[ Page 3333 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Railwest operations. Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 3333

Mr. Lauk –– 3334

Mr. Gibson . 3335

Mr. Wallace –– 3335

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Passing on of old-age pension increase. Ms. Brown –– 3336

Use of 2, 4-D in Okanagan Lake. Mr. Cocke –– 3336

B.C. government representation at Destiny Canada conference. Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 3337

Access to information on public service statistics. Mr. Gibson –– 3338

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

On vote 146.

Mr. Barnes –– 3339

Mr. Wallace –– 3344

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3348

Mr. Kahl –– 3351

Mr. Lauk –– 3352

Mr. Kempf –– 3355

Mr. Gibson –– 3356

Mr. Lea –– 3359

Hon. MR. Fraser –– 3360

Mr. Nicolson –– 3363

Mr.Loewen –– 3365

Mr. King –– 3366

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, located in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon is a very old friend and long-time acquaintance, Mr. Jack Mumford, of Burnaby. I'd like this House to bid him welcome.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave for the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to make the statement he was going to make yesterday on Railwest - that grand champion of all of us, who went back east and really showed them. Can the minister recall?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome to our gallery today two visitors, Mrs. Hilda Cowan and her daughter, who are here from Vancouver East.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome some guests from Alaska, Mr. and Mrs. Kelly and their family, who are spending some time in Victoria. They were gracious to us in our recent visit to Alaska.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

RAILWEST OPERATIONS

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, my statement has. to do with the Railwest manufacturing plant in Squamish and my trip to Ottawa last week.

I told the members of this House before I left Victoria that I was making the trip as a last resort. I went to Ottawa to obtain a commitment on railcar orders which had been promised by the federal government. As you know, these promises have never materialized but, instead, have been dangled before Railwest officials and, indeed, before the British Columbia government for quite some time.

Three men accompanied me on this mission. They were three men who know, probably better than anyone else, the disastrous effects and the human cost which would be entailed by the closure of the Railwest plant next month. They were: the manager of the Railwest plant, Jim Lyon; the general manager of the mountain region of the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen, Stan Horodyski- and last, but by no means least, the mayor of ~Squamish, Mr. Pat Brennan.

Together with these gentlemen, I met with members of the federal government and talked with other federal government officials to bring the real story of Railwest to their attention. I learned some interesting facts. I learned, for instance, from a highly placed official in the transportation industries branch of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce in Ottawa that the previous administration in British Columbia had been advised by an expert in that department not to build the Railwest plant, because at that time the future of railway manufacturing was outlined to them. However, the previous administration chose to ignore that advice.

In the past months, frequent - and I do mean frequent, Mr. Speaker - references by federal officials have been made to upcoming rail car orders: ballast cars, grain cars, refrigerator cars and so on. But despite vigorous efforts on the part of this government and, indeed, on the part of railway officials to track down these orders, nothing has materialized.

I myself have had numerous conversations with the federal people about possible orders for Railwest and the predicament that Railwest manufacturing was in. Yet at no time was I ever told that there would not be an order forthcoming. Mind you, the orders were iffy, but I was never told that there would be no orders forthcoming.

Mr. Speaker, this hope - which I began to think of as a mirage - of future railcar orders led this government to keep Railwest alive. Had we not heard these promises coming from the other side of the mountains, we would have, in all fairness and looking at the economics of the railcar plant, had to make a decision to close it down. Following the release of the interim report on the Railwest operation prepared by the royal commission inquiring into the British Columbia Railway operations, headed by Mr. Justice Lloyd McKenzie, I ascertained that every effort had been made by Railwest, the board of directors and the British Columbia government to track down these railcar orders. It was only after learning that we had in fact done everything that was humanly possible to chase down federal government orders that I determined that the only thing to do was to go to Ottawa and appeal directly to them and, for a final time, outline the gravity of the situation.

We were able to present some interesting facts and figures to the federal people in Ottawa in our case, Mr. Speaker. The Railwest plant manager, a man with 25 years' experience in the business, who supervised a work force of some 800 people in the Hawker Siddeley plant in eastern Canada, said the Railwest plant was an exceptionally efficient operation. He said that the men were not only willing to work but wanted to work, and that those men did not want to

[ Page 3334 ]

sit back and receive unemployment insurance. We told them in Ottawa that if a promised order for 300 ballast cars was obtained from the federal government, although this would entail a two-month shutdown while materials were brought in, it would keep 160 men employed, producing an average of 3.3 cars per day until next mid-February.

Mr. Speaker, the point we made in Ottawa was that federal orders are needed to keep the Railwest plant going until a long-term solution can be worked out. We also told them, as is common knowledge in British Columbia, that Railwest has been treated less than fairly when bids were called for past railcar orders. As a result of our meetings with Senator Perrault and the Hon. Ron Basford, both British Columbia representatives, the matter of orders for Railwest was raised in cabinet in Ottawa on Thursday morning last. As a result of this cabinet meeting an interdepartmental committee was struck in cabinet to see how the Railwest situation could best be resolved, taking into consideration the fact that other railway plants in Canada indeed are also hungry for work. That committee has now met to discuss the problem.

As a result of our meetings in Ottawa the Hon. Otto Lang has met with the presidents of both the CNR and the CPR. This meeting, Mr. Speaker, took place yesterday. I received word this morning that as a result of the planned upgrading by the two railways of their western rail line, tenders indeed will be called very soon for an order of between 200 and 600 ballast cars. This information was relayed to me this morning by Senator Perrault.

I will be meeting very shortly - immediately, as a matter of fact - with Railwest management to discuss this new development. At the same time I will be contacting the presidents of the CPR and the CNR to give them the assurance of this government that Railwest plant's bid will have our support to the extent that the government of this province will make up the difference between the Railwest bid and the lowest bidder if it is other than the Railwest one which is submitted.

We want these orders, Mr. Speaker, to keep the Railwest plant going and, as I've already stated - not only stated but shown by actions of this government - this government is prepared to go a long way to see that order is obtained.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. first member for Vancouver Centre, do you wish to reply to the statement?

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. LAUK: I thank the Hon. minister for making the statement. 1 think it was wise of him to wait until the meeting was held today, and I'm gratified to hear that we've got another kick at the cat.

Some of the comments the minister made should not pass without reply. I am most disturbed, as most members of the opposition are, that the minister waited so late in the day to take direct action. When the minister was a member of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, he spoke very wisely, however infrequently, that the Ministry of Economic Development was a nerve centre for the economic development policies of the government. Although that seemed to be a logical statement, the minister has not followed his own advice. Leaving this so late in the day and then arriving in quixotic fashion on a swayback, plopping into Ottawa when the key ministers were out of town, speaking briefly with a janitor, having a 10-minute chat in the hall with the good senator, is hardly what 1 would call a level of competence that we should expect from our Crown ministers in the province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are you calling a janitor?

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): He's calling Perrault a janitor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. members please allow the first member for Vancouver Centre to reply to the statement?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that a janitor must have a certain level of competence. (Laughter.)

Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have turned their backs on the province of British Columbia and once again you've been led down the garden path, I say to you, Mr. Minister.

We have argued for months that those railcars must be subsidized in the initial manufacturing stage and that plant kept open. The government has laughed at it, they've done nothing, and in the twilight hours, just before these people are threatened with their jobs, the minister gets off his fat stats and goes back cast to do something about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Railwest - an 80 per cent overrun!

MR. LAUK: Advised against rail manufacturing! Let me tell you, the same people advised us against the Royal Hudson. The same federal government officials advised us against Can-Cel.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 3335 ]

MR. LAUK: And the same federal officials advised us against the Princess Marguerite. They do not want anything for British Columbia, and naturally they're going to advise us against it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member confine his remarks to a reply to the ministerial statement? This is not an open debate on Railwest.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, 1 am replying to the comments of the minister. Hawker Siddeley plant, with 800 people employed there, has the heaviest subsidization from Canadian taxpayers that any manufacturing industry can receive. The minister himself earlier in this year suggested that there is a transfer payment in terms of tariffs going to eastern manufacturing industries somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500 million to $600 million a year. Now we go hand in hand to the federal government....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Education on a point of order.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, earlier in the reply of the member for Vancouver Centre he made some statements about janitors in Ottawa. He did this in the same context of two cabinet members from British Columbia whom he mentioned by name. I would like him to clarify for the House exactly to whom he was referring. 1 think it's very important that we understand. . . .

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): That's not a point of order.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): That's frivolous!

MR. LAUK: Hawker Siddeley receives a tariff transfer payment . . .

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Shame!

MR. LAUK: ... from the province of British Columbia of well over half a billion dollars a year. So when they say ---no subsidies" and they take those bids from eastern companies, "you're not believing your own speeches, - they say. 1 certainly do hope that this last kick of the cat works, and 1 do hope that this government and particularly this minister show some creativity and imagination in preserving these jobs for the people in Squamish and for the people in the north generally. We've got the highest unemployment rate in the west. It's a scandal and this minister should be doing something before now about that situation. It's a little late in the day.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I would ask leave similarly to respond, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister was like the hero riding in to save the town in the last reel of the film, but at least it was in time, so I don't mind that at all. I would like to congratulate him. He's brought us good news and he's done the right thing in saying that the government will]l do whatever is required to make certain that that bid is competitive. I congratulate him on that.

I would just ask him to do one other thing, and that is to review the case for British Columbia Railway renewing all of the leases on the cars that they leased a couple of years ago. As the minister knows, the interim report of the royal commission looking into the situation did find some cost factors there, but they also found, as the minister said himself, that the plant is efficient and the employees are efficient and hard-working. It seems to me that if the cost factors there were examined on the basis that the capital cost is sunk - it's there and can't be taken away - and the capital charges were removed from the costing, the minister might find some way of replacing a few of those lease cars too.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to respond to the minister's statement.

Leave granted.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to hear the news because there's no doubt that Squamish faced economic disaster. I'm encouraged by the apparent measure of federal co-operation that has brought this news to the point it reached today,

I personally strongly support the concept of subsidies since they far exceed whatever values and usefulness there is in UIC payments. Regardless of the time that might have been spent taking hastier action by the minister, I think it's an achievement to have saved and maintained an industry - whatever its birth pangs - in a province where we're always talking about diversifying our economic base. Too often it is only talk.

At least we have this plant, and I think it's a step forward in diversifying our economic base in B.C. The fact that it appears capable of being maintained is some of the best news that we've had on the unemployment scene in this province for quite a while.

I would just add one final comment, Mr. Speaker. The minister did mention how important this pending bid would be prior to working out long-term arrangements. I would just urge the minister to delay not one day in trying to work out these long-term

[ Page 3336 ]

arrangements.

Oral questions.

PASSING ON OF

OLD-AGE PENSION INCREASE

MS. BROWN: On June 14 1 addressed a question to the hon. Minister of Human Resources. At that time I pointed out to him that the federal government had announced that it would be increasing the old-age pension as of July 1. 1 asked the Minister of Human Resources whether the government of British Columbia had any intentions of seeing that people in this province between the ages of 60 and 64 who were in receipt of the pension would be benefiting from this increase. Would the government be passing it on? The minister took my question as notice.

In the meantime, July I has come and gone. I wonder whether the minister now has made a decision about this matter.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, it's a matter of policy.

MS. BROWN: Is the Minister of Human Resources saying that the government is not going to pass on $3.59 a month to senior citizens in this province? Is he saying that they're not going to pass on $2.25 if they're married, or $5.82 if they're the spouse of someone in receipt of pension? I know they're cheap, but are they that cheap, Mr. Minister?

MR. SPEAKER: May I just comment briefly, hon. member, that I was listening closely for the supplemental question and I didn't hear it. I heard a statement.

MS. BROWN: My question to the minister was: is the government so cheap that it is not going to pass on $3.50 a month to people between the ages of 60 and 64 in this province who are forced to live on Mincome, $2.25 if they're a couple, $5.82 if they are the spouse of someone in receipt of Mincome? That was my question. Is the government so cheap?

USE OF 2, 4-D IN OKANAGAN LAKE

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. When the Minister of Health was away, the Premier made some suggestions on his behalf. When the Minister of Health returned, he suggested that he would be placing before the House some information which we haven't seen to date. So I ask the minister: did the minister receive a request from the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) to investigate the statements by Dr. Clarke, the public health official responsible for the Okanagan Lake area, with respect to 2, 4-D spraying, and did the minister subsequently order, directly or by implication, that Dr. Clarke cease or restrict his public comments on the matter?

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Obviously the member from New Westminster wasn't in the House, or else he wasn't listening, as usual. But the Premier promised, while I was away - and I took it from Hansard - that he would discuss the matter with me that was raised by that member, which he did. Subsequently, on my return from Ottawa, at the first opportunity I had in this House I made a full and complete statement to the House. . .

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: ... a prepared statement, Mr. Premier, which was responded to by members on the opposite side - the member for Revelstoke- Slocan (Mr. King) , I believe ...

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, he's not on the question.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: ... and the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) .

Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question, but I'll answer it again. The answer is: absolutely no. There was never any instruction to any health officer in this province not to attend public meetings or to be silent on any issue.

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped I wouldn't really need to say this, but I can tell you that the members of the Health Officers' Council of British Columbia have voted to censure that member on their behalf and have also, in a majority vote at their last meeting, agreed that the controlled programme of the use of that material in Okanagan Lake should go ahead as recommended by a very expert committee to this province, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Health has very poor hearing.

Really what we're asking, Mr. Speaker, is: did the Minister of Health receive instructions - because he obviously receives instructions from a number of members in that cabinet - from the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) , and did he pass them on? We would like to see them tabled in the House. That's what we're really asking for. He says he's vindicating certain people and not others; we wanted to see the information on the floor.

HON. MR. McGEER: Read the Blues.

[ Page 3337 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I shouldn't be apologizing for another member, but if he would do his job in this House, really all he needs to do is to read Hansard. It's in there.

MR. COCKE: Did you table anything in Hansard?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's in Hansard.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I think if I wanted a direct answer to any question asked of the Minister of Health I'd ask the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , who seems to be directing the area.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, why don't you?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll try again. All I want is: did the minister have instructions from the Minister of the Environment to silence Dr. Clarke?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, there were no instructions given to anyone to silence anyone. I would advise that member to read Hansard because there was a full statement made in this House on that matter. If that member doesn't attend the sittings of this House that are important, it's not my fault.

B.C. GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATION

AT DESTINY CANADA CONFERENCE

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) asked me questions concerning the Destiny Canada conference. I promised to bring some information to the House today and to report further on the Destiny Canada conference. I want to say, first of all, that I will table both the invitation and press release from Destiny Canada and the computer printout as to who attended the conference.

But I'd like to make this point - the conference was not sponsored by government. The number of government representatives was deliberately kept to a minimum. I just want to quote from the letter in which they call the conference "a town meeting." It says:

"As you are probably aware, all First Ministers and leaders of the opposition parties in Parliament and provincial legislatures have been invited to the conference. I thought, however, that it would be helpful if, in addition, a senior civil servant could also attend."

But they go on to say in the press release that it was a national town hall meeting and not designed for government.

I would also point out, Mr. Speaker, that of the First Ministers, no other First Minister attended, other than Premier Davis, in whose home province this conference was held. Also, the only legislatures sitting at this time are Ontario, Quebec and B.C. As such, the representation for this province was, in view of, the fact that we were in session, very good indeed, with three members of the Legislature feeling that it was more important to attend the conference in the east than to be in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would also say that Mr. Smith attended as the senior civil servant from British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order by the hon. member for Prince Rupert. Order, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: He arrived at York University on Sunday evening, June 26 and....

MS. BROWN: You're afraid of the question he's asking.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. Premier! I've recognized the hon. member for Prince Rupert, who says he has a point of order.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): On a point of order, I think, Mr. Speaker, that everyone in the House is capable of reading and these can be filed. I don't think the Premier took any part of this as notice yesterday and I'd like to know what question he's answering.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you sure about that?

