[ Page 3369 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

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

On vote 146.

Mr. King –– 3369

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3370

Mr. Barnes –– 3370

Mr. Shelford –– 3376

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 3377

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3378

Ms. Sanford –– 3380

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3383

Mr. Bawtree –– 3384

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3385

Mr. Wallace –– 3385

Mr. Barrett –– 3387

Mr. Barber –– 3390

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3391

Mr. Barrett –– 3392

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3393

Mr. Rogers –– 3394

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3394

Mr. King –– 3394

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 3396

The House met at 8 p.m.

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. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Chairman, just prior to the recess I was discussing a number., of matters which I have found of some concern with respect to the area of jurisdiction of the Minister of Highways and Public Works. I had talked about the proposal to lay off a large number of workers in the Public Works ministry and asked if my impression that the minister had given an undertaking that no one of those employees would lose their employment with the government was correct.

I had also briefly mentioned the system that regional Highways ministry offices use for tendering small contracts with the Ministry of Highways, and I indicated the need for a system which is fair, is seen to be equitable and judicious, and one that is understood by the public generally.

There's one other area, which I had just started to deal with prior to the adjournment, and that relates to the practice of hiring machinery in local areas throughout the province. I'm thinking of trucks and front-end loaders and so on that are hired from time to time, either on a day-labour basis or on a , short-contract basis. It's my understanding that the Ministry of Highways, from time to time, negotiates a rate of compensation to the owners of these various types of vehicles, which will be the going rate for the province of British Columbia and which will afford all local contractors an opportunity to compete on an equal basis for work with the Ministry of Highways.

It has recently come to my attention, Mr. Chairman, that the Ministry of Highways and B.C. Hydro, particularly, do not always follow the rate of pay which is negotiated with the contractors throughout the province. In other words, after meeting with these various small business groups in the province and negotiating a rate for the rental of their equipment, which is found to be a fair and equitable rate, the Ministry of Highways in some cases then simply calls in individuals and asks them what their rate will be. Upon being notified that the charge will be the rate that was previously negotiated, they find that they do not get the work and that other people are allowed to come in and undercut the rate which had previously been agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, 1 think this is a very alarming development and revelation. I think that it is patently bad faith, in effect, to meet with all of these groups and negotiate a rate which will be fair and equitable to them all and which is understood, and then use that rate as a bargaining device. This lends itself to a situation where favouritism can be played. I'm most concerned about it, Mr. Chairman. I've only heard about it in the one instance with respect to the Highways ministry. I have heard about this kind of thing with respect to B.C. Hydro and presumably, as far as I know, the rate that is applicable for Hydro is the rate that is applicable for the Ministry of Highways too. So 1 presume that both organizations or the Purchasing Commission or someone is in on the negotiation of these rates.

I should say, Mr. Chairman, that these are allegations. 1 have no substantial proof that this is the case. I have been notified by businessmen in certain areas of the province that it is, in fact, the case. I would like to hear the minister's response to this allegation. Hopefully, he will denounce that kind of approach because 1 think, aside from being bad faith, it's a very dangerous principle indeed. If it is being done by any regional office of the Ministry of Highways, I certainly hope that the minister will give this House an undertaking that a halt to that practice will be ordered immediately. 1 hope that the minister will issue a cease-and-desist order to any regional office that is using that kind of approach in terms of the hiring, the rental or the contract for the tender of Highways ministry work, or Public Works contracts, for that matter.

What it means is that those people who've been a party to the negotiations where the rate is set go in feeling that if they're prepared to do the work at that rate, they'll get their fair share of Highways department work on a routine basis. Then they find that someone comes in behind them, offers a lower rate, and they're completely undercut.

If that kind of situation is going to prevail, the only fair alternative would be an open public tender which is, of course, not very practical for small-labour jobs. It's a very serious situation and I'm most concerned about it. As 1 said earlier, it lends itself to a kind of porkbarrel situation where members of the Ministry of Highways, if not the minister as the politician responsible, could be held in some question in terms of their approach to good and common business practices. 1 think that would be unfair, because 1 certainly believe that the vast majority of individuals in the department are good and faithful public servants who do a fair and reasonable job. But it's not enough to know that. I think, in terms of the procedures and administration of the ministry, it must be such that the public understands it, has

[ Page 3370 ]

complete confidence in it, and that there is no way that anything other than good, judicious administration can take place. That's really the issue.

As I say, 1 myself am not making an allegation in this regard. It has come to my attention; it has been submitted to me by local businessmen that this in fact does take place. I hope the minister is in a position to repudiate it, and to give an undertaking to the House, as I indicated earlier, that if such practice is underway that it will be halted immediately. So I think I'll let it go at that.

1 have some other questions that I would like to put to the minister at a later date, but they deal with more localized matters in terms of specific Highways projects and so on. So rather than getting confused with a bunch of different areas to respond to, I would respectfully request an answer from the minister on the subjects I've raised thus far.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): I'd like to deal first of all - back to front - with the member for Revelstoke-Slocan on the hiring of equipment.

What you've just said disturbs me; 1 haven't heard this before. But I would like to tell you what the policy is. We hire trucks, tractors, loaders, graders -you name it - that are privately owned. There's a set rate in a rental book for that equipment, and we go by that rental rate book. That book is upgraded every spring.

You mentioned B.C. Hydro. I understand they have input into that book. I believe the Forest Service does. But we in our Highways ministry can't be responsible for what Hydro does afterwards. But I can assure you - 1 give the members of this House the commitment - that we go by that rate book as far as the Highways ministry is concerned.

We have a lot of problems, I might say, with local owners of trucks and tractors and loaders. The way we handle that - to get away from favouritism and so on - is that they're registered with the ministry every winter. They list their equipment - what they have -by make and by model. We call them out to work on the basis of how they're listed on our registry in the local district Highways offices.

We do give preference to the ones that stay with us every year, year in and year out. We don't have any trouble, quite frankly, with bulldozers, loaders and graders, but we have a lot of problems with trucks at all times. 1 might say to the committee that I'm well aware of that because 1 used to own trucks, and none of the trucking people can get along with themselves, let ' alone with other people, and they haven't changed at all.

So there are arguments going on there, but we do have guidelines we go by and those are the guidelines we take. After we've drawn - and this is happening in the province right now ~- all the local equipment out of the area and it's put to work, then we go outside, but not until then. We have arguments about that -what's local and what's not. As a matter of fact, when I was in Trail recently an operator there was mad because he couldn't get called out to a job in Fruitvale because the Fruitvale people were working. Well, you get into those.

But basically we stay by the rates in the rate book once they're working. I hope it isn't the Highways ministry that's trying to beat that rate book, because I'm told by the senior administrative people that that's not so. We're paying the rates which are posted in those books.

Regarding tendering for highways, Mr. Chairman, I think we're not really looking here at the bigger jobs. We're looking at the smaller jobs in the districts where, as an example, they need 10 years of concrete. They invite the local concrete supplier to give them bids. I want to say here, Mr. Chairman, that the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) brought something to our attention a couple of months ago -and I appreciate that - where our local district manager was receiving bids on the telephone and they were getting back out to other people prior to our job being let. I would like to just tell the committee, Mr. Chairman and the member that we have stopped that practice. ~hey must now submit their bid and keep them under seal until they've got clearance from the purchasing department to award. We won't be carrying on any more. I don't think that was going on all over the province but it was certainly something that I appreciate you pointing out, and I hope we've stopped it.

The last thing the member for Revelstoke-Slocan brought up was his concern for the employees of Public Works. I think, Mr. Chairman, I touched just lightly on that. But I have said that none of the surplus people here - and the figure was given as 800 - will lose his job with government, and we intend to carry out that pledge. That doesn't mean to say that they would be all in the Highways and Public Works ministry but they have been given priority for positions in the public service as they become available.

I understand, as I said yesterday in committee, that about 700 jobs a month are posted by the public service, and that commitment will be lived up to. We're just in the throes of this changing around and we won't know ourselves where that's really at till about April 1,1978. In the meantime all these people's positions are covered for salary and so on under the Public Works vote.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I would like to go back a bit. The minister has left a few questions unanswered. I'm very sorry that the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is away because he had threatened the minister, in fact, that he would

[ Page 3371 ]

not permit this vote to pass until certain questions were answered respecting the position of those public employees.

AN HON. MEMBER: He'll be back!

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, he accepted my answer and he's gone for the night.

