, in particular, its collective bargaining role.

Under Part II of the bill, Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board would be made responsible for a number of labour relations functions that heretofore have been handled by the commission itself. The Treasury Board, under this legislation, would discharge its responsibilities after receiving advice and recommendations from an employee relations bureau. Section 54 of the bill sets out those duties of the Treasury Board and provides for delegation of them to the government employees relations bureau.

Provision for the establishment of the government employees relations bureau is made in sections 55 and 56.

I am sure that all members will realize that the creation of this bureau is fundamental to the scheme of this legislation. My hope and expectation is that the advent of the bureau will bring more expertise and, if you like, specialization to government collective bargaining, and by virtue of its existence will cause improvement in the operations of the Public Service Commission in its own sphere.

The chairman of the bureau will have the status of a deputy minister. The duties of the bureau as outlined in section 56 include the exercise of any power or duty delegated to it by the Treasury Board, the conduct of research and making of inquiries respecting any matter arising under the Public Service Act or the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and to provide assistance and services to any department regarding grievances that are taken before the public service adjudication board under Part III of this bill.

The remaining functions of the bureau are set out as well in section 56. The bill will empower the chairman to appoint a vice-chairman and to engage other staff for the bureau. The remaining sections in Part II of the bill are similar to those presently in force in the Public Service Act, except that the Treasury Board, under the new legislation, is given a responsibility for classifications and evaluation of positions in the public service.

Part III of the bill establishes the public service adjudication board which will replace the public service grievance board. The latter body was authorized under the present legislation, and, as I said before, that board has never been constituted.

Section 66 provides for the representative character of the board and for its independence. Representations from government and from the employees are to be equal, and the chairman, vice-chairman and members will hold office for a term of three years and may not be removed before the expiration of that term except by an Act or resolution of this assembly.

Section 67 of the bill sets out the duties of the public service adjudication board which are briefly, Mr. Speaker, to deal with grievances submitted to it by an employee or a group of employees or agents for employees, and to act as a board of arbitration whenever jurisdiction is conferred upon it to do so by a collective agreement as defined in the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

As a board of arbitration it would deal with differences between the parties of a collective agreement respecting the interpretation, application, operation or any alleged violation of the collective agreement. The chairman would be empowered to establish one or more panels of the board, and matters before the board would be referred directly

[ Page 3279 ]

to a panel for a decision.

Whether or not the public service adjudication board will be used by the parties to public service collective agreements will, of course, remain to be seen. If that board is eventually called upon to perform that type of service, then, of course, its role will be of much greater importance to all concerned. In the meantime, the facilities of the board will be available.

In summary, Mr. Speaker — and you'll be pleased to hear it's in summary, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) — this bill is intended to disencumber the Public Service Commission of its role as bargaining agent for the government, to transfer that responsibility to the Treasury Board and the government employee relations bureau, and in the result to improve the bargaining procedures and, as well, the relationship of the Public Service Commission with both the government and its employees in its proper role.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 81.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I am not going to encumber the House long with my remarks, so the minister won't have to disencumber me either.

I basically agree with the provisions of this bill, Mr. Speaker. Quite frankly, it is a move and a reorganization of the structure of collective bargaining within the public service that our party was also contemplating. I might point out that we did introduce collective bargaining for the first time to the public service employees in the province of British Columbia, and to organize a bargaining structure of that magnitude, after many years of the employees labouring without the right to bargain collectively, is no small undertaking. There were attempts at the outset to come up with some innovative approaches in the structure and the direction of collective bargaining. As a consequence, through the experience we had gained, I think all factors pointed to the direction the new government has perceived and undertaken, presumably upon the advice of Dick Higgins and Art Richardson and others. We certainly agree with that approach.

Now there are things in the bill, Mr. Speaker, that are of concern to me, but I think it's more appropriate that I wait for committee stage to raise these matters, the clause-by-clause discussion of the bill. But in general terms and in principle we agree with the basic reorganization which the Provincial Secretary is putting forward.

And I want to do two things, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down. I want to join with the Attorney-General in wishing a happy birthday to the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), and I trust that he had a pleasant birthday cake. He's been advocating that the citizens of this province eat cake for the last few months, so I hope he was able to enjoy some today, too.

Secondly, I want to personally and on behalf of the official opposition extend our best wishes to Dick Higgins who, I understand, will soon be retiring from the public service. He has given many, many years of good and valuable dedicated service to the province, and certainly we wish him well. Finally, I want to congratulate him on his last official speech.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): If I can resume my feet for just 30 seconds, I want to say that I support the principle of this bill. It's an excellent idea to separate the negotiation function from the personnel management function, and therefore I go along with the principle.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it's not often that somebody who gets fired gets the opportunity of congratulating the person who canned him on his retirement. But I congratulate Mr. Higgins even though he did fire me some...how many years ago was it now? Quite a few years ago.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. That's right — and Mr. Wallace. They gave me a great appeal and then they hung me.

Under this bill I have to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a matter of a complaint that I received from civil servants who are ferry staff members who have been almost assaulted by unhappy customers to the point where they have had to post a sign on the ferries. There should be some protection for civil servants from government policy. I want to bring to the House's attention a sign that has been posted on ferries to protect the civil servants as a direct result of government policies and government decisions. It says: "Our catering staff are doing their best to serve you. If you have comments, complaints or suggestions to improve our food and quality of service, forms are available at the chief steward's office. Please do not direct your remarks to the crew members. They do not make any of the decisions."

Now I want to inform the House that the crew doesn't make any of the decisions; it's the cabinet. The poor crew members have been getting abused by customers over poor service, poor-quality food and the high cost, and they have come to the point, Mr. Speaker, to have to protect the civil servants from this abuse....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, it's under this bargaining Act. I think they should bargain a clause in there to protect, them from the abuse of government policy,

[ Page 3280 ]

Mr. Speaker. It's an important part.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I think perhaps you realize that the tack you are taking is...

MR. BARRETT: This is civil servants, not the ships. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: ...not really in order with respect to second reading on this bill, even though I permitted you to say what you wished to say.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, the staff have been abused, and I am bringing it to the attention of the bargaining committee. They are going to take it into cabinet. They are doing the bargaining under this bill with cabinet; I want them to take into advice the protection of civil servants who are being abused because of government policy. Why else would they put this sign up? I know the cabinet never sees this sign, because they can't afford to travel on the ferries. I thought I'd bring it to your attention.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: File it.

MR. BARRETT: I will file it. I'll tell the civil service I brought it to your attention.

With leave, I'll table it, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it signed?

MR. BARRETT: No. The staff are frightened these days to put their name to anything because of political interference with civil servants.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is there a bug on it?

MR. BARRETT: No, there's no bug on it — just a mess there.

Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to file with it a voucher. They have everything reduced to forms for civil servants now. You have to have a form to complain and you have to be informed and also file a form for your second cup of coffee. I think that should be filed too. The government is form-crazy. Now what's happened with these forms....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it's part of the bargaining!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Well, what do you think is going on in those ferries? People are picking them up and using them for the first cup of coffee and are cheating the government, Mr. Speaker! (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I granted you some latitude in debating this second reading of Bill 81.

MR. BARRETT: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I'm just pointing out, very seriously, the fact that many, many civil servants are taking direct abuse in trying to interpret government policies, and it's reached the point where they've had to put up signs to protect themselves. I think that reflects quite seriously on the stupidity and the callousness of the government's policies.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, we're very pleased to accept the facetious notice given to us by the Leader of the Opposition. He's suggesting that he's protecting the civil service against the abuse of this government. Mr. Speaker, the election of this government has protected the people of British Columbia against the abuse of that former Premier of the province.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that there's so much agreement on the bill and I would move second reading at this point in time.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House and, by leave, be considered later this evening.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, if it's by leave, it would have to be now.

The question is that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House for consideration today.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Not now — later.

MR. SPEAKER: I understand it's the intention of the House Leader to call committee on this bill a little later.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 82, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR RELATIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, this bill is

[ Page 3281 ]

complementary to Bill 81, which we have just discussed. It expressly sets up the appointment of the Treasury Board as the bargaining agent for the government.

Since everybody understands it so well, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill 82, as the Provincial Secretary has indicated, it's just a provision to facilitate the main thrust of the previous bill — Bill 81. I find nothing objectionable in this bill and our party will be supporting it.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration later today.

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC WORKS

On vote 98: minister's office, $160,236.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that's a good start.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'd just like to make a few introductory remarks tonight, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I'd like to introduce the good staff we have here: to my right, the Associate Deputy Minister of Highways, Bob Harvey; on my left over here, George Giles, Deputy Minister of Public Works; Howard Sturrock, the Deputy Minister of Highways; Jim Dennison, the chief engineer, Department of Highways; and Al Rhodes, the comptroller of both departments and known to all of us as Mr. Moneybags.

I would just like to make a few opening remarks here before we get on with the serious business of discussing these departments, Mr. Chairman.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Sit down while you're ahead, Alex.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, okay, it won't be long. First of all, talking about the Department of Highways, they have 25,000 miles of roads in the province of British Columbia — gazetted public roads. The administration of those highways and byways is divided into four regions — regions one, two, three and four — located at Kamloops, Prince George, Nelson and Burnaby. The breakdown in the inventory of roads — about 10,000 miles of the roads are paved and the rest are in varying conditions of gravel, car parts and so on.

MR. LAUK: And you've walked every mile.

HON. MR. FRASER: No, I haven't walked every mile.

MR. LAUK: You can't drive them.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): You know what you left.

HON. MR. FRASER: We've had a lot of discussion in the province about ferries.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: The Department of Highways operates a large ferry fleet as well as those operated by B.C. Ferries. They have 38 ferries in the system serving the interior of the province as well as points on the Gulf Islands and the lower coast.

I have been quoted regarding highway safety. I would just like to amplify those remarks, because I am sure it will come up tonight with the interest everybody has in highway safety. I would like to say for the record, Mr. Chairman, that I am in favour of the existing speed limits — that is, at 55 miles per hour. I don't think they should be increased. But one thing that I would like to see done in regard to the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit is that it be standardized. Quite frankly, the staff doesn't seem to agree with that because there are reasons for the variation of the speed limits from 45 to 55 — in the odd case, 60. I would like to see that standardized at some speed limit rather than three different speed limits in, say, a short period on a highway.

The other thing that I feel quite strongly about is slow drivers. I have been quoted about this publicly, that I am in favour of speeding. I'm not in favour of speeding but in referring to slow drivers I am definitely in favour of enforcing the laws that are on our books now. I refer specifically to roadhogs — people who will not get over, who want to drive at 30 miles an hour when the speed limit is 55 miles an hour. I would remind the committee that there is no law change required here. Under section 139 of the Motor-vehicle Act it prescribes that this is an offence.

[ Page 3282 ]

I have reason to believe that this year the highway patrols will be looking at this offence a little more than they have in the past to try and increase the safety on the highway for the simple reason that when we have a roadhog or roadhogs — it might be more than one vehicle — lineups build up behind, we get frustration and we have people crossing centre lines and double lines. We have some of our worst fatalities caused from this type of buildup on the roads.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Explain it to the people who have never been past Hope.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I realize that there are a lot of them who haven't been past Hope, but there is a large road mileage from Hope and beyond in the province of British Columbia.

Just a few remarks regarding Public Works — they have several responsibilities. The Department of Public Works is responsible for inspection services for boiler, gas and electrical services and they are responsible for the provision to government departments through construction, rental, property acquisition and maintenance. Public Works is also into zones but where the Highways department of the province is divided up into four regions the Public Works...

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. FRASER: ...region is divided into six. I know that everybody wants to get in on the act here. So with those few opening remarks we will sit and listen and try to answer your questions.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Chairman, before I even....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LEA: On a point of order, before even touching upon the Highways vote 1, along with the Attorney-General, of course, would like to extend my best wishes to the first member for Point Grey. As I understand it, the meal was paid for by the Premier, it was at the Union Club, and it was crow under glass. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. LEA: No? I heard he'd been eating crow.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Wrong again!

MR. LEA: Wrong again? You ran for the resource board and you didn't make it. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm enjoying the good humour, but we are on vote number....

MR. LEA: What I want, Mr. Chairman, is to have Alec to look me right in the eye and tell me whether he's got enough money. I mean, really, Mr. Chairman! I sat on that side of the House as Minister of Highways and listened to that now minister talk about not having enough money in the Highways budget. Then we look at this. What more can you say? It's inadequate — both for the maintenance and for the capital projects.

The job can't be done with that kind of money. Everybody knows it. The minister knows it, the Premier knows it, the cabinet knows it, everybody knows it so let's not dwell on it. It's crazy. Everything's down — even his travel budget.

I believe that there's a little bit of a hoax going on here, Mr. Chairman. I believe that they know perfectly well that they can't maintain the highway budget with this kind of money. I believe they're going to use the other Act to put money into the Highways department.

MR. LAUK: Oh! Cynic!

MR. LEA: I think maybe they'll use the BCBC to slip money into the Highways department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: And that would mean deficit budgeting!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: Deficit budgeting again — you know, balancing the books. So before we even begin, I would like to have the minister stand and tell me whether or not there's going to be money going from the British Columbia Building Corp. into the Department of Highways for the construction of roads.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Stand up and say no.

MR. LAUK: Did you hear that? The Premier told the minister to stand up and say no! That's shocking! Resign!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, regarding funds that are in here, I would say that first of all it breaks down to several sections. I think we have adequate funds for the maintenance side. Of course,

[ Page 3283 ]

where the budget has been cut is the capital side. Certainly we haven't got adequate funds to do all we would like in capital, but the emphasis of the government was on the services-to-people departments, and departments like Highways are separate, consequently — I refer to the departments of Health, Human Resources and Education.

I have no knowledge, to answer your question directly, of money coming from the new bill to come over here to Highways. As a matter of fact, I don't think it's allowable.

MR. LAUK: Don't let them pick on you, Alex.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I was rather sorry to hear that the minister has no knowledge of any additional funds, because as the House well knows at this time, there's a major project in my riding which remains unfinished. I have spoken in this House on several occasions this year about the excellent campaign waged by the people of the north end of the island in an attempt to get the highway finished.

I raised with the Premier one day during his estimates, Mr. Chairman, the possibility of discussing with the federal government some funding through DREE in order to complete the North Island Highway. I would like to ask the minister at this time whether or not he is aware of any discussions that are taking place at this moment and whether or not his department would be directly involved in the attempt to get some cost-sharing in order to award the two remaining contracts to complete the 22 miles of road.

The other question that I have relates to an issue that I raised earlier this afternoon with the Minister of Transport and Communications. That relates to the fact that there are now free ferries that operate under the B.C. ferry authority between the Gulf Islands in the southern section — in other words, the south Gulf Islands. I would like to know from the Minister of Highways whether or not the ferries which operate within my riding between islands such as Hornby and Denman, Cortes and Quadra, and Alert Bay and Sointula will also be treated in the same way as the B.C. ferry authority vessels which operate in the south Gulf Islands. It seems to me that we should have some equity here, Mr. Chairman. I hope that the minister will advise us tonight what decision has been made with respect to the free ferries between islands.

I would also like to know, Mr. Chairman, about the review which the minister has indicated is underway in the department with respect to all ferry costs under his jurisdiction. And I would remind the minister that there are a large number of free ferries that are currently operational under his jurisdiction. It seems to me that it might be advisable at this time to consider making them all free. Rather than just between islands, why not make them all free under your jurisdiction, as are the ones in various parts of the interior?

I have the whole list, and I'm not going to read out that list tonight, but I certainly have the whole list of all of the free ferries that are currently operating under your jurisdiction, Mr. Minister.

I would appreciate an answer to those questions.

HON. MR. FRASER: In reply to the member for Comox, I will deal with the ferries first, and deal with the ferries in what I like to call the north Gulf Islands operated by the Department of Highways.