MR. LEA: I said I don't think he did.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, like the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , the member for Prince Rupert obviously doesn't listen or read the Blues. I did, and the part I took as notice concerned Mr. Smith. He attended as a senior civil servant from British Columbia. He arrived at York University on Sunday evening, June 26, and stayed continuously. throughout until after the business sessions on Tuesday, June 28. He left on the Wednesday to attend a conference in Ottawa - not an Attorneys-General conference but a conference to do with a major issue of national unity in a negotiation with the government of the United States.

I'm assured, Mr. Speaker, from his report that he fulfilled his obligation to this province. He said that at the conference he had conversations with the Conservative Party leader, Mr. Wallace. He met Mr. Macdonald but he never did bump into the Liberal leader, Mr. Gibson, at the conference.

[ Page 3338 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: However, Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table documents relating to the conference.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave should be granted after question period, hon. Premier.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the hon. Premier replied to a question which was addressed to him by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano, and now I think it would be fair to allow the hon. member to proceed.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was on my feet on a supplemental to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and you told me that you would recognize the Premier and get back to me on that supplemental. The Premier was speaking out of order, but I took my place anyway.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, perhaps in view of the length of the reply to the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano's first question, which was addressed to the Premier yesterday, we could extend the question period for a few minutes to make up for that. But I would, hon. member, recognize the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , followed by yourself, unless the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano wishes to yield.

MR. GIBSON: I'll yield.

MR. LEA: A supplemental to the Minister of Health: will the Minister of Health table in the House correspondence from the Minister of the Environment to him surrounding the Okanagan Lake spraying programme and Dr. Clarke that he promised, and will he also table in the House any reply made to the Minister of the Environment?

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't you have it?

MR. LEA: I can table it, if you want. We would like to get it. I would like to have the reply tabled from the minister to either Dr. Clarke or to the Minister of the Environment. Will the minister table those documents?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, those documents have all shown up in the press. I would suggest that the member for Prince Rupert table it as he does everything else he gets.

MR. LEA: A supplemental.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Am I to understand, then, that the minister will not table those documents?

AN HON. MEMBER: You table it.

MR. LEA: Will the minister not table those documents?

AN HON. MEMBER: You table them.

MR. LEA: The minister will not table those documents? What did the documents contain?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: What did they contain?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please take. . . ?

MR. LEA: In other words, you're condemned by your silence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I was just going to say that since Mr. Smith and I missed each other at the conference maybe the Premier could arrange a meeting back here in Victoria.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

ON PUBLIC SERVICE STATISTICS

I have a question for the Minister of Finance. For many years in the annual report of the Public Service Commission the Legislature has been provided with the number of persons working for the government of British Columbia. That practice was stopped with the publication of the 1976 report. On making inquiries, I have been informed in writing by an official in the Ministry of Finance that in order to get such an elementary piece of information as the number of employees of the province as of December 31 in any given year I must ask a question of the minister in the House. I want to ask the minister what possible reason there is for senior public servants denying that kind of information, as a matter of routine, to members of the Legislature.

MR. BARRETT: Because they're Social Credit.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, normally the member gives me notice of his questions, which makes it much easier to develop the

[ Page 3339 ]

information he requests. Relative to the information he is asking for, if he would direct his request to the proper authority it would be much more readily obtained, In any event, I can't see any objection that any member of this House would have to raising a request for information either in the House in question period or on the order paper in the normal way.

MR. GIBSON: As far as giving notice, I'm surprised his own ministry wouldn't have given him notice. The question was asked of them back on April 25, and on April 29 1 had a reply from the director of operations, Mr. Churchill: "I regret that I am not at liberty to release this information, as the question should more properly be addressed to the minister on the floor of the Legislature."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: Is it a policy of the minister's ministry that we are not to know the number of people employed by the government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Ask in the House. Come to work!

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate the member asking a question. If he does desire information on the number of persons in the public service I will be happy to obtain the information for him.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, are you no longer going to publish that as routine information? Why was it stopped? It's government secrecy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Why?

MR * SPEAKER: One moment, please. I believe the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano had the floor, and it was his supplemental question that was asked.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I believe the information the member is interested in would normally have been produced in the annual report of the Public Service Commission. I believe that there is some shift in the responsibilities of the Public Service Commission and those of the Government Employee Relations Bureau with regard to the developing of the information you are requesting. So in the interim I would suggest that if you would place the question on the order paper I would be happy to get the information for you or take the question on notice. It's as simple as that. The information will be published.

MR. GIBSON: Why won't he just tell us on the telephone?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: We have extended the question period, hon. member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table documents.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order for the clarification of the House, most of us would like to see an opportunity in question period. I would like to request on what authority the Speaker can extend the question period without the permission of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, replying t~ the question by the Premier, in my opinion, the extension of the question period would be by leave of the members of the House. I'm sorry, in listening to the questions and the replies to the questions, I omitted to notify the House that the time had expired and that we were running overtime.

The thing is that I did extend the question period and I would hope that the hon. members would agree to that.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the question is raised about oral questions or written questions. I would like to point out that the oral question raised by the member has been on the order paper since February, directed to the minister. The exact question asked by that member has been on the order paper since February and has not been answered.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm files an answer to a question. (See appendix.)

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC WORKS

(continued)

On vote 146: minister's office, $158,130 -continued.

MR. BARNES: Yesterday afternoon we were attempting to get the impressions of the minister on the formulation of the B.C. Buildings Corporation

[ Page 3340 ]

and its effect on the present Public Works staff. Many of them will find themselves being relocated, having to resign, or being transferred to the new B.C. Buildings Corporation. I know this subject has been canvassed for some time - certainly a month or so ago. There have been demonstrations; there have been public meetings. The minister has made a number of statements about the future of these workers.

I realize that it's perhaps not much of a major news item to the press or to the media because everyone pretty much knows the story out on the hustings. But I think there has been a bit of sleight of hand on the part of this minister in not clarifying exactly what's going to happen to each and every one of those public servants involved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I think it was drawn to the attention of the member by the Chair, perhaps on four occasions yesterday, that this subject material is out of order under this vote. I would remind this member for the last time: this subject material is out of order.

MR. BARNES: On what basis, Mr. Chairman, is the subject out of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It involves legislation which is before the House under Bill 66 in section 5. 1 thought the member understood that yesterday.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I've checked the bill, with all due respect, and I fail to see how any part of that amendment bill disallows debate on the B.C. Buildings Corporation. I would like your instructions, specifically, as to how this debate is out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Matters to be discussed in Committee of Supply must not involve legislation or the need for legislation. The material which the member is discussing is clearly a matter covered by Bill 66 which provides for the transfer of employees from one corporation to the other. The matter is out of order under this vote.

MR. BARNES: I don't want to debate that particular point with you, Mr. Chairman, but I would submit that I don't see the connection with transferring of employees in that particular section. I think it deals with the removal of the expropriation clause, and has to do with the board members. I don't see any connection there with the transfer of employees.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the member to read the section again.

MR. BARNES: There are many other aspects to the B.C. Buildings Corporation which I think the minister should clarify. This has to do with the questions that were raised by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) yesterday; the possibility of a mishandling of contracts; the question of public tender; the whole matter of accountability on behalf of the new corporation. I raised the question yesterday of how the members of the Legislature would have an opportunity to scrutinize the activities and decisions that were being made on a regular basis. The minister suggested that the best way for me to achieve that....

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You seem to be smiling. I think it indicates that you feel that I'm in order. I'm sure that one way or the other we'll get the minister to stand before this House and explain all of the questions and concerns that we have.

I would like the minister to give the House some clear indication as to how he intends to be above board in dealing with public tenders if there is going to be no opportunity for the opposition to scrutinize those decisions. I know of no mechanics built into the B.C. Buildings Corporation Act; there certainly has been no precedent set, because it is a new corporation. If we judge from the existing practices with present corporations such as B.C. Hydro or any other corporation, for that matter, there's just no way that the members of the Legislature, as far as the opposition is concerned, can be assured of having an opportunity to scrutinize decisions that are being made. It seems to me that this would be one of the first priorities of this "open government" that says it wants to have good stewardship and to ensure that the public's business is above board. It's an open concept.

I can see no justification for the minister suggesting to me yesterday that the best way for me to be assured of having this opportunity would be to win the next election and form the government. Mr. Chairman, it seemed to me that he was suggesting that the B.C. Buildings Corporation is a political institution to be scrutinized only by those who are members of the government. I don't think that is something that should sit too well with the House. I'd like to know if the minister really means that the government members are the ones who make the policy, the ones who operate in camera and make decisions dealing with public tenders and providing job opportunities on a selective basis without any scrutiny on behalf of the opposition members except when annual reports come out, or any other partial reports that may be presented from time to time. It doesn't seem to me to be an acceptable or a credible way for the B.C. Buildings Corporation to embark upon its new programme.

Yesterday I suggested to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that he should be dubbed "the Baron of Pork, " indicating that the BCBC is a porkbarrel. I

[ Page 3341 ]

don't know if he thought that was humorous or what, but I think that if he doesn't like that idea perhaps he would like to consider the B.C. Buildings Corporation being called a new Social Credit employment agency. The hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is looking at me with a rather sardonic look. I don't know if he's being humorous or what, but he knows as well as I know, as a lawyer and a man knowing something about technicalities, that there's no reason why this shouldn't happen. It doesn't mean that the B.C. Buildings Corporation was set up for that purpose.

We all know that the hon. members in this House came with good intentions and with no ulterior motives, but even in the editorials, just from the way things appear, for the lack of certain protective legislative clauses within the statutes people have been suggesting that anything could happen with the B.C. Buildings Corporation should the wrong people assume power or authority.

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) was not being facetious yesterday when he suggested that the legislation should include a specific mechanism whereby public tender was required. It's not that it's the practice, and has been the practice, or as the minister said yesterday, it has been practised ever since this government has been in office but was not practised when the previous government was in office. What he was really saying was: depending upon the political persuasion at the time the BCBC, or any other corporation, may or may not do something.

It's no different from the question I raised yesterday concerning the authority within the legislation by which ministries are required to deal with the B.C. Buildings Corporation in the first place. The minister says: "Well, that is not likely to happen. I doubt if it could happen because the Treasury Board would ensure that ministries at all times dealt with the B.C. Buildings Corporation."

Well, these are the glaring faults within the piece of legislation that the minister claims to be brand new, to be different from anything else in the province of British Columbia, to be forward-thinking and an improvement, to be a more efficient kind of accounting system whereby we'll have a much more effective cost-accounting method of figuring out and planning the future needs of the public in respect to accommodation and so forth.

But the B.C. Buildings Corporation, being new, should also be protected from any misuse - at least initially. It should be overprotected, if anything. It appears as though we not only have an open mandate of $200 million that the Building Corporation will be permitted to spend on credit, but also there will be no opportunity for the opposition to scrutinize the contracts that are arranged and the kinds of sweetheart deals that may happen. Let's face it. If the minister, through order-in-council, can change a low bid through a system that was set up through the Purchasing Commission, because of reasons valid or invalid, and if it can be done through order-in-council, this means other decisions can be made through order-in-council.

Now the Premier is looking very curiously when I suggest that through an order-in-council the government did change a low-bid competition. In other words, perhaps for a valid reason, a bid was achieved - a person made a bid for a piece of space -and it was rejected and, through order-in-council, they gave it to the second lowest bidder. All I'm suggesting is that it's possible through interference. That may have been a good reason, but what happens if it's not a good reason? It means that the corporation can be manipulated for political purposes.

I feel that the $200 million is just a beginning. The minister suggested yesterday that $200 million should be enough for this year anyway. That was in answer to this question: "Is that $200 million to be a ceiling that the corporation must operate under for the next 10 years or so?" He said: "Well, it's good enough for this year."

I think that was a question that should be elaborated on a little bit. If you consider the example of B.C. Hydro and how it started out, then there is cause for alarm. On the surface, we have a seemingly good idea when really all we're doing is operating on a credit system - a system which conceivably seems to get itself in deeper. It's not really compatible with the government's proposition that it will pay as it goes. It's certainly not compatible with the ideas of not over-expending the budget and trying to balance the budget.

What it is is a bit of sleight of hand. Every time a Crown corporation is created and given the capacity to borrow money that will be shown on its books but not on the books of the government as part of its revenue or intake, then it's a deficit situation. It's a situation where it would appear as though the government is saving money when it transfers most of its staff to the B.C. Buildings Corporation and when it transfers most of its expenses for maintenance crews to the public sector through contracts that will be let by the B.C. Buildings Corporation.

What you are doing, in effect, is removing the burden from the public to the private sector and paying it on credit, when in fact you are not any better off. The B.C. Buildings Corporation could conceivably have as great a debt as B.C. Hydro, which is something near $4 billion today. Just this year you gave them another $650 million in addition to the $3.5 billion they already have.

Now the public may not be too well versed in thinking in those denominations, but what B.C. Hydro alone owes is more than the budget for the

[ Page 3342 ]

province of British Columbia. That's more than the budget, Mr. Premier, that you set up and that you said you were going to balance this year for all the spending in the province of British Columbia.

So I think it is substantially more impressive when people break down what you can do with that much money. The B.C. Buildings Corporation is expending on credit twice the amount of money that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) claims he's saving off the backs of the poor people in the Ministry of Human Resources by cutting back services such as the Vancouver Resources Board, et cetera. Again, it's what they claim we over-expended under our Minister of Human Resources, expenditures which were for people.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What people?

MR. BARNES: It was for the opposite people that you intend to.... It was for the masses, not for the elite few. You'll have an opportunity to answer to that, I'm sure, after the B.C. Buildings Corporation has been in operation for a year or so, We'll take a look at what happened to the money; we'll take a look at who got the contracts; we'll take a look at what happened to those employees that I'm not supposed to talk about now. We'll find out how many of them in fact had to resign and how many of them in fact could not afford to pay their mortgages after a period of time.

You may rule me out of order when I try to discuss this very real human problem in terms of the responsibilities of this government, but I'm sure that time will tell, Mr. Chairman, whether this move was done with compassion and humanity or whether it was done boldly and viciously on the basis of fiscal considerations. You know as well as I know that you'll have to come back to the people. When you come back you'll have ample time to explain. Even if we have to wait to analyse the annual reports, I'm sure that you'll not be able to convince all of those people who were working that they are going to help you cook the books and try to hide the facts, because there's no way that you're going to have all that money over there without any pressure from the people who supported you in the last election and who want to get some of the action. You know it and I know it.

What we're saying is that we want to protect you from yourselves. We want to enshrine in this legislation means whereby these things can't happen; we want to protect you and to protect that fine minister over there who was a Conservative at one time. He, was born right here in the city of Victoria and I'm sure he is an honourable man. He is a lifetime citizen of his home riding in Quesnel, where he has been well known and well thought of. I certainly find him to be forthright and honest and I'd hate to see him caught in the middle of a soup barrel or porkbarrel, or whatever you want to call it, because of ambition or because of people putting pressure on him, which I'm sure is going to help him with this B.C. Buildings Corporation. He certainly must know it and he certainly must have fears.

I hope that he is quietly hoping that I will succeed in putting enough pressure on this government that forced him to get on the hot seat, I do not believe that this man is the architect of this legislation. I do not believe that he himself wants to do anything but what's right. He is not an ambitious man. He is an honest, hard-working man and I think his record proves that.

But I'll tell you, this B.C. Buildings Corporation as it is presently constituted is a wide-open invitation to manipulation, to wrongdoing and to payoffs. It can be done above board. It can be done out in the open and you still can't do anything about it because legally you're not violating any regulations because you've put no regulations in that are going to close the door on you.