MR. BARNES: That's too bad because, Mr. Chairman, I don't feel that the minister has given satisfactory answers to this House respecting the future of public employees in the Ministry of Public Works. I would like to ask the minister again to explain for the benefit of this House just how he dealt with the Ashmore case. The Ashmore case was already quite clearly outlined by the member for Oak Bay. I don't want to belabour that, but there are some very serious questions being asked that were not answered. There apparently was a commitment made by the Ministry of Public Works to the employees - a commitment that they would be given first consideration for all positions, Mr. Chairman. That's the point we must keep in mind in this House - that it was a question of a commitment on behalf of the Ministry of Public Works to people who had made a commitment as public servants. They had every right to be treated in that way and the government, from what I can understand, has begun to evade that commitment and tried to find ways of getting around it. I would like the minister to answer the questions that were asked about Mrs. Ashmore.

I'm going to go over a few of the documents respecting....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, this material has been covered at quite some length.

MR. BARNES: There have been no answers from the minister, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure that the minister does have the question. I must remind hon. members again that we cannot insist upon answers. We can ask the questions and it is the election of the minister....

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't insist but I would like to advise the House that Mrs. Ashmore applied for a position as executive secretary . . ..

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): That's all rehash!

MR. BARNES: It is not all rehash, Mr. Minister of Health. You get up and make a speech and defend the minister. You explain why this person who was working in the department finds that after following the minister's instructions of applying for a position and being encouraged to follow his directive, she was ignored and given a bunch of letters, and that's not satisfactory. This letter has been read before. Why should I have to read it again, Mr. Chairman? Because we are not getting any answers.

I don't blame that minister. If I were in his position I wouldn't give any answers, because this woman has been sidestepped deliberately, and I'm afraid this is what's going to be happening to the rest of the public service.

He talks about next April, 1978, as the time by which we'll have some answers to the questions the member from Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) was asking about the future of the employees. I know what's going to happen. In about a year from now, they will all have just become lost. They will all so , rt of have disappeared - just vanished into thin air, Mr. Chairman. But, you know, we don't intend to let that happen. We want that minister to stand up and answer some questions. That's why I'm here this evening. I have been thinking about this over the dinner break and I am not satisfied with that minister's answers. I feel he has been using his big beautiful smile to evade some very serious questions.

Now I'm prepared to make some charges. Maybe we can get the minister up, Mr. Chairman, eventually to start answering some of these questions.

The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) read into the record this afternoon a letter received May 20, by the personnel of the Ministry of Public Works, written by the hon. Minister of Highways and Public Works, Mr. Alex Fraser. This is addressed to all management and administrative support positions. These are the new B.C. Buildings Corporation positions. He writes to the public employees:

"As indicated previously, the senior positions for BCBC will be made available for competitive selection. Attached is the first group of positions to be posted by the corporation. In the first instance, these positions are being offered solely" - and I underline that - "to Public Works employees and all staff are encouraged" - and I underline that - "to apply for any position for which they believe they 'possess the required qualifications. These positions will be filled on the basis of merit selection" - whatever that means; I'd like the minister to explain what merit selection means - "and may be opened at a later date to the general public in the event that qualified Public Works candidates cannot be found."

I don't know what he means by "merit selection, " whatever that means. It is an ambiguous statement that I've never seen before when it comes to hiring and it leaves the door wide open. I guess it just means that if you're a political friend you're of high merit,

[ Page 3372 ]

and if you're not, you're of low merit.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Debate something new.

MR. BARNES: Let's take a look at the qualifications of Mrs. Ashmore, Mr. Chairman, because the minister is saying that for those who are qualified.... Look at the Premier over there shaking his head as though he doesn't want me to defend one of these Public Works people. You should stand up and defend them yourself, Mr. Premier. When you were in the opposition you didn't have any hesitation to try and defend the rights of people who were being sidestepped by government, or anywhere else. You were all for the underdog, for the little guy. This is a government of the people.

Look what you're doing to the people now. Here's a woman who was on welfare just a few years ago, before she got this job, and now she finds she's being sidestepped, Mr. Chairman, by somebody in the new B.C. Buildings Corporation. I don't know who yet, but I'd like that minister to stand up and tell us who sidestepped Mrs. Ashmore.

Listen to Mrs. Ashmore's qualifications.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I know that you wish to be a good debater, and I'll try to assist you. The material that you're covering has been well canvassed, and I would ask you to continue to address the Chair rather than the members opposite.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will also try to be very brief in order to give the minister an opportunity to answer the questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The material that you're covering has been well canvassed.

MR. BARNES: Thank you very much. I'm sure you haven't heard this before. This has to do with the qualifications of Mrs. Ashmore, and I know no one has read it into the records before. I wonder if the minister even read it because this is already a decision to hire somebody else. He never had any intention of listening to her application.

This is the point I'm trying to make, Mr. Chairman: there was never any intention to hire that woman in the first place. You can tell by reading those letters. This is what I'm saying: that minister is part of a conspiracy to get rid of those people in the public service and bring in their friends who are outside to take the place of the public servants.

If we're going to sit here and let that happen, then we have nobody to blame but ourselves, Mr. Chairman. I am suggesting that that is not only the B.C. Buildings Corporation, but the new Social Credit employment agency. It's the new Social Credit welfare system.

. In any event, Mrs. Ashmore has been educated partially in British Columbia at Camosun College, where she did a refresher course in shorthand. She went to the Frances King Secretarial College in London, England. She took shorthand and typing. She has a general certificate in education.

She has also studied in Georgetown, Guyana, and other places. Her jobs have included the Royal Bank of Canada, 1960-1961; the Demerara Tobacco Company, 1962-1964; Georgetown, Guyana, 1964-1965; Miller Robinson Construction Company - Bridgetown, Barbados, West Coast Limited -Sandylane, Barbados, 1965-1968; Palmer-Seedhouse Adjusters Ltd., 1969 - here in Victoria; Dr. Martin Scherzer, orthodontist - Victoria, 1973; 1 can't pronounce this; I'm not Swedish, but I think it's van Cuylenborg & Gray, barristers and solicitors, 1973; Owen-Flood, Cox & Turnham, 1974-1975; Sullivan, Smith and Bigelow, 1974-1975; MacMinn and Izard, 1975; and since 1975 she's been working for the provincial government.

Mr. Chairman, do you know what she was applying for? You want to know the position she was applying for. She was applying for the position that required the following. The qualifications that are necessary for the position of assistant executive secretary . . ..

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, may I have the attention of the House? The Premier, I see, is leaving in disgust, walking out of the House when we're trying to defend one of the people who has committed and honour-bound themselves to work on behalf of the public service. She is being side-stepped by that new B.C. Buildings Corporation and the Premier walks out - very interesting. That's a man of the little people.

These are the qualifications for the applicant:

"The applicant should have recognized business or secretarial training and a good knowledge of business English and letter composition. Several years of senior stenographic experience and ability to type and take shorthand rapidly and accurately are required. The applicant should have demonstrated ability to deal with the public and senior officials as well as organizing complex tasks."

Now from what I've just read - I'm sure you would agree - that person certainly has a fair amount of skill and ability, far in excess of what appears to be required for this particular job as executive secretary to the general manager of the B.C. Buildings Corporation. I think the minister owes us an explanation. I would like to know if in fact this

[ Page 3373 ]

woman ever really did have a chance.

The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) read into the record a great deal about this applicant, but it seems to me the minister didn't get the message the first time. I'm going to suggest to him that we take another look, just for the record.

On June 15, the director of corporate services for the B.C. Buildings Corporation - Mr. Dolezal, I believe - wrote to Mrs. Ashmore. Now this has already been in the record, but this will show you how difficult it is for this minister to face the fact that he is going to - and I hope this is not a bother, Mr. Chairman - shaft one of the public servants and put in somebody else whom they already knew who they were going to hire in the first place, I'm sure, and go through the motions. I'm sure these letters, Mr. Chairman, will verify my concerns and fears about what this government is saying and what it is doing.

"Dear Mrs. Ashmore:

"On behalf of Mr. Pitcher, I would like to thank you for your interest and the time you took in applying and interviewing for the position of executive secretary to the general manager.

"While we do consider you to be a good candidate still in the running for this particular position, we have decided to delay finalizing our decision on your application pending review of suitable qualified applicants on the Victoria labour market.

"We do apologize for this delay in finalizing our response to you. However, we do hope to be definite by early July. In the meantime and in order to ensure that you are considered for alternate opportunities as they are posted, I would encourage you to apply for any such positions as would be of interest to you."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This material has been covered.

MR. BARNES: Yes, it has.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The record will show that it has been covered. The member standing on his feet admits that it has been covered and therefore it is out of order.

MR. BARNES: And I hope that this minister will read it because I'm sure he hasn't answered the questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask you now to move to another subject.