I stated earlier publicly that we were reviewing the cost there and the rates, and nothing would be announced regarding that. It would take probably till the fall for that to happen. I think you are probably interested in the existing situation, and just briefly, referring to what these ferries cost, I have the most recent statements of the operation of those ferries if you care to make a note of these: the Thetis Island ferry, the first one, the expenditures — and I'm dealing with the year 1974-75 which is the most current information we have, I believe, at this time — the expenditures on the Thetis Island ferry for that year were $379,156. The income from this ferry operation in the same year was $23,878, for a gross operating loss of $354,277 for that one year.

Comparing the revenue to expenses, Mr. Chairman, to the member, it appears that it is almost free now when we have operating expenses of $379,000 a year and revenues of $23,000.

MS. SANFORD: How do they compare to the interior ferries?

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, the interior ferries are a little bit different situation. This government hasn't changed it but, as I see it, these ferries serve a specific island, and a lot of the ferries in the interior that I'm very acquainted with serve a lot of area beyond the other side of the river that has no other way of having service. But there are no fees charged on the interior ferries, several on the Fraser River. As a matter of fact, I recently had the honour of launching a new ferry on Francois Lake, which is south of Burns Lake, about two weeks ago. They're in different parts of the province, as well as the ones I've mentioned.

But dealing with the ferries here, I'll use two or three only as an example. The Gabriola Island ferry, for the same fiscal year 1974-75, had operating expenses of $656,000 and revenue of $129,000 for a net loss in that year of $527,000-odd. I think probably the one that seems to stand out the most regarding operating losses in comparison to revenues is the Cortes Island ferry. The operating cost of that Cortes Island ferry in 1974-75 was $709,933 and the income from the fares collected was $62,000, making a gross loss on that ferry operation of $647,000-odd.

[ Page 3284 ]

That is probably the largest gap between revenue and expenses as far as the ferries are concerned.

So as you can see, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, these ferries are all losing heavily. I don't think it is the intention of the government to certainly see them break even or anything like that, but what has really transpired in the last two or three years, as near as I can find the background, is that the operating expenses have just spiralled out of sight because of increased salaries and increased fuel costs and overall operating costs.

I recall the member for Comox taking up the subject of going after DREE money when the Premier's estimates were up. Yes, certainly we'll go after DREE money. As a matter of fact, the staff are after that now. We already are involved with DREE money for what we call the northern road system, but Ottawa isn't very friendly when it comes to money either. In the last couple of years, the prior government was able to get $5 million to share in northern road construction on a 50-50 basis. Today, with some roads costing $1 million a mile to construct, I imagine you can realize how small this is, but we are trying to get more. We have been told by Ottawa that there isn't much hope, because they don't want to put any more money into the DREE programme than the $5 million they have put in in the last two years.

The roads where this money has been going in the past are Highway 16 between Prince George and Prince Rupert, the northern roads into the Atlin riding and so on in that part of the province. But as I say, we'll keep on trying to get more money.

Getting back to the last part of the north Island Highway, I think the public should know that.... I just forget the mileage that's constructed or under contract, but I believe it's somewhere in the area of 30 miles or in that vicinity — I could be wrong — but the point I want to bring out is that $30 million has already been spent this year on that section of road. The impression is around that nothing is going on, and I would like to say here tonight, Mr. Chairman, and to the members, that that section of road is getting more money than any other road in the province of British Columbia right as of today and for the balance of this year.

I believe some $6 million is estimated to be paid in progress payments, and there is money in the budget to look after that. But the problem is that there is no money to close the 22-mile gap that is there and not under contract. This is a problem and I hope that sometime in the not-too-distant future the money will show up and we can do something about it. But I think that particularly the north Island people should know that the last 22-mile gap to close is estimated to cost $22 million — $1 million per mile.

We, the government, are aware that this gap must be closed but it's a question of funding at the present time. As I say, they already are well-funded; there's no project-stopping and there will be $5 million, probably $6 million, of progress payment, so the next problem is to find money to.... It is the department's opinion that the last 22 miles of this road be called in two separate tender calls. I might add that in this $22 million estimate, there are also some bridges to be built on already-constructed road. So we have to go back to get the whole road usable by going where there's been road construction to build bridges to close these gaps.

I just want to say before I sit down that I'd like to congratulate the people of north Vancouver Island for their carrot campaign and all the rest of the campaigns they've put on, They've done an excellent job and I think maybe I should congratulate their MLA as well. The committee will be pleased to know that as the Minister of Highways I've had 1,700 letters just from this one section of British Columbia on this one road. Thank you.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, as we continue our annual travelogue of the province I would like to direct the minister's attention to the riding of North Vancouver-Capilano, and attempt to convince him that North Vancouver-Capilano needs some money spent on highways or, in the alternate, point out to him that there's a Social Credit riding on one side and on the other, and they need a good connection between them. I don't really mind the motive for which he builds the road.

First of all, I'll speak about the Upper Levels Highway, and I'll start out by complimenting the department on its responsiveness to a problem we had with parking there last year when there was a suggestion that highly important parking should be moved from in front of some people's houses. It was possible to have a meeting with North Vancouver city council, and, due to the flexibility of the department, iron that problem out without losing much of the traffic flow along the highway. I congratulate them for that.

Now on the upper levels in my riding, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, are two of the busiest level crossings on the Trans-Canada Highway anywhere in Canada. The rest of the upper levels, as you know, is a grade-separated situation. In the original design of the Upper Levels Highway in North Vancouver there were to be grade separations at Westview and Lonsdale, and there still should be some day because most of the land is there and acquired. I hope the Highways department hangs on to it and keeps its eye on that objective of getting those grade separations.

I recognize that they are going to cost some millions of dollars, but in the interim I ask the minister: can we finally have the long-awaited improvements to the level crossings there? They

[ Page 3285 ]

aren't big things, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman — the plans are drawn. It's a couple of extra left-turn lanes at each intersection — really, as I say, minor things. They've been discussed with the city and it's a relatively minor item that I very much hope that we can see in next year's budget. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, and you, Mr. Minister, that it is urgently supported by the city council and by the residents of that area.

Incidentally, when the residents of that area look next door and see the literally millions of dollars that have been spent on the upgrading of the Upper Levels out to Horseshoe Bay, which I don't begrudge for one moment — it's a good thing to have done — but there should be just a little spent on upgrading these level crossings used by thousands of vehicles a day.

Mr. Chairman, the next point I have to make is with respect to the lower levels road — and again, congratulations to the department for commissioning a study done by Phillips Barratt on this road, and submitted under a letter of transmittal last October 31. The study shows the road very clearly to be urgent. I'll just quote one and one-half sentences out of here: "The forecasted traffic volumes which would want to use the available limited east-west facilities will outstrip the capacity of those facilities in the case of the Upper Levels Highway by about 1985 and has already outstripped the traffic-carrying capacity of Marine Drive and 3rd Street. As a consequence of these factors, it is felt that the need for an additional east-west facility is urgent."

Mr. Chairman, that additional facility is the so-called lower levels road. There's a very strong provincial component in this because it will be an intermunicipal connection between West Vancouver, the district of North Vancouver, the city of North Vancouver, because it will provide access to the new ferry terminal which will be going to service probably next January, according to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) this morning — that ferry service being a provincial responsibility and made much more useful to the North Shore if there's a feeder route in the terms of this kind of a lower level road.

This kind of lower level road also makes it possible for the provincial government to avoid the day when they will have to spend even more money on upgrading the Lions Gate Bridge or putting in a third crossing, because the ferry system will take some of the pressure off that. The new lower levels road will also allow traffic between North and West Vancouver to bypass those Lions Gate Bridge queues. It's a tremendously important project, Mr. Minister. Cost-sharing is justified and required. The cost is estimated by Phillips Barratt at some $20 million, which is a lot of money, but tens of thousands of people every day would use it. At the cost per user, when you consider it would be a cost-sharing proposition, it's very justified and, as your own survey pointed out, urgent.

The final point relates to the Lions Gate Bridge....

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Hey, that's my riding.

MR. GIBSON: One end of that is your riding, Mr. Member. I'll speak about my end of the bridge.

HON. MR. McGEER: Which half do you want?

MR. GIBSON: What are the plans for further work on this bridge, Mr. Minister? You may recall the original announcement said that it was going to be completed by mid-1977. Well, here we are mid-1976 and so far, as far as I know, apart from the work done on the north causeway which was very well done and a little bit of an engineering triumph even though it was costly, nothing has been done except wind-tunnel tests on what might be done on the main span and the south causeway. I would like to ask the minister if he can tell us what timing he foresees there, what he foresees as cost and if the engineering problems related to somehow expanding those sections in the centre span — which will be a very tricky business — have been overcome yet.

Finally, on the Lions Gate Bridge, Mr. Chairman — I don't know if you remember personally — there always used to be a flag flying from the middle of the Lions Gate Bridge back in the days when the National Harbours Board used to run their lookout there. Since they have abandoned it, that flag is down. There has been some correspondence with the Department of Highways which has felt that, as a question of manpower, it's not possible to keep that flag flying. They feel that the National Harbours Board could have done it in their day but if they were not there any more, it just can't be done.

AN HON. MEMBER: John Diefenbaker.

MR. GIBSON: Now, Mr. Chairman, there are two possibilities. If it's really a question of manpower, you can keep the flag lighted and keep it flying all the time. That's quite legal and proper to keep a flag of our country and a flag of our province, too, flying there in the centre of that bridge lighted day and night. That's a very proper thing to do.

If you would rather raise and lower the flag I suggest to you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that there are patrol cars going over that bridge every day. About 6 o'clock in the morning every morning it should be possible to stop a patrol car with the red light flashing, just for a moment, and nip out and raise the flag, and do the same thing later on at night. I ask the minister to look at that very

[ Page 3286 ]

closely because it is one of those things. It is a symbol of our country and a symbol of our province and it was a prominent location. I would ask the minister to look at that.

HON. MR. FRASER: In reply to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, we certainly will look into the flag. My deputy here says it's the first he's heard of it. I agree with you. I don't see why it can't be reinstalled if that's what you say. I think it's a good idea and that won't make or break us.

MR. KING: Is there a budget for that?

HON. MR. FRASER: Going back to the Lions Gate Bridge, as you know, we have some current information on that which might be interesting. It takes just a minute. The north viaduct — on May 15, 1974 a contract was awarded to Canron Ltd. of Vancouver for $6,973,000 for the following work on the 2,000-ft. north viaduct: remove existing deteriorated deck, floor system replaced with new, painting of the viaduct's steelwork, installation of new electrical facilities, installation of telephone cable facilities. Work on this contract is nearing completion with only minor work and about 40 per cent of the painting outstanding. So that part is pretty well cleaned up.

Where do we go from here? This is from the bridge engineer:

"The suspension span design work is underway on the proposed modification to the 2,778-ft. suspension bridge. These modifications range from essential maintenance only of the existing facility to widening the roadway to match that of the viaduct and placing the sidewalk outside of the suspended cables. Wind-tunnel tests have been carried out on the latter proposal and a detailed report is in preparation. At this time the findings appear to confirm that the proposed solution is stable in the wind.

"The consultant is currently preparing a submission outlining various alternates for the modification and anticipates this will be received by the department by mid-July. Costs range from $2 million for essential maintenance to about $20 million for the complete modification. Tenders could be called," — and I repeat, could be called — "in the spring of 1977 with the bulk of the work being carried out in 1978."

So I hope that answers in a little bit of detail regarding the Lions Gate Bridge. No final decisions have been made.

Regarding the lower level road, in answer to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, the lower level road on the North Shore in my information is.... I might say that on the subject of municipal councils, I think I have met every municipal council in British Columbia since I have been Highways minister and I appreciate seeing them. Councils from the North Shore I have met. But it is my understanding, regarding the lower-level road, that there is no argument between the municipalities themselves.

MR. GIBSON: There is in North Vancouver.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, I don't believe there is, for instance, with West Vancouver. It's our understanding that is where that matter is at.

Regarding the Upper Levels Highway and Lonsdale, when we get the money that is high priority. It's in the next programme.

MR. GIBSON: The same with Westview as well?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, the same with Westview.

MR. GIBSON: It's in the next programme, did you say?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Chairman, I think there are about 150 yards of highway from the Department of Highways in our constituency. There is one point that I would like to make which has been bothering me for many years. Now that I have a position in this House I would like to bring it up. Every summer, in the heat of the summer, people drive by and they've got studded snowtires on. Those studded tires do damage to the roads all over the province in every single constituency. They are ripping up roads paid for by all the taxpayers.

I have spoken to the motor-vehicle branch and they agree with me, but they need a little pressure from the Department of Highways to be reminded that it is the lazy drivers of this province who refuse to take off their studded snowtires. There was a set of studded snowtires on Sunday which drove down the street in front of my house and it prompted me to bring this up at this time.

I would like to suggest that you ask the motor-vehicle branch to institute a system of progressive fines — $20 in May, $40 in June and all the way up. That way we can ensure that in the middle of September a fresh set of studded tires don't go down every street in the city of Vancouver and every highway in the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Great!

[ Page 3287 ]

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): It's hard to restrain oneself after listening about flags....

AN HON. MEMBER: Try!

MR. NICOLSON: I am not going to talk about avalanche hazards on the Kootenay Skyway and some other things, but I am trying to narrow it down to a few very select points but....

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: That's my second point. My first point, Mr. Chairman, is that on the southern trans-provincial, Highway 3, there is a section of road which will lead to considerable shortening of that highway and improvement. It would shorten the distance between Castlegar and Salmo, I would imagine, probably in excess of 25 miles. I would say that as far as the southern trans-provincial is concerned it might not shorten it quite that much because it would be, of course, the take-off point from Nancy Greene Lake, travelling down through Rossland and such.

I haven't quite worked this out, but this is a tremendous improvement on the southern trans-provincial. It is about two-thirds completed and I read in your report — which is under the name of the Hon. Alex V. Fraser, Minister of Highways and Public Works, 1975-76 — it says: "Project 2902: Champion Creek to Meadow Siding, 6.57 miles. Tenders have been called on this final section of the previously noted leg. Work should commence early this year." To the best of my information work has not commenced.

I would like to know from the minister when it would commence, because if the minister would realize that....

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Am I out of order talking about highways, Mr. Chairman?

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: If you could imagine a section of road that is about two-thirds complete, a very good standard of gravelled subsurface — and, of course, people can wait for paving....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: It's a very important and very contentious thing in the riding because going back even to the 1950s there were some promises to build this. It was linked very intimately with the approval of the Selkirk College site at Castlegar and the referendum approval which was given in soliciting the support of the people of Salmo. It was said that it would be completed before the Selkirk College. Well, Selkirk College has been in operation for many, many years but the road link is not completed. It is completed save for 6.57 miles. I would like to stress to the minister that there is great urgency here. It is indicated in this report that work should commence early in the year.

The second thing which I would like to bring to the minister's attention is the Taghum Bridge. Of course, there were some discussions about location of the Taghum Bridge. Work actually might have commenced, but the decision was made to go ahead with the original location of the bridge. I know that design has been done. I would like to have some information from the minister as to the timing and priority of that bridge with which I am sure his staff are quite familiar.

I would refrain from talking about such things as avalanche hazards on the Kootenay Skyway and such because I would like the minister to give a response on these two points which I think are uppermost in the minds of the people in Nelson-Creston.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I'd like to answer particularly the last member for Nelson-Creston.

The Taghum Bridge — I recall reading about that. The prior administration called the contract for the Taghum Bridge and then cancelled it, I believe, because of community involvement and not wanting the bridge located where it was. The only thing I have had to do about the Taghum Bridge is settle with the contractor who had been awarded the contract, and we had to settle with him for doing no work. As far as the Taghum Bridge is concerned now, it has not been under consideration to move ahead on it in another location or even in the scrapped location. That is where that is.