It's fine to say: "Sure, we're going to have public tenders, but then on the other hand we may decide it isn't appropriate to have public tenders at any point in time." We say that the ministries are required to co-operate with the B.C. Buildings Corporation in dealing for their public space. But on the other hand, if they did decide to go elsewhere for their space, what would we do? Well, I guess we would boycott them at the Treasury Board; we wouldn't pay. But that would be a political move. It would not be something that you would be required to do by statute; it would be straight politics.

What I'm saying is: let's take this thing out of the realm of politics, Mr. Chairman. Let's make the B.C. Buildings Corporation accountable to this Legislature directly. Let's make it accountable to the Legislature the same as we did through the New Democratic Party by putting an opposition member as chairman of the public accounts committee. Let's indicate that we are sincere. Let's make sure that the opposition are the first ones to find out what's going on with the B.C. Buildings Corporation, not the last ones annually by reading some trumped-up annual report.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What report?

MR. BARNES: A trumped-up annual report, and you know what I'm talking about!

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I don't. Is that what you instigated?

MR. BARNES: You can leave everything out. You can do a selective reporting job, and that's what I mean - selective. You only have to do an overview, Mr. Premier,

[ Page 3343 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: We remember them when you were government.

MR. BARNES: We're talking about specifies. That's all right. When we're the government, which we will be pretty soon, don't think we'll have any fear about being open. We always have been open. In fact, it was because of our honesty that you were able to deceive people.

We have faith in honesty, just as that minister does over there. He got quite irate yesterday when someone insinuated that perhaps there were some dishonest people - especially in his ministry and his Buildings Corporation. He indicated to, I believe, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) - I'm not sure now - but he said: "Look, my friend, I want to tell you that there are still some honest people left." And I'm sure that he was including himself. I don't want to suggest that he's not, but I think those of us who believe in and have the same integrity that he has must fight to ensure that we protect ourselves and the democratic system that we all believe in so much from those people who are not so well inspired or so motivated. At this stage, we can't name names because of there being infractions.

This is a brand new corporation, one that is starting out with the support of certainly everyone on this side of the House. As I've said before, we indicated an interest in trying to streamline the Public Works department, trying to recognize that there could be -some value in re-arranging the method of requisitioning space for the ministries in order to put more pressure on those ministries to be responsible for the space that they were asking the Public Works department to pay for. All of these things were fine.

But we didn't have in mind that we would wipe out the public service and all of the staff. We didn't say that we would replace their architects with some new ones, some private friends, and get rid of the whole maintenance crew and bring in a private firm What we have now is a minister who believes that the private sector can do a better job than the public. He may be right, but he didn't come forward with any documents. We have yet to see the Peat Marwick report that he claims he has. I haven't seen it. I haven't had the courtesy of this minister, for me as the critic of this particular department, saying: "Well we think you should have this because we want to have an open government. We want you to know what's going on. You may have some critical comments to make." I haven't seen it yet, In fact, the member asked yesterday about it and he said: "Well, sorry, we can't make that available to you." I must say that the minister was honest, because he didn't beat around the bush. He said: "I'm sorry, we can't make it available, " or words to that effect.

So obviously there is no intention on behalf of this ministry to co-operate with the opposition. Not really. They would like the opposition to believe that they are going to co-operate. They'd like to give the impression that they're going to be open, but I don't think it's possible under the present system.

Those two amendments on the order paper are a move in the right direction, but they are not enough. There should be a lot more amendments than the ones that are on the order paper. I would like to think that this minister in his own conscience, in his own boldness after all these years of being in public service, being the mayor of Quesnel, being voted the lifetime citizen, given the key to the castle, so to speak, and who is well thought of in all walks of life. . . . No one ever says an unkind word about the smiling member for Cariboo. No one. And I certainly don't intend to say anything abusive to him.

I'm sure that he agrees with my efforts, feeble though they may be, Mr. Chairman, under the circumstances, with that overwhelming majority sitting over there and that smiling, strong upstart of a Premier who is out there to prove that he can do his old man in on the shortest of notice. Look how fast he won the leadership when he came in here, and look what happened to all those guys who are sitting behind him over there. Zip. . . . Zap.... Zing. . . . that was it. He was the head man. He moved in real fast, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now to vote 146.

MR. BARNES: I remember watching him come in here after his father retired, and in the short space of two or three hours he was right in there and had organized everything,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: The only one that came close was the hon. Minister of Health. Incredible. Well, he got a third of his votes, anyway.

So this man has many credentials that should be respected. He is a man of extreme conscience, and I don't think for one moment that he is not concerned about the same things that I'm concerned about. This is what I'm appealing to. I'm appealing to him as a man, as an individual who is not going to sell himself down the drain because of some ambitious cabinet ministers who have wheeled and dealed and set him up.

He is sitting on a powder keg. I call it a porkbarrel, but you could call it the Social Credit employment agency or whatever. He's sitting on top of it because he gives it credibility. You put a person like that out front and it's credible. That's sort of like South Africa coming over here and sponsoring a basketball game. All the nice people go out to basketball games and that endorses their programme. People are going to have to start watching it. I know this minister is

[ Page 3344 ]

watching it.

I'm hoping that when I sit down he'll slip me some notes and give me some ideas of what else I can say to protect him from his colleagues who are gnawing in the back like piranhas and are going to eat him up. Don't worry, Mr. Minister. As long as I can get just the slightest bit of information, although it may be somewhat distorted, I'll try and interpret it the best way I can on behalf of yourself and the people of British Columbia. And that will take some doing.

Now we've not had much success with the press as far as the B.C. Buildings Corporation is concerned, I must say, but I think that is just because the public probably assumes that this is a fait accompli and there is nothing else we can do. "We'll just have to wait and see." But I suggest that there is a lot that we can do before that time comes.

I just had a note, Mr. Chairman, from my colleague from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) , but I think you sent it because you're suggesting that I take a trip to Saanich. Well, as the people in the galleries will appreciate, I'm sure, we have to maintain our humour when we're called back in the middle of the summer. It gets pretty rough to do the people's business, of course, and we're all enthusiastically going about that to the best of our ability. Mr. Premier, I hope that you will be letting us know when you're ready for interim supply. We'll certainly be glad to provide it for you at the end of this month.

Well Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should sit down right now and permit the minister to answer a couple of questions, if he could be as succinct as possible and deal with the specifics that I have raised, which are many, I'm sure, and assure this House that there is absolutely nothing in the world to worry about and that we will all have an opportunity to scrutinize the B.C. Buildings Corporation, especially on the question of dealing in contracts with that vast number of entrepreneurs out there who like to think that they're in a free-enterprise, fair, competitive system. We will be more than pleased to let you slip on to some other aspects of your vast responsibilities of which, as you know, there are many.

MR. WALLACE: I just want to ask one or two questions about the B.C. Buildings Corporation and then go on to a few Highways questions, if that's any help for the minister to know ahead of time.

I just want to add my support for the need to have open tendering. I've researched the B.C. Hydro bill and apparently it considers it important enough that all tenders should be put out to open bid, although I notice also, Mr. Chairman, that there is another very important piece of legislation pending in this House which again does not provide for compulsory tendering.

I think this government, regardless of election commitment or otherwise, is really running itself into a dangerous area by not following good business procedures. These business procedures upon which this party sought election and support from the people of British Columbia incorporate, surely, the very well-established and well-recognized safety mechanism of having bidding on all contracts, even though you can reserve the right not to accept the lowest bid. So I would hope the government reconsiders that.

I also would just quickly like to state that I believe that however you use the words or the terminology of the B.C. Buildings Corporation, it is a mechanism for deficit financing. The money that is being borrowed is simply being taken out of a Crown corporation rather than out of the operating budget of Public Works, as has previously happened. While it is a different technique and accountants may use different terminology, I happen to believe that this is a method of deficit financing. I have never opposed deficit financing. I've said all along that modem economists tell us that this has a great deal of merit in maintaining employment and, to some degree, controlling unemployment. Surely nothing is more important than that these days. So I'm glad that the Social Credit Party has at last been dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century as far as financing is concerned.

On the subject of financing, Mr. Chairman, I would wonder if the minister could clarify a statement which he made yesterday and which appears in the Blues under the following statement:

HON. MR. FRASER: Regarding the borrowing for the first year, we just tabled the first annual report of the B.C. Buildings Corporation. I believe it shows that we had borrowed $14 million to March 31,1977.

Now I wonder if the minister has had a chance to research that. I've researched it and I find four orders-in-council adding up to $103 million. So that we get the record straight, perhaps I should just define them. October 28,1976: sale of bonds - series BCA, 9.90 per cent, B.C. Buildings Corporation; February 10,1977: $25 million by issue and sale of notes of the corporation, B.C. Buildings Corporation; March 31,1977: B.C. Buildings Corporation, $50 million by issue and sale of debentures - series A, 9.50 per cent; and March 24,1977: $16 million by issue and sale of bonds - series BCD, 9.67 per cent.

I've never claimed to be any kind of financial expert, but I can read. The language in these orders-in-council between October 28 last year and March 31 this year adds up in my lingo and my arithmetic to $103 million, which is far removed from the $14 million which the minister stated yesterday. There may be a simple explanation for that, but I think we would like to know just how much B.C. Buildings Corporation has already borrowed up to the end of March, 1977.

These are the questions on B.C. Buildings

[ Page 3345 ]

Corporation, Mr. Chairman, but I have one or two questions on Highways. I've been informed that the officer in the ministry who had the very important role of approving applications for highway access has been promoted, I'm told that he did such a conscientious job in his position that he was often referred to as the "disapproving officer" rather than the "approving officer" because he took a very diligent and conscientious approach to his job of screening applications for highway access. I'd like the minister to tell the committee if this approving officer has been replaced by another employee, and if not, who is actually making decisions on approval or disapproval of subdivision developments and highway access. I'm told that the former officer performed a great service to B.C. over many years in preserving the very important integrity of the policy of controlled access to highways. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that that officer played a very substantial role despite attack from developers ...

Mg. LEA: And the minister, when he was in opposition.

MR. WALLACE: and that he played a significant role in reducing urban sprawl and preventing ribbon development along our highways. I wonder if the minister could tell us what new position that approving officer was promoted to, and if there is someone replacing that gentleman. Thirdly, perhaps the minister could tell us briefly what his ministry's policy is with regard to development on controlled-access highways.

I also wish to ask the minister for clarification of figures which he tabled in the House on March 16,1977. These figures showed that in October, 1976, there were 6,329 employees in the Ministry of Highways, and as of January, 1977, there were 6,190 employees. These were figures tabled in the House on March 16,1977. The minister previously, and in introducing his estimates, said that there was an expanded programme underway and it had been able to continue through the winter months to some degree because of the mild weather. I'm just wondering how you can have an expanded highway programme with fewer employees. Maybe again there's a simple explanation that the figures need to be interpreted in some way, but on the face of it we appear to be tackling more work on the highways with fewer employees, which is a contradiction, of course.

The next question relates to the $40 million in additional capital expenditure which the minister mentioned the day -after the Premier had given confusing figures as to how much new capital expenditure would be added to the budget of the Ministry of Highways. It was later stated that the extra $40 million would be spent in the fiscal year

1976-77, for which the estimate was $109 million. Could the minister tell the committee how much of that additional $40 million was spent by March 31 this year? The original extra capital that was to be injected into highway construction was stated by the Premier to be $120 million. As 1 have mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the initial announcement stated that $40 million would be spent in the fiscal year 1976-77 and the remainder would be spent in the succeeding two years, 1977-78 and 1978-79. In order for the opposition to try and determine how many real new jobs are being created, 1 wonder if the minister can tell us at this time how much of the residual $80 million out of $120 million will be actually spent this fiscal year, by the end of March, 1978.

Since we are all very concerned about jobs and unemployment, can the minister give us a figure as to how many really new temporary jobs he anticipates creating this summer? "For as long as the weather allows, " I think was the phrase he used when he said that there would be these extra jobs and new employment throughout the summer. 1 know the minister mentioned 1,000 students in introducing his estimates yesterday, but I wonder how many other additional employees over and above the 1,000 students are likely to be involved. Perhaps the minister could break it down into the peak figure and the lowest number that he hopes will be employed once the winter weather returns.

I also want to compliment the minister for persuading cabinet to proceed with the Blanshard Street extension. The issue of the Blanshard Street extension in the greater Victoria area was a source of some humour at this time last year. Whether it was the humour that worked the trick or the Minister of Health's (Hon. Mr. McClelland's) decision to build a hospital on Helmcken Road is, 1 think, open to debate. But 1 really don't mind which it was. The traffic flow in and out of Victoria justifies extension of the Blanshard Street extension.

Indeed_ some poor decisions were made years ago that should never have led us into the difficulties which we're now in. I don't propose to drag that all up again, but on the subject of the Blanshard Street project, several questions come to mind. 1 wonder if the minister knows at this time the total cost of properties which have been purchased to date, and whether, in fact, all those that are required to be purchased have been purchased. I'm very interested to know whether there are outstanding purchases which may end up in expropriation. Perhaps the minister has clear answers to that at the moment. If he has these answers, I presume he can also tell us the projected total cost of the Blanshard Street extension project within an approximate estimate.

A further question on the Blanshard project is: when can the residents of the greater Victoria area reasonably expect that it will be completed, based on

[ Page 3346 ]

the progress so far?

Finally, I think this is a point that ties in with the extension of the Trans~Canada Highway as well in the greater Victoria area. That is, to what degree do the minister's officials consult with interested groups prior to embarking on construction projects? For example, the residents of the Batten-Fielding complex on Vernon Avenue are handicapped with various physical disabilities. Again, I have no wish to go into this in great detail, but it was obvious that the Ministry of Highways went ahead with the Blanshard Street extension with little or no consultation as to the temporary hardship which people in wheelchairs would have getting in and out of the Batten-Fielding complex. That's their home and their residence. It's tough enough to be stuck in a wheelchair because of a physical disability without suddenly finding that you've got to get it over rocks or you find that your sidewalk disappeared last night because construction started.

I again want to compliment the minister for the speedy way in which he responded, to my question about this matter. I just ask: what general policy does his ministry have in trying to look ahead and prevent these hardships being inflicted, albeit temporarily, on people like the handicapped residents of the Batten-Fielding complex? That relates also to residents alongside the Trans-Canada Highway, whose interests were raised by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) . On that issue, Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell us whether he has either entered into negotiations with, or made any tentative commitment to, the residents of Parkside Place regarding compensation for the fact that the noise and the greater proximity of the highway to their homes will undoubtedly depress the property values? My reading of the most recent press clipping was that the minister had made no commitment. I wonder if he could tell us whether he doesn't feel there should be some moral obligation by the Ministry of Highways to provide these residents with some form of compensation or perhaps to at least speak on their behalf in regard to the assessed value of their property in the future.

I want to ask a very specific question about the new health services building at the corner of Blanshard and Pandora. There is a publication which appears, entitled Contacts, "An Update of News for Provincial Employees." It's published by the Public Service Commission of British Columbia. In the January issue, it mentions that the health services building will have an exercise room which is carpeted and has a sound system and fitness personnel to help design individual programmes. I would just like to ask if this is to be just a single project of that nature in that particular building, or will many government buildings be providing this level of facilities and personnel to help people indulge in physical fitness programmes? I'm all in favour of that, but I'm really questioning the kind of expenditure of funds that appear to relate to this building at Blanshard and Pandora.

Specifically, I wonder if the minister could tell us what the cost was of providing these particular facilities, which are not customary for facilities provided by an employer for their employees. I think it's quite unusual if we found employers throughout the province starting to provide carpeted exercise rooms with a sound system and personnel to help them get involved in physical fitness programmes, however worthwhile these programmes are. More specifically, Mr. Chairman, it has been stated that the cafeteria in that building costs $750,000. I'd like to ask the minister if that's an accurate figure. If it isn't, could we please have the accurate figure?