MR. BARNES: Thank you very much, MR. Chairman. I was just going to read one final line anyway. There's not that much to it. "Once again, Mrs. Ashmore, thank you. .

[Mr. Chairman rises. ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member please be seated? This member has demonstrated on two occasions, all day yesterday and again today, that he refuses to be orderly in this House. Therefore I must ask the member if he intends on purpose to be disorderly. If he does, there are certain steps that are required of the Chair to take. If the member wishes to be an orderly and an honourable member in this House, then let him now declare it.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. BARNES: I feel that it is imperative that I repeat as often as I have in order to get some help on an issue that affects the life of an individual working in the public service. I don't feel there has been nearly enough aggressiveness shown on behalf of the government to defend the rights of the people who are in the public service.

All I'm trying to do is put a picture before the minister that will assist him in seeing why we are excited on this side of the House. Obviously by these letters we get a discrepancy, Mr. Chairman, because the minister sent a memo to the staff telling them that they would have an opportunity to get first shot at jobs that they qualify for. Then we find that letters are being written to these applicants telling them that they should apply for all of these other different positions, even though they know they're qualified for one, while in the meantime they've already hired somebody for the position with no notice to these people.

You tell me that I can't read this into the record because they've been read before. You know that it's necessary to reread and reread sometimes, Mr. Chairman, before people begin to understand and get the message. But now, Mr. Chairman, I don't need to read what is happening because you already know and I'm sure the minister knows that what happened was that long after the fact that particular applicant was rejected and told: "Thanks, but no thanks." I don't think that's good enough.

I think we've had a charade in this House for the last day and a half trying to talk to this minister who has been getting up and talking about everything except the B.C. Buildings Corporation and what's going to happen to those 800 people. He's just saying things that are beating around the bush and we're asking him to explain to us not only what's going to happen to those 800 people but how he arrived at the decision in the first place that we needed a B.C. Buildings Corporation. Was this another one of his little personal pet peeves like he talks about when he

[ Page 3374 ]

doesn't like to ride behind people who go slowly up around the Hope-Princeton Highway? Is this just some last-minute idea that came into his head?

We would like to know, Mr. Chairman, who the applicants are who gave him the feasibility studies. Who are the people who competed for the right to come up with the plan? Where are they? We've heard of Peat Marwick, but who else? Who are the others? Name them! How much were they going to get? How much are they getting now? When did they start getting it? When is it over? Are you over the budget? Was it half a million dollars that it cost? How many people were involved? Give us some facts! ~

We ask the minister to give us the report on the Peat Marwick report. We have seen nothing. He says: "Well, that's confidential. We're not to give it to you." He's arrogantly sitting over there telling this House he's not going to give us information on what happened to the money we spent to come up with something as important as the B.C. Buildings Corporation. But we're going to give them $200 million of the public's money, tying them up even deeper in debt, and the minister's going to tell us that that's supportive financing. "That's not even deficit financing, " he says.

I think we're being laughed at. I think that minister thinks he's dealing with a bunch of people over here who don't care about this province and who are just trying to grab headlines and have fun. I'll tell you it is not true. We care in this House. We expect this minister to do more than just smile and be nice. We know he's the man of the town in Quesnel. We know he's proud of the fact that he was born in Victoria and is a lovely man who comes from a family of politicians. We all love him, but I tell you, if he's not responsible, who is responsible?

Maybe he himself would like to start demanding that some answers be found. I'm sure this minister has very little knowledge of all the things that are going on, all of the injustices that are happening. He has definitely given us no answers as to what's going to happen, Mr. Chairman, to those public servants. We do not know. He says: "Well, we're going to leave it up to negotiations between the union and our agent." That's not what we're talking about now; we're talking about direction. Agents work on behalf of the people who employ them. The government has to give the leadership and the direction to their bargaining agent. We have to know what this minister wants to do. We're not getting any answers. I would like the minister to stand up and explain to us why someone with the qualifications of Mrs. Ashmore has not been given that job.

I would like to know who has the job right now. Who is the person who has the job right now? How much are they getting? What qualifications do they have? Were they working for the new executive director before? We don't know that; we'd like to know.

Now the minister has listed all kinds of cute little statements about people who are now working for the B.C. Buildings Corporation. He's gone down a long list telling us of the appointments. I'm sure most of us are familiar with these announcements. You see them in the press; you see them all over the place: "The B.C. Buildings Corporation . . ." or whatever ". . . now proudly announces the appointment of. . ." blah, blah, blah and blah, blah, blah. Well, I would like to see an announcement that tells us who that secretary is. We would like to know something about who the people are, Mr. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) .

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Oh, blah, blah, blah. That's all we hear from you, the same old blah, blah, blah.

MR. BARNES: Give us some of the facts. We have received no facts from that minister, but he stood up and talked all around and skirted around and said this and said the other, but he hasn't ever come clean. We want him to start answering some questions.

I can tell you right now that the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is not going to be here to insist that this minister answers questions before his salary vote passes, and I sure intended to do it. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that that'll be a test that the minister will have some trouble with, because I want to know.

I've asked this before; you were asked yesterday: where is the report? I don't think it's good enough for you to tell us that we can't have the Peat Marwick report. Why can't we have it? Why can't we know why and on what basis those business people over there made the decision to create the B.C. Buildings Corporation? Why can't we see your facts? Why can't we find out what kind of consultation took place between you and those other supervisors throughout the Department of Public Works, those people whom you said you were going to consult with in December of 1976? Where are the reports? Let us see something in writing and let us see how much money you've spent. Let us see who those people are who spent it. Let us find out what's really going on. You should want to give us these facts.

I can see nothing wrong, Mr. Chairman, in asking that minister to come clean. We've had the member for Revelstoke (Mr. King) attempting to get the minister involved in some dialogue around tenders to discuss some of the dangers that BCBC might get involved in. He's been dancing around that.

There are many glaring faults with this new porkbarrel that's being created - this new agency for unemployment.

AN HON. MEMBER: The minister of empty porkbarrels.

[ Page 3375 ]

MR. BARNES: Now that hasn't caught on yet. But it will catch on. The public will get the message that that fine gentleman, that hon. member who is the Minister of Highways and Public Works - by no fault of his own, Mr. Chairman - will now become the Baron of Pork. He doesn't want that name, but that's what he is. He's sitting on a porkbarrel.

Or you could call it something else. I've tried to suggest that it's going to be the welfare department for Social Crediters who are out of work, or something like that. I am not kidding; I'm quite serious.

I want the minister to come up and show me where there are safeguards to ensure that that is not going to happen. People who are going to BCBC will no longer be public servants. They may have a new certification and their new union. I don't know, but they certainly won't be public servants, and you can bet that BCBC will be dealing with people under different circumstances than they used to under the Public Works Fair Employment Act, They've already eliminated that with the new Act called the Fair Construction Wages Act or something like that, but that means no union. That means that that plan they have to undercut the organized workers in this province is still going right on through BCBC, and he knows it. He knows that the B.C. Buildings Corporation is going to be the headquarters for strike busting and everything else - for organized labour and everything else - and you better believe it.

Those jobs will be going in places without any recourse to the Legislature. There will be no control and I'm sure that you'll have your propaganda and everything else going, because one of the primary objectives will be to deal in real estate. I don't know what's frightening off expropriation, but at least you're going to amend it to that extent. But there'll be a lot of other things going on.

Mr. Chairman, maybe the minister is now prepared to stand up and explain the Ashmore case to the satisfaction of this House and maybe he's not. Maybe he's prepared to stand up in this Legislature and give us some of the facts on how the B.C. Buildings Corporation was decided upon. Tell us some of the feasibility studies that took place. Tell us how much money was involved with Peat Marwick. Tell us who the other competitors were for the work that they finally won. Tell us how far along they are in their studies and how much longer they will be retained. Give us some facts and figures in dollars and cents and maybe we can begin to get on to some of the other areas of the minister's work. But we've had none of those facts. We're dealing now in abstractions, in ambiguities, in glowing statements and in beautiful, eloquent comments from those various, lovely, hon. members across the floor over there, but we're getting no facts. I'll tell you that we're tired of being made a mockery of, as the people of British Columbia are and as are the public servants. We're going to start asking you for some facts. We want some answers and we're not getting any answers.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: You'll have your opportunity to get up, Mr. Member. There's plenty of time and you can do it right after me if you'd like to defend that minister. Maybe you'll be the new Public Works minister.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): I wouldn't want to follow you.

MR. BARNES: That's fine. I'm sure you couldn't.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Leave him alone - he spoke once last year.