Regarding the southern trans-provincial-Kaslo-Castlegar-Salmo and specifically the Champion Creek-Meadow Siding section of that road, I believe it's called, I would like to inform the committee, Mr. Chairman, that tenders were called on this section during the election campaign last year, and it snowed so hard during the election campaign all over British Columbia, including this area, that the bidders couldn't see the job to bid it so the tender calls were cancelled. And that's where that job is. The tender call was up and cancelled because the bidders couldn't examine the site for bidding and it has not been put back up.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister is acting in a rather petulant manner on these things. I've discussed these matters with him outside

[ Page 3288 ]

of the House — it's not that I've attempted to embarrass anyone, but the minister has inadvertently misled the House in saying that the contract was cancelled.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. NICOLSON: There were some contracts let for site preparation. I think if the minister would like to inform the House more completely, the amount involved is not a multi-million dollar project that was cancelled, but some aspects of it. I believe that the compensation might be in the order of $30,000 or $70,000, but certainly not millions and millions of dollars.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Okay, so it was your predecessor, and if you want to continue in the shoes of Phil Gaglardi in not carrying out a promise made by the Social Credit government, a promise made by Wes Black in Salmo — Wes Black actually did finally get off the mark and the project was started and the tenders, were let just at that time — if you want to take this as a political thing, go right ahead.

I remind that minister that I didn't treat his riding as a political kind of a tool — we opened up senior citizens' housing. I thought that I'd enjoyed some deal of mutual self-respect between me and the minister, but if that's the way that the minister wants to treat this. I can only say that I'm shocked and I'm disappointed in his attitude. I'll certainly have to report this to the people of Nelson-Creston.

I just asked him when he expects to work will go ahead on this project which was promised years ago by Phil Gaglardi, finally put to tender by Wes Black just before Social Credit was voted out of office, continued in all good faith in states by our government, and now you've got a road that's two-thirds complete. It was initiated by a Social Credit government, and you come in here and try and be political — you of all people. I'm shocked!

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, just want to respond to the member for Nelson-Creston. I am sorry he is so upset.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before I recognize the minister, I'd like to remind the member for Nelson-Creston that we are discussing the administration and the department of this minister, not necessarily the minister prior or the minister in years gone by. So, really, the line of debate was out of order.

HON. MR. FRASER: Just a short comment back to the member for Nelson-Creston regarding the remarks I made. I believe they were facts; this tender call on this section was called during the election campaign. I hope you don't feel I misinformed the House, or was being political — that's a fact of life. But the stage it is at now...it is on a priority; when we have funds it would be one of the projects that would go — the section Champion Creek-Meadow Siding.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Contrary to the frequent jokes that Oak Bay has no highway, Mr. Chairman, there are certain provincial problems and greater Victoria problems that need to be voiced.

Having read Neale Adams tonight in the Vancouver Sun, I feel a little bit like General Custer — somewhat surrounded. The main problem in the greater Victoria area is twofold, Mr. Chairman, and I'll be very quick in dealing with them — talking about the Blanshard Street extension and the widening of the Trans-Canada Highway, alongside which a new third hospital is to be developed.

I just want very quickly to point out that the more things change, the more they stay the same in this chamber. The first clipping is from the Victoria Daily Times of April, 1958, and it's headed: "Widening Proposal for Blanshard Street." 1958!

I'll skip ahead three years and the next headline is the Times, April, 1961: "Blanshard Street Extension Urged by City MLA."

This deserves just one little quote, Mr. Chairman. It says, and this is quoting the Victoria Social Credit MLA, J. Donald Smith: "I think the government should take a second look...."

AN HON. MEMBER: Take a second look!

MR. WALLACE: The Social Credit government was taking a second look in 1961, Mr. Chairman. He pointed out: "The extension and widening of the Pat Bay Highway is a complementary service to the government ferry system unless the government should stretch a point to help the city. Mr. Skillings said he intended to take up the matter with Highways minister P.A. Gaglardi." Ghosts of the past, Mr. Chairman, ghosts of the past.

Then we skip ahead to May, 1961: "Blanshard Street Bombshell Appalls the City — B.C. Experts. Nervous Engineers Eye the Patricia Bay Road Plan." It says: "A secretly appalled city engineering staff maintained stiff upper lips in reaction to Friday's bombshell plan to scrap the $1 million Blanshard Street extension."

Then a little later in 1961....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, it is so important to sort of just point out

[ Page 3289 ]

the very fascinating and tortuous and convoluted history of the Blanshard Street extension. When they finally build it, I hope it isn't as convoluted as the history of the whole thing.

But the Blanshard Street extension on May 31, 1961 — the next headline says: "Blanshard Extension Wins Approval Again." Then we go to September, 1963. The headline says: "Blanshard Extension Vital to City Survival." This is a real gem, Mr. Chairman. It says: "Victoria's controversial Blanshard Street extension project will be needed by the fall of 1963 at the latest if the downtown business section of the city is to remain healthy, Alderman Geoffrey Edgelow said yesterday."

Then we skip ahead two or three years, Mr. Chairman, way up to 1966, and the headline says: "Gaglardi in the Dark on Freeway Plan. Highways minister P.A. Gaglardi said this morning he hasn't a clue where the freeway will finally run or how long it will be before the location is chosen."

The next headline is quite a few years later, in February, 1972. The headline says: "Blanshard Street Plan May Be at a Dead End."

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Good headline writers in those days, Scott.

MR. WALLACE: The clipping says, Mr. Chairman — this is February, 1972: "The proposed Blanshard Street extension, a political controversy for more than 10 years, may soon get the final death blow. The latest and most serious threat to eventual completion of the project is a decision by Saanich to sell the 1.4-acre parcel of land situated on the proposed extension's right-of-way."

Then, Mr. Chairman, the very fascinating and historical part of the saga is October 11, 1972: "Blanshard Artery Scuttled."

HON. MR. BENNETT: Who said that?

MR. WALLACE: Oh, the Premier will be very interested, because that was the present Minister of Housing, who was then mayor of Saanich, who said that. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: You had to ask, Bill!

MR. WALLACE: And the clipping reads as follows, Mr. Chairman — it becomes more exciting all the time: "An unnamed grey eminence with influence over ex-Premier Bennett was blamed Tuesday by Mayor High Curtis for stamping 'no exit' on the controversial Blanshard Street arterial through Saanich. Mr. Curtis said the Highways department under Bennett, as Finance minister, had been inconsistent in granting or denying approval to development plans within the scope of the route."

MR. KING: How do you feel, talking about your dad like that?

MR. WALLACE: "Curtis said, 'Obviously there was some grey eminence who had the ear of the former Premier with respect to this route, who could get to him and tell him of the difficulties, the excess cost, the impracticability of the route. And I'm quite sure I know who this was, and so do you,' Curtis said."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was it?

MR. WALLACE: Well, the quote says that we all know who the grey eminence was.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ron Worley?

MR. WALLACE: February, 1973, Mr. Chairman — I'll be as quick as I can. I don't want to bore the House. "Blanshard Extension Boosted by Socred MLA."

HON. MR. BENNETT: Jim Gorst?

MR. WALLACE: Oh, no. This was one of yours, Mr. Premier. This was Newell Morrison, no less.

AN HON. MEMBER: Newell?

AN HON. MEMBER: In 1973?

MR. WALLACE: Very interesting, the way the Victoria MLAs for decades almost have been espousing their solid support of the Blanshard Street extension, but it never gets built. On this occasion Newell Morrison stated — and this is February, 1973: "Immediate solutions are required to the traffic problems of Victoria."

Just a minute ago I mentioned we had to find them by 1963; now we've got Newell Morrison saying they've got to be found by 1973. And he says: "'Immediate solutions are required to the traffic problems of Victoria, many of them created by the large provincial civil service staff,' Newell Morrison said Tuesday. Morrison, speaking in the throne debate...." et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

MR. LAUK: Attacking the civil service.

MR. WALLACE: Then in May of 1973: "Highways minister Robert Strachan said the cost estimates would be prepared before he met with Mayor Curtis" — that's the now Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs, Mr. Chairman — "to discuss the extension."

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Robert who?

[ Page 3290 ]

MR. WALLACE: "Strachan said he was optimistic a solution would be found to the Blanshard street problem, known as the freeway that ends nowhere." Then, under the brilliant leadership of the NDP, the next headline, in July, 1973, reads: "Blanshard Goes Underground." (Laughter.) No further comment on that one, Mr. Chairman.

To be fair, I have to quote: "An 800-ft. tunnel..." (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Hartley Dent.

MR. WALLACE: "...beneath the parking lot at Town and Country (Laughter) will be built by the provincial government to link the Trans-Canada Highway with an extended Blanshard Street, Highways minister Graham Lea said today." (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Resign! Resign!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Have you got any quotes from the member for Oak Bay?

MR. WALLACE: Moving right along, February, 1976: "Blanshard Extension Still Planned" — planned, mind you, just planned. "Plans for the proposed Blanshard Street extension and the widening of the Trans-Canada Highway are still going ahead in spite of the change of government. A senior Highways official" — I'm just wondering, Mr. Chairman, if that senior official might wish to take a bow at this stage. (Laughter.) — "confirmed today that Highways minister Alex Fraser had authorized continuation of the designs. 'We still hope to let some of the contracts this year,' said Mr. Fraser, adding that this would depend on the amount of money allocated in the budget."

That was February, 1976, and then comes the familiar scuttled headline: "Two Roads Plans Cancelled." April, 1976: "Victoria and Saanich officials reacted with amazement" — they obviously hadn't been reading a newspaper for the last 15 years (Laughter) — "Thursday to Highways minister Alex Fraser's announcement that the Blanshard Street extension and the Trans-Canada highway widening had once again been shelved. 'I'm very surprised,' said Victoria alderman William Tindall" — and he hadn't been reading the papers either for the last 15 years — "' I'm very disappointed,' said Saanich Mayor Ed Lum. The minister said, 'no money has been allocated to the two projects,' and he didn't even know whether money would be set aside in the 1977-78 budget."

Work on the Blanshard street extension was to begin this fall after nearly 13 years of setbacks.

Napoleon outside Moscow didn't have the kind of problems you guys are having finishing the Blanshard highway. There are a few more clippings and finally a pathetic comment in the editorial of The Daily Colonist of May 1, 1976, which mentions that Victoria is a motorists' nightmare with its peculiar pattern of roads: "It has long been one of the most difficult cities for driving, much more so than metropolitan Vancouver which, even at that, leaves much to be desired."

So, Mr. Chairman, in the hope that humour sometimes gets the message through, I'm suggesting that from 1958 to 1976 is quite a chunk out of anybody's life, and with the undoubted status of the capital city of the province of British Columbia, its importance as a tourist centre, and its own economic development and survival, would the minister please reconsider taking the matter to Treasury Board? Since it is obvious that the Premier is in good humour tonight, and since I left out many of the quotes which could have been much more cutting and biting, would the minister please get on with the Blanshard Street extension?

MR. LAUK: Is that a threat?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Oak Bay, he'll be happy to know that it's still under continuing study. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: That I should live that long, Alex!

MR. KING: Now that the member for Oak Bay has softened up the minister, I hope that the few minor problems I have can be dispensed with quickly and expeditiously.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the minister a question with respect to the proposed Mica Creek highway dam planned for the Revelstoke Canyon. The result will be flooding of approximately 56 miles of highway between the city of Revelstoke and Mica Creek. This properly, in my view, should be a cost charged to the hydro development, as it should have been when the now-existing location road was built. However, being in the House in 1969 when the project was underway, I recall that the Highways department did stand some of the cost of the replacement road to Mica Creek at that time.

I would like the minister to comment on whether or not the Highways department is going to be saddled with the cost of reconstruction of this 56 miles of highway that will once again be flooded, apparently, because of the inadequate planning and projections of B.C. Hydro in replacing the road in the first instance. I think it's an interesting question. I don't think any members of this House want to see money diverted from the normal purposes of

[ Page 3291 ]

maintenance and construction of existing highway grids to bail out B.C. Hydro and to bail out the Columbia River Treaty.

There are two other points I have to raise just briefly, Mr. Chairman. I would like the minister to give me some information, if he would, with respect to the highway that is planned on the east side of Trout Lake. This was a study that was undertaken and some public hearings were held by the department up in that particular area of Nakusp-Kaslo.

The main problem is the unique spawning grounds of the rainbow trout in the world, I understand. The spawning area, which is extremely sensitive, is now crossed by the existing highway bridge which is outdated and has extreme load restrictions, placed upon it. It is necessary to relocate. After the public hearings the feeling of the people in the area and, I believe, the agreement of the engineering branch of the department indicated that the highway should be relocated on the other side of the lake and completely away from these sensitive spawning grounds. I would like some confirmation from the minister that he and his department are still committed to that plan.

Thirdly and finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like some indication from the minister on when he anticipates finally letting the contract for eliminating that last stretch of single highway known as Cape Horn Bluffs, between the village of Silverton and the village of Slocan. It's the link between the southern trans-provincial highway and the Trans-Canada highway at Revelstoke. It's an extremely high area overlooking Slocan Lake — a couple of thousand feet — and it's a beautiful area attracting a lot of tourists.

But let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, when the tourists show up on that stretch, pulling their campers and boats, and they have to traverse that single lane around that cliff and gaze down into a lake almost directly below them, some 2,000 feet, it's a thrill that they don't particularly want to encounter again, so it usually results in them departing that area of the country and not coming back.

The point is that the highway is in first-class shape from both ends, with good ferry connections at the north end. So not only from the safety point of view but from the point of view of bringing the road up to standard and developing the tourist industry in that area, I hope the minister will consider letting the final contract that's necessary to eliminate that one last bottleneck. I appreciate that there are some engineering problems as to whether or not it should be tunnelled, whether it should be blasted or whatever, but I would certainly appreciate some information from the minister in that respect.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, and going from back to front: the Cape Horn Bluff — I think you were referring to that area — I understand from the department people that there are still engineering problems as to whether it should be a tunnel or whether a very risky rock cut should be made. That decision hasn't been made, and if it was, it was not scheduled in funds to be spent this year. But even if the funds were available, as I understand it, it's still an engineering problem and they haven't made the decisions on that.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. FRASER: I might say that to eliminate this bad bridge in the east Trout Lake area — is that the area? — yes, we're committed to the plan not to replace the bridge. That course of action will be followed.

Getting back to the relocation of the Mica Creek road for Hydro, the department advised me that Hydro has had discussions with them about the relocation and asked them to do the design work. I would like, through the Chairman to the House, to assure you that where I believe the Highways department on the original road did pay some $6 million....

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: It's $6 million, I understand from the comptroller. The position on this one will be that it will be at total cost to B.C. Hydro.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take up too much time of the House this evening. I would like to point out to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that we've heard a lot of discussion here this evening about flying flags on the bridges, extending some little path we have out here in the village somewhere and putting some passing lanes in North Vancouver.

My riding has many hundreds of miles of roads in it and a lot of them, or most of them, are required to get out the raw materials of this province which are needed to be removed in order to pay for all these other things that these people are demanding. So I think in this instance the highways in my riding should take very, very high priority. I would like to point out some of the needs we have in our riding — the riding of Shuswap.

MR. WALLACE: I think you're being political.

MR. BAWTREE: Mr. Chairman, we're moving more timber around that riding all the time. At one time many years ago we used to send a lot of our logs

[ Page 3292 ]

down the east side of the mountains into the Arrow Lakes — this is our pulp wood and our low-grade material — and it was a relatively short haul. Then we used to float it down the lake to Celgar. But then, of course, this was one of these nasty free-enterprise ripoff companies that was there at the time.

Then things changed and that benevolent company was changed — the ownership was changed to a very benevolent ownership and, of course, they would do anything at all to help out the small people of this province. They just quit buying our pulp logs altogether, so we had to haul them an extra 50 miles. This has created some extra loading on your highways, Mr. Minister, and this has to be corrected because we are now beating up the highways to a much greater extent than we did in the past. Not only do we have to haul our raw material a great deal farther; we have to haul the chips all the way up to Kamloops, which we didn't do before — another 90 miles.