I also understand that there is a lounge on each of the floors, from the third to the seventh floor, and that these lounges are furnished with custom-made furniture. I've had great difficulty tracking down the original information I had in a document published, as a matter of fact, by the Minister of Economic Development in which it was revealed that a group of consultants within the Ministry of Public Works was set up to determine the choice of furniture for these four new buildings which are now just being completed. Well, one of them on Courtenay isn't near completion, but the other three, I believe, are. I understand that a decision was made to have custom-made furniture for these buildings.

I would like to know, first of all, if that is a correct fact. Was a group set up within Public Works to decide about furniture, and did that group decide to purchase custom-made furniture? I'm told that it was not purchased from any of the main wholesalers across Canada; it was specially made on a custom basis. If that is the case, might I ask the minister what is the total cost to date of any custom-made furniture bought specifically for use in these three new buildings, particularly the health services building?

I just want to move very quickly, Mr. Chairman, to the question of the ferries, and only to repeat the question I asked last year. Does the minister have any idea on changing the policy of having certain ferries operating without charge to the consumer, and are there any discussions going on within cabinet as to an overall integration of ferry services in the province? We've now got three ferry services and three different ministers managing these services.

The best specific example which points up the lack of integration is the one that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is very interested in, the ferry on Francois Lake, which I believe was built at a cost of $4 million and had a projected operating cost of $600,000. The Minister of Energy and Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis) has previously mentioned in this House that waters such as Francois Lake - and I

[ Page 3347 ]

think there's some justification for this point of view - represent the highway in that part of the country.

I'd just like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the same applies to Georgia Strait for everybody who lives on Vancouver Island. We've got a very nice plaque on the highway at the foot of Douglas Street in Victoria which proudly announces that this is Mile 0 of the Trans-Canada Highway.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Now I know, Mr. Chairman, that some politicians think they can walk on water, but most of the residents of Vancouver Island need a ferry. If we are to look upon Francois Lake, for example - and I don't mean to pick on that as being different from any other lake - as an essential highway component in the Omineca riding, I just know that there are a lot of people on Vancouver Island who think that it would only be fair and consistent if the same philosophy were introduced in regard to the Georgia Strait. I know that when I researched this matter recently, the minister stated in the Lakes District News, June 16,1976: "There are no ferry fares here, there never were, and there never will be, as far as I'm concerned."

I wonder if the minister would care to tell us if there's any change in that attitude. If not, are there any discussions going on with the Minister of Energy and Transport in an attempt to bring some kind of consistency into the overall ferry services of the province?

I was also very appreciative of the minister providing the branch reports and statistical data yesterday, It helps the opposition to have a better understanding of many of the facts and figures in his ministry. I'm just repeating the question about integration of services. Does the minister not consider it unusual that the Ministry of Highways is responsible for ferry terminal construction, even in places like Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen, which are ferry terminals used by and under the operating jurisdiction of the B.C. Ferry Corporation? So here we have what appears to be a fragmenting - or at least, not so much a fragmenting as a division - of responsibilities between two ministries. Surely one or the other would do a better job as an overall supervisor of these responsibilities.

I would quickly like to ask the minister to enlarge on his comment about maintenance. Yesterday he said that the amount of maintenance will be less than the $129 million which was budgeted and that he was concerned about productivity in regard to maintenance of our highways. I'd like to know what the minister means and what changes he has in mind to enhance productivity. In the report, which I already mentioned was given to the members yesterday, he devotes just a very few lines to maintenance, despite the fact that $129 million is involved.

The report on traffic accident data is, I think, invaluable. Again, I'd commend the minister for spelling it out in clear terms and providing figures and percentages in regard to fatalities on provincial highways, I think it's particularly interesting to quote just very quickly, Mr. Chairman, from page 43, that 43 per cent of fatal accidents took place on relatively straight sections of roadway and at least 57 per cent of the 384 fatal accidents took place in clear weather when road conditions were normal.

Another interesting fact that I think deserves the widest publicity is that in 54 per cent of the fatal accidents, alcohol has been consumed by one or more of the parties involved. In 39 per cent of fatal accidents, at least one participant had a blood alcohol level exceeding .08. So the Attorney-General is quite right in embarking on a programme to try and deal with people who drink and drive.

Another interesting part of the report, Mr. Chairman, points out that less than 4 per cent of fatal accidents were attributed to mechanical failure. It stated that four were due to steering failure, five to brake failure and five to defective tires. I wonder if I could ask the minister whether he feels, in the light of these facts and figures, that all the money that we put into vehicle-testing stations and all the inconvenience that's often involved in people having to take time off from work to take their car to a testing station, . . . I don't know if I'm speaking for the province, but in Victoria you can't go on a Saturday. So they're only open Monday to Friday and at some inconvenience. I would like the minister to tell us, if he could, what is the cost of operating vehicle-testing stations throughout the province and since less than 4 per cent of fatal accidents can be attributed to mechanical failure, is this not worthy of a cost-benefit analysis? Maybe all the money that we're putting into testing stations might well be invested in some of these other areas that are mentioned where alcohol is such a factor.

I was very interested, MR. Chairman, in the section entitled "Young People." I'd like to read it. It says: "The very high death rate among adolescents may be partly explained by the fact that they generally travel much more than other age groups, spending more time outside of the home in social or sporting activities and courtship."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm sorry to have to remind you, the three-minute light is on.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just wonder if this was a misprint. I thought it should read: "In social or sporting activities, including courtship."

Farther on, the report points out that while it's fair that parents should be concerned about their

[ Page 3348 ]

children walking to school, their concern could be well translated into better control of their older children who drive.

Now I have a few other questions, Mr. Chairman, but only one will do for now. I just wonder again, under the information on page 70 of this report, dealing with property negotiations, if the minister could tell us how many properties have been expropriated in the past year by the Ministry of Highways, and how many are presently in the process of being expropriated.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): I've got about seven pages of questions here and I'd like to get rid of some of them. I'll start from the member for Oak Bay and work back.

In answer to the last question about property expropriated in the last 12 months, I haven't got it at hand but we'll certainly get you that.

Going back on your question about vehicle-testing stations, they don't come under this ministry. They come under the Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications.

You were wanting amplifications on productivity of maintenance - $129 million. Yes, I'm quite concerned about it and have been ever since I assumed this responsibility. It's one thing to have a lot of men - and I don't think it's the men's fault, and I'm referring to machine operators - but at the present time we have a lot of equipment in the Highways department. As an example, a maintenance grader that grades gravel roads in the summertime and snowplows in the wintertime averages two hours a day. That machine is worth $80,000 and of course we also pay the operator for the full time.

Naturally I'm concerned because we continue to get complaints about the standard of maintenance. It doesn't matter what I think about it, but this is the biggest problem we have in the ministry at the present time: what can we do to upgrade the maintenance we have? We have a union contract with these people. I want to emphasize that they're doing absolutely nothing wrong at all. They're working within the union agreement and that specifically gives them portal-to-portal pay.

We have grader operators, as an example, who might be 50 miles from home when they stop work at night. They go back home and the next day drive back again to work and work until approximately the time to turn around and go back. That's why we have two hours a day coming out of an $80,000 machine. As far as I can gather from the mood of the public in the province, that isn't good enough and we have to find a way around it.

Mr. Chairman, the ministry is looking at putting some maintenance out to contract -putting it out to the private sector. Maintain what we have for the time being.... if we do make that decision to go to maintenance contracts, say, for grading, we're going to increase our costs but hopefully we'll get rid of some of the thousands of complaints We get monthly regarding maintenance, whether it be wintertime or summertime. I might emphasize that we get far more complaints in the summer months for maintenance than we do in winter. I think our people do an excellent job in the wintertime but we seem to rather relax in the summertime.

Basically, I don't want to be critical of the crews. They're doing nothing illegal whatsoever; they're working according to the contract they have.

Regarding the construction of ferry terminals, it's 'my understanding that we have an expert engineer who is on the Highways and Public Works staff and who designs and supervises the ferry terminal construction. All work done for the B.C. Ferries terminals is charged back to them as fully recoverable.

I haven't got on top of that yet, as to why. I imagine the individual doesn't want to leave the Highways portfolio. I don't know. That is my reply to that.

Regarding the Highways ferries, I'd like to say, Mr. Chairman, that because more people live on the lower mainland than do in all the rest of the province, the B.C. Ferries get all the ink and all the static. But Highways and Public Works operates far more ferries than B.C. Ferries do. I believe we operate 38 or 39 vessels throughout all British Columbia.

Your question was: why can't they be amalgamated? I don't think that B.C. Ferries want to operate any ferries in the interior. They have no administrative ability to do so.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, quite frankly, they haven't. They have no offices in places such as Marguerite and Francois Lake and so on, but the Highways and Public Works ministry has offices and covers this entire province. They're about the only ministry of government that do give service to every area of the province, whether it be in Watson Lake or Victoria.

So we have ferries all over the province and I don't think that should change. To answer your question directly, it hasn't been discussed. Again I have not been too satisfied with what I've seen in the ferry system and I'm pleased to tell the House today - I believe this has already been announced but I'll reiterate - that a study has been set up of the Highways ferry system. The chairman of the study committee is a former deputy minister, Tom Maird, and the members of the committee are Mr. Kirk B. Woodhead, of Vananda, Texada Island, and Mr. Harry Huck, a retired businessman from Whaletown, Cortes

[ Page 3349 ]

Island.

They are at work. They have a long list of guidelines - and I'll go into those later - of what we want them to look into. It is correct that we have ferries that we charge for and ferries that are free and I want to have their opinion before we make any moves. They are now having public meetings throughout the province to determine what the wishes of the people are who use these ferries and how we can improve them.

I would like to add that the cost of running the ferries is escalating very fast because of increased cost of fuel, wages and so on. I just haven't got it at hand, but I believe the Highways department are subsidizing $5 million to $7 million a year. It might be even more, and it goes up each year whether we charge fares or not. I think it's time we had a look at the whole ferry operation; it hasn't been looked at for some time.

We have the old-style reaction ferry, which is a cable overhead, as well as the modern new ferry that exists on Francois Lake and on the Queen Charlotte Islands connecting the two islands there. They are quite modern vessels and good for that area. But when you start getting into modern vessels, the costs , go up because the subsidization to run them goes up.

Regarding particulars you asked for on the health services building at Blanshard and Pandora, I'll go through that fairly fast. We will get you the cost - I haven't got those - regarding lounges, cafeteria, exercise areas and so on. Yes, they were all designed and put in there. Regarding the custom-made furniture, they were designed by staff of Public Works. No decision has been made whether we proceed on to the other public buildings with these extra facilities. It's only in that building so far, but it was designed within the staff.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the cost of the furniture?

HON. MR. FRASER: I don't know what the cost is of the furniture in there so fi, ~r, but we'll certainly get you that, Mr. Member.

Back to an issue that I feel the press and certain MLAs twist inside out. I want to stand here, Mr. Chairman, and clear the record on behalf of the Ministry of Highways regarding acquisition of rights-of-way and so on. It's a real big problem in our ministry, whether we're widening an existing road, building a new road and so on.

I want to make this point quite clear, Mr. Chairman, to the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) , who brought it up. At all times we consult in advance, and more consultation is going on now than ever. Everybody is consulted, whether it be the elected people, the property owner or whatever.

Dealing specifically with Parkland Place and Trans-Canada, that was a tempest in a teapot if 1 ever saw one. I want to say on behalf of the staff that these people out there knew what we had promised. They had been told; it was discussed with them. But politics got involved and then everything got into the front pages of your local papers. I met these people out there, with the exception of a few. There were a few things overlooked, but I think our staff had done an exceptional job over a long period of time. Regarding whether they should be considered after the highway is in place, all I can say there is to tell you what we told the delegation when they came. There is a light and view committee in the Ministry of Highways. It's been there for some time and we'll take a look at that with that committee after the highway is in place.

But I want to emphasize the fact that regarding Parkland Place practically everything prior to it hitting your local paper had been agreed to by the citizens out there with the Highways ministry. That's how things get a little bit involved. I want to emphasize the fact that 1 feel our right-of-way people are doing an excellent job in consultation beforehand, trying to settle property values and so on.

Certainly there are outstanding ones. 1 would like to report to this House that there are outstanding property settlements 15 years old in the ministry at the present time. There are some settlements that are almost impossible to achieve. We're working on those outstanding ones, but as we move along no doubt somebody five years from now will say that there are outstanding ones 10 years old at least. We go along to a point, trying to make a property settlement, and maybe we do. Then someone passes away and you have to start all over again with the estate and so on. It's a very complicated problem. 1 want to speak highly of the property negotiation section of our ministry who, I might say, are exceptionally busy at the present time.

Regarding the completion of the Blanshard Street extension, I might say that contract is awarded to the same contractor who got the contract for Trans-Canada. 1 don't know whether he has started yet, but he'll start fairly soon. It's hopeful that will be finished on or about late 1978. 1 want to emphasize that doesn't include the McKenzie connection. Along the road we will be doing that to connect the Pat Bay Highway with the Trans-Canada, but I'm emphasizing that's not what I said here. I doubt that will be done by December, 1978, but the Trans-Canada will be finished and hopefully so will Blanshard Street, barring riots and strikes and so on and so forth. We don't anticipate those.

Regarding the people, we get into the numbers game. 1 got into the numbers game with the press last year. At least they tried to get into the numbers game

[ Page 3350 ]

with the Premier, which was most unfortunate. They didn't concentrate on anything we were doing regarding the improvement of our highway network that was badly needed. They just got into the numbers game of how many were employed.

I'm very sceptical of getting into it, but I said yesterday when I spoke that there are 3,500 additional people over and above the regular Highways staff at work. Over and above that, 1,000 students were put to work yesterday. That's the situation there now.

Going back further to the $120 million that the Premier of the province announced last year, I'm happy to report that not $40 million of that $120 million was spent up to March 31,1977 - $49 million was spent. That leaves us a difference of $59 million. That will be spent in the 1977-1978 fiscal year and a small bit carried over into the 1978-1979 year. As an example of contracts we have let in different areas of the province, we just let a $7 million contract the other day on the Hart Highway. The engineers anticipate that will go right into the 1979 year before it's completed.

MR. LEA: Is that an Alberta firm?

HON. MR. FRASER: No, it isn't an Alberta firm.

MR. LEA: Is that a change of policy?

HON. MR. FRASER: It isn't a change of policy. Our policy is to award contracts to the low bidder, and they're all Canadians, I might point out, Mr. Chairman, who get our contracts.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the member for Prince Rupert wishes to enter the debate, would he kindly wait until the minister is finished?

HON. MR. FRASER: Regarding the member for Oak Bay's question on the senior approving officer, we've had a complete reorganization of the Ministry of Highways and Public Works. I think that's obvious to everyone. In the reorganization this new position is created. The senior approving officer we had for many years has been promoted and he's now the. director of engineering in the engineering branch. His assistant has been promoted to senior approving officer. His name is Mr. Don South.

But more than that, rather than have subdivision people coming from Atlin, Prince Rupert or Cranbrook down to head office for final approval, last year, by order-in-council, we appointed four regional approving officers. Those four are located at Prince George, Kamloops, Nelson and Burnaby. We have appointed the individuals who hold the positions by order-in-council and we are trying to stop them coming into the senior headquarters here at Victoria. We want to speed up the process because everything was so badly wound up in red tape that nobody could get any approvals done.

What we're saying is: "You are senior people. You make the decisions at the regional level and keep it away from head office in Victoria." Any substantial subdivisions, such as shopping centres and that, naturally the head office is here to help and direct. It is slowly turning that activity around so our citizens don't get chased all around the mulberry bush traveling to Victoria to find out where their subdivision application has been lost. Now they can confine their activity, for instance, to the regional levels.