MR. BARNES: Okay, we'll get somebody running in Vancouver South next who has some interest in people. We know the conspiracy that's going on.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Order! Order!

MR. BARNES: Now we're listening to the Minister of Agriculture, who gave us a song and dance about his concern about the people in this province. 1 was asking him questions....

MR. CHAIRMAN: One minute.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, you'll get your chance to stand up, too.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Filibuster!

MR. BARNES: You call it filibustering? You want to make a public speech on that? Filibustering? I'm discussing the just treatment of a public servant who works here in this precinct and you're going to tell me that I'm filibustering? You stand in this House and say that yourself. Stand up and go down on the record and tell me that what I was saying was filibustering. Say that what I was saying, Mr. Chairman, was nonsense and not important and that what I'm doing is trying to waste time. You're not going to convince those 800 people out there who have received no answers. I'll tell you something, Mr. Chairman, in sitting down at this point and hoping that the minister will answer some of my questions -we will be back, and we'll be back, and, we'll be back and we'll be asking you questions, Sir. Minister, until whatever freezes over.

[ Page 3376 ]

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Chairman, I've certainly had good exercise since 2 o'clock, getting up and down and listening to the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) give his same speech three times. He certainly proved one thing - that Churchill was right when he said: "If you want me to speak for 10 minutes, give me two hours to prepare it; but if you want me to speak for two hours, give me only 10 minutes."

I would like to congratulate the ministry and the minister on the improvements in maintenance and new construction up in the north country. It has certainly achieved a great deal, and we're not bouncing along on the potholes from Hazelton south as we were three years ago. I would also like to congratulate the minister on his excellent communications back and forth with the MLAs out in the countryside.

MR. LEA: Careful, they might send your speech back to your riding.

MR. SHELFORD: You'd better be quiet. It's better to keep your mouth shut and make people think you're a fool than open it like you're doing and leave no doubt.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SHELFORD: I would like to thank the minister for creating a new region in the Terrace area.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask that member, unless he was referring to himself, to withdraw, because it's an insult to the House. But if he's referring to himself, that's fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member was casting aspersion on any other hon. member in this House, will the member please withdraw?

MR. SHELFORD: If the member takes offence to it, I will, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LEA: I take no offence. He read the same editorial in the paper that said that I had more clout with the cabinet than you have, right? Trying to get it back?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's no point of order.

MR. SHELFORD: I am sure pleased to see the work being done on the Kitwanga-Stewart Highway and also the Stewart-Cassiar section up into my friend's country, up in Atlin. This is the coming route in British Columbia that will bring more jobs and prosperity into the northwest, once we have, , of course, the ferry link to Kitimat and the road north into Alaska.

I'm also very pleased that the minister and department were able to see fit to pave the road to the village of Kitimat, which my friends across promised for three years and never got around to doing.

In order to keep our visitors in the area longer -and we hear a great deal about tourism in this House this year - we certainly must also consider not just the main highway but also the link roads into recreational area~s such as the road from Hazelton through to the Nass. Swan Lake, in case any of you don't know, is one of the most beautiful recreational lakes in British Columbia, and there is a 58-mile road from Hazelton towards Swan Lake which ends nowhere. It's a 58-mile road built by the Forest Service and it ends about four miles short of Swan Lake.

If this road is put through, which is only about 14 miles - and a similar type of road was built for Can-Cel for a little over $20,000 a mile - it's not a large expenditure to make a link road to open up this vast recreational area at Swan Lake. Of course, it would also serve for the local people. They don't have too many recreational facilities in the Hazelton district at this time.

Another road I'd like to see opened up, again for the tourist industry and also for the people who live around Granisle, is a road from Smithers to Granisle. You can now drive through it on certain conditions, mainly with four-wheel drive. This road would be another tourist loop, which would keep our tourists in the area again for an extra day.

Even though, as I've mentioned earlier, these great strides have been made of building new highways and maintenance, I'm very concerned and I question our ability as a province of only a little over two million people to properly maintain and improve our highways in the future with costs going up so rapidly. It's very fortunate the former Socred government placed roads and hydro power in top priority. They built and paved roads in all areas of the province: from Cache Creek, where the pavement ended, clear through to Fort St. John; from McBride to Prince Rupert; the Rogers Pass; roads through the Okanagan and Salmo-Creston; and practically all other highways, including many of those on Vancouver Island.

The thing that concerns. me is if these roads hadn't have been built during the '50s and '60s, I would question whether any government, whether they're the group sitting here or the group sitting over there, would be able to afford to build those kinds of

[ Page 3377 ]

roads with the high costs we have today. If we had listened to the opposition at that time, we would be in very serious trouble on our highway links across the province in 1977. Costs are absolutely staggering today, whether it be for forest roads or highways.

I remember very clearly the road built from Vanderhoof to Prince George. The road was built at $19,000 a mile. The road now being built between Prince Rupert and Terrace - and I'm very thankful that's being reconstructed - will cost over $2 million a mile. And when you look at the cost of $2 million, even though the budget today is more than three times as large as it was in those days, there's no question: we won't get the same type of mileage built.

I think it's something that every one of us should consider, no matter where we're sitting in this Legislature, because the time will come when we simply won't be able to build roads. We'll be lucky to be able to maintain what we have. This is the type of thing we should all be concerned about.

I would like to see a day-labour programme started on the Kitwanga to Nass section of Highway 37 for the simple reason that the Ministry of Highways would have something to compare with. At the present time it's mainly all contracts, and the department doesn't really know whether they have got a good deal or a bad deal unless they have something to compare. I'm told that much of the work that was done on the section between Terrace and Prince Rupert under day-labour was cheaper per mile than that on contract at the present time.

Another thing I'd like to see is the local contractor working. At the present time there are 41 major pieces of equipment idle in Terrace. There has been a fair amount of discussion on rates paid by the Ministry of Highways. I think the only suggestion I could make, and the one problem I run into all the time, concerns equipment hired for day-labour like trucks and suchlike. It's not the Ministry of Highways that's causing the problem; it's the Ministry of Transport. The legal load working on a day-labour project is 10 yards on a 12- or 14-yard truck. Now if it was a contractor doing that same work, he'd be permitted to take the full 14 yards because the area is declared a construction zone. I think the ministry should look very carefully at day-labour projects also being declared construction zones. I'm quite sure the amount paid per yard is okay providing the ministry will allow the trucker to take a maximum load.

Most equipment working in the area at the present time is naturally outside equipment being as it's mainly the large contractors who are doing the job in the north country. I do admit there's no easy solution I'm certainly not blaming the ministry, because they're certainly trying to do their best, but productivity is down, whether it be day-labour or contract, as the minister clearly pointed out this afternoon. I hope all members were listening very carefully,

The costs have more than doubled in the last five years. I would say that's mostly due to the stupid contract between the former government and the government employees, especially the clause of portal-to-portal pay. If this clause spreads to the forest industry - and I hope my friend up in the corner is listening - it will totally destroy the forest industry in this province. In some remote areas this means only three to four hours of work a day. They leave town and get on the job just in time for a coffee break. Then they do one and a half hours before lunch, and then another one and a half hours, approximately, after lunch, and it's time to go back to town. It's very easy to imagine what would happen in some of these distant forest camps where they're bused a long way out of the town. You can imagine what this would do to the productivity of the faller or expensive pieces of equipment. Remember, some of the pieces of equipment involved cost over $250,000, and to work them three hours a day is utterly ridiculous and shows us how stupid we really are in our society today. This is extremely inefficient and I don't think we can afford to utilize our expensive equipment only for these short hours.

I agree that union wages for government employees must be fair. However, I think it's safe to say that this contract that was signed by the former government will cost the taxpayers of this province not just millions of dollars, but even billions of dollars over the next few years. I would say the union contract will go down in history as the worst thing done by the former government during their whole term of office. It's even worse than the millions that went down the drain, whether it be with Swan Valley, the northern fish plant, or B.C. Rail.

Another question I would like to ask the minister before sitting down - and I don't intend to repeat this speech three times - is: what was the cost of building a mile of road, in average condition, in northern British Columbia five years ago, and what is the cost today? I think if we look at some of these costs it will open our eyes and we'll realize we're going down the road to no return if we don't brighten up pretty fast.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out a few things that the Minister of Highways and Public Works has done in the great constituency of Yale-Lillooet. Things are looking very, very good as far as our highway system and Public Works facilities are concerned. I recall the great expansion of highways carried out by the former government in that constituency. About the only construction that was done, as far as I know, was the highway that led from Ashcroft to the proposed explosives plant of Dupont

[ Page 3378 ]

explosives. That highway was built for about two and a half miles, but when that former government brought in the Mineral Royalties Act the explosives plant was cancelled. We had a beautiful highway going nowhere.