I noticed the other day that the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) was telling us that there was a great deal of wood in this province, that there was no shortage of veneer logs or saw logs. I can assure you that that isn't the case at all because we're moving saw logs and veneer logs in my riding hundreds of miles. I forecast that in the very near future we will lose anywhere up to 20 per cent of the sawmills in the interior of this province because there isn't enough wood available. In the meantime, because of the scrounging that's going on, we're beating up the highways all over the place, hauling logs hither and yon.

Another thing that is having some impact on the highways, Mr. Minister, as you are well aware, is the fact that — in spite of what that intrepid logger from Point Grey, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), had to say the other day — we are cleaning up the forests to a very great degree; we are still utilizing our wood right down to four-inch tops and this sort of thing. There is very little waste going on in our forests today. This means that we have to have a great deal more trucks going over our highways and beating up the roads.

I was very happy to hear, Mr. Minister, some of your comments in your opening remarks about your speed limits, your slow drivers and one thing or another. In my area tourism is one of the bigger industries as well, and I would urge you to look at our highway system to see whether you really think it is adequate, in the riding of Shuswap, for the tourist industry. I think we have to provide a great deal more passing lanes and paving of the shoulders in order to get the slow drivers off to the side of the road so they don't impede the traffic on our highways. I certainly agree with you that we need a great deal more control over the slow-moving traffic on our systems, but we have to construct our highways in such a 'way that they can get off.

Another thing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the minister is that I think I agree with him that we've got far too many variations in our speed limits around this province; too many people are watching everywhere else except the traffic they should be watching. They're not watching the road; they are watching the signs on the road, or to see whether there's somebody with a radar trap sitting off in the weeds somewhere. They're not paying attention. I think we could get away from some of this if we had a fairly consistent speed limit in our province. I think the speed limit should be as high as possible, as consistent with the construction and the kind of road we are driving on, because the cost of moving goods and services in this province is dependent on the time it takes. Every time we reduce the speed limit by 10 per cent we increase the cost of moving goods by very nearly an equal amount.

Earlier on in the day, Mr. Minister, we had some discussion about the ferries and the subsidies that were going to be required. I'd just like to point out that the people in the interior of this province would be very happy if we could only get on a mileage basis the kind of subsidies that the ferries are getting on a mileage basis in this area. You wouldn't hear us complaining about roads at all, because we could all have good roads in the interior of the province if we were getting that kind of money spent.

I have one or two specific points, Mr. Minister, that I would like to bring to your attention, and that is the bridge at Enderby. It is required in order to get the raw material out for at least five mills in my riding, and it has some serious restrictions on it now. There is no other reasonable access for this raw material and for the lumber. It has been slated for reconstruction for quite a few years now and in the last year or two we did have a new deck put on it, but the underpinnings and what's underneath it are in very, very serious condition. That, I understand, is going to cost around $1 million, but that's a very small amount compared to some of the things that have been going on in the Upper Levels Highway and that sort of thing. Mabel Lake Road is another one that has been of a continuing nature and still hasn't been finished after 15 years. It's been going on just about as long as some of the roads in Victoria here.

We have a great many small problem areas in my riding but the other major one that needs to have some resolution before too long is Highway 97 along the Mara Lake area, because it is a very narrow piece of road. It's all mixed up with tourists and it's just about impossible to drive logging trucks on that road in the summertime very safely. It may be safe for the logging trucks, but it sure isn't too safe for the tourists. On one side is a rock bluff and on the other side is the lake, so they really don't have too much choice. If you could get on with these particular

[ Page 3293 ]

minor projects in my area just about immediately, Mr. Minister, I would be most happy and so would my constituents.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I want to change just briefly from Highways and talk a little bit about the minister's other capacity of Public Works. I just have one point I want to make in that particular area and that is with regard to access to this particular building for people in wheelchairs.

I had a constituent come into my office in a wheelchair the other day and he had had some very great difficulty finding a way to get into the building. Now I understand there is a ramp away around at the back which is usable by wheelchairs, and then, of course, you can use the elevator. But I would suggest, as a very first simple step, some kind of notice posted at the front door that would indicate to handicapped people that there was a route in and some marking of the path in order to get around to that access door would be a very reasonable thing to do. I would like to urge that, as a next step, a ramp be provided on one of the side entrances as soon as possible to give that kind of access into this building for people in wheelchairs.

Now to return to the Department of Highways — first of all, I would like to talk about the Thetis Island ferry; and you notice, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I say Thetis Island ferry, because that is what that ferry is called even though it serves two islands. It serves Thetis and it serves Kuper Island.

Now Kuper Island, as you may be aware, has a native population, and somehow we have neglected to include the name Kuper Island in that particular ferry. We have now a ramp provided for cars to land. Previously it was simply a foot landing, but now cars can land. I would suggest, Mr. Minister, that the inclusion of the words Kuper Island in that ferry name would be a very reasonable and fair thing to do, to make the Thetis-Kuper Islands rather than have it known simply as the Thetis Island ferry.

The minister and others have mentioned the business of slow-speed drivers. I certainly agree that this is a hazard on the highway, but I would like to point out to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that in the case of the Island Highway, which I have occasion to drive much more frequently than I would prefer, there is a 50-mile maximum speed limit. Now it was indicated very recently in the paper that though the maximum speed had been reduced to 50 miles, the accident rate and the fatalities on the Island Highway, contrary to the general trend where the maximum speed has been reduced, has not decreased.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I would suggest that as I drive that highway with a reasonable compliance to the posted speed, I am continuously passed and passed and passed again by people going far in excess of the posted speed. If we are going to use our police force to stop slow drivers and start a system to penalize slow drivers, I would suggest that that should come second, Mr. Minister, and that the prime enforcement area be in the fast drivers.

The reason that the accident rate has not reduced on that Island Highway is simply because the maximum speed limit is not being enforced. People are still driving that highway at 70 and 80 miles an hour even though the posted speed is 50. I know that the police have only a limited amount of time, they can't catch everyone, they can't always be there, but I would suggest that this is an area we should concentrate on before we start looking at the slow drivers.

Mr. Minister, every constituency has its road and Cowichan-Malahat is no exception. The road that I want to speak about specifically is a road with which I'm sure you are familiar, because we've had some correspondence on it. I would like to thank the minister for his cooperation in always being sure that I receive copies of any of the correspondence that he sends out to any of my constituents regarding a road. I really appreciate this courtesy and I'm very pleased to compliment him on doing that. He's been very good at that.

The road in question that I want to talk about tonight is the Shawnigan Lake Road. That road, Mr. Minister, is serving an area that's not only a summer resort area, but that area, instead of doubling, as most areas have been doing over a 10-year period, has tripled in population over the last 10 years. That road was a very nice winding trail 20 years ago, but today it's a hazard, Mr. Minister. I have your letter here which indicates that you think the cost of re-paving would run in the vicinity of $120,000. I suggest, Mt. Minister, that without some work done on that road, we're going to be looking at the loss of human life, because that road is a hazard.

I have here a series of pictures. It's 3.8 miles of road. I have a series of snapshots here which I'm going to send across the floor to the minister. These are taken at periods of about one-tenth of a mile apart, just to indicate the continuing nature of the holes and the incredibly bad condition of this road.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Aren't you going to show the rest of us?

MRS. WALLACE: No, they're too small for everyone to see, but I'm going to send them across to the minister. I'd ask him to have a really serious look at that road. I have travelled that road. I don't know if the minister has or not, but I'd be glad to take him if he'd like to go. I'll take him on that trip. It's a

[ Page 3294 ]

hazardous trip, but I'll drive carefully. At any excess speed on that road you're thrown into those holes. It's really a dangerous road, Mr. Minister. I would think that $120,000 is a small price to save lives. Without some paving and some attention to that road there is going to be a fatal accident there, and it could well occur this summer when the summer traffic is as extensive as it will be.

MR. C. DARCY (Rossland-Trail): I'm not going to talk about speed limits or flags or projects, because I know about the projects that the Treasury Board hasn't given the minister any money for anyway, so even though he may be sympathetic to my requests, nothing much is going to happen.

What I want to talk about, though, is land use in this province. I'm going to soften the minister and his officials up just a little by saying that it is my observation after four years that no department comes anywhere close to the Department of Highways in having a good knowledge of what is really happening in this province in each individual community. The people in the Department of Highways, because they're responsible for roads and because they have to anticipate needs and new bridges and widenings and because they have legislated themselves into the position of approving subdivisions in most of the province, know a great deal about land use and what's going on. The only department that even comes close to them, I would say, is possibly the Department of Housing, which is relatively a new department, but certainly the Department of Highways is far more familiar with what is going on in this province than are departments like Municipal Affairs or Economic Development, which should be the ones that know what's going on.

Having said that, I think the minister and certainly some of his officials would be very well aware that we have some major problems in terms of land development in various parts of the interior, particularly those that have very narrow valleys and steep mountainsides near them. We are in a situation where in the bottoms of the valleys our development is virtually frozen by either or both municipal bylaws and the Land Commission regulations and we are in a situation where the sides of the hills, which in some cases are suitable for commercial or economic development, are effectively frozen because the Department of Highways will not approve any subdivisions or economic development near the highways because they say they want to save the highway from excessive traffic.

Now this may be a responsible attitude, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. The approving officer may have all the best reasons for taking this approach, but the fact is I do believe that if the Department of Highways is going to legislate itself into this position and take the responsibility for this kind of disapproval — or take the power for this kind of disapproval — they also have some responsibility to show the way as to how regional districts and municipalities, particularly in the interior, although I believe it is a problem in various parts of the coast as well, can avoid the situation of having constant economic, residential, commercial and industrial development pressure on some of the best bottom lands, pressures which I believe can only inevitably result in some poor planning decisions because there really is no other choice out of it.

So I would hope that the minister and his department would have a good look at this, use their knowledge, use their legislative power to exercise some flexibility and look on applications in their own right so that they don't simply turn down proposals that are far away from agricultural land and far away from residential incursions, and be able to make some rational decisions which are going to perhaps allow some alleviation of the kinds of development pressures which we have seen in the lower mainland and other heavily urbanized parts of the province.

The second point I want to make, Mr. Minister, is also involving approvals of a slightly different nature. This is the question of approvals of property below the level of reservoirs in this province. This is also the responsibility of your department. It may seem an absurdity — it certainly did to me, to many members of this House and certainly to the public — to know that there has never been a legal survey for subdivision purposes run along any artificial reservoir that has even been created in this province. I am including the Stave Lake reservoir, which I believe was flooded in 1912. It has never happened. It is partly the problem of the utility companies and B.C. Hydro, partly the fault of the lands branch, but mostly, I submit, Mr. Chairman, it is the responsibility of the Department of Highways.

We have the absurd situation on the Arrow Lake where if you want to locate a cornerpost on a piece of property at high water you've either got to run a gravity line or send a frogman out there in a wetsuit 40 feet below the surface to try and find out where your property ends, because as far as the Department of Highways is concerned, that property goes down to 1,402 elevation even though the water is at 1,446 and has been for a number of years and will continue to be so. The situation is exactly the same in the Duncan reservoir, the Mica reservoir, Williston Lake and any other artificial reservoir in this province.

I don't have any fast solutions for getting out of this situation. I do know that the former member for Boundary-Similkameen, Mr. Richter, had a similar problem some time ago involving the lower Okanagan River after it was contained in an irrigation flume which was resolved by a special Act. Perhaps we need a number of special Acts. Certainly, Mr. Minister, I

[ Page 3295 ]

would hope that you in consultation with British Columbia Hydro and in consultation with the department of Lands would set to work on proposals for resolving this problem because I think it's long overdue.

So with that in mind and with the very strong request that we have a good look at some kind of flexibility in subdivision proposals away from the Land Commission restrictions and away from municipal restrictions and away from residential restrictions that are absolutely necessary if we are going to relieve development pressure on some of the more important bottom lands in the interior, if the minister would pay some attention to that, I think that it would be a great, progressive step for the province.

HON. MR. FRASER: I would like to answer a few of the members, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I appreciate the remarks of the member for Rossland-Trail. I overlooked mentioning that fact in my opening remarks — in other words, the approving function of the Department of Highways, the planning division. I might tell you, Mr. Chairman, and the members that it is probably the most controversial section of the Department of Highways. They are constantly being criticized for their rejections of subdivisions but nobody ever says how many were approved. The only ones we ever hear from are the ones rejected. As an example, in 1975 the department processed 3,500 ordinary subdivisions and 857 controlled-access subdivisions. That is more than 4,359 subdivisions — plans, not lots — so you know how many lots it is. But it is a big and important function.

I might say that the Department of Highways since I've been minister was concerned about it. They always have been. Just recently the government has set up a senior staff committee to bring in other departments. By senior staff I mean deputy minister level of the departments of Environment, Municipal Affairs, Housing and Highways to grapple with all the problems that are here and to make recommendations to a committee of cabinet. I hope that they will be able to report sometime in August on what they see as the problems and get an inter-tie with other departments and recommend how we set that up. So that is where we are on land use and where we are going in the immediate future.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) brought forth the Shawnigan Lake Road. We will certainly take another look at that, Madam Member. I recall the correspondence on it; I appreciate the pictures.

We will bring to the attention of the enforcement people the speed limits on the Island Highway.

Regarding the Kuper Island-Thetis Island ferry, I don't see anything wrong with adding the name Kuper to the name Thetis and we'll see that that is done.

MR. LEA: Do you have enough money for the paint?

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, yes, I think we have enough money for the paint, Mr. Member.

Your first remark, which was under Public Works, I appreciate very much on the access to this building for wheelchair people. I have a relative who is permanently in a wheelchair and I've had the same experience in this building. They certainly should have more signs up. We'll have that done, and there are plans in the final renovation of this building for permanent access for wheelchairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Supplementary. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member.... There's no supplementary on estimates, Hon. Member.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: I just wanted to assure the minister and his staff, Mr. Chairman, that I did not mean to cast any aspersions on the people in the planning or approving department. I think they do an excellent job, and when they turn something down they do it for all the best reasons. I just wanted to make the point, which the minister has picked up, that they need to go a lot further than that because they have the expertise and they can provide a great deal of help to local authorities.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): I realize that members in the House are anxious to get on in anticipation of finishing tomorrow, however, I think it's a good time to hold the Minister of Highways to ransom here.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say first of all to the staff of the minister that I do appreciate the considerations and the help I've been given for my constituency. In particular I want to thank Mr. Harper, district engineer, and also Mr. Harvey, who has been of considerable assistance to me.

I rise to speak about one part of my constituency that much information was given on this evening — the on-again, off-again four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway and the Blanshard Street exchange. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that although the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) gave a good speech and everyone was in a jovial mood, for the many people who live in the western community the lack of four-laning on the Trans-Canada Highway is no joke. Mr. Chairman, it is something they must face two and three times a day when they use that road, and it is something that the

[ Page 3296 ]

minister must address himself to.

The Trans-Canada Highway is the major link between Victoria and up-Island. It has a great deal of traffic that has increased considerably over the past four or five years. The hon. Pothole Pete, or the hon. desk-thumper over there, should know that and should have done something about it when he was Minister of Highways.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He did — he flew over it in his helicopter. (Laughter.)

MR. KAHL: He probably flew over it with a helicopter, but that's about all. It is the major link with the western community, a community that has grown in size from approximately 10,000 in 1969-70 to over 40,000, probably 50,000, today.

The Thetis Lake interchange where the highway was widened — Highway 1A — and linked up with the Trans-Canada brings a great deal of traffic and links up with all of the traffic coming from up-Island onto the Trans-Canada Highway. Quite frankly, Mr. Minister, it is an impossible situation. I wouldn't stand in my place tonight and tell the members of this House why you probably bought a house in the city of Victoria rather than the western community. I wouldn't tell them that.

I want to say that the traffic count in 1971 on Highway 1A and the Trans-Canada combined was probably in the neighbourhood of some 20,000 cars. Today I would suspect it's closer to 75,000 or 80,000 cars. That highway, while it's had some paving done to the shoulders and some repaving done to the top, has not had any extension in lanes. It's still a two-lane highway, and that must change. Somehow, some way, Mr. Minister, the finances for that project must be found. The seven miles of traffic that back up each morning to come into the city must be reduced considerably, and that can be done with the four-laning of the Trans-Canada and the Blanshard Street interchange.