On reorganization, I might say we have expanded now to six regions in the province and established headquarters as of July 1. The one new region is in the northwest with headquarters at Terrace. We have taken away the whole of Vancouver Island from region 1, headquartered at Burnaby, and created a new region in the Highways ministry for that area. The regional engineers, in the case of the new regions of Nanaimo and Terrace, are now at work. That's about all we have for staff so far. Now we go ahead and fill that up. So we are not only trying to stay away from Victoria with all this, but we've also expanded to six regions so as to take the load off the four regions we had in the province.

Now regarding the $103 million indebtedness -and I had a slip on that - I understand that is what has been authorized, but certainly isn't what has been borrowed. Up to the present time, my information here is that as of March 31,1977, BCBC, in long-term debt, had borrowed $14 million. I believe that's what I said yesterday. I will get more up-to-date, Mr. Chairman, as of July 5,1977. The long-term debt is now $33 million for BCBC. It is projected to be $80 million to $90 million by March 31,1978, the reason being that most of the funds that are going out are going out on the downtown Vancouver building, which has a lot of large contracts that require progress payments. That is more or less up-to-date. You're correct, I believe, in your authorizations, but the authorizations go and the money is borrowed as required. Now I believe I've covered the member for Oak Bay's questions.

Now I want to deal for a minute with the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) . I don't really believe he asked any questions at all, but he made a fine speech. I just want to make a couple of comments - through you, Mr. Chairman - to the second member for Vancouver Centre. I appreciate the remarks you made about me. They were very delightful and I thank you very much for them. I know you are concerned that I've been put on the chopping block, but I don't feel that way at all. I'm

[ Page 3351 ]

quite proud to front for the BCBC on behalf of this government. It's government policy and your words, I think, are unfounded. I'm sure that it will be a lot better than we have seen in the past. You even agree that something had to be done, and this is the route that this government is taking.

I want to go back into history for a minute and remind you that the present Premier stood in this House in 1974 under the old Public Works setup, and asked the then minister no end of questions that cost the public a lot of money. He was the Leader of the Opposition then; he's now the Premier of the province and we're still waiting for those answers. So under the old setup it wasn't accountable at all to the Legislature, but it was supposed to be.

MR. BARNES: What about BCBC?

MR. LEA: You mean you haven't told him yet?

HON. MR. FRASER: This was a small item, Mr. Chairman - around $65,000 to $75,000 a month rent of empty office space. The now Premier got up and asked all kinds of questions day after day and as I say, he's still waiting for the answers. So they weren't accountable at all!

MR. LEA: Why don't you tell him? You won't even tell the Premier!

HON. MR. FRASER: So now we're setting up BCBC so it will be accountable to this Legislature, and every minister here will be accountable to BCBC and this Legislature.

MR. LEA: Are you still up?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I'm still up; I've got quite a ways to go here. The second member for Vancouver Centre asked a lot of questions. There are a few things from yesterday that the second member asked and I'll get into those.

I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that as far as the long-term financing is concerned - the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is gone now - we're only setting out a financing policy, the same as you buy your house or finance your business. As the money comes in, you certainly borrow for the capital costs and pay it off from the earnings of the structure. There's nothing wrong with that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: No, it isn't deficit at all. I want to answer the second member's question from yesterday regarding order-in-council, saying that could be all mixed up.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I have the reply to that here, if I can find it among these papers.

MR. LEA: Why don't you tell the Premier what he wants to know?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, the second member for Vancouver Centre, according to the notes I have, inquired yesterday about the advertisement for space placed last May 18. I'd advise that the clause stating that the lowest bidder would not necessarily be accepted is a standard in Canada, and a tendering policy of this ministry, as it is in the private sector. I might say, as far as this ministry's concerned, that the highway section of it has been in there for a long, long time and I don't think that's any change there at all.

Secondly, concerning order-in-council No. 12, dated January 7,1977, where the next-to-lowest bidder was awarded the janitorial contract, in this instance the lowest bidder had not performed under two previous contracts which had to be cancelled. That was the reason. I might say that there are government regulations to say that when you go to a bidder other than the low bidder, you must do it by order-in-council.

MR. BARNES: Is that the only exception?

HON. MR. FRASER: That's the only exception. Well, no, I'm not going to say that's the only exception. We've had bids in Highways where they couldn't find a bond after.... But we still have to take it to the full cabinet if we go to someone other than the low bidder.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): What was his name - Gaglardi?

HON. MR. FRASER: I just want to make another comment about BCBC, in reply, again, to the member's accusations. I would tell him that all members of the B.C.' Buildings Corporation have so far been hired by public competition, and all in the future will be hired by public competition. Regarding his saying that they were "phoney reports, " this Crown corporation is reportable to the Legislature with an audited statement. I hope you aren't casting aspersions on the great chartered accountant. . . . I think you are churning up a bit and making a good speech there. I'll sit down now and wait for some more questions.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): I'll be very brief. I just have a couple of comments that I would like to make, I would like to address a couple of questions to

[ Page 3352 ]

the Minister of Highways.

Interjections.

MR. KAHL: Do I have the floor, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the House was of the opinion that these estimates were going to be quite simple, and it obviously isn't that way. One merely has to take an educated guess as to who was the first one on their feet. The member for Esquimalt - and the Clerk agrees with me - had actually been the first one standing erect.

MR. KAHL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LAUK: He doesn't even know where french fries come from,

MR. KAHL: I'll be brief. Through you, to the minister, Mr. Chairman, I have discussed with you in letter and in verbal conversation, Mr. Minister, the possibility of more passing lanes between the Colwood-Langford area in my constituency and the village of Sooke. I would like to know if your ministry has investigated these possibilities. Could I please have an indication as to when something will be done on that section of the highway?

The second thing I would like to take a moment to dwell on is the section of road in my constituency between Jordan River and Port Renfrew - a seven-mile section of road that's very badly in need of major reconstruction. It's a section of road that I'm told by the local people has been promised by every Minister of Highways for the last 10 years. Quite frankly, Mr. Minister, not much has been done on it. I realize it's an expensive proposition. It involves three bridges, perhaps, and is a major expenditure. However, I would urge you to consider it in light of some project that could be done in part of the winter. It's one of the few areas in the province where major expenditures can be done on highway projects in the wintertime. Perhaps it could be, for lack of a better term, a winter works project extended over three or four years. It would not necessarily all have to be done at the same time. I would like to see.if your ministry has given that some consideration, Mr. Minister. Perhaps I could have a word or two from you on that.

MR. LAUK: We always have good fun with the Minister of Highways and Public Works, the minister of porcupine pie.

Mr. Chairman, I'm very, very disappointed in this minister for one very major reason.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, let me explain myself. In the constituency of Vancouver Centre that the hon. second member (Mr. Barnes) and myself represent, we work very, very hard both in the NDP administration and overseeing the mistakes that the current administration is making on the B.C. project in the middle of our riding - the building there.

We were looking forward to the opening. As you know, it's traditional in this province and in most provinces that when there's a major project in a constituency, the Premier and the minister in charge of that project invite the local MLA, irrespective of what party he represents. Now that is changing. Although we were looking forward to it, we received no announcement and received no advance invitation to this grand opening of the complex in the middle of this riding, a multi-million dollar complex.

I don't think it served any purpose for the government except to show that they're a little chippy. I'm sure the minister himself had no part in this. I think that because of the conduct of the Premier with respect to these events, Mr. Chairman, he's the one that I lay the blame on. I raise it only under the minister's estimates because he is the minister in charge of that project. But this Premier, Mr. Chairman, has broken tradition in many, many ways, and that's one of them,

Some of you may consider it a small thing. I know the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) does not and I know the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) does not. It's a chippy action and all it did was make the constituents who attended that opening wonder. Indeed, the hon. second member and myself have had three or four letters from constituents, one of them saying: "I'm a member of the Social Credit Party in Vancouver Centre. I was surprised to see that you did not attend the opening." Well, I called that person and informed him that I wasn't invited. That person expressed some degree of shock and said he intends to write the Premier about it. He'll write to the Premier about it.

Now I wonder if the minister couldn't make a comment on that. If the Premier falls down on protocol and on courtesy and on fair play, the minister, in the tradition of his father and himself, maybe would have a comment on that for future such openings and announcements.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about something amazing - the Provincial Secretary's office. Absolutely amazing! You know, there was a man by the name of Rattenbury. As the Minister of Public Works well knows, he designed this most beautiful parliament building and precincts - the most beautiful in the entire Commonwealth. Public Works, under the Barrett administration, refitted most of the ministerial offices and added new ones so that the ministers could be within the precincts, close to the Legislature, to attend. to their duties in the House and

[ Page 3353 ]

to their ministries.

I'm glad to see that in the new administration you haven't separated the ministers out in other buildings and so on. Yes, they should be close to their departments, but their real political duty is to be here in the House and answer to the opposition and to the public.

These offices were expensive; it wasn't cheap to renovate these offices.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll say!

MR. LAUK: No, it certainly isn't. It was long overdue.

I can remember sitting in this House and there was.... Do you remember that? Alex, do you remember the plastic sheeting that was up there? Every once in a while the rain would come up and you were sitting down here and it would drop down on your blotter. The Legislature in the province of British Columbia was leaking. There were rotten boards and the building was falling apart.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I don't mean cabinet leaks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep those coming!

MR. LAUK: Yes, keep those coming. We enjoy those cabinet leaks very much, especially the stories about the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , who is really running the government. We can believe it. It has certainly shown those characteristics.

Mr. Chairman, what is amazing about the Provincial Secretary's carpet? I'll tell you what's amazing. Less than two and a half years ago, a carpet was put in there at great expense. It was the design that's in every office.... Oh, I'm sorry that she's running out of the House. Oh, she isn't. Good! I don't want to embarrass you too much.

This carpet was standard in all the ministerial offices for a reason.

MR. KAHL: Like Bob Williams' carpet?

MR. LAUK: It was the 19th century-style rug and it was beautiful. It was very sophisticated. Although it was fairly expensive, it was not as expensive as another carpet that I'll talk about momentarily.

Well, this very antique and sophisticated-looking rug was not good enough for the hon. Provincial Secretary. She wanted a Social Credit colour. She wanted to have another rug put in her apartments. This is Social Credit brown and it replaces the Rattenbury rug.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): It won't fly, though!

MR. LAUK: The hon. member from Lebanon advises me, and I respect his opinion, that this rug will not fly. You have to add tassels, right? It may life off but it won't fly.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes, it is a Social Credit rug - it's thoroughly synthetic.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): I bet it's paid for.

MR. LAUK: It's paid for with the taxpayers' money.

The Provincial Secretary rips out the rug that was just laid, just put in there, paid for by the taxpayers. She picked Social Credit brown to replace it, but at what cost, Mr. Chairman? Maybe the minister could look carefully at this.

MR. BARRETT: About $2 a month for every old-age pensioner is what it cost.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: The total installation cost of the carpet was $26.50 per yard. Absolutely amazing! Talk about spendthrift cabinet ministers!

Now last year we had the Premier of this province putting in gold handles on his new shower at great taxpayers' expense because he couldn't walk down the hall. Now we have the Provincial Secretary putting Social Credit brown at $26.50 per yard in her apartments - $26.50 a yard of the taxpayers' money.

MR. BARRETT: It's only $2 a month from every old-age pensioner.

MR. LAUK: And the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) can't pass $1.50 over to the Mincome recipients that has been increased by the federal government. No, they can't afford that but they can afford Social Credit brown at $2 6.5 0 a yard.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Perhaps the members of your own caucus would afford you the courtesy of. . . .

MR. BARRETT: The Premier is interrupting with laughter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor,

[ Page 3354 ]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the hon. members not to talk while I'm interrupting.

I don't know who advised the Provincial Secretary on the colour, but by the looks of it I think the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) advised her on Social Credit brown. It's certainly no comparison with the Rattenbury carpet that had been laid just a couple of years previously, I find it unimaginable that this government would walk around the countryside talking about government waste and overspending when we've got the Provincial Secretary, one of the key proponents of pulling back the purse strings, lifting up her carpet and ordering $26.50 a yard to be replaced.

MR. KEMPF: They repossessed the last one; you didn't pay for it.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for Omineca says it's paid for. Yes, indeed, it's paid for - by the taxpayers, by the old-age pensioners of this province who didn't get that transfer of money from the federal government - that $150 and $2.50 a month, Mr. Chairman. I hope the Attorney-General doesn't leave, because I'm not through with carpets, We've carpets to talk about with the Attorney-General -the new suite for the Attorney-General, that elegant and gracious member for Vancouver-Point Grey, my MLA, who never answers my correspondence about my sidewalks. I have a complaint: there's been a lot of Social Credit pets traveling up and down them lately leaving Social Credit propaganda around, advised by the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General, not wishing to be outdone by the amazing Provincial Secretary, says: "I don't want the Rattenbury carpet, "

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Rattenbury is dead!

MR LAUK: Rattenbury was murdered, but not over the carpet. It was another issue. I imagine if Rattenbury were alive today and saw Social Credit brown being laid in the Provincial Secretary's office, he'd commit suicide.

Mr. Chairman, as I say, the Attorney-General is not one to be outdone. Now I must hand it to him. He has not got Social Credit tastes, except one: the one for power. He has the Social Credit taste for power. That's why he's got very, very fast-moving shoes when the opportunity arises. He's got opportunist oxfords because they travel across the floor as quick as a flash.

One of the things that he took with him is his very, very exquisite Point Grey tastes. He wasn't going to settle for Rattenbury 19th-century rugs; he wasn't going to settle for Social Credit brown non-flying rugs. The member for Dewdney advises this does not fly. I haven't checked with him about the Rattenbury rug but I'll tell you one rug that will fly, because at these costs these are 747 prices.

The Attorney-General's carpet is coming from Italy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. LAUK: He's ordered his rug from Italy. "My dear fellow, " he said to the carpet layer, "these are disgusting-looking carpets. Take them away. I've ordered one from Italy, along with my new $275 shoes."

Now I have heard that the Attorney-General has offered to Pay part of the cost. Maybe since this issue has come to light he's going to allow the Rattenbury rug to be laid in his new suite, the traditional rug that has been laid in this House.

Now the Premier himself talked about a 10 per cent preference for B.C. manufacturers. He said the government Purchasing Commission will give a 10 per cent preference to B.C. manufacturers. Now I don't know of a manufacturing company in Milan or anywhere in Italy that should get that 10 per cent preference. He offered 5 per cent preference for Canadians, and I don't know of any Canadian rug-manufacturing company in Italy. This is the kind of waste and extravagance that we have to see from this government.

Wouldn't someone outside of this chamber viewing these proceedings today say to themselves that this is hypocrisy? Wouldn't a reasonable person looking at the speeches that were made by the Premier, the Provincial Secretary and the Attorney-General about waste in government think that this is a bit extravagant -from the golden-handled shower taps in the Premier's office to the Social Credit brown in the Provincial Secretary's office to the Italian rural in the Attorney-General's office? Very expensive.

Now the minister, of course, takes orders. The Premier of course, gives orders - except to the Minister of Education, who gives the Premier orders. That is what I hear, and that's fine. The Premier needs advice from time to time, particularly on showers. With respect to the rugs, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the minister explain why he is putting up with this prima donna nonsense on the part of the cabinet? Those rugs that were laid in the Provincial Secretary's office were brand new, The rug that was prepared for the Attorney-General's office was just fine, and if he wanted some other pattern he could at least buy a B.C. or Canadian rug. Why go to Italy? I don't understand that kind of process of ministers using taxpayers' money for that purpose.

The Premier was out of the House when I said that for the first time in British Columbia's history, the First Minister of this province has deliberately gone out of his way to snub and insult opposition MLAs.