Mr. Chairman, Nicola Avenue, in one of the major towns in my constituency, was planned for many, many years to be paved. The former member for that constituency promised it time and time again and people in that town thought that once he was a member of the government, indeed Nicola Avenue would be paved, but it wasn't. But right now the paving job is being completed. Merritt is very proud of that new approach to their town and they are very happy with the Minister of Highways because of that.

Another commitment given to us by the Minister of Highways is the completion of the Mamit Lake Road, which again has been promised for years. When it was started under the former government, at the first sign of resistance it was cancelled and it has been sitting there ever since.

The Minister of Highways has constantly upgraded the Hope-Princeton Highway and the Fraser Canyon Highway, which are in my constituency and which form a very vital part of the communications system in British Columbia. That minister has done a great deal to improve these highways, to provide passing lanes and to make them safer for the citizens of British Columbia.

He has promised the construction of the Coquihalla Highway and I understand that either late this year or early next year the first contracts will be called.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Highways has done a great deal for the people of Yale-Lillooet, but I have one question I would like to ask of this minister. He is responsible for Public Works and thus the precincts of this building. For many, many years in these chambers there were beautiful brass cuspidors, but for some reason they were removed. I've been asking that minister if he would please replace one or two of them in these chambers. He has not done that and I must insist that he please replace some of the cuspidors.

HON. MR. FRASER: I appreciate the remarks from the Minister of Forests and would tell him that we'll look in the cupboards around here and see if the cuspidors are there, because I know he has a personal problem and the cuspidors will help him. I'm sorry that hasn't been looked after before.

To the MLA for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) , going back on the list here, I'm quite interested in his observations regarding some kind of an access through Swan Lake. I'm not sure whether he meant from Hazelton to Swan Lake or right through to the Nass, but I agree with you. I've been in that country. It's a beautiful recreational area and should be more available. At the moment, of course, we have a little higher priorities but I don't think it's very far away that we can look at some extension there, Mr. Member.

The same with Smithers to Granisle - I rejected that because of higher priorities in other places, but I think that in the not-too-distant future we could probably spend some money there upgrading that link.

I understand that we have, I believe, 36 miles of road under contract from Kitwanga to the Nass River at the present time. I forget the value, but it's about $15 million or $20 million worth and there is another contract to award shortly for 13 miles; that will give us 49 miles. We have nine miles built in this remote area and that will leave us 44 miles to build to get up to a decent standard of road like most other citizens of the province have. Of course, this leads into Stewart and then up to Dease Lake and through the north B.C. boundary. I like your idea that of those 44 miles maybe we should try a 10-mile section under day labour, and then we will be able to look at it.

But we have a bit of a problem there and I have to tell this House that in the case of this section of road, we're on a 50-50 sharing arrangement with the government of Canada, and I doubt that they will share on a day-labour project. As a matter of fact, I think one of their criteria for sharing is that it must go to public tender and of course under day labour it would be under our supervision with hired equipment. So there is a bit of a problem there. But they have a limit on their sharing, which is $30 million. We're going to go beyond it and at that point I think we can consider it. I think we're just about there, as a matter of fact, and I just point that out.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Are you trying to renegotiate that?

HON. MR. FRASER: No, Mr. Chairman. For the benefit of the Legislature, we've just negotiated the agreement of a $30 million maximum; it's very new. I think that we will be able to renew that but we'll have to first of all show that the work is all in progress on this first. They have been fairly reasonable to deal with but I might say that all over the rest of the province this is the only area they share with us on road work, but we do appreciate that.

I now want to deal with the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) - I think it's Vancouver Centre. He was called "the member for Vancouver East" for a while, and for a while this evening I called him a few other things than that. But I appreciate the nice remarks he made of me earlier today and I'm sorry for his turnaround tonight. I want to tell this House, Mr. Chairman, that he did touch on a subject that I hadn't replied to, and I'm

[ Page 3379 ]

prepared to reply tonight. I had the answer and I lost it in a pile of papers. As a matter of fact, it didn't come up in this afternoon's sitting, but the consultation selection of how Peat Marwick and Partners.... I want to be clear here, because I believe there is another firm called Peat Marwick Mitchell, so I think we should be quite clear there that they're two different firms. But anyway, the firm I'm talking about is Peat Marwick and Partners and how we arrived at selecting them as consultants.

First of all, there was an invitation put out to these business consultants, and from that invitation there were nine submissions received. Each applicant was interviewed in depth and their proposals reviewed extensively. This happened last year. On this basis the firm of Peat Marwick and Partners were awarded the contract to provide the necessary consulting services. This contract is based on an hourly charge out for the time actually spent on the job. This hourly rate ranges from $29 to $75, depending on the individual engaged by their firm, whether it's a lawyer, chartered accountant, or whatever. To the end of May, 1977, billings from Peat Marwick totalled $396, 55 1.25

The other consulting firm used in the management search was engaged on a similar basis with an hourly rate of $50 to $60. The cost of this contract is estimated to be $2,500.

1 believe this was asked by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) . Drake Personnel was invited to supply suitable secretarial candidates, none of whom were engaged, and therefore this company is not due any payment. That more or less reviews the consulting.

I want to go back to remarks made this evening by the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) that these consultants made the decision to set up BCBC. I want to make it absolutely clear to the committee that that's not so. The decision to set up BCBC was made by the government that was elected on December 11,1975. 1 have said this so many times. If you want it answered 15 times, I'll answer it, Mr. Member. You made the same speech three times on the same subject and I'm quite prepared to give the same answer 15 or 50 times. You won't get me to deviate; you haven't deviated in your speeches and I won't deviate in the answers.

MR. BARNES: What about the report?

[Mr. Veitch in the chair. ]

HON. MR. FRASER: I've already made three different replies about the report. The report is confidential and it won't be filed.

MR. BARNES: Then how do you back up your statement?

HON. MR. FRASER: I want to make it clear to you that the government that was elected on December 11,1975, decided to do something about the waste of office space and other things that were going on in the public service. The route we took was to set up the B.C. Buildings Corporation. That bill was put before this Legislature in June, 1976, and passed into law. That's where the principle came from. You were here then, and I didn't hear you say very much about it at that time. That's where the principle was to set up and get on with what we're doing. Then we needed consultants to help us carry out the principles that were in that bill.

I'll repeat that same answer. It's all on the record here and you should have known that. The member for Oak Bay has asked it and other members asked it and that's fine, but....

MR. LEA: Why is the report confidential?

HON. MR. FRASER: Because we're dealing with a lot of people who are involved, and that's why it's confidential this time. We haven't completely carried out the report, that's why. It affects individuals.

Dealing with individuals, I don't like to deal with Mrs. Ashmore, seeing the member for Oak Bay brought the lady's name in here. They get big fun out of playing politics over an individual. I never brought her name out, I'll tell you that! I don't know why you have to deal with individuals.

MR. WALLACE: I didn't bring it up for fun, either.

HON. MR FRASER: I'm surprised you brought it up ~ you could have brought it up by position. Anyway, I'll deal with the Ashmore case exactly as I've answered already. The answer's in the Blues. Why don't you read the Blues?

One thing that isn't in the Blues is that Mrs. Ashmore has still got her job. She hasn't lost any job. Don't try making inferences like you did here tonight that she's lost her job. She has not lost her job, but she applied for another job and she wasn't successful in the competition.

MR. BARNES: Why wasn't she?

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, because another person with more ability got the job, that's why.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you address the Chair, hon. minister?

HON. MR. FRASER: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Have we lost out on ability and merit in this world? I hope not! You wanted the facts. That's why the lady didn't get the job. I want to emphasize, Mr.

[ Page 3380 ]

Chairman, that the lady hasn't lost a job. She's a member of the union and she won't lose her job. The job has just recently been selected. The person who has been successful for the position is so current that the lady hasn't even come to work yet. She comes to work on July 18 for the same salary at which the job was posted. Now I don't know what more you want me to repeat, but those are the facts of the case.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): It's interesting to see the Minister of Highways lose his cool tonight and start yelling at members of the opposition who have been expressing concern about what 's happening in the B.C. Buildings Corporation and to those personnel.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I missed the minister's comment there. Maybe I could have made a comment on it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just address the Chair, hon. member, and proceed.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Carry on. You've got nothing to say anyway.