I cannot overemphasize the importance of this project. I have had hundreds of letters on this and many, many phone calls.

MR. LEA: I'll bet you have.

MR. KAHL: Frankly, if we could do that little project, they would stop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, it's ironic that if that member who has just finished speaking had been voted in as a Social Credit member, and the NDP had been voted in as government, he wouldn't have had to make that speech for the simple reason that that job was going ahead. And when the minister tells you there isn't any money, he's right — all you have to do is take a look at his budget; there is no money. But it's a matter of priority how that minister chooses to spend that money, and he chose to spend money somewhere else and not in your riding, so don't forget that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you do it?

MR. LEA: Because the design was just completed and it was being let. So let's not confuse the issue.

Just before I took my seat, Mr. Chairman, I'd asked the minister whether there was going to be money going from the British Columbia Building Corp. into Highways. The Premier turned around and told him to stand up and say no. But that, I don't believe, is necessarily the way it's going to be. I believe that what they hope to do was put this bill through the House, then take money, through borrowing, from that bill and spend it on capital projects within the Highways department. That was the plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: They'd deny it.

MR. LEA: Then they would say: "Well, we interpret the bill as being able to do that. We didn't mention it in the House; we thought it was okay and it makes sense to us." Now I want the minister, when he stands up, to tell us — and he wouldn't do that when he first stood up — that there will not be one cent of money from the British Columbia Building Corp. spent on capital work projects within the Department of Highways. And I don't mean building buildings; I mean constructing roads. I want the minister to assure us of that so we will know for sure whether or not there is another deficit-finance bill in front of us for Highways. I think maybe that's what it is all about, because everyone knows that you cannot do any amount of work with the kind of money he's gotten from cabinet and from the Treasury Board.

Now there's another question I would like to ask the minister. I would like to ask him: does he have any idea who Norman Sharpe is — any idea whatsoever?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Who Norman Sharpe is — I want to know whether you know the man, whether you've ever heard of him or whether he works for you. If he works for you, what does he do? I believe that he does not work for you, but that he works for the Premier as a bodyguard and chauffeur. Those are his duties: bodyguard and chauffeur to the Premier.

When he was first taken on by order-in-council that is what the order-in-council said — he's going to be an executive assistant to the Premier. Then the press said that the Premier has a chauffeur and he's paying him $13,000 a year. Then the Premier came

[ Page 3297 ]

back and said: "Oh, let's transfer him to old Alex over there in the Public Works department, and then we'll use him as a bodyguard and chauffeur but it won't look so bad." But when members of the NDP staff checked with the security people, they said he works out of the Premier's office and, as far as they know, he's a chauffeur.

AN HON. MEMBER: You made that point in question period.

MR. LEA: No, all I did was ask the minister during question period what Mr. Sharpe's duties were, and he said he'd be back. He hasn't been back. This is his chance to tell us exactly what Norman Sharpe does — whether they've tried to do through the back door what they were politically afraid to do through the front door, and that's hire a bodyguard and chauffeur for the Premier.

Now the minister also talked earlier about the maintenance vote, saying that it is more. He knows that's not true; it is less. There's about $5 million more on the books, and almost $4 million of that is for the ferries — for ferry maintenance repairs and operations. About $4 million of it — that's up about that. But knowing the inflationary spiral that most of the supplies are costing the department, including labour and the new contracts, if he has this kind of money in the maintenance vote it means he is going to be doing less maintenance this year than he did last.

So it is not in fact true that there is going to be emphasis on maintenance within the Highways department with this kind of budget, because it is down in the real kind of value that you can get for the dollars, and it's up about $2 million in real dollars over last year. There is no way he can do a proper job of maintenance with that budget.

Now one other question, and this is one that I don't know the answer to, but I'd like to ask the minister anyway, because it has been brought to my attention by a constituent of his that a Mr. Wes Biller had not been granted an access permit for a neighbourhood pub at Dragon Lake near Quesnel. But since the minister has assumed that office, the permit has gone through. The letter further points out to me that Les Buller is a bagman for the Social Credit in that riding, and is president of the Socred Cariboo constituency.

I would like the minister to tell me whether in fact it is true that Mr. Buller did get his access permit after he was minister, and whether he indeed had anything to do personally with the granting of that. Or was it done through the department in a regular manner? I'm not accusing the minister of anything; the letter was sent to me, and I'm asking the minister to clear that up.

So, really, two questions: is there going to be one cent from the B.C. Building Corp. spent on capital work projects in the Department of Highways? Who is Norman Sharpe? What are his duties? Three questions actually, then — did he personally have anything to do with Les Buller getting his access to the highway? As the letter points out, maybe it would appear that there is a conflict of interest as the person is the president of the Social Credit Cariboo constituency.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll go from back to front again to answer the member for Prince Rupert. Regarding Mr. Buller, I am aware of this but I had nothing to do with it. It was just department routine. I really think it was rezone; it wasn't access that was involved. But it was routinely handled through the department. I had no personal involvement with it at all.

You were questioning the fact that I said earlier that there's more money for maintenance than there was last year. I didn't emphasize how much more. It's very little. But I think the point, too, that I would like to make here, Mr. Chairman, to the member is that it is certainly more money than was spent in the 1975-76 year. There is more money voted this year than was actually spent to March 31, 1976. That's what I tried to say, and, hopefully, there is adequate money because it is more — again not very much. I think there is $7 million or $8 million in the budget more than was actually spent in 1975-76.

Regarding Norm Sharpe, he is on the staff of Public Works and he works with Joe Ball, the officer in charge of security of the building. He helps administratively and occasionally drives the Premier.

Answering on reverse here, your first question last, I have never heard of what the member mentions here, that any scheme was afoot to take money  from the B.C. Building Corp. for highways expenditures. I had already answered that. There are no plans to do that, and I said that wouldn't be done when we started tonight.

MR. LEA: It's clearer that that. You said you didn't think it was going to be done or could be done. I believe that if I hadn't mentioned it tonight, there would have been money from that bill that set up the British Columbia Building Corp. going in. So I just wanted to have that clear.

MR: CHAIRMAN: As the hon. minister has mentioned, he said there wouldn't be.

MR. LEA: I would like to know then on the answer regarding Norman Sharpe.... He was hired by order-in-council and, as I said, as executive assistant to the Premier and later transferred to the Minister of Public Works as his administrative assistant. Now we learn that he is not an

[ Page 3298 ]

administrative assistant but that he actually works for the head of security and that he is sometime chauffeur for the Premier.

So I want to know why he was hired in such a manner. Why was he hired by order-in-council? Why was he hired as an administrative assistant to the minister? Why is he not working for the minister? Instead he is working for the Premier. When the security people were asked they said, oh, he works down in the Premier's office. Where does he sit? Where does he hang out?

I mean, why was he put through an order-in-council, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman? You're the person who took that order-in-council to cabinet, I suppose. Or it may have come from the Provincial Secretary, but surely you would have been informed that it was going to be there. Did you know Norman Sharpe before? Then why did you hire him? Did the Premier tell you to? And if the Premier told you to, why? He was already hired to do the job he is doing now.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're right.

MR. LEA: So why was all that order-in-council stuff going on that he was transferred over to you? Was that to make it appear to the people of this province that the Premier did not have a chauffeur when in fact he does have a chauffeur? I don't mind the Premier having a chauffeur, but just let us know whether he has one or whether he hasn't and put the personnel under the right vote.

It would seem to me that if he is the Premier's chauffeur, then put another order-in-council through and say this is the Premier's chauffeur. He has a chauffeur. People would accept that or not accept it, but at least it's above board rather than trying to sneak him through as an administrative assistant to the Minister of Public Works and then putting him in with security and chauffeuring.

I think it needs a bit more explanation than that's what he is. How did it all come about? How did Norman Sharpe end up on your staff and you don't even know what he's doing really? You didn't know when I asked you the question in question period.

HON. MR. FRASER: I will try and clear this up again. As I said, Norm Sharpe, yes, he was hired by order-in-council and he is working with Joe Ball as an administrative assistant and occasionally he drives the Premier. Why was he hired by order-in-council? It was our information that he had special knowledge in security and that's why he was engaged by order-in-council.

MR. LEA: Had Mr. Sharpe, prior to being hired by order-in-council, ever worked with the Social Credit Party in a political way? Or was his name dragged out of a hat? Where did Norman Sharpe come from that he's got all, these qualifications? How did the cabinet find out about Norman Sharpe? Was he around before? I mean, he was hired in a political way to do a political job for the Premier — on order-in-council.

Then he was hired by you, under order-in-council, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Highways, to do a political job by order-in-council, but buried. The people of this province were led to believe by those orders-in-council that he no longer worked for the Premier, when he does in fact.

I think this is the time to really confess and let us know exactly what went on. Why did we need that other order-in-council? He's making the same kind of money. The order-in-council payment is the same. Same kind of money, doing the same job, but transferred from the Premier's office over to the Minister of Public Works office — it's nothing but a sham.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my thanks to the minister for his answers to my questions posed earlier this evening, but I would like to question the minister a bit further with respect to the possibility of DREE funding. I would like to inform the minister that I spoke this morning by telephone to the federal member of parliament in Ottawa for Comox-Alberni, who indicated to me that discussions were already underway between the provincial government and the federal government with respect to the possibility of a subsidiary agreement for special funding for the completion of those two contracts.

Now the minister indicated tonight that he would attempt to get more money and they certainly would pursue it, but he gave no indications that discussions were, in fact, underway. I'm wondering perhaps if discussions could be underway between the representatives of the Premier's office rather than the Department of Highways. If so, would you not be aware of any discussions that are taking place at this time?

The second question, Mr. Chairman, relates to the ferries under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Highways which operate between islands within my riding. I just ask this question very specifically to the minister. If it is fair for the Gulf Islands in the lower gulf to be serviced by a free ferry service between the islands, is it not then fair that islanders in the north end of the Island should be afforded the same opportunity so they can travel free between islands? If it's fair for one, it seems to me that it must be fair for another. Even though the whole thing, as you pointed out, is under review, it seems to me that you can bring in that equity at this time. I wonder if the minister would be prepared to comment on those two items again.

[ Page 3299 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: Briefly, Mr. Chairman, to the member for Comox, these south Gulf Islands — I know that there are certain ferries where it looks as if they travel free, but I understand from the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) that they had originally paid at another ferry before they got to a ferry for an inner island. We have a different situation up there on the north Gulf Islands as I see it. As I pointed out, they pay a mere pittance now, really, compared to the operating costs of those ferries.

I want to say here that I'm sorry if I misinformed the member and the Chairman, but I meant to say when I was talking about DREE that discussions were going on and they've just recently started. Regarding them participating because of the Premier's.... I was aware of that at the senior staff level. That's where the discussions are taking place. I don't think we should change it at this point.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Chairman, I'm just going to make a few brief points. I would like to point out first of all that the total budget for the Department of Highways is greater than the total budget of all departments when I first came to this Legislature. I would further point out that even though the Highways department at that time got under $40 million, there's no question they would be able to build, and did build, more roads with that $40 million than it will be possible to build with the $321 million in total this year. There's no question that with the increased costs there was far more mileage built at that time.

I think there should be, and listening to the discussion tonight, far more emphasis placed on highways in this province, because with the unemployment we have in the north country and the idle equipment, certainly one of the better ways to put those people to work is building highways.

We heard a great deal a few months ago about what the federal government was going to do for the highways in the north country. There were headlines in practically every paper in British Columbia, and apparently no one really took it seriously in the press to inquire how many miles of highway it would really build. The figure mentioned was a $5 million federal scheme — a real big deal. But really it's nothing at all when you consider the federal programme is spread over the roads between Terrace and Prince Rupert, Kitwanga and the Nass Valley, Stewart-Cassiar and also the Hart Highway. Five million dollars, Mr. Chairman — you wouldn't even know it was there.

Interjection.

MR. SHELFORD: Not even the Alaska Highway, that's correct. When you consider that it costs over $1 million a mile for that highway between Terrace and Prince Rupert, as the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) well knows, it means nothing as far as this federal programme is concerned. But I would hope someone in government will set the federal government straight that their programme is mere peanuts. It's nothing more than peanuts.

If this province is to grow, and I'm quite convinced it will, certainly the expansion will have to take place in the northern part of this province. I believe recreation will be the No. 1 industry in the very near future. A system of roads in that north country is a must before we can get to the various northern lakes and rivers. I say to the hon. member of Revelstoke — unfortunately he isn't here — that the type of fish he catches in his country we use for bait in the north.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Chairman, the comments that were made by the member from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) probably could relate somewhat to the area which I come from in the city of Penticton. The Penticton bypass has been discussed and debated for a number of years and goes back into the early 1950s. Due to the fact that the Indian cut-off land has created a problem in our area, we have what we call an alternate route. The previous administration had the route surveyed and the plans drawn, and that is where the problem lies, Mr. Chairman: it has not been proceeded with.

I would just like to bring it to the attention of the Minister of Highways that the time is right now for that alternate route to proceed. The population of the city of Penticton is in excess of 22,000 people. We have development there now, along the area where we need this road, of housing, schools and shopping centres. This alternate route, Mr. Chairman, would complete the grid system that is most important to have a free flow of traffic around and through the city of Penticton, and it is a very important part of the city of Penticton's community plan. The alternate route would provide for a truck bypass and it certainly would reduce accidents and traffic tie-ups on the main street of Penticton which, of course, right now is designated as Highway 97. In order to proceed north to Kelowna there have to be left turns made on the main street. When you have transport trucks and logging trucks going through town you can see the problem that's created when a left turn is tried in the middle of the summertime.

Mr. Chairman, in the summertime, of course, we do have the tourist traffic. I'm sure everybody in this House probably at some point in time or other has gone through the city of Penticton on their way through to holidays in the interior. In the summertime the traffic is getting beyond control. It has created serious problems for the residents and for the tourists during the summer months.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the minister has a

[ Page 3300 ]

problem of money, but I would ask that he give consideration to this when the money becomes available, for two reasons. One is the movement of traffic through the Penticton area so it can flow freely up Highway 97, but primarily, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, the concern I feel greatly relates to safety: safety of the motorists and safety of the individual on the main street of Penticton, which is designated as a highway at the present time. During the summer months it is very critical and for that reason I would ask the minister seriously to consider this programme of the alternate route through Penticton.

MR. LEA: I don't think the minister understands really what he's saying about Norman Sharp. What we have, according to the minister, is a person who has been hired because of special knowledge in security. We don't know what that means, and I'm not even sure that the minister knows what that means, but by order-in-council — a political appointment — someone has been hired in a political way by the government of British Columbia who is a specialist in some form of security. What does that mean? Can we be extreme and say he's hired to keep an eye on the opposition members?

When you start hiring special security people by order-in-council, I think we have a right to know what those duties are. We cannot afford to have governments hiring people who are specialists in security by order-in-council — in other words, political appointments. I think we are owed an explanation by the minister. What is Norman Sharp's background? What background did he bring to that job? What are his duties now?

I think we have a right to know. It's not good enough for the minister in charge of that branch to stand up and say: "I think he's got some sort of security background so we hired him in a political way to do some sort of security job." What does that mean? Is he a bodyguard? If he is, say so. After the policies that you've brought in as government, you might need one.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's a bright remark.

MR. LEA: What did the Premier say when it was reported in the paper that there may have been an attempt on Dave Barrett's life? He said: "Do you blame them?" Don't hand me that, Mr. Attorney-General. You're not pure.