[ Page 3355 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: There was a major construction project in my riding, under two administrations....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, no. That gentleman's father always invited the constituency MLA, and the minister knows it.

AN HON. MEMBER: No way.

MR. LAUK: He didn't?

MR. BARRETT: No, the former Provincial Secretary always did that - the Hon. Wes Black.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I see.

Well, I remember that opposition MLAs would come to these openings.

MR. BARRETT: Wes Black was the only one.

MR. LAUK: Now you know it's only going to hurt the government, Mr. Chairman, not to invite MLAs to these major openings. I've received letters and one, as I mentioned before, came from a Social Credit member - from a member of that party - who wondered about the absence of the second member (Mr. Barnes) and myself from this opening.

But that's fine. Let the people know that this is the kind of chippy attitude that the first minister of this province has. That's the kind of chippy attitude he has displayed since taking office, and I'm surprised that the Minister of Highways and Public Works....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to vote 146 please, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Well, I'm just surprised, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Highways and Public Works would actually conform to that kind of chippy attitude, because he and his father stand for a great tradition in this province - a tradition of honour in elected public office. I'm sure the Minister of Highways and Public Works had the invitations ready and'the Premier, in a fit of pique, ripped them up. Maybe the minister can answer that.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, getting back to reality, I would first like to remark on the suggestion by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that the people in the area of Francois Lake in my constituency should be paying ferry rates and shouldn't be receiving a free fare on the Omineca Princess. The member for Oak Bay seems to have a keen interest in the Omineca Princess, as it's not the first time he has mentioned it in this House.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say to the member for Oak Bay, who again isn't in his place this afternoon, although I'm sure he's listening very intently to the loudspeaker in his office - at least, I would hope so - that I would be very happy to suggest to the citizens of my constituency, and the citizens who use the services of the Omineca Princess, that they should pay a fare for using that ferry. I would gladly do that as soon as the lower mainland of this province returns to the northerners that part of their tax dollar which goes to subsidize the ferry rates on the coast to the tune of $40 million a year. I would also include that portion of their tax dollar which goes to subsidize the transit rates on the lower mainland. I would also suggest this, Mr. Chairman, as soon as the citizens on the lower mainland are willing to help subsidize the additional 20 cents a gallon that my citizens of Omineca have to pay over and above the price paid in the lower mainland for a gallon of gasoline.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to prolong debate on this minister's estimates; however, I believe there are certain things that must be said at this point in time in regard to the magnificent job that this minister is doing as our Highways minister in this province. Once again this province has a Highways minister and once again this province has a highways programme. I would be remiss - especially as a northern member -not to acknowledge these facts. We have returned, hon. members, from the Dark Ages of a no-blacktop, tourist-stay-home administration and Highways ministry to the 20th century.

Projects such as the completion of the North Island Highway, the Stewart-Cassiar Road and the proposed Coquihalla Highway will go down in history as another breakthrough in the development of British Columbia, as did 20 years of highway construction under the previous Social Credit administration. That is what made this great province, Mr. Chairman - that 20 years of highway construction. .

In my constituency of Omineca, Mr. Chairman, I personally compliment the minister for his immediate grasp of what was a terrible situation and of the problems that existed. Secondary road maintenance, sadly ignored for several years, has improved by what I consider to be 200 per cent. Although I am still not completely satisfied with the productivity per mamiay or per man-hour in our area, it is certainly better than it was two years ago.

The energetic paving programme for Yellowhead 16....

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: I know what my voters think of me, Mr. Member. I'm very aware of what my voters think

[ Page 3356 ]

of me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to resign? (Laughter.)

MR. KEMPF: The northern trans-provincial highway is a section of highway in constant need of maintenance. The proposed paving project has been gratifying and well received by my constituents. I would like to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the citizens of Fort St. James, who are just now seeing the completion of the long-awaited Necoslie River bridge replacing a very dangerous Bailey bridge which for some years now has frustrated all those who have had to use it.

I would, however, Mr. Minister, caution you and remind you at this time that we have not forgotten the need for a bypass of that community as well as this new bridge.

Also, on behalf of the citizens of Fort St. James, Mr. Chairman, I would voice appreciation for the minister's co-operation with the Ministry of Forests, which has led to the reconstruction of a 15-mile section of the Fort St. James-Germansen Landing road.

The citizens of Vanderhoof are also very appreciative and very excited about the prospect of the new Nechako River bridge slated for construction next summer, replacing a totally unacceptable situation which has existed there for some time. However, Mr. Minister, this will not alleviate all of the problems of Vanderhoof. I would respectfully request that your ministry, with your most efficient staff, give further serious consideration to my proposal of a second crossing of the Nechako River. This crossing is very badly needed in order to alleviate a very serious problem of heavy log truck traffic passing directly through the main street of that community and entering Yellowhead 16 at a very dangerous intersection. The second industrial crossing is absolutely necessary and must receive, in my mind, immediate consideration.

Mr. Chairman, as I said previously, we in Omineca have little to complain about in regard to this ministry. However, there is one last very small - and I'm sure the opposition will be only too happy to hear this - but very serious problem which I would like to bring to the attention of the minister today. That is the provision of lighting on the overpass of the Bulkley River and CN Railway on the easterly approach to Houston. Surely, Mr. Minister, the lack of provision of lighting in this situation was an oversight by your ministry when the project was completed some four years ago. Surely it was an oversight, but it is an absolute necessity.

This overpass, located in the centre of a downhill grade with a very dangerous righthand curve at the lower end leading into the very heart of this community, has been the scene of several very serious traffic accidents, one of which very recently left a teenage citizen an invalid for the remainder of her life. All these accidents have occurred during the hours of darkness, of which we have many, especially during the long winter months. We must correct this situation. 1 would suggest that had this overpass been built in the lower one-third of the province, lighting would never have been overlooked.

I'm positive that you would wish this dangerous problem rectified. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would again take this opportunity on behalf of my constituents to thank this minister for a most commendable effort.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say a few things to the minister at this time, too. I enjoyed the remarks of the hon. member for Omineca. One of the nice things about the Highways, estimates is that we learn a great deal about the province in which we live. Each member brings forward the problems of their particular area and the minister, hopefully, listens sympathetically. 1 want to say that I can't 100 per cent agree with the representations of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre with respect to the way rugs have been moved around this building, because I have to advise him that were it not for the fact the Attorney-General needed a new rug, I'd still have three colours of rug in my office. 1 got his by hand-me-downs. So there are some small benefits to the opposition in this kind of moving around.

Mr. Chairman, 1 want to ask the minister once again - and we got onto this yesterday - to release the Peat Marwick report on the B.C. Development Corporation.

We're back to this same question of public access to information which is paid for by the public purse. A study was commissioned into the ministry; the consultants reported; the report went to the minister and his ministry. It's been in his hands for quite some time now. I would ask him to either release it or else give some chapter and verse to this House as to why it cannot be released. If there are certain parts in it that he things might reveal things which are particularly confidential for one reason or another, tell us what those reasons are. Expurgate those sections from the report if you think it necessary, but please give the public the benefit of the advice that the taxpayers' money paid for. We have a right to know, Mr. Chairman, exactly what the outside consultants thought of this department. If there's any portion of that report which the minister can't release, then let him stand up in this House and say so. Otherwise I want to know why he's keeping that secret.

Now I want to go on from there, Mr. Chairman, to a more agreeable subject, and that's the subject of what is nowadays being called "labour-intensive transportation systems, " which means "bicycles" in

[ Page 3357 ]

shorthand. Under the responsibilities of the Minister of Highways, there should be a concern for improving the facilities available to the cyclists in this province.

You know, Mr. Chairman, the Greater Vancouver Regional District has latterly been holding hearings into transportation questions. They held one over in North Vancouver recently - on April 28 - and attending that meeting was a gentleman from the Vancouver health department, Dr. Fred Bass. Dr. Bass made a presentation to this meeting which I personally found very interesting. He stated in a letter to me - and this figure relates to the GVRD, not to the province as a whole:

"While the per capita governmental expenditure for highways is $108 per year for all persons, including cyclists, the per capita governmental expenditure for cycle and jogging routes if zero, whether motorist or cyclist; secondly, and more serious, the rate of serious injury and death is far higher for cyclists than for motorists."

I was interested in Dr. Bass' presentation and I asked him if he would send it to me, which he did. He has made certain recommendations to the Greater Vancouver Regional District, and some of those relate very directly to the work of the Ministry of Highways. Some of them don't, such as the specific groups, where they should go in Vancouver, the establishment of showers and bicycle parking and so on. These are less applicable to the longer-distance facilities that the Ministry of Highways should be concerned with. But they make particular representations in other areas which should be accepted by the Ministry of Highways.

First of all, there is the need for a planner, some one person in the Ministry of Highways - perhaps he exists now; I'd be glad to hear it - who is responsible for worrying about the question of how the use of our highways by bicyclists can be enhanced.

The next recommendation is one relating to cost analysis, and I will later on cite a benefit-cost study that was done into the provision of bicycle facilities on highway routes.

There is a recommendation relating to funding. We've heard it in this House often, and I'll repeat it again: the landmark blazed by the state of Oregon in devoting I per cent of their highways budget to trails for bicycling - or for jogging, for that matter; I don't mind for which it's used. But why can't we earmark 1 per cent of the budget, as has been done in that progressive state of the United States of America, for the purpose of labour-intensive transportation, which means bicycling?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: That's a good speech, Mr. Member. I'll allow you to use it and quote from it, and I hope you do. There are other recommendations that go beyond this GVRD report which have particular application to the Department of Highways. One is access through tunnels, particularly the Deas Island tunnel. I've been engaged in a bit of correspondence with the minister over how we can make the Deas Island tunnel possible for cyclists in the winter months. I think the minister has an open mind on it. We talked about such things as RCMP escorts for bicycles through the tunnel once every half hour, that kind of thing. I wonder if he could give the House a status report on that.

I'd like to say to him that if you had anything like this I per cent budget, it's relatively cheap to put bicycle paths on the sides of highways - not separated, which is the preferable thing. But sometimes you've got to start out with the money you have. Put them on the sides of highways, on paved shoulders. I'd like to suggest that the department should make that a priority, and they should also make available to cyclists maps showing which highways around the province are paved on the shoulders.

I remember one time, I guess about three years ago now, that I rode from Penticton to Vancouver on the Hope-Princeton Highway. It's a very, very dangerous highway for cyclists, Mr. Chairman, because the shoulder, at least at that time, was not paved.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a hard ride.

MR. GIBSON: It's a hard ride. I started out thinking that because Vancouver was lower down than Penticton, it was all downhill - but I forgot about Sunday Summit, which is about 4,000 feet. It's a good ride, but it's a ride that's very dangerous because that shoulder isn't paved. I'd like to make that representation to the minister.

The benefits cited by Dr. Bass in his report to the GVRD relate to health. Listen to what he says here -and this is for people commuting to work every day:

"A 170-lb. man cycling at 13 miles an hour uses 726 calories an hour. If we assume it takes him half an hour to ride six miles to work - more than the average commuting distance - and half an hour back, and if he averages three days of bicycle commuting per week, his energy consumption would be equivalent to mobilizing 30 pounds of fat tissue in one year."

That's a valuable thing, Mr. Chairman.

He goes on to give statements as to the benefits in terms of reducing stress, muscular tension, cardiovascular disease and so on. It's definitely something that we in our province should be encouraging, and I think the Minister of Health would agree with that. I think the Premier would agree with that. He's a person who likes to keep in good shape through jogging. Well, there are other people who like

[ Page 3358 ]

to do it through bicycling, and the minimal expenditures on bicycle paths can do this kind of thing.

They can also be a great boon to safety. Here's another statistic out of the report:

"In 1976, 87 cyclists were injured in traffic accidents in the city of Vancouver. This number would be reduced by separating cyclists and cars, and by the education of the cycling and motoring public."

I think there's no doubt of that.

Would the bicycle paths be used, Mr. Chairman? That's a legitimate question to ask. One out of three people in the Vancouver area - I'm not familiar with the figures in other parts of the province - own a bicycle. The potential is just enormous, and as our highways get more crowded as to cars it's a nice way for families to take summer holidays and summer tours.

"There was a survey carried out. . . ." and I'm quoting again from Dr. Bass.

"The Philadelphia Bicycle Coalition carried out a survey of motorists parked in the centre of the city in 1973. People were asked whether they would use bicycles if safe lanes or streets and secure parking were available. Of all motorists, 17 per cent said that they would use bicycles. Of motorists who owned a bicycle, 38 per cent said they would."

Mr. Chairman, it just seems to me that both in the country and in the city it's in the interests of our province and in the interest of the Ministry of Highways and this minister to do everything they can to encourage the provision of bicycle facilities.

I'll finish on this particular topic with a quote from a benefit-cost analysis done by a gentleman called Michael Everett. It's full of all kinds of esoteric phrases like "reductions in negative externalities" and so on. But he winds up with this conclusion. This is the essence of the report: "Well-used bikeways and facilities in congested areas should yield high returns per dollar spent." He's measuring returns in terms of vehicle operating costs, in terms of better health, in terms of time being saved and so on. I would ask the minister to make this not a giant priority but a small priority of his department and put somebody to work on it to be concerned about the upgrading of bicycle facilities not just on his highways but in all areas of the province. Would he just take an overall look at that?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The people's highways, Mr. Member.

Now I'd like to go on from there to talk to the minister briefly about North Shore traffic problem. I want to congratulate him on the initiative he's taken on a study with respect to the lower level road. I'd be grateful if he could tell the committee how that study is going, when it will be complete, and how much it's likely to cost.

Mr. Chairman, that lower levels road is going to be needed. The congestion on Marine Drive these days is just something awful. It can tie in very well with the new Sea Bus system, which, of course, is a provincial responsibility. It connects three municipalities, so I think there's a good argument for there being a great degree of provincial financial responsibility here.

I ask the minister not to intermingle this question of the lower levels road with the upper levels road. I've seen a certain amount of correspondence which has suggested to the city of North Vancouver: "Really we've got just so much money to spend and if we're going to put it down at the lower levels, we have to take it away from the upper levels." I don't think, respectfully, that's the proper approach, Mr. Chairman. I think there are needs in both those areas.

Moving on to the upper levels, I want to congratulate the minister again on the work he's doing on the new crossings at Lonsdale and Westview. These are perhaps the busiest crossings on the Trans-Canada Highway that are signalled rather than being overpasses. I'll say that while the work that's being done now will greatly improve the problem, he is going to have to look in the long run at overpasses. That's why I was delighted to see in a recent letter the minister wrote to the acting city clerk of the city of North Vancouver that he made this statement:

"In the event that the additional capacity is required in the future, the right-of-way will be kept available to exercise the freeway option, or possibly to implement other modes of transportation."

I was glad to see that, Mr. Chairman, and I'm just drawing it to the committee's attention so that departmental officials, and all concerned, will understand that land must be retained - that land which has been bought for those interchanges. Even if they're just a few years in the future, we have to keep that option.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that for both interchanges?

MR. GIBSON: Both interchanges, Mr. Member, although I think the land assembly is not quite complete. A little more might be required. But let's not dispose of what we've got, as has been suggested in some. areas.

Now I don't mean to say there isn't a problem or two on the Upper Levels Highway; there is. The minister received a representation, and I got a copy of it on June 27, with respect to the problems at the end of George Street just east of Lloyd, where it comes into the Upper Levels Highway. There's a lady there

[ Page 3359 ]

who actually had a car run into her house. It happened last year. I went down to have a look at it. It was a freak kind of thing because the car spun around and came back at her house, but there have been a lot of problems in that particular area.