MS. SANFORD: But you know, Mr. Chairman, the minister tonight is accusing the members of this House of playing politics and raising the issue with respect to one person who applied for one position, to give an example of what is happening within that B.C. Buildings Corporation. He's attacking the members for Vancouver Centre and Oak Bay. But I would like to remind that minister that when this issue was raised yesterday in the House, there was no reference made to any names, personal letters or personal phone calls that had been received. It was not until one of the people sitting over there in the back bench - namely the member for Esquimalt -started yelling "Name names, name names, name names, " that the member for Oak Bay actually named names. I would like to remind the minister of that, and to point out that when he accuses people of playing politics, the people on this side of the House were simply responding to the requests of the backbenchers.

I'll go on, Mr. Chairman, before you call me to order, although the minister himself just spoke on this one minute ago.

The other thing that I would like to mention tonight is that I'm rather surprised in this debate to see the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) speaking about the roads within his particular riding. Now, Mr. Chairman, I expect to hear all of the rural members from the back bench and on the opposition side who have something to say about either the

Highways ferries or the highways within their ridings. But I was really surprised tonight to find that the Minister of Forests was on his feet. Does that cabinet not meet? Do they not have an opportunity to talk to each other in cabinet?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now back to vote 146, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: I'm wondering if the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) doesn't have any roads in his area that he would like to get up and speak about.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): He can't recall.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, yesterday in this House the Minister of Highways attacked me. He addressed the member for Comox, saying that I was running around this province talking about the fact that there was a lot of unemployment in this province and the fact that the provincial government was not taking any action. He attacked me, and he went on about all that the Highways ministry is doing. Yet this afternoon, when we tried to get some specifics about the 2,000 people who are employed this July compared to the 2,000 fewer people who were employed last July, we were not able to get very many specifics, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. FRASER: If that's what you're saying, we'll lay them off in Comox.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, call the minister to order. He is losing his temper again.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member for Comox has the floor.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 146 pass?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I'm just waiting for some order from the minister over there. Mr. Chairman, may I proceed now?

The Minister of Highways and Public Works is obviously rather disturbed about t the fact that people on this side of the House would want to talk about unemployment, because you just saw the response that he gave with respect to what might happen in Comox constituency if I dare talk about unemployment in this province.

[ Page 3381 ]

Let me tell that minister that I intend to continue to talk about unemployment, the problems that are associated with it, and the fact that this government is not taking the kind of action that it should be. Mr. Chairman, I'll leave it at that. I'm only responding to the minister's comments yesterday.

But when you look at the shabby treatment that has been given to those people in the Public Works ministry, it makes you wonder about the kind of concern that the minister might have with respect to working people. I don't buy it, Mr. Chairman.

I have some other issues that I would like to raise, Mr. Chairman, that relate specifically to my own constituency. One of them is in relation to the courthouse in Campbell River.

Mr. Chairman, when the cabinet was holding an open cabinet meeting in my constituency, the minister made reference at that time to the much-needed courthouse facility in Campbell River. The conditions of overcrowding which the people in the public service are working under in Campbell River certainly need attention. I would like to ask the minister tonight, specifically: when will construction on that courthouse in Campbell River begin?

The next question I have to the minister relates to the road between Courtenay and Campbell River. The minister himself has indicated to the people of my constituency that this is one of the most dangerous highways in all of the province because of the very heavy traffic use between Courtenay and Campbell River.

He has given figures comparing this to roads in other parts of the country and other parts of North America. I'm wondering tonight, Mr. Chairman, when work will start to upgrade the road between Courtenay and Campbell River. I raised this with the minister last year. He was concerned about it then. I have seen no evidence yet of any work starting on the road to improve it or upgrade the road between Courtenay and Campbell River.

The other issue that I would like to raise relates to some comments made by the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) . He talked about waiting for three years for a road to be built in his constituency. But let me give you some history. This applies to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) too, who was praising the minister about some of the projects that are happening in this province.

MR. KEMPF: And who's finally going to build it?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid the member for Omineca needs a little history lesson again. I've done this time and time again in this House.

MR. KEMPF: I have you one in your constituency just a couple of months ago.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, listen to him. The member for Omineca was praising the minister tonight. One of the roads that he mentioned was within my riding - the one that's going to be completed to the north end of Vancouver Island.

MR. KEMPF: It's finally going to be completed by this administration.

MS. SANFORD: Now let me tell you something, Mr. Chairman. This road was announced by a member of the former Social Credit government - one well-known P.A. Gaglardi, who spoke at a meeting in Port McNeill just before Dan Campbell was elected in 1956. Let me tell you, Mr. Member for Omineca, if you would please be kind enough to listen....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: You call him to order, Mr. Chairman. He won't listen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've done that, hon. member. Please proceed.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, now it's the minister who's interrupting and wasting time.

Mr. Chairman, in 1956 P.A. Gaglardi announced that highway at a meeting at which he was speaking, hoping to get Dan Campbell elected for the riding of Comox. He told the people at that meeting: "If you elect Dan Campbell we will build you a road to the north end of the Island."

Well, lo and behold, Mr. Chairman, they elected one Dan Campbell and then do you know what? It became part of a 10-year programme. Mr. Member for Omineca, I hope you're listening, because that 10-year programme 10 years later still was nothing but talk.

The member for Skeena is worried about waiting three years. Let me tell you that the people on the north end of the Island expected that road to start the year after they elected Dan Campbell to the Legislature. Ten years later there was still no sign of the road. The year 1971, Mr. Chairman, was the first time the Social Credit government made any move to start that road at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: You tried to stop it.

MS. SANFORD: What a joke. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is accusing me

[ Page 3382 ]

of trying to stop construction of the road to the north end of the Island. I hope he will get up and explain what he means, because that minister is so confused tonight he's puzzling all of us in this House.

What I would like to point out is that 1971 saw the beginning of that road. Mr. Chairman, all of the contracts have now been awarded. It's only the final two contracts that were awarded by this government now sitting on the government benches. That is only because of the magnificent campaign that was waged by the people on the north end of the Island. When we left office the two remaining contracts had gone to pre-tender. The new government here did not wish to award those contracts and it was not until they waged a campaign with the carrot buttons and carrot juice and everything else - they were waging the campaign across this country - to make this new government see the need to complete that road....

I congratulate the people on the north end of the Island for convincing this minister that yes, it is time. Since 1956 Socreds have been promising that road and it was time to award those two final contracts.

I have another issue that 1 would like to raise, and that relates to the North Island Princess. Here we have another interesting situation. The North Island Princess....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: That kind of comment from the Minister of Recreation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) is really beneath this House, Mr. Chairman. 1 think perhaps he should be asked to withdraw that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the minister has said anything to offend the member, would you kindly withdraw it, please?

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Chairman, 1 meant that as a compliment. 1 indeed did think that the member was the North Island Princess - in the most favourable light, of course.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, that comment did offend me and I ask the minister to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, will you withdraw?

HON. MR. BAWLF: I certainly withdraw any indication that she's the North Island Princess. (Laughter.)

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the manner in which the Minister of Recreation and Conservation has treated a female member of this House I think deserves some rebuke. It's that light attitude -smiling, smirking that upsets people on this side of the House. I object to it and the members in opposition object to that kind of attitude displayed by the minister just now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister has withdrawn, hon. member. Would we now get back to vote 146, please?

AN HON. MEMBER: We all know you object to smiling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: The ferry which runs between Beaver Cove and Kelsey Bay was formerly under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport. When the B.C. ferry rates were raised in this province, the North Island Princess was affected, as was every other vessel. Since that time, Mr. Chairman, the North Island Princess has been transferred to the jurisdiction of the Minister of Highways. I have written to the Minister of Highways and asked him if he would not reduce the fares on the North Island Princess in line with the other ferry reductions - inadequate though they are - announced by the Minister of Transport and Communications.

Mr. Chairman, the minister has responded to my letter. Do you know what he tells me? I really must read this into the record. He says:

"No decision has yet been made about the North Island Princess because it has not been under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Highways and Public Works long enough to assess the total traffic and revenues picture. However we are looking into it and we will make a decision shortly."

Now, Mr. Chairman, all of the figures with respect to the numbers of cars, trucks and passengers that are using that ferry are readily available. All he has to do is to ask his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) , and I'm sure he would be happy to provide him with the figures. I've had those figures many times from that department. Perhaps the Minister of Transport and Communications would be willing to give them to me again so that I could give them to the Minister of Highways so that he could reduce the rates on the North Island Princess, the same as he has on other ferries.

It's incomprehensible, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has to wait and see. The ferry has not come from out of the blue somewhere or from some other country or from some other ferry service; it has come from the Minister of Transport and Communications' jurisdiction. Now surely the Minister of Highways can

[ Page 3383 ]

get those figures and reduce those rates so that they are in line with other reductions that took place within the B.C. Ferries fleet.