What is Norman Sharp's job? What's his background? What's he doing now for the government — a political appointment in security?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Minister, before you answer I would refer the hon. member to section 43 which refers to tedious and repetitious debate. If the minister wishes to answer, he certainly may.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, just a comment: I have answered this twice, as I am sure the committee is aware. But there is one part that I didn't answer. I am not aware of any political affiliation of Norm Sharpe at all, but I am certainly aware of his special knowledge in security. I told you that he is working with Joe Ball, the security officer in this building.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: I want to now deal with some of the other members. Dealing with Boundary-Similkameen: I am aware, and the department is aware of the urgent need of a Penticton bypass, as it is called. I am personally aware of it because I have seen your streets plugged in the summer months. If and when money is available, that's a priority item in the Department of Highways.

I would like to refer to the member for Skeena's (Mr. Shelford's) remarks for a minute. I am inclined to agree with him on federal sharing programmes. The press particularly headlines everything on federal contributing. Really, basically, as the member for Skeena said, it is peanuts, but we certainly accept the peanuts because it is $5 million. We have to, of course, match that with $5 million.

But when the highway was built from the Alberta boundary to Vancouver it started off at 50-50. I just want to conclude the remarks on this subject: that this government is trying to put all their sharing programmes with Ottawa.... I believe this subject of sharing will be taken up at future First Ministers' conferences. They are looking into all facets of that at the present time for future meetings. They are hopeful to get further assistance because a third access to the Pacific Coast has to be built sometime in the future — probably a long way...or a further widening of the Fraser Canyon. But the engineering people are recommending a third access, and certainly that should be shared by the federal people.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Mr. Chairman, coming from one of the larger ridings in the province, in the north of the province, we have one of the largest ridings in highway miles in the province. I, too, feel quite sorry about the limited funds that are available for highway spending this year. I think in all fairness to the Department of Highways, it is probably a consequence of being careful with their money and living within their budget, as they have over the past years.

I think our regional engineers in the Department of Highways deserve a real vote of thanks for the way they do manage to live within their budget. They certainly manage to stretch their funding as far as

[ Page 3301 ]

possible. If we could have had the same thing in the health, welfare, education and transit subsidy, I think the overall budget probably could have sustained a larger highways building programme.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the Minister of Highways is as familiar with the roads in my riding as I am, and the deplorable condition they have been getting into over the last three or four years. I would speak in particular of the Hart Highway, the link to the north of the province — Dawson Creek, Fort St. John and all the rest of the north, plus the communities of Mackenzie, Bear Lake and the other resource communities located on the Hart Highway in my riding.

This is one of the older highways in the province, built almost some 30 years ago — a 24-ft. paved surface, and the shoulders have been allowed to deteriorate to practically be non-existent. It is probably one of the most dangerous stretches of highway in the province. I am pleased to see there are plans afoot to upgrade this section of the highway. I am optimistic enough to hope that these plans will be coming forth in the upcoming year.

In particular on the Hart Highway is the first seven miles out of town where subdivisions have increased the traffic flow to a really dangerous situation. There had been plans laid to go ahead with the widening of this road this year, but with the sewer line and storm-drainage construction in the area, it's been postponed again. I would like to see this year at least the left-turn lanes put it, the school bus and the transit system turnouts provided. I don't feel this should be wasted; the material will be there at a later date. Certainly it would speed up the flow of traffic, as well as increase the safety a great deal in that area.

As well, in that particular area north of town, there has been a bypass link proposed for the South Kelly Road down to the north Nechako Road. This doesn't amount to a great deal of miles — two or three miles of road. Even a gravel standard road at this time would alleviate a lot of the highway congestion, and it would allow the storm-sewer system to go ahead a lot more smoothly than on the presently existing highway. So I would hope the Highways department would look at budgeting for that this year, if it is possible at all, to help alleviate that particular situation.

One of the other areas of concern is going west from Prince George up to the great riding of Omineca and further. Here again the pavement has been allowed to deteriorate. There are some large potholes in the pavement; the shoulder is tough. It's just a case of the pavement being worn out. I would like to see a repaving programme scheduled for that as soon as possible.

One of the other big problems on traffic circulation in Prince George is the CNR Fraser River Bridge. It is being redecked this year on the other side, but we still have major rail-crossing bottlenecks. These could be eliminated by a proper overpass system and a realignment of the airport hill. I understand this is under contemplation now. They're working with the city on this, and I would hope to see this looked at very soon, too, Mr. Chairman.

I think another area we quite often overlook is the rural areas of the riding, the farm areas, the sawmill communities. Everybody can notice the major highways, but quite often we overlook the rural members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A little less noise, please, so we can hear the member.

MR. LLOYD: Certainly some of the areas of our riding — the upper Fraser Mills, Sinclair Mills — were promised a highway some 40 years ago, and when the bypass highway went through, it certainly bypassed them. They're still waiting for a road extension. I would hope that we could increase the pace that this extension is going on into their area.

Another rural area that has problems is the Chief Lake and Hoodoo Lake area. For some three weeks or a month this spring these roads were impassible. We couldn't get the school buses through. The farmers couldn't get back and forth. I'm sure again, Mr. Chairman, that the minister and the regional....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Is it really the intention of the House to continue this noise? Is it really? The hon. member for Fort George has the floor.

Interjections.

MR. LLOYD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again I say I'm sure the regional engineer, who is very competent, is familiar with these problems, and it's just a case of getting the funding to put on a proper programme in this area.

One of the other things that we've had is promises which were given to the city of Prince George by the former administration on the amalgamation, the upgrading of the roads throughout the area, assistance on storm sewage drains, and this is another thing that the city is, of course, still waiting for. Again, I think that the Department of Highways is working with the city on planning the roads that are the priority, and I hope to see this plan get underway too, Mr. Chairman.

Last but not least, I think over all the province — particularly the areas that I've been travelling lately — right from Vancouver to Prince George, through the Fraser Canyon, up through the Cariboo, one thing we've been letting slip in the last couple of years is the highway maintenance, the shoulder maintenance,

[ Page 3302 ]

but broken pavement and potholes certainly have to be the worst. We have some fantastic-sized potholes. Even to larger vehicles they're a hazard, and I can certainly imagine what they must be like going through in one of the smaller foreign cars.

I'd like the minister and his department to discuss this particular part of their programme. The Take the Car Out of Carnage committee in Prince George gives specific attention to this problem of proper road maintenance, gives warnings where there are real danger spots in the road, but of course the best solution is to correct it properly and keep a really strong maintenance programme working on this.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, the hour is late and the debate is long. They say silence is golden and in view of my silence during this particular debate I fully expect that the hon. minister will spread a fair share of the gold that we're now about to vote him on the much needed roadwork in the constituency of North Okanagan. He has all the details in his office.

Interjections.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, it's incredible, a late hour like this and people haven't calmed themselves yet.

I'd like to congratulate the Minister of Highways and Public Works on his new amalgamated department. It's a very efficient way of handling the people's business, but I'm just going to read over a few quotes just for the record.

One was, I think, in 1973, Mr. Minister, when you were in the opposition. You know, this is one of the beautiful things about records. I think we can be thankful to the former administration...

MR. CHABOT: Nonsense.

MR. BARNES: ...for an unabridged, undoctored Hansard, Mr. Member for Columbia River. We did have an abbreviated version of Hansard before, but it was usually after it had been discussed behind closed doors. Here we have a verbatim statement by the minister — the now Minister of Highways and Public Works — who stated on April 3,1973:

First of all, I feel that the public galleries are most inadequate. It's difficult for citizens to get in here approximately at 2 p.m. I was wondering if your department was considering upgrading and improving and enlarging the public galleries in the building. Not only that, but I think the press galleries are completely inadequate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pretty adequate tonight (Laughter.)

MR. BARNES: Now I'm sure when the former MLA, now minister, stood before the House on that April 3, 1973, and made those remarks, he was sincere. I'm not going to elaborate on that point. I'm merely asking the minister, when he closes the debate on his estimates, if he will point out the inadequacies of the public galleries and the problems and also the inadequacies of the press gallery and indicate to the House his plans to rectify the same.

Now I have another quote from the minister — on the same day, in fact. Incidentally, Mr. Minister, these are quotes that you were making to the then Minister of Public Works, Mr. Bill Hartley. You stated:

In the existing buildings. If the facilities aren't available in the existing buildings that the government owns, they'd have to be uniform with all MLAs and rent. That's the only assumption I could come to, Mr. Chairman.

What you were making reference to there is the availability of public buildings for MLAs so they could have their offices in their ridings.

Not only you, the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) I think indicated that you may have had a point someplace — I recall reading in Hansard. I'll find the exact quote. But the point is, are you the same man now that you are the minister? Can we count on you following through with facilities for the MLAs that will be equal to those of the public service, as you pointed out in your quote at that time, so we can better serve our constituents?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair, Hon. Member.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I'm merely asking the minister if he will verify that he has not changed his position and will be looking forward to providing offices at public expense for MLAs in their ridings.

Now the present Attorney-General made an interesting quote which is really the text of my few brief remarks. I only want to talk for two or three minutes. I just wanted to give you some idea, Mr. Attorney-General, that, you know, the records come back to haunt you some time. I hope that you will stand up and say: "Not in this case. I'm going to follow through with everything." Because you were also talking to the Minister of Public Works at the time, Mr. Chairman, and you said 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...

HON. MR. GARDOM: Putrefactions!

MR. BARNES: Putrefactions? Would you stand up and explain that?

...that we find outside from Detroit and Dusseldorf: the Fords, the Falcons, the Dodges and the Darts, the

[ Page 3303 ]

Pintos and the Dentos, and all the 25 maybe upwards, over 30, selections of chrome and tin that are completely fouling up the beauty of these beautiful buildings.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh, oh!

MR. BARNES: Now I'm all for what you said and I would like for you to immediately go out and get rid of those cars, as of tomorrow.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Now, mind you, I'll have to move my car. (Laughter.) But as you said to the Minister of Public Works at the time — because he challenged you.... He said: "Are you prepared to move your car right now, Mr. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom)?" You said: "That's okay, move it!" That's what you said, and maybe you felt pretty strong.

Now the point I'm trying to make is that those remarks were, I'm sure, made in all sincerity at the time when you were here on the opposition giving the government some advice, and the government indicated an interest but took a little time to carry it out. Now you aren't going to let that happen, I'm sure, and, you know, there's no better time than now, with the cost of automobile operation, you know, the cost of gas.... Now don't rush me — I can feel the heat here. You guys want to get out but I'm going to have to have a few minutes. After all, I've waited patiently and you've filibustered your own estimates with your own back bench all evening. We sat here patiently and listened. Now let me make my point.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've made it.

MR. BARNES: I want to congratulate the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Highways, on reinsituting the shuttle system through Massey Tunnel for the cycles. I understand you have done that, and for that I congratulate you. For a while I thought you were going to be totally insensitive to the programme that we brought in under our Minister of Highways (Mr. Lea), but I think you reconsidered, and it was a good move.

Now why don't you follow through and...?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tunnel-vision!

MR. BARNES: Well, in that case it was a good idea, but I would like for you, to...

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know what I heard?

MR. BARNES: ...follow through with your philosophy which I'm sure means that you are concerned about people having an alternative way of travel besides the automobile, and you want to facilitate this travel. In your building of highways — and I don't really think you need to build too many now, Mr. Minister of Highways and Public Works, because with your new ICBC rates you've cut down the need for highways.... A lot of people are not using their cars like they used to, and you know that. Statistics will bear me out. There are less cars on the highway, and don't deny it. It is directly related to your high cost.

So there is every reason to provide for people other means of transportation to make it easy for them, such things as the moped or the bicycle — you know, these small operated vehicles, two wheels that have a little electric motor, a one- or two-cylinder engine. Facilitate them. Provide a strip along your highways. Be forward thinking, because people are looking for another way to travel, an economical way, and a bicycle should be included.

I think that we are way behind the times. I don't mean just a recreational trail someplace in the woods. I mean a means which people can use as a regular commuter system, so they can get to and from their work. That's the kind of thing that I think the hon. Attorney-General had in mind when he suggested that we shouldn't have automobiles out here. Perhaps we should have cycle racks for people to park their bicycles. Maybe to facilitate those people who ride their bikes to work and get hot and sweaty, maybe you should encourage the installation of your shower system.

After all, you've got a brand new multi-thousand dollar shower for the Premier. He hasn't asked me to come up to use it when I get sweaty. I would like for us to have some for the public servants — the ordinary people, like the MLAs. I like to ride my bike, but I have no place to take a decent shower and relax.

I know the Attorney-General is for me, because he indicated how he feels when I heard him speak on this side of the House. And we've listened to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) speak. He's been trying to make sure that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) doesn't knock out the bicycle in that new shuttle system across the Second Narrows, but I think they will knock it out. We've got to protect ourselves. Now I just want you to indicate to us, Mr. Minister and all you ministers of goodwill over there, that you'll work together and try and give an opportunity to the people to get rid of their cars, as you have indicated, to put them someplace else, cut down on the proliferation of the automobiles and the misuse of parking downtown and the tighter and tighter congestion within the environment and allow people to relax and hang loose again. But that's going to take some action.

One of the things you said, Mr. Attorney-General, in your statements in June of 1975 was: "Show some

[ Page 3304 ]

aggression and some initiative, Mr. Minister of Public Works. Just do it!" Are you going to do that? No, you're not. It's not your estimates, so sit down. You just want me to sit down so I can lose my seat.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I'll tell you, I am glad you raised that. Is the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) here? I have a complaint.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking directly to the vote. It concerns transportation, highways, and people with licences to provide services to people on those highways. I took my car to a place and the guy didn't fix the muffler properly. That's all I was going to say — I'd love to leave my car and have you tow it away, but make sure you take the complaint over to this guy at...what do you call it, Jiffy Muffler Fixers? The thing is making so much noise I don't want to drive it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: There's a message for you at the Golden Gate.

MR. BARNES: Just remember that I respect their right to stand up and speak and I hope that you, Mr. Premier, would be the first to stand up and encourage that concept. Remember what you said when you were over here: "Not a dime without debate." There are a lot of dimes involved in that man's estimates over there. If there is any indication that you're not prepared for us to debate I'd like you to stand up and say why.

With that I would like to have the minister reply to my remark to indicate that everything that I have quoted him has been right on and that there is no cause for us to be alarmed. He has an opportunity now that he's king of that department to carry through.

Vote 98 approved.

MR. BARNES: No comment? Does he feel that I was being facetious? Do you intend to answer the questions?

On vote 99: general administration, $2,891,000.

HON. MR. FRASER: You referred to the Massey Tunnel, Mr. Member, and the fact that we instituted bicycles. That's correct. Don't be surprised if it's cut off in the winter months, because there's not really much demand in the winter. But for the spring until late fall it's back.

You mentioned showers. I don't know whether this comes under the vote or not. They're coming. The press gallery is getting a new location.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Mr. Chairman, while you were asking on vote 98, I noticed that the Provincial Secretary was on her feet and I subsequently did not have a chance to rise, and I did wish to be recognized under vote 98.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 98 is passed, and we can't ask leave in committee. Perhaps under vote 99 you could ask the question that you have.

MR. DAVIDSON: All right. Mr. Chairman, the Massey Tunnel was just raised a few moments ago. I would like to very seriously bring to the ministers attention the fact that between the Massey Tunnel and the Pattullo Bridge there is no other crossing at the present time. There is no particular section in this province I feel that needs a new crossing more than this particular area. The Pattullo Bridge, as we all know, is operating at peak capacity. The Massey Tunnel is also operating at almost peak capacity, and these two overpasses serve the residents of North and South Delta, the residents of Surrey and the residents of White Rock. In addition, we have a large amount of traffic using the ferry terminals as well. With the anticipated residential growth in the area, it is fast becoming apparent that both these crossings are going to be outmoded within a very short time.

Mr. Chairman, even if we were to start construction on a third crossing today, it would be safe to assume that a period of at least four, if not five, years would elapse before any such project was actually completed and ready for vehicular use. One only has to examine the BVRD growth projections to envision what will happen in the very near future.

Mr. Chairman, the residents in my own particular riding don't really care whether it's a bridge or a tunnel, or whether it's located at Annacis Island or not; they simply want some new crossing built and a commitment for that undertaking by this government.