This leads me to a more general kind of representation which comes from property owners all along the North Vancouver section of the Upper Levels Highway. They drive through West Vancouver, they see the beautiful screening fences that have been put up on that section of the highway, and they say: "Why can't we, in North Vancouver, have this?" There is a genuine need in many of those areas for protection from the highway, even in terms of physical protection from the cars as at the end of George Street here, but particularly in terms of the baffling of sound. I'd be very grateful if the minister could report the progress on the studies I know his department has been doing in that regard.

Finally, with respect to North Vancouver traffic problems, I would like to devote a couple of minutes to the Lions Gate Bridge. I would like to say at once that I think congratulations are in order to those people who are operating the Lions Gate Bridge. They do a very good job in squeezing the ultimate capacity out of those three narrow lanes. As a matter of fact, I'm told by some engineers that it's one of the marvels of the continent that that many vehicles can go through those few lanes in any given rush hour.

Some improvements have been done on the bridge. I'd be glad if the minister could tell us the final, actual cost of the north causeway improvements. I assume all the bills are in on that one now. I'd ask him if he could tell us at this time something about the plans for the southern causeway, the timing, and the projected cost on that. That's perhaps a relatively simple question, because then we get to the most complicated question of all. That is: what is going to be done about the main span? After you've widened the north causeway, which has been done - widened and repaved it - and you've done the same thing with the south causeway, somehow that main span has to be improved. My understanding, as of a year ago, is that the department had not, at that time, settled on a method of reconstructing that bridge in some way which would be a reasonably economical cost - or even possible at all - and keeping that bridge open for traffic most of the time.

I wonder if the minister at this point could tell us whether the department has settled on a method of construction, or two or three different options. I see they've got a bunch of propellers up on the bridge now and they're measuring the wind resistance. Can he then -tell us anything about the timing and any rough estimates as to the cost? I think that's about all the questions I have at this time, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I would like to examine the opening statement of the minister in regard to the job-creating programme within the Ministry of Highways. First of all, I'd like to know how he came to the conclusion that there are 3,500 new jobs created in the Ministry of Highways. I would like a specific breakdown.

Is he including people hired by private firms? The minister is also including in that contracts that have been let to private industry and the number of people employed by the letting of those contracts. In that case I wonder if the minister has in his possession the number of people hired over the past few years, including those who have been hired by private contractors. I mean, there has to be a comparison. What is he comparing it to - 3,500 new jobs compared to what and to when? I would be very interested in seeing those figures or hearing the minister let this committee know what those figures are.

I mould like the minister to give us information on what the capital expenditure was in the Department of Highways for 1973-74 and the percentage increases from 1972-73,1973-74 and 1974-75 to the present. I would like to know what the percentage of increase in total Highways expenditure has been over those years. I would like to have included in those figures special warrants - not just those figures that we see in the estimate book, but the special-warrant money that goes to the Department of Highways - so we can have an accurate picture of how much money has gone into the department since 1972. Let's have this broken down into a yearly basis to see whether or not the minister, when he was on this side of the House, was really serious about his concern about the kind of money being spent within the department. '

I wonder if it would also be possible, Mr. Chairman - because we all know that a real dollar today doesn't buy the same amount of goods and service as a real dollar did in 1972 - for the minister to break down the purchasing value of those dollars into the inflationary factor that we all know is ever present in our society to see whether in fact the Department of Highways is now spending more money than it did in previous years in the real purchasing power of the dollar. I kind of doubt it, but I would be very interested to see whether the minister can prove my doubts unwarranted in that direction.

I would also like to ask the minister for what reason the government decided that in some branches of his administration there would be no tendering -not within the Department of Highways, but within other areas of his jurisdiction and his portfolio, and in the BCBC. What possible advantage is there to the people of this province in not having public works go to tender? We all know that private firms put jobs out to tender so they can get the best deal. They want to see what industry can do for them; they want to see

[ Page 3360 ]

whether one firm, through efficiency or for other reasons best known to themselves, can do the same kind of job at a more reasonable rate. So private firms do that for two reasons: they do it to try and get the best deal they can and to prove to their stockholders that they are managing that corporation in an efficient manner; or, if they are the sole stockholder, they do it to ensure to themselves that they are getting the best kind of job that money can buy at the most reasonable rate. What possible advantage can there be to the people of British Columbia in not having public works go to tender?

Obviously the stockholders are the people of British Columbia in this case, Mr. Chairman. I think that the minister and the government are responsible for the public purse and the spending of those tax dollars and should have to answer to the people who are supplying the funds that the government is actually getting the job done in the most efficient manner at the most reasonable cost. If those jobs are not going to public tender and then being scrutinized by either the corporation or the department, then there is something wrong. Even the old coalition government didn't do that, but it seems that this government has risen to a new low in the way they deal with the people's money.

But before I go on I would like to hear the minister describe what possible advantages he sees to the people of British Columbia for not going to public tender and whether or not the minister would put those reasons in a brochure to be distributed to the taxpayers of this province, first of all explaining to the taxpayers that within part of his jurisdiction there is no tender - that that procedure doesn't exist - and the reasons of this government for not following that traditional, and I would consider reasonable, way of doing business. I believe that if the minister has those reasons, then every taxpayer in this province should hear what they are. In my opinion, a brochure should be made up immediately through the British Columbia Buildings Corporation and should go to every taxpayer explaining to them why their money is not being looked after. But maybe the minister does have reasons, and I would like to hear those reasons before I go on to further remarks.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Prince Rupert, the reasons for not tendering .... Well, I might say that this has gone on for a long time. It represents a very small portion of the Public Works side of the responsibility. What we've done in the BCBC is that all the major stuff.... I would guess 90 per cent of it is going to public tender. So first of all we're talking about 10 per cent of the section or less of the public money spent.

But already we've tightened up on that on putting more.... Space that we require is going to public tender. It never did in the past under Public Works. A great deal of it was just on an invitational basis. I realize, Mr. Chairman, the member is probably concerned, but we are working on it to reduce it from the point it was under the old setup. I'd like to see it pretty well eliminated, but I'm told by the senior people it probably can't be to operate properly. I doubt that we're talking 10 per cent of the Public Works expenditure side, whether it be Public Works and/or BCBC. It mostly is where we have invitation for office space and that, but as I say we've even gone to public tender on that.

As an example, in the large downtown Vancouver complex where this year they anticipate spending, I think, $40 million, every bit of that $40 million has gone to public tender and was awarded to the low bidder. The same is true with the Victoria buildings, the Health building, the other building - I forget what they call it - on Blanshard; it hasn't been named yet. So all that is under public tender. We're only dealing with a very, very small portion of the total expenditures of Public Works as related to the work that takes place.

I haven't had a chance yet to compare your other one on comparing contracts but I will shortly. First of all, I have the information that you wanted: "Where are these 3,500 people?" Two thousand of them are from the private sector working for contractors who have had increased work. By this 2,000 increase since July, 1976 to 1977, the road-building contractors have 2,000 more men working today than they had 12 months ago because of the stepped-up highway programme.

The auxiliaries, which you're aware of, have increased by 617. The hired equipment has had a large increase of which, Mr. Chairman, the member for Prince Rupert will again be aware. There are 957 additional pieces of hired equipment to what there was this time last year. As you well know, most of that is individually owned and operated. So by those figures there are 2,000 additional members working for the large road-building contractors; 617 working directly with the department as auxiliaries; 957 again working directly but on a per-hour rate with their equipment rented to the department, for a total of 3,574.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, it's still not clear that there are 3,500 new British Columbians working. All that's clear is that there are 2,000 people working on contracts now with the Department of Highways. But that isn't to say those people weren't working for those private contractors on other projects. They don't only work for the Department of Highways. They work for private industry; they work for municipal governments; they work for federal governments. There are a great many jobs the private industry in the construction end will and should take

[ Page 3361 ]

on.

So the minister can't stand in this House and say for sure that his ministry has created 3,500 jobs. I think the minister will now see that that's true; he can't. All he can say is that we've let a number of contracts and in the course of the letting of those contracts there are 2,000 jobs involved with the private sector. But he can't say that all those people weren't working before. If he's taking figures from the construction industry saying we have 2,000 more people working than we did at a previous date, how does he know that they're all working for contracts that he has let through his department?

So it seems a pretty feeble attempt to tell the people in the province that this government has a public works programme going on that is helping to alleviate unemployment to any great extent. I believe it's just the minister's way of saying: "Gee, folks, we're pretty nice and we're doing what we can." j That's good, but I would have a few more things to say when the minister comes back with his figures on total budget since 1972 broken down into percentages, because I don't believe that the minister is spending the same amount of money. I believe he's spending less money than in previous years, taking in the inflationary factor and what a dollar will buy today as opposed to what a dollar would buy four years ago.

I just don't believe that he's spending more money today. Yes, if you look at the total number of dollars, he's spending more dollars, but it's not buying the same amount of work and the same amount of services. I'd suggest that the minister, even though when he was on this side of the House calling for more funds, hasn't achieved that.

About the contracts being let without tender, he said only 10 per cent. That's like saying 90 per cent of the people in this province are protected by human rights legislation and it's only 10 per cent who aren't, so we're trying to improve that. The fact of the matter is that if what went on in the past, as the minister described it, is true, it's wrong. It just seems to me that when people pay taxes, the people who were in charge of their money - the government -should obviously take good care of that money and make sure they're getting dollar value. I don't see how they can do that without going to public tender.

The minister should, I believe, change those rules so that all public works are put out to tender and so that people know exactly who's bidding and who's getting the contracts, previous to them being signed.

It reminds me of the old disclosure legislation, Mr. Chairman, when I was being questioned by a self-admitted, card-carrying Socred in the Minister of Mines' (Hon. Mr. Chabot's) riding. We were talking about the disclosure legislation which Social Credit fought. Anyway, this person in the riding said: "Everything you guys have done is bad. You brought in that disclosure legislation." And I said: "Well, as the Minister of Highways, wouldn't you think that the public should know if I owned 50 per cent of all construction companies in this province?" And the Social Credit Party member said: "No, it's none of our business."

I believe that kind of attitude goes right up to the Social Credit cabinet, Mr. Minister. They don't really believe that it's anybody's business but their own as to what they do with the money that's collected in taxes.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair. ]

I believe that shows in a number of ministries. The minister is saying' "If you want to take a look at BCBC and see how it s operating, then win the next election and we'll let you see." That's what he said. It just seems that it's an attitude. I don't know how. as an opposition, we can deal with a government that has an attitude of: "If you want to, see what's going on in this province, if you want to see how we're spending your money, if you want to see if we're running things efficiently, then win the next election and you'll have the privilege of looking at the books."

I think that's the wrong attitude, and I think it's the attitude of this government more than anything else that's going to kill it. The attitude is one of complete arrogance. I'm not for a minute, MR. Chairman, saying that I consider this minister to be arrogant. I believe he has been swept along. Birds of a feather, and all that. You get blamed.

He says: "Oh, it was done this way all along so we're just carrying on." If it was done that way all along under our government or under the previous Social Credit government, I think it's wrong. The minister has a chance to improve. He should write into his legislation that everything that is spent in terms of taxpayers' dollars is going to go to tender so the people can see that it's being done properly,

HON. MR. FRASER: I've got quite a few questions I'd like to cover here, but it won t take me very long, I hope.

First of all, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , was trying to twist around. The employment of people in the road-building industry is what I was talking about. What I'm saying is that we have 2,000 more of their people working this July than we had in July, 1976, My information is from the B.C. Road Builders Association. So I hope that clears that up,

MR. LEA: Are they all working for you?

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, J. say that we got the information from the B.C. Road Builders.

MR. LEA: So you're not sure.

[ Page 3362 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: I didn't say that at all. I'm telling you that rather than mix up the waters, you should be saying we're building some roads that badly need building. . .

MR. LEA: They don, t know!

HON. MR. FRASER: . . . rather than sit there and go and mix up figures that embarrass you. I'm sorry that they embarrass you while we're doing roadwork.

MR. LEA: You don't know!

HON. MR FRASER: That's your opinion. You're entitled to your opinion. We certainly do know.

MR. LEA: Then tell us!

HON. MR. FRASER: I resent the fact that when we're trying to do something for the neglect you left behind, you try to twist it up! Who do you think you're fooling? Not the citizens out there, I'll tell you.

MR. LEA: You don't know!

HON. MR. FRASER: When you had your chance, you did nothing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the minister kindly address the Chair, and would other members kindly address the Chair when it's their turn?

HON. MR. FRASER: I appreciate the remarks of the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . The main span of the First Narrows Bridge - and I would like to emphasize this --- as estimated by the engineers, will cost $30 million to repair or to do the necessary work in upgrading. The cost to date of the north causeway, as I think you called it, has been $7.5 million. So the main span and the north causeway, which we have done, is $37.5 million; the south causeway, I'm given to understand, hasn't been costed yet. So we have big items ahead of us regarding the bridge there. I'd just like to say to the member, Mr. Chairman, that the engineers haven't fully decided what they want to do with regard to getting started. I believe they are working with consultants now and I'm referring to the main span. It s a highly technical engineering problem.

Regarding the study on the lower level road, yes, this ministry did agree to that. I forget the cost but a sharing formula was devised. The person whom I dealt with was the chairman, the mayor of West Vancouver, He tied things together and I'd like to thank him for that. There hasn't been anything in on that, but I expect to see something shortly. We are assisting financially with that and I haven't heard when it should be back. I wouldn't think it will be too long. We'll certainly make it public when that happens.

There's a note here but I couldn't read my own writing. You mentioned the fences in West Vancouver as compared to North Vancouver. I don't know whether you were talking about fences or the guardrail, but they're changing the height of the guardrail, but they're changing the height of the guardrail from 18 inches to 27 inches in that area. I hope that's going on in the North Vancouver area as well as West Vancouver. I don't know whether your question was about why you don't have fences the same as West Vancouver. I didn't get an answer to that question. We will.

I'm quite interested in bicycles. In view of the fact that we probably won't have any gasoline in 1985, so somebody said, we'll all be on bicycles. I think we should all get interested. . -1 recommend to municipalities that they provide the bicycle routes. We have moved, as far as the ministry is concerned, on the highways by paving shoulders, practically throughout.

Dealing with the access to the Massey Tunnel, we provide a shuttle service from April 1 to October 1. We don't provide anything in the wintertime; when I see the cost for the summer, I guess that's the reason. The estimated cost for provision of a shuttle service for bicycles in the Massey Tunnel per month is $10,000. That's what we're paying now for that shuttle service.

Regarding planners, we can pass that on, Mr. Member. We have a planning division; I don't know whether they're putting much study into bicycles, but I think it comes up all the time. I'll pass it on -that maybe they should give more thought to the cyclist.

I think the last question you had was about the Peat Marwick report. It is a confidential document because it does deal with a lot of people and we're in the midst of transferring over. My answer is that it will remain confidential because of that.

The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) mentioned the problems in his riding, such as the bypass of Fort St. James. Mr. Chairman, I would say that is a little in the distant future. It's certainly not in the immediate future.

The Nechako River bridge. I think we should concentrate on the main bridge rather than the second crossing. In other words, Mr. Chairman, they want two bridges there. I realize the problem caused by logging trucks in every interior community, as far as that goes, I but I think we're going to do well to get a new Nechako bridge up there in the next couple of years. With priorities as they are, however, I can't see the second crossing in the immediate future. What we're concentrating on first is the main structure.

[ Page 3363 ]

As far as the lighting on the overpass at Houston is concerned, we're certainly emphasizing these. These are traffic hazards and I have no idea why the lighting was left off three or four years ago. I'll give you my commitment that lighting will be on there unless there is some engineering reason why they can t put it on.