One other issue: the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) expressed his pleasure just now about the Coquihalla Highway going ahead next spring. It was going to be started and he was pleased. When there was opposition raised before, the other government decided not to go ahead with it. We just heard that speech from the Minister of Forests.

But what I would like to know is how can the Minister of Forests at this stage tell this House that that highway is going to start next spring when we have just heard not long ago from the Minister of Highways that they're going to do an environmental impact study on the location of that highway? Now has that environmental study already been done? Has the report come in? Has it been made public? Who did the study? How long did it take? And what were the recommendations that came out of that environmental study?

It seems strange to me that if you're going to have an environmental study about the impact that a new highway is going to have on the environment, then surely you have to wait for that study to be complete and the results made available to the public before you have the Minister of Forests talking about that highway going ahead in his own riding. That's confusing to me.

That smacks of a political decision being made long before the environment is ever considered, but then, Mr. Chairman, with this government, that's not unusual. I hope the minister will be able to answer some of the points I've raised tonight.

HON. MR. FRASER: I just want to reply to the questions of the member for Comox, or attempt to. Back to the front again, I will deal first with the Coquihalla route. For the information of the member, when they can't do anything, they try and twist up the waters. I'd just like to get the record straight. They never did anything about another route to the coast. It's very important. I realize she's the member for Comox and wouldn't understand that, but our Trans-Canada Highway is overloaded and nothing was done by your administration. The Hope-Princeton is overloaded, and continues to be overloaded, and we have to find another access to the Pacific coast for all of Canada, not just British Columbia. This government made a decision that we would make that other route the Coquihalla route, and I said earlier in the day that the environment studies were going on. They are being made by the Ministry. of Highways and Public Works.

I would also like to say that you want to be so frivolous with your statements, but the Highways ministry - and you can check with your colleague on this - has been working on this for three or four years. They have gone all over the route, and they're still going over the route. It's very difficult terrain, but it isn't something that started yesterday, as you're trying to imply. We made a decision before anything. We had responsible engineers, on-staff and outside, who have been looking at this for three or four years, and other routes as well, to find a proper route to the coast. We accepted professional advice when we made the policy decision, so don't let the public get carried away through what you say - that this was a snap decision by ourselves. We had lots of information to go on; all it required was a government to make the decision. We hadn't had that type of government in the last three or four years.

Regarding the North Island Princess, I understand that is correct, the letter that was written to you. I further understand that on January 1,1977, commutation rates were put in which give a one-third discount. Do you want the fares to be free now? Is that what you're saying? What I'm saying is that a fare consideration has been given already on that and, according to the letter, obviously the staff'are looking at it again. We're also looking at the mounting deficits as well, caused by increased fuel costs and so on and so forth.

Then there was an item on the North Island road, as I call the North Island road from Sayward. Yes, that's right, Mr. Chairman. Social Credit, when they were government before, promised a road into Port Hardy and Port McNeill; and Social Credit will be the government that gets the road into Port McNeill and Port Hardy for the first time in British Columbia. Even so, it was very hard to make decisions last spring, and I appreciate the local interest put in there. But don't forget that we inherited a real mess from the prior administration. We didn't even know how many debts they'd left behind when we let the last new contracts to go into the north of Vancouver Island. The Treasury Board agreed to go ahead because they knew that road had to be connected up, but we didn't know we had the money to do it. The work is in progress and those roads will be in there not later than the spring of 1979. There will be a decent road, for the first time, from Victoria to Port McNeill and Port Hardy. I hope they can get through earlier than that, but it depends on weather and a lot of other conditions. But I would stress that the contracts have been let. Maybe we can get in there by the Christmas of 1978, to give the people a Christmas present. I'm not. promising that, but it will certainly be completed by the spring of 1979.

Regarding the road from Courtenay to Campbell River, yes, I did say that was inadequate, but I don't know how much that member wants all at once from a government that delivers. Certainly the road up there is inadequate, like a lot of other roads in British Columbia. I would point out to the member, Mr. Chairman, that although we haven't done a lot of

[ Page 3384 ]

work on this heavily traveled road from Courtenay to Campbell River, we have just awarded a contract for the Black Creek bridge, which was completely inadequate for the last 10 years. The contract is moving on the job. This is on that section of the road.

I'd like to inform the House, Mr. Chairman, regarding this member's riding, that at the present time I understand $30 million worth of work is going on in that riding. You know, there are other ridings in the province besides Comox, and we just haven't got that kind of money. Although we are trying to spread it all over the province, we certainly can't give every riding $30 million worth. That is the situation there. When we have given a road to people who have never had a road - or an adequate road - then we'll start to upgrade. We are upgrading the Island road from Nanaimo south and spending a lot of money there as well. All in all, I don't think our priorities are mixed up.

We'll continue, but I'm not making any promises when we'll get going on the Courtenay-Campbell River section of the road. I agree that it is heavily traveled and it certainly needs to be upgraded as soon as possible.

I Mr. Chairman, about the courthouse at Campbell River I was up there with the cabinet. But at the present time there is no courthouse that I am aware of on the drawing boards for Campbell River. It may be for rental accommodation and so on, but I hope I didn't leave that impression when I was there that they're getting anything new. The staff is working on it now and I hope that we have something more definite, but I haven't anything definite to release.

I would just like to close on this, note, Mr. Chairman. This member does go over the province and say that unemployment is high. This government realizes it's high, but we've also tried to do something about it, and that's where we differ. I have said here since yesterday that we have done something about it. Now I wish she'd just take that information and pass it on and give the full story instead of just the one-sided story.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): I'd like to compliment the minister. I'm very happy to be able to compliment the minister; he's doing an excellent job, Mr. Member. I also know, Mr. Chairman, that the minister would be very disappointed if all the backbenchers didn't get up and outline some of the problems that they have in their riding. I know that he'd be most disappointed.

I want to congratulate the minister for all the things that he's accomplished not only in my riding but all around the province in such 'a short time. I disagree with the member for Prince Rupert that less money is being spent today than it was in a few years past. If we are spending less money, then something strange has happened, Mr. Chairman, because for the first time for a number of years in most areas of the province we are now building and repairing roads about as fast as we're wearing them out. That hasn't happened for a number of years.

For a good many years in this province, the roads were being worn out faster than we were repairing them and building them. There has been a great improvement in the traffic flows on our highways, not just in the three-laning but in the movement of some speed signs and the attempt to prevent the slow drivers from obstructing traffic. I congratulate the minister on this also. There's a great improvement, but this programme of improving the traffic flows can still be improved, in my opinion.

We are all concerned with the cost of our produce in this province, and 1 submit that the cost of transportation is a very significant part of those costs. The cost of moving goods and services around this province is directly related to the time it takes. We should always be alert, in my opinion, to finding ways to reduce the time it takes to move these goods and services with safety.

1 would like to dwell for a few minutes on a few subjects that probably aren't normally considered to be directly related to the subject of construction and maintenance of our roads. One of them is the garbage pick-up. I believe I've mentioned this before to the minister but 1 believe that the minister can save a great deal of money if the garbage pick-up from our roadside rest areas was farmed out to private enterprise, especially in those areas where the private people are already operating such a business.

On weed-spraying, one of the greatest costs experienced by the farmers and ranchers in this province is the cost of weeds. I'm sure the minister is well aware of that. It amounts to many, many millions of dollars. 1 would like to know if the minister has looked at other ways of resolving this problem of weeds along our highways.

The point I wish to make is that weed control is very important because, as 1 say, everybody knows that the highways and the traffic on the highways are the greatest cause of spreading weeds. We can see this all over the province. Every time we build a new road or reconstruct a road, there's a new crop come in because the equipment very often brings the weeds with them.

1 know that the Ministry of Highways is experiencing some opposition to the weed-spraying programme. 1 would ask the minister if he's considered allowing those people who object to the spraying to carry out the programme themselves. Possibly we could pay them the same amount of dollars that Highways presently spends to do a mile of road or two miles of road, as the case may be, and let them see what they can do in the way of controlling weeds by other means.

[ Page 3385 ]

I think also, of course, that if the weeds are not controlled, then those particular people or groups who don't want the spraying to take place should be responsible for the spread of the weeds into the farmers' fields. Of course, this could be quite expensive, if they were actually responsible in that way.

Although there is a great deal of highway work going on in my riding, there's still many secondary roads, Mr. Chairman. I would like to point out to the minister roads that need improvement - roads such as the Grandview Bench Road which links up 97A and 97B and dates back to the early 1900s. Really, there hasn't been an awful lot of improvement since that time.