In the meantime it is encouraging to note that the Mayor of Surrey, Mr. McKitka, myself and the minister have met to discuss the possible temporary solution of providing park-and-ride locations. But this is only a temporary alleviation and will in no way solve the problem that must sooner or later be faced. I would urge the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, to seriously instruct his department to begin an immediate proposal for such a crossing.

Secondly, the Scott Road situation is one that has been a source of aggravation for the people not only in Surrey but also in Delta. I would like to congratulate the minister at this time for undertaking the first step on the Scott Road construction, which was between 80th and 96th Avenues. This, Mr.

[ Page 3305 ]

Chairman, had been long promised by the previous administration, but only under our present minister was the contract finally awarded and construction begun.

But the area between 96th Avenue and Pattullo Bridge is equally important and must be resolved as well. There is no question that the intersection of Scott Road and River Road is one of the most dangerous in my riding, and I would hope that this too would receive the minister's close attention.

Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly touch upon the Ladner Trunk Road, from Highway 17 north into Ladner. This particular stretch of road heads directly into an area that has long been ignored by all levels of government. Right now Ladner is experiencing a new thrust in urban renewal with harbour development, and negotiations are currently underway between the federal and provincial arms to return a piece of property to begin a long-needed development in urban renewal. In conjunction with this project there is a very small bridge at the end of the Ladner Trunk Road over the Chilcotin Slough, which could be enlarged from two lanes, as it presently stands, to four lanes. This would fit very neatly into the proposed expansion plans for this particular area.

In concluding, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one or two observations about the Massey Tunnel. I was encouraged at the beginning of the minister's estimates when he noted that there would be an attempt to standardize some of the speed zones at different locations throughout the province. Around the Massey Tunnel itself there are speed limits of 45 mph through the tunnel, 50 mph past the tunnel, 55 mph and 60 mph — all very confusing to the motoring public.

In view of the fact that new lights have been placed in the Massey Tunnel, and in view of the fact that the speed limit in that tunnel has not been increased from 45 mph, I would like to urge the minister to consider the increasing of the speed limit in the Massey Tunnel from 45 mph to 55 mph in an attempt...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

MR. DAVIDSON: ...to expedite traffic through that tunnel which is now extremely well lit.

In addition to this, and regarding the Massey Tunnel, I would like to call to the minister's attention the fact that it is, unfortunately, the habit of the law enforcement officers to park their radar sets at either end of the tunnel, much to the chagrin of many of the motoring public who are not necessarily caught in this enforcement situation but are very wary of any increase in speed and as a result have a tendency to drive under the posted speed limit rather than over it, resulting in long delays in traffic.

One further point, Mr. Chairman, and my last point is the situation revolving around the Vancouver city garbage trucks who use this tunnel between 4 and 6 p.m. during the peak rush-hour traffic. This, Mr. Chairman, is one of the problems, because at each end of that particular tunnel they do not have the ability to increase their speed, and consequently cause long lineups. I thank the minister very kindly for his attention and look forward to his plan revolving around a new crossing of the Fraser.

Vote 99 approved.

Vote 100: highway maintenance, $129,379,000 — approved.

Vote 101: highway construction — capital, $109,272,000 — approved.

On vote 102: general administration — Public Works, $1,220,418.

MS. BROWN: I just want to give a small word of advice to the minister. That is that under his administration for Public Works he has an excellent programme, that of purchasing works of art for government buildings. I am asking him not to give in to the pressure from his back bench to stop it. It is a good programme. Hang in there, Mr. Minister, please!

Vote 102 approved.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Vote 103.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members! I cannot hear the Provincial Secretary.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Coquitlam.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Chairman in my rush to get back to my chair I was bypassed on 101. If I might....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, Hon. Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I'm sorry, Hon. Member, but vote 101 is three votes back.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What is the will of the House?

[ Page 3306 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

Vote 103: government buildings maintenance, $35,000,000 — approved.

Vote 104: construction of provincial buildings, $37,000,000 — approved.

Vote 105: rentals, $17,100,000 — approved.

Vote 106: safety inspection division, $4,357,393 — approved.

Vote 107: Glendale laundry operation, $1,377,432 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 51, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO INCORPORATE THE BRITISH
COLUMBIA ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES

The House in committee on Bill 51; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 to 15 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 51, An Act to Incorporate the British Columbia Association of Colleges, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 50.

AN ACT TO INCORPORATE THE BISHOP OF
THE UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPARCHY OF
NEW WESTMINSTER AND HIS SUCCESSORS
IN OFFICE A CORPORATION SOLE

The House in committee on Bill 50; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

MR. LAUK: On behalf of the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers), I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 50, An Act to Incorporate the Bishop of the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of New Westminster and His Successors in Office a Corporation Sole, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on bill 81, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 81; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I have difficulty letting this section pass without reminding some of the members on the government side, particularly those former Liberal members who are now in the cabinet, of the position they took with respect to the Labour Code of British Columbia when this statute was introduced in the House.

We have provided to the Labour Relations Board, as the power is provided in this statute in section 5, to the agency to provide an appeal under its own auspices. That is, the only appeal mechanism provided against the decision of this agency is an appeal back to the agency that made the initial decision.

Mr. Chairman, I have marked the Hansard record of this House for October 24, 1973, where Mr. McGeer had a great deal to say about this very principle, condemning the principle of there not being an impartial appeal system outside of the agency which handed down the decision in the first instance. I'd just like to quote briefly from it because he was supported by the now Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the now Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) in attacking this whole principle and concept as being anti-democratic, a breach of human rights and so on.

[ Page 3307 ]

I want to watch how those members vote, Mr. Chairman, on this bill which the Provincial Secretary has introduced to this House, giving those exact same powers to this new agency created under the Public Service Labour Relations Act. On that date, Mr. Chairman, Mr. McGeer said:

I'm perfectly clear, Mr. Chairman. The Attorney-General may try to draw a veil over things that he knows better about. We're not talking about two things when we start talking about human rights and justice. There's only one way, and that's to give the individual his full rights to a hearing and an appeal from that hearing. There is no intention to provide that in this legislation. Somehow the mistaken concept has become implanted in the minds of the government, first of all, that this is going to be a kind of family court sort of thing and everybody is going to love this new panel that's being set up, and that while they may have a little difference of opinion, really they're going to settle this thing like husbands and wives.

"Nonsense, " he says.

Mr. Chairman, that was the now Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) commenting on an appeal mechanism under the Labour Relations Board of British Columbia that provided precisely the same concept and mechanism presented in this bill.

There the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) stands smiling. I trust, Mr. Chairman, that when the vote is taken on this section the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Attorney-General are going to stand in their places on a matter of principle and oppose it, because I'm sure they're interested in consistency, or did their objections and their interest in human rights and equality die with the extinguishment of their Liberal ticket? That's the question, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 5 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. BARRETT: We'd like to hear the present Minister of Labour respond to this. After all, he's now in the responsible position of the Minister of Labour.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): You don't run the House. Sit down.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: I don't run the House. That doesn't mean I have to sit down. I can't stand the inconsistencies. You say one thing as a principled man, and last night you gave us a long speech about the business about principle and public trust. What is your position now on this matter?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah! Stand up and tell us what your position is. Have you backed off? Have you changed your mind? You're the Minister of Labour. Tell us where you stand.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please address the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, now, now, Mr. Chairman. Oh, Mr. Chairman, that member is....

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Yak, yak, yak, yak, yak! But when he was over here he raised holy hob against the former government for bringing in or suggesting legislation where there's no appeal system. You're quoted and your colleague's quoted, and now you sit there: "Not true, not true!" Stand up and tell us, Mr. Chairman. Stand up and tell us! You talk to this House about labour principles; you talk to us, kicking the slats out of the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King), giving us pious statements about principle and commitment and all that kind of thing, and public trust. If you have that public trust, you can't change your principles.

You changed your principles, through you, Mr. Chairman. Stand up and tell us why. Stand up and tell us why! Don't just sit back there and nibble a little bit and say: "Sit down. Be quiet." You don't have a single principle left unless you stand up in this House and say why you're changing your position. Why are you taking that position? Are you playing politics with your principles? Forty-eight hours and you change your mind. Mr. Chairman, 48 hours and he changes his mind. He gets up and attacks the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, doesn't agree with him, says: "We've got to stand firm on principle." Forty-eight hours later he's caught by Hansard, by his own words, and then he sits over there saying: "Oh, now, now. Sit down."

You stand up, through you, Mr. Chairman, and tell this House why you've changed your mind and joined Social Credit. Have you abandoned all your labour principles, all those pious speeches you made? Is that what you've done? Is that what it cost you to sell out? Let's hear it from you, Mr. Chairman — not little interruptions, but where do you stand on this matter of principle? Silence — that's what we're getting.

Interjections.

Section 5 approved.

[ Page 3308 ]

MR. BARRETT: Silence! Silence! There go your principles, right down the tube.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Silence!

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Political opportunist!

On section 6.

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, again in section 6 on the powers of inquiry that are granted to the Public Service Commission. They're similar in function to the authority of the Labour Relations Board — similar in function in terms of jurisdiction over the public service.

The powers of inquiry which the commission will have under section 6 are the powers of the Public Inquiries Act, sections 7, 10 and 11, and, Mr. Chairman, that is the power to compel witnesses to appear and to punish witnesses for failure to obey summonses from the commission. I want to suggest again, Mr. Chairman, that those powers go far beyond any powers granted to the Labour Relations Board in this province, and we're dealing here with labour relations problems. Does any one remember how those three pious Liberals, the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound and the first and second members for Vancouver–Point Grey, got up and pontificated in this House and predicted dire consequences because this terrible Labour Relations Board was going to have awesome powers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes!

MR. KING: They objected to that, and here you are giving to the Public Service Commission under this bill powers that far transcend anything that the Labour Relations Board has — far transcend them. They have the powers to summons and to punish for failure to appear under the Public Inquiries Act, powers that are not granted to the Labour Relations Board in any respect.

I want to, at the danger of embarrassing someone, Mr. Chairman, which I would never intend to do — it would be the last thing I'd want to do — but I have to expose those three fair-haired boys in this new coalition administration, Mr. Chairman. I have to point out that they're not at all consistent. Either they abandoned any feeling and concern they had for consistency, for human rights and for principle when they sold out the Liberal Party to join this coalition, or they've got extremely short memories, because all of the principles they attacked the Labour Code of British Columbia on — the Labour Relations Board, constituted under that Act — are contained under this particular statute in spades, as my colleague would say.

They're contained in spades, and I don't hear one peep out of one of those defenders of the public faith. They sit there mute, comfortable in their new coalition for power — all principles abandoned, Mr. Chairman. I had to outline this to the House.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the last two members who have spoken to both sections 5 and 6 are not correctly interpreting those two sections.

The key to both sections is that this refers no longer to labour relations but to the merit principle, which we are trying to keep as the full responsibility of the commission. They need the powers in section 8 to protect the merit principle. That's all it's all about. They're to be viewed as an impartial body, and they will be viewed as an impartial body.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a sad day when those three former vocal, vociferous members of the once-proud Liberal party sit there humbled and subdued in this new coalition for power, and let the lady Provincial Secretary get up and try to salvage some vestige of self-respect for them!

I want to tell the Provincial Secretary and I want to assure her that I'm not attacking the Public Service Commission or the powers contained therein. I am simply pointing out the dire consequences that that group, Mr. Chairman, predicted when we transmitted to the Labour Relations Board of British Columbia powers far less than are taken for the Public Service Commission under these circumstances.

The Provincial Secretary says this is just for merit principle. If this bill were not quite so restrictive — and I intend to have something to say about that — the merit principle as well as a variety of other things would be left in the realm of collective bargaining where it should be. That's one concern I have about this statute — the fact that indeed it does, Mr. Chairman, narrow and compact the issues and the areas that are bargainable.

MR. BARRETT: You're guilty, Garde.

MR. KING: That's improper and it's wrong. Many of the things that have been established as bargainable issues throughout the whole realm of industrial relations in this nation are taken by statutory power out of that realm in this bill. That is wrong. So for the Provincial Secretary to say, "well, these powers are all right because they only deal with this issue," is patently improper. Again I challenge her interpretation, because it goes beyond the merit principle. It goes far beyond the merit principle, as does recourse to this Public Service Commission in a

[ Page 3309 ]

variety of other areas also.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

MR. KING: This is an interesting section, Mr. Chairman. It grants access to information.

"Deputy ministers and all other employees in the public service shall give the commission such access to their respective departments and offices and such facilities, assistance and information as the commission may require for the performance of its duties."

That's very nice and that's very good. Whatever happened to that enlightened government, with their enlightened approach to industrial relations? We have heard a number of members on that side get up and pay lip service to a new approach of democratization in the relationship between employer and employee — a kind of a joint sharing of the decision-making process in the relationship between employers and their employees. I want to ask, Mr. Chairman, where the reciprocal provision is in this section. Where is the reciprocal right of the employees and their bargaining agent to obtain information from the Public Service Commission?

There's none! So rather than seize this opportunity as the Minister of Labour suggested he and his cabinet would like to do, to introduce some vestige of democracy in the workplace or worker participation, they've lost this opportunity to at least agree to provide joint access to information that affects the lives of the working people in the public service, the same as the government. I think that's a regrettable fact that should be pointed out.

Mr. Chairman, again I have to say that in this whole area those members, particularly the Minister of Labour now and the Minister of Education, were very loud and vocal in advocating new and innovative directions in labour legislation in the past. I just want to quote a little bit more from the now Minister of Education's speech to this House on October 24, 1973, as recorded on page 934 of Hansard, which is a further commentary on the inconsistency of that minister. I quote:

The philosophy that you're the good guys and everybody else are the bad guys, and suddenly the good guys are in power and therefore everything they bring down will be accepted with grace and good judgment and all the problems of British Columbia will vanish overnight is just naive nonsense.

It's because you've come to believe your own propaganda and you have come to accept your own naive nonsense that you can have the gall to come before this House and be completely inconsistent.

Imagine, that statement will have to be recorded for posterity. That man talking about gall — an inconsistency.

He's speared on the horns of a dilemma. He's impaled by his own words, Mr. Chairman. He says it's because you've.... Let me find my spot here. He says: "I'm trying to tell those in the opposition who have clear heads in this matter that it's apples and oranges. Nonsense! This is a bad section in the Act and, Mr. Chairman, it will be the undoing of this Act." That's what the minister said.

Interjection.

MR. KING: For powers, I repeat, that were far more modest and mild than the awesome powers that the Provincial Secretary has given to the Public Service Commission under the statute that's now before the House.... Mr. Chairman, I say to that Minister of Education — even though it's his birthday, and he went out to have a bit of the cake that he's been advocating that the people of this province eat for the last few months — that if he wants to salvage any degree or modicum amount of self-respect, stature, in this province, surely he must be concerned with some consistency. Surely he must be concerned with demonstrating his independence of mind, that he can get up and defend a principle even though he is locked into this new coalition government.

Sections 8 to 19 inclusive approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 20 as amended.

MR. KING: On section 20, Mr. Chairman, I think this is the section that deals with the provisions that used to be contained under section 13 of the old Public Service Labour Relations Act and, again, I want to make the point — and I believe by the amendment the Provincial Secretary has solved some of the problem — that the government has a tendency throughout this bill to put statutory prohibitions upon various issues that have normally been bargainable issues within the industrial relations realm.

I regret that the bill seems to compact and restrict that realm in the area increasingly. I just want to say to the Provincial Secretary that I hope she has consulted with the public employees union — the B.C. Government Employees Union officials — with respect to the contents of this section particularly and others where that trend is discernible to me. It could be a disagreement on interpretation, I'm not sure. But I would hope that she has discussed it with

[ Page 3310 ]

the B.C. Government Employees Union. If they find it satisfactory in terms of the areas that they wish protected as matters that are negotiable and bargainable, fair enough. I just regret that trend.

Section 20 as amended approved.