While I'm on the subject, one thing I've seen as minister, regarding lighting of structures and so on, was the excellent job done to increase the lighting availability in the Massey Tunnel. I'd just like to tell this House, Mr. Chairman, that we're going to do that to the six tunnels in the Fraser Canyon, because they're all tunnels in British Columbia, too. They haven't been done for lack of funds, nor because the engineers didn't want to do them. There was lots of money available for the Massey Tunnel but there was none provided for the six tunnels on the Trans-Canada Highway. They're working on increased lighting for those right now and then they'll end up by painting them to make them better for the motorists of the province.

Regarding the carpets, I was quite interested in the debate on that, Mr. Chairman. There were some specific offices referred to. I'm not aware of any increased cost to the taxpayers whether they used the Rattenbury pattern or another pattern. I will certainly look into that. I wasn't aware there was any additional cost to the citizens of British Columbia other than using the standard pattern.

Last but not least, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is not here. The note I have here -not quite last but almost - is regarding the laying of the cornerstone of the fine downtown Vancouver building. The Premier and I attended a couple of weeks ago to officiate at the laying of the cornerstone. The Premier had nothing to do with issuing the invitations, and I think it was an oversight. But I would remind the first member for Vancouver Centre that was a public function. in my opinion, I think he should have shown up without an invitation, because other MLAs from Vancouver did. I want to emphasize that nobody was locked out; it was a public ceremony. I really want to emphasize that it was my ministry that organized it and I apologize for not asking you. But that didn't preclude you from coming. The Premier had nothing whatsoever to do with the invitation list, I can assure you of that.

Last but not least is the Jordan River-Port Renfrew road, which is in the riding of Esquimalt. This road has apparently been let go for years, and I'm happy to say that we are going to do some extensive work on that starting this fall, as I understand it.

Vie re looking at passing lanes that were asked for for the Langford-Sooke area. But _'d like to remind you., Mr. Chairman, that there's already more work going on in this riding than took place in the last 10 years. I refer to the four-laning of the Trans-Canada, almost all of which is in this area, although it does have some in the city of Victoria and some in Saanich. We're already on top of what we think is the major problem in that area, and we'll get on to these others.

Mr. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address the minister in his responsibility for the Ministry of Public Works, and I'd like him to think about the work which is taking place around here. I refer specifically to the curbing and the new roadway alignment. I have no argument in the top plan, but the side elevation of it certainly leaves something to be desired.

I'm alarmed. I've personally almost tripped over some of these curbs which were, I would imagine, originally designed to assist handicapped persons with wheelchairs. These things are projecting about four or five inches above the road surface; they're a hazard. I would challenge the minister to try to navigate them with a wheelchair.

Indeed, I think it's absolutely serious and it will be only a short matter of time before the Crown is sued by somebody inadvertently tripping over these things. This is going on right under the very nose of the minister. I charge him personally responsible for this. Something should be done about this and, in the meantime, some signs should be put up warning of some of these hazards.

We can see, if we go out to the far end of the building, coming in from the roadway on Menzies, that there's a drop there. If one turns to go into the wing, the same thing is encountered. I have no argument, Mr. Chairman, with the removal of cars from the front of the building. That's good; that's to be commended. But somehow the roadway has been put at the wrong elevation. i'd like to be told that perhaps they're planning to blacktop over the top of this or to put another coat on top of it. I really don't see how this came about. I would like to know also -maybe as an aside - if this was done as an in-house job or if it was subject to contract. If it was subject to contract, was it done by a union or a non-union contractor?

Another matter of Public Works is in the area of Nelson. I would like to thank the minister for having acted upon the landscaping of the relatively new Nelson government building. But I note that the landscaping was done, I believe, by a Surrey firm, at a time when unemployment runs over 20 per cent in the Nelson area. I would think that the job could have been done in-house. I know that the local landscaper and gardener for the Nelson area, Mr. Warren Reese, a graduate of the B.C. Vocational School or BUT, would be quite well capable of supervising such work, although I gather that he wasn't charged with doing such a thing and maybe he

[ Page 3364 ]

has other duties. But it certainly would seem to me that the work could be done. Was there any provision made in that contract for , the hiring of local people? What percentage of local people had to be hired? I didn't recognize any of the workmen on the site. I'd also like to know, Mr. Chairman, if it was a union job, or if all of these people were brought in from the coast. We have a very serious unemployment situation in the Kootenay area. Some of your cabinet colleagues are not doing anything to improve that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they plant tulips?

MR. NICOLSON: Well, we'll have to wait. We'll learn whether or not there are tulips or daffodils there next spring, Mr. Member. But I'm glad to see there is the grass there now and some plants and the planters are filled. i take no quarrel with this.

I ask the question, Mr. Chairman, as to whether or not it was a union job because I noted people working on this job on statutory holidays and on weekends. It would seem to me that this contract was perhaps being done at a greater expense than what might have been required, so I'd like to hear about that. I certainly am not asking a question to which I know the answer. This may or may not be a union contract, to my knowledge, but it did seem to me rather strange that they were working on statutory holidays, which I saw for myself first-hand, and that they were also working on weekends.

I would emphasize to the minister that this was going on in an area which throughout the winter has had over 20 per cent unemployment; indeed, there. was 23 per cent unemployment the last time I checked.

I note that the work on the Champion Lakes road is going ahead, and I commend him on that. I understand they intend to pave the road after it has been completed. There will not be any traffic allowed on it until it is completed. That's probably a good decision, although I'm sure the people of the area will be very impatient and would be more than willing to travel over the gravel road, as it would cut down certain hauling distances for commerce. It would also bring Selkirk College closer to the students of the Salmo area, and it would indeed reduce the distance more than 50 per cent, so their time of travel in the hazardous winter months could be made much safer and much quicker.

Last year I asked him this and I got a bit of a political response. But I note that in the departmental report there were 30-some-odd design projects going on for bridges. They talked about the Kiskatinaw and the various other projects that were going on. I would like to know what work is being done with the Taghurn bridge, and where it's going.

I'd also like the minister to tell me, going back to the days when he was not minister, when he was the critic of the Department of Highways, if he had contacts with certain members of the Social Credit Party on the Taghurn bridge when there was some political issue made of it. I'm referring to the decision not to go ahead with the two-span bridge similar to the bridge across the Kootenay River at Creston, but to go ahead with the original alignment.

This is a problem which was inherited from the previous Social Credit government. It started an alignment and then for years they had built approaches which were not used. They had many years in which to do something about this. I would like the minister to say something about this very seriously.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm not afraid to face the people of Nelson-Creston. I've never been afraid to talk to them and I certainly wasn't chased out of the Taghurn Hall. I had the guts to go in there, unlike your Premier who shoves his way through the people of Nelson and who incites very peaceful and law-abiding citizens by his arrogance.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: No, I'm not afraid to speak to the people of Nelson-Creston, my friend, and I am not afraid to show my face in any part of this province today. I wonder if that member can make the same statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. NICOLSON: I wish to apologize, Mr Chairman, for the behaviour of that member in interrupting this committee and in trying to draw me out of order, but I'll bring my remarks back to the Taghurn bridge here today.

Mr. Chairman, the people of Nelson certainly have said that they will be patient. They want to see that big bridge built and if they don't see it built under this government, they'll see it built under another NDP government.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: We certainly did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps the committee is becoming just a trifle too vocal.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, perhaps if I spoke up a little louder, Mr. Chairman, I could be heard over the interruption of the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) .

[ Page 3365 ]

MR..CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member, I don't think that would be sufficient. We have 20 minutes to go and this always happens about this time of the evening.

MR. WALLACE: We're getting hungry!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that may be in order as well. Perhaps we could stick to vote 146.

MR. NICOLSON: To sum up, before the Minister of Highways was interrupted by the late arrival of the Minister of Mines and the Premier, I posed some very serious questions,

One of these curbs constitutes a real hazard around this building and it will certainly be only a matter of time before someone is seriously injured. I would like to know some details of the nature of the contract which I outlined to the minister concerning the landscaping of the Nelson project. I'd also like to ask why it might not have been done in-house using local labour. and what provision there was for local labour input. I hope to hear from the minister that there was some significant percentage.

I would like to hear some serious answers. We had fun with the politics in this last year from the minister, but he's been minister now for 16 months.

I note in the departmental report that there is mention of over 30 design projects that went ahead on bridges but only very scanty details of some six, so I would have hoped that in the various regional reports something could have been a little bit more outlined, In fact, I would say, Mr. Chairman, that the report this year is much more scanty and much more general. You could get in previous reports - even last year's report, I think - a lot more specific information on the various regions than you can in this one. That's why I'm asking for more detailed information.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): I would first like to compliment the minister on his aggressive leadership in respect to the Department of Highways and the fact that he has taken the trouble and the time to travel personally almost every mile of highway that he is responsible for, as well as to meet with most of the councils across British Columbia.

I'd particularly like to compliment him on his determination to change the highway signs from miles per hour to metric. The traffic officer didn't seem to appreciate my argument that I was traveling metric and not miles per hour when I was caught speeding going to Air West this past Monday.

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , I think, has caught on to a secret, and I think of his quote when he suggested the labour-intensive transportation. Possibly he has discovered the secret as to why the people prefer bicycles over subways in Peking, China. One thing he did not make clear is whether he took the trip from the interior of British Columbia via the comfort of his automobile or via bicycle. I would like to have him clarify that sometime. Because I've spoken out frequently a number of times in the House in respect to the fact that less is spent on transportation needs in the lower mainland, particularly in the suburbs, than anywhere else in British Columbia, I'd like to also compliment him on his catch-up programme in the lower mainland in the suburbs, particularly in respect to Stormont interchange. Tenders were called just recently on the two bridges that will be so important to finish the north arm of the Stormont interchange. The one bridge crosses the Brunette River and the Cariboo Road, and the other bridge crosses the Burlington Northern Railway track and Government Road. These tenders were let late in May and were returnable on June 1. Therefore projects which have been dormant in Burnaby-Edmonds for as long as I can remember and as long as I've been in British Columbia - and, I'm told by others, for a long time prior to that - are now well under construction.

I'm also encouraged that the planning and surveying have begun on the south connection of the Stormont interchange, which is going to make a tremendous difference to the residents of Burnaby-Edmonds. After the south connection will be completed, we will not have to suffer the inconvenience in Burnaby-Edmonds of having all the people from Surrey and Langley and New Westminster traveling through our residential streets. They will be able to connect directly with the freeway.

I would also like to make mention of the fact that the minister is certainly the most popular minister in New Westminster today. It is largely as a result of his efforts that the courthouse in New Westminster is proceeding, and the construction will proceed early next year. Even though he has been attacked because of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation and the purpose and the philosophy of it, I'm very proud of the fact that the British Columbia Buildings Corporation is really the reason why the New Westminster courthouse is able to proceed. I think we would all be in favour of that.

There are three other concerns that I have, Mr. Chairman, and this is part of the backlog of the transportation needs in the suburbs. One of them is Marine Way, which has been an election promise again and again. As I pointed out previously, the former member from Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Dowding) in fact claimed that the red survey flags were already up along Marine Way. However, Marine Way is a concern because the highway is completed on the Vancouver side and the New Westminster side, but somehow Burnaby, over the last 20 or more years, has been neglected. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I

[ Page 3366 ]

would like to ask the minister to pay particular attention to Marine Way.

Another one is the North Road. In his own terms, it can best be described as a cow trail. The North Road, connecting Coquitlam, Burnaby and New Westminster, can best be described as a cow trail in this modern day and age and certainly needs some attention very quickly.

My last concern is our commitment on the Oakalla property. I know the minister is suggesting that a committee be set forward to look at the best alternative uses of the Oakalla property. I'm very pleased about that and would like to encourage the minister, or have some response, as to when this committee will be struck. I'd like to make my suggestion and go on record that I think the property would make a tremendous family park and would be a great place for some of these bicycle trails that have been referred to today. Burnaby Lake, which forms the shoreline for the Oakalla property, is just a beautiful lake in the centre of the city of Vancouver and should certainly be preserved.

Again, I'd like to compliment the minister and his hardworking staff -- Mr. Dennison, Mr. Carr and the rest of his staff - for the attention that Burnaby-Edmonds is receiving at this time.

MR. KING: I've been listening attentively to all the members this afternoon outlining various problems in different parts of the province. I was interested in the suggestion by the member who just spoke --- the member for Burnaby-Edmonds - that a family park be established in his riding. I would think that's a rather reckless suggestion, Mr. Chairman, because just as surely as a family park is established, the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) will be wanting to develop a mine in it, consistent with the general policy around the province.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the Minister of Highways that I certainly welcomed his visitation to my riding a few weeks back. I certainly publicly give credit to the minister for having the courtesy to invite the opposition MLA for that riding to the official opening of the eastern access on the perimeter of the city of Revelstoke. That particular project had been kicked around for some 15 years and was finally got underway by the New Democratic Party government. The project was completed under the current administration. The Minister of Highways was big enough to recognize that a number of local people had worked on the project, including the MLA for the riding, and he was prepared to invite us to participate in the festivities. That is a distinct departure from Social Credit policy and I hope he is not sanctioned by the Premier because of his courtesy in this regard.

There are a number of things which I'm interested in, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the minister's administrative responsibilities in dealing with the workers in the Public Works section of his ministry. I understand there is to be a very major dislocation of that work force, due to a bill which is on the order paper and which I shall not discuss, Mr. Chairman. I'm interested in some information from the minister. I understand that -ie has given a public commitment that no one currently employed with Public Works will lose their employment as a result of an administrative reorganization of the Public Works department. It's my understanding that he was reported in the paper as giving that undertaking. I'm very interested in that, because I believe there are somewhere around 1,000 people employed in that department now. I would ask the minister to comment on the reports that I have heard and whether my understanding is correct or not.

I'm concerned about another area of the minister's responsibilities, Mr. Chairman, and that is with respect to the policy of tendering. I've discussed this privately on a previous occasion with the minister and some of his staff with respect to one particular incident.

But I'm concerned on a more general and broader level with respect to just what the procedure should be when it comes to awarding contracts. 1. appreciate that the needs of the department in terms of expeditiously proceeding with certain projects require fairly quick action at times. But I'm concerned that that need for quick action will compromise what should always be in my view a system of open, public and fair competitive bidding for projects on which the taxpayers' dollars are expended in the province.

I would suggest to the minister that around the province in the various Highways district offices, the kind of latitude that seems to prevail now in terms of taking verbal quotations from local contractors rather than by a strict format for open competitive bidding is a bit on the dangerous side in my view.

It has come to my attention that in certain instances officials of the Highways department simply contact area firms to ask them for a quotation. Based on the lowest quotation they award the contract, or they hire or retain the firm to do certain work. While, I would suggest, in most cases, if not all, this might be quite above board and in keeping with good ethical standards, I suggest that it is a system which lends itself to abuse. It lends itself to a situation where elicit relationships could develop whereby a local contractor who happened to be a friend or influential with key people certainly could gain advantage.

I'm sure that the minister has been involved in politics long enough to have heard of this kind of situation obtaining in the past over the years in this province. Certainly I have. The point is that to have a well-administered department, particularly when it comes to recompense, when it comes to the expenditure of the taxpayer's dollar, the system

[ Page 3367 ]

should be above reproach.

The minister himself, 1 am sure, in no way wants to be involved in the kind of political implications that flow from a very, very flexible system of awarding these contracts on a local basis. I'm not suggesting that everything should be centralized in Victoria; not at all. What 1 am suggesting is that there should be a set procedure that is understood and indeed publicized on a regional and local basis so that everyone interested in doing work for the Ministry of Highways and the Ministry of Public Works is equally aware of the procedure to be followed; so that it is obvious and above board; and so that everyone has equal access to the opportunity to gain this kind of work. I certainly submit, Mr. Chairman, that that is not the case at the moment.

There is one other matter that has come to my attention very recently. This involves not only this particular minister's responsibilities and area, Mr. Chairman, but other ministries of the government also.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House,

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.