Sections 21 and 25 approved.

On section 26.

MR. KING: Here I direct the Provincial Secretary's — and particularly the Minister of Labour's — attention to a breakthrough in industrial relations that was obtained in this province by a decision of the Labour Relations Board in 1974. That decision — and I forget the precise case but I think the minister would be familiar with it; at least his department would be — held that in the case of a probationary employee being disciplined or terminated, that probationary employee had access to the grievance procedure contained in collective agreements for the purpose of ensuring just cause. That was a breakthrough in industrial relations law in North America, because that principle — that concept — has never been upheld before.

I think that the government of the province, in recognition and in support of its own agency — the Labour Relations Board — and the integrity of the decision that board has handed down, should do no less than apply the same principle with respect to their own public employees.

I see in section 26 the arbitrary authority granted to the commission to terminate a probationary employee without the right of the granting of any grievance procedure to that probationary employee.

Now it may well be that the employee does not measure up on valid criteria terms, but it could equally be the case that because of some clash which violated the rights of that probationary employee, he is being terminated unjustly on a basis that is....

Interjection.

MR. KING: Right to whom?

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, I see no right granted under the statute. The point is that that principle has been developed in law in the private sector in British Columbia now — that there is the right in law under our Labour Code, under a decision and a precedent of the Labour Relations Board, that a probationary employee will have the right to grieve if he has been disciplined or dismissed for other than just cause. It's a principle, Mr. Chairman, that I am saying should be enshrined in this statute.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's in section 67.

MR. KING: Well, I am very pleased to hear that, Mr. Chairman. I hadn't noticed that. That's very good news. I'll check that section.

Sections 26 and 27 approved.

On section 28.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 28 as amended approved.

Sections 29 to 34 inclusive approved.

On section 35.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, subsection (3) states that a transfer is a change from one position to another with the same maximum compensation. I suppose that in redrawing the Public Service Act the government is trying to set the example as being a good employer. I wish the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was listening because this is the point I was trying to raise last night when we were discussing the Public Schools Act, that the basic concept is that when a person is transferred, the very least that should be expected is that the person transferred receives the same compensation in the new position or in the new location as in the former location. I think section 35(3) is establishing very clearly that principle that a transfer need not be and often is not a demotion, but in the case of the public employee in the school service, that may well involve a reduction in compensation.

Although the Minister of Education last night tried to make out that very few dollars were involved, the fact is that a substantial number of dollars can be involved under the Public Schools Act. This example that we are debating tonight, Mr. Chairman, I think, very clearly sets out, as far as the public service is concerned, as far as the government is concerned, as far as the largest employer in British Columbia is concerned, that a transfer should involve the same payment for the employee in the new location. I hope that the government, and particularly the Minister of Education, is paying attention to this so we can expect that appropriate amendments will be made to the Public Schools Act.

Sections 35 and 36 approved.

On section 37.

[ Page 3311 ]

MRS. WALLACE: This section concerns me quite gravely. Thinking of my years I spent as an employee working under various agreements and public service type of regulations, where it talks about the transfer or demotion of an employee where it's in the best interests of the public service, this concerns me very much as a former employee in this kind of a situation. I am wondering if the Provincial Secretary could explain just what that really does entail.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That protects the commission if an employee applies for a position that's less. Granted, it possibly wouldn't happen too often, but it is there for that purpose and it is an exact copy of section 50 of the old Act.

Sections 37 to 56 inclusive approved.

On section 57.

MR. KING: On that particular section, again, I find, as I indicated in a previous section, this provides a guarantee of access to records.

"Deputy ministers and all other employees in the public service shall give the bureau such access to their respective departments and offices and provide such facilities assistance and information as the bureau may require for the performance of its duties under this Act or the Public Service Labour Relations Act."

Again I just make the point, Mr. Chairman, that there's an opportunity here to show some good faith, to show the spirit of some cooperative management and to grant to the union the right of access to records also. I think it would have been a good place to do so in terms of a statutory right which one party is taking unto itself, and I have no objection to that. But I think it might have been the beginning of charting a better course in terms of trying to break new ground in industrial relations in the province.

I regret that the reciprocal right of unions — the dual right, I should say, of unions of access to similar records is not contained in the statute.

Section 57 approved.

Sections 58 to 66 inclusive approved.

On section 67.

MR. KING: On section 67, I would appreciate it if the Provincial Secretary could point out to me precisely where the authority dealing with probationary employees' rights to grieve is contained in section 67. Perhaps my eyes deceive me, but I cannot locate any provision in this section which extends to probationary employees the right to grieve regarding their conditions of employment, regarding disciplinary procedures and regarding termination.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hansard cannot determine your answer unless you stand, Provincial Secretary.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the temporary employees are not excluded. The board is set to determine grievances and they can apply and they will be heard.

MR. KING: Well, that's a nice gesture and I appreciate that. I'm not questioning the Provincial Secretary's intention nor the Public Service Commission nor the board's intention, but the point is that the statutory provisions do not extend that right. The earlier section deals with the arbitrary right of the agency to terminate probationary employees. Section 26 deals with that, and there is no right extended to the union in compliance with the Labour Relations Board's decision to grieve. I think that right should be contained in the Act. I don't think it extends automatically. I would argue with that. I do not argue with the government's good intentions and I hope they do develop that concept and that principle. I certainly would have preferred that the right was enshrined in the statute, which I do not believe it is.

Section 67 approved.

Sections 68 to. 76 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 81, Public Service Act, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: By leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 81, Public Service Act, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 3312 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 82.

PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR
RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 82; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper deleting section 3, lines 2 and 3. I would like to move the amendment to section 3, lines 3 and 4, by striking out clause (b) — that is the second part of the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For those who are following on the order paper, there are two sections to the amendment listed on page 16 under Bill 82. The first section of the amendment refers to lines 2 and 3; the second one refers to lines 3 and 4. It is the second half of the amendment that is being moved.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 82, Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: By leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 82, Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1976, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 78, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 78; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, section 5 has a retroactive effect. It would have the effect of changing the status of taxpayers in a case currently before the courts. What I would appreciate having would be the assurance of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) or whoever might be the appropriate minister that in the event passage of this section prejudices the court case of the particular taxpayer he would be eligible for reimbursement of legitimate legal costs incurred up to this point.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairman, I don't know if we can answer that question directly, but naturally a matter of that kind would be up to the decision of the courts. But I think it could be said that there could be an indication given to Crown counsel that it would not oppose a motion of that kind.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I would interpret that as an assurance in principle, so to speak.

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's right.

MR. GIBSON: I think that that is very important because whenever this chamber passes retroactive legislation I think that in general it should be imposed. This is a case where the section is attempting only to clarify what clearly was the intention of the law back in the days when it was passed. Therefore I don't oppose it in this particular case. But I think it is important that any taxpayer who has proceeded under the previous law in good faith and brought a court action in good faith should not be prejudiced in terms of a recapture of their legitimate costs by an action of this Legislature on a retroactive basis.

Section 5 approved,

On section 6.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the amendment standing under my name on page 13 of the order paper, Mr. Chairman. (See appendix.)

[ Page 3313 ]

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I also move the amendment standing under my name adding subsection 6(a) to section 6.

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

MRS. WALLACE: Just a point of information really on this Grazing Act. I assume that what's happening here is that there is to be no earmarking of funds collected under the Grazing Act for improvement of rangeland. As such I'm wondering whether or not there has been some alternative method provided that there's an equivalent amount of money or that a greater amount, hopefully, will be expended in the improving of rangeland.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Chairman, the present section of the Grazing Act which is amended provides that one-half of the funds collected through grazing permits and leases by appropriated together with such additional funds as required. It is really rather meaningless to say one-half of the funds collected can be appropriated when you can appropriate other funds in addition. So it's just clarifying it somewhat.

Sections 8 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Labour, I'm moving the amendment on page 13, section 12(a). It's the second amendment referred to on page 13 of the orders of the day, June 30. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

On section 13.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the amendment adding section 13(a), Mr. Chairman. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

On section 16.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I would move the amendment to section 16, to add section 16(a), referred to on page 14 of the orders of the day. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

Sections 17 to 22 inclusive approved.

On section 23.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, an amendment to section 23 standing in my name on page 16 of the orders of the day, to add section 23(a) and (b) . (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 23 as amended approved.

Sections 24 and 25 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 78, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, when shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. GARDOM: With leave of the House, at this time, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 78, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1976, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:03 a.m.

[ Page 3314 ]

APPENDIX

The following amendments are referred to on pages 3309-10:

81 The Hon. Grace McCarthy to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 81) intituled Public Service Act, to amend as follows:

Section 20: By adding after subsection (2) the following as subsection (3):

"(3) The procedures to be followed in considering the matters referred to in subsection (2) shall be subject to joint agreement by a consultative committee composed of members, equal in number, representative of the bargaining agent certified under the Public Service Labour Relations Act for a particular bargaining unit referred to in section 4 of that Act and the bargaining agent for the Government referred to in section 3 of that Act."

Section 28, line 3: By deleting "sections 20 and 21" and substituting "sections 20, 22, and 23".

The following amendment is referred to on page 3312:

82 The Hon. Grace McCarthy to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 82) intituled Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1976 to amend as follows:

Section 3, lines 2 and 3: By deleting paragraph (a) and substituting the following:

(a) in paragraph (a), by striking out ", subject to section 34 of the Public Service Act", and.

Section 3, lines 3 and 4: By striking out clause (b).

The following amendments are referred to on page 3312 et seq.:

78 The Hon. G. B. Gardom to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 78) intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1976, to amend as follows:

Section 6: By deleting paragraph (a) and by renumbering paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (a) and (b) .

By inserting the following after section 12:

"S.B.C. 1973 (2nd Sess.), c. 122, s. 1.

"12A. Section 1 of the Labour Code of British Columbia is amended by striking out the definition of 'minister' and substituting the following:

"minister", upon the coming into force of this Act, means the Minister of Labour or such other member of the Executive Council as may be charged by order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with the administration of this Act;, "

By adding the following after section 23:

S.B.C. 1953, c. 55, ss. 180, 181, and 481.

23A. (1) The Vancouver Charter is amended

(a) in section 180 by inserting "or employed by the Vancouver Police Board" after "jurisdiction",

(b) in section 180 (b) by inserting "or by the Vancouver Police Board" after "city",

(c) by inserting after section 180 the following as section 181:

Metric regulations.

"181. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, by order, authorize the substituting of metric measure for measurement provisions in this Act on the basis in each case either of the numeric equivalent or of a rationalization of the measurement for practical use.", and

[ Page 3315 ]

APPENDIX

(d) in section 481 by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (b) and substituting ", and" and by adding the following as paragraph (c):

"(c) provide for the care and custody of persons held in those places of detention."

(2) Subsection (1 ) (a) and (b) are retroactive to July 1, 1974, and subsection (1) (d) is retroactive to November 15, 1974, to the extent necessary to give full force and effect to its provisions on and after those respective dates.

By adding after section 6 the following as section 6A:

"S.B.C. 1973, c. 18, s. 6.

"6A. section 6 (2) of the Companies Act is amended by adding 'or' at the end of paragraph (b) and by adding the following as paragraph (c):

(c) exploring for or determining the existence, location, extent, or quality of petroleum, natural gas, minerals, or any other naturally occurring inorganic or fossilized organic substance situated at or below the surface of the earth, ".

By adding after section 16 the following as section 16A:

"R.S.B.C. 1960, c. 277, ss. 48, 49, 52, 57, and 83.
"Formation of limited partnerships.

16A. The Partnership Act is amended

(a) By repealing section 48 and substituting the following:

"48. Limited partnerships for

(a) transacting within the Province any trading, manufacturing, or mining business, or

(b) engaging within Canada in

(i) developing and producing petroleum and natural gas within, upon, or under a number of holdings, or in any specified strata within the holdings, without regard to the boundaries of the separate holdings, or

(ii) implementing a program for the conservation of petroleum and natural gas, or for the co-ordinated management of interests in petroleum and natural gas, or

(iii) exploring for or determining the existence, location, extent or quality of petroleum, natural gas, minerals, or any other naturally occurring inorganic or fossilized organic substance situated at or below the surface of the earth,

may be formed by 2 or more persons upon the terms, with the rights and powers, and subject to the conditions and liabilities referred to in this Part; but this Part does not authorize any such partnership for the purpose of banking, or the construction or working of railways or making insurance."

(b) By repealing section 49 and substituting the following:

"General and special partners.

"49. (1) Limited partnerships may consist of one or more persons, who shall be called 'general partners', and of one or more persons who contribute in actual cash payments a specific sum as capital to the common stock, who shall be called 'special partners'.

"(2) The total number of partners shall in no case exceed 20, except where the partnership is formed for a purpose set out in section 48 (b)."

(c) In section 52, by repealing paragraph (e) and substituting the following:

"(e) the period at which the partnership is to commence, and, unless the partnership is formed solely for a purpose set out in section 48 (b), the period at which it will terminate."

(d) By repealing section 57 and substituting the following:

[ Page 3316 ]

"Alteration in names of partners or nature of business deemed dissolution.

"57. Every alteration of a limited partnership, other than a limited partnership formed and existing for a purpose set out in section 48 (b), made

(a) in the names of the partners, or

(b) in the nature of the business, or

(c) in the capital or shares of the business, or

(d) in any other matter specified in the original certificate,

shall be deemed to be a dissolution of the partnership; and every limited partnership carried on in any manner after the alteration has been made shall be deemed to be a general partnership, unless renewed as a limited partnership pursuant to section 56."

(e) By repealing section 83.

By adding after section 13 the following as section 13A:

"R.S.B.C. 1960, c. 230, ss. 2, 5 to 7, 9, 12, 17, 20, and 21.

"13A. The Minimum Wage Act is amended

(a) In section 2 in the definition of "minimum wage", by striking out "fixed by the Board" and substituting "established",

(b) By repealing section 5 and substituting the following:

"Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to establish minimum wages.

"5. (1) The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations establishing minimum wages and overtime rates of pay for employees or classes of employees, in such manner and applicable to such employees or group or class of employees, and in such areas as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council considers advisable.

" (2) The Board shall, at least once each year, review minimum wages and overtime rates of pay and report to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council its recommendations respecting revision of the minimum wages and overtime rates of pay established under subsection (1) ."

(c) By repealing section 6 and substituting the following:

"Board to establish conditions of labour.

"6. The Board may, after holding such inquiries as it considers adequate, make orders establishing conditions of labour and employment, in such manner and applicable to such employees or group or class of employees, and in such areas as the Board considers advisable."

(d) By repealing section 7 and substituting the following:

"Permits for handicapped employees.

"7. In the case of an employee classified by the Board as handicapped, as a part-time employee, or as an apprentice, the Board may, notwithstanding a regulation made under section 5, authorize in writing the payment of a wage or overtime rate of pay less than the minimum wage or overtime rate of pay established under section 5 and may limit and define the number of handicapped, part time, or apprenticed employees to whom the lesser wage or overtime rate of pay fixed under this section is applicable."

(e) In section 9, by striking out "fixed by the Board" and substituting established under this Act".

(f) In section 12 (1), by striking out "order of the Board fixing a minimum wage" and substituting "regulation establishing minimum wages or overtime rates of pay and every order establishing conditions of labour and employment."

(g) In section 17 (1):

(i) By inserting "a regulation establishing minimum wages or overtime rates of pay or" after "contravenes", and

(ii) By striking out "fixed by the Board" wherever it appears and substituting in each case "established under this Act".

(h) By repealing section 20 (11) and substituting the following:

[ Page 3317 ]

"(11) This section applies to every employer and every employee to whom this Act applies."

(i) In section 21:

(i) By striking out "fixed by the Board," and substituting "established under this Act," and

(ii) By striking out "fixed," in the fourth line and substituting "established,".

By adding after section 23A the following as section 23B:

"S.B.C. 1935, c. 93, s. 6.

"23B. Section 6 of the Victoria City Act, 1935 is repealed."