I would also like to point out that the bridge that needed to be built last year and the year before at Enderby across the Shuswap River is just another year older. It was in bad shape last year and was in bad shape for many years, and it isn't improving with age. Some things do improve with age. I always say that my wife does, but I'll tell you that bridge at Enderby isn't.

There's one other road that I would like to mention, Mr. Chairman. It's not even in my riding but it leads to a portion of my riding. It's Highway 6. It's used by many of my constituents and it's used to a very large degree by the loggers in the area. It's one of the main arteries for bringing out the raw materials from all the Monashee and Arrow Lakes country right into Vernon and up into the Enderby area.

These logging trucks have really broken up that road over the number of years that it's been there. It's in horrible shape at the moment and in my opinion it needs to be upgraded very, very rapidly.

I would just like to make a comment or two on the Public Works portion of the ministry's responsibility. I have some buildings in my riding. They're all Highways buildings: one at Enderby and one at Chase. They're in deplorable condition. The one at Sicamous isn't a great deal better. All of them need replacing immediately. If they're not replaced, I'm afraid that the fire marshal or some other inspection group is going to come along and condemn them. I would like the minister to do something about these Public Works buildings at the earliest opportunity.

HON. MR. FRASER: Just to reply briefly to the member for Shuswap, we have a programme to upgrade the buildings that you referred to at the last part, Mr. Member. I guess your question would be when, but we don't want to delay it too long. I believe there is correspondence going on about that.

I'd just like to reply quite strongly, Mr. Chairman, to the member's remarks regarding Highway 6 to the Monashee-Lumby-Vernon area. I consider it a disgrace myself. I have been over it and the work is now in progress to bring that up to a better standard. I hope we can keep up with the work, because it's totally inadequate, with the amount of heavy commercial traffic that's on it. We just have to get it up. It has no shoulders on it and visibility is poor. I hope that they're working on it now and will continue to work on it till we get it up to a better standard.

Regarding the Enderby bridge, Mr. Chairman, I'm aware of the inadequacy of it, but there are a few problems there. It's on Indian reserve land, and I think that if we hadn't had that type of problem we would probably have been working on it now. It looks as if we're going to be able to resolve something very shortly if it hasn't already happened.

Regarding the weed control and spraying, spraying was pretty well stopped, as I understand the history on it, four or five years ago by the Highways ministry, and we haven't encouraged it. There is a committee now on weed control. I have asked that this be discussed there at the cabinet level. In the meantime, all our rights-of-way are getting in trouble. We have to cut the rights-of-way - the brush and so on. We've got a lot of problems ahead if we don't make some decisions. I agree that our weed control is not adequate, but I'm saying to you that we're aware of it and we'll take it up at the cabinet committee level and see what we can do to step it up. We pretty well have to, whether we like to or not. I'm not saying we'll spray, but we've got to find a way to get better control than we have because of the growth that's going on and that also, in turn, goes on private property.

Regarding the first remark you made, on garbage pickup, for the information of the committee, the Highways ministry does contract out garbage at the present time. I think it's a good idea and I think it should be stepped up further. What we're doing in some cases is that the Highways maintenance people are picking up garbage. I don't think they should be doing that and I think that, wherever possible, we should be going faster on the contract of garbage collection, where we can a garbage contractor. So as I say, they're into that to some degree and I'd like to see it expedited.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I had decided to say no more in this debate until the minister chose to make certain comments about my speech of yesterday.

He seems to challenge not only the right but the responsibility of members of this House to deal with problems brought to them by constituents in British Columbia. Furthermore, the minister, in his own words tonight, had contradicted his own memo of May 20.

I'm like the minister - as long as I'm asked a question I'll give an answer. I'll make the statement I

[ Page 3386 ]

made yesterday, by reading the memo of May 20 back into the record one more time. Mr. Chairman, the memo of May 20 stated: "These positions will be filled on the basis of merit selection." That's what the minister said and that's what I agree with - merit selection. But the rest of the sentence says: "These positions will be filled on the basis of merit selection and may be opened at a later date to the general public in the event that qualified Public Works candidates cannot be found."

Now nobody could disagree with that, and I don't disagree with that - "in the event that Public Works candidates cannot be found."

But the letter that was sent to the lady who applied for the job runs both directions at the same time. It says: "You're suitable and you're a good candidate and you're in the running but we're going to open it up to the public." Now if that isn't a complete contradiction of the memo of May 20.... Either this lady was of a calibre to be considered or she wasn't. If she wasn't, then open it up to the public. But in your letter of June 13 to this lady you say that she is in the running and she is a good candidate. Mr. Chairman, either she had the qualifications to remain in the running or not.

The memo of May 20 made it very plain that it would not be opened up to the public if, on the basis of merit, a Public Works applicant was found to meet these qualifications. That's all I said yesterday and that's all I said today. I didn't choose to bring this lady's name on to the floor of the House; the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) got agitated and accused me of making up the fact that people were trembling and were very unhappy in the department as to the future. When somebody challenges me I like to come up with the answer or I wouldn't make the statement in the first place. I didn't ask to put Mrs. Ashmore's name on the floor of this House; I responded to the agitated challenge from one of your backbenchers. At any rate, that's peripheral to the issue.

The point I was trying to make yesterday, Mr. Chairman, and that I think is worth repeating, I hope for the last time, is that people in the Department of Public Works - several hundred of them - are wondering what the future holds for them. In the light of recent events, can you blame them? It's all very well for the minister to say that the particular lady I cited has a job, as though that excluded her from applying for this job or in some way or other gave the minister the right to contradict his own memo. I don't think it does either of these two things. I'm sure that lady is just as uncertain about her future as any other. For that matter, I'm sure the deputy minister concerned a little while ago would not have believed that his job would turn out to be treated in the way it has been.

I'm just saying to the minister that I still feel that he's not aware of the tremendous uncertainty, the serious morale problem, and indeed the fear that pervades many hundreds of his present employees in his ministry. It doesn't help the situation, Mr. Chairman, when we have it all here in black and white in memos which were meant to reassure these employees, and subsequently on June 20 the director of corporate services for the British Columbia Buildings Corporation writes and completely blows to pieces any kind of assurance that the employees might have derived from the memo of May 20.

1 don't think it's very fair for this minister or any other minister to come back with that cheap shot that I stood up here and had some fun playing politics yesterday. These are your words tonight, Mr. Minister. Time and time again I get approached by individuals working for this government who are worried or unhappy for one reason or another, and almost without exception I approach the minister privately first, as I did you, and you know that. So don't come here tonight and try to make me look cheap.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , I know I could never match you at shouting. All I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that the House, the employees in this minister's department and public service employees throughout the government are entitled to a little more respect than they've been shown in this debate by this minister. It may be that this whole problem was dumped on the minister's lap not by his choosing but because of a basic government policy to reorganize, and I sympathize with you for that. But I think it's just not in the best interests of the public service in this province that what is a very disrupting element in the lives of many public servants who, as I mentioned yesterday, associate public service with a measure of security that doesn't apply in other jobs....

This indeed has been somewhat of a unique event where several hundred employees, while they are given the assurance that they will not be thrown out of work, know very well that they're likely, perhaps after 25 years of service, to be relocated in another department, perhaps at a lesser level of pay and in another classification, and maybe in another town.

The whole question arises as to whether this minister will consider that if a couple of offers are made to people in other towns which they don't accept, that will be regarded as justification to say: "Well, you were offered a couple of jobs and you didn't take them so we're firing you, we are laying you off, " or whatever. I know that's another issue altogether but it's one that will have to be looked at by this House when we debate the legislation.

But I believe that the minister could - and, I

[ Page 3387 ]

hope, will - tonight at least as we close this debate either reassure the employees who are deeply concerned or rescind the content of your memo of May 20. It has to be one or the other. You either apply for the job and get preference because you're a member of the department, and if you have the merit you get the job, or if you haven't got the merit, you then open it up to the public. But I certainly think that this letter which this particular employee received on June 20 just completely demolishes the reassuring note that was expressed to all Public Works employees.

That is the point I have to keep coming back to. I'm not just specifically pleading the case of one woman who took the trouble to come and see me and who didn't care if her name was thrown around. I talked to others who pleaded with me to be sure that I don't mention their name. I just find that a very disturbing element in any form of employment when somebody feels they have a legitimate complaint but they're scared to have their name mentioned in case they're discriminated against or penalized somewhere down the line. So in a sense I suspect that the Mrs. Ashmore situation is symbolic of many others. I know of at least two others who have talked to me in these terms.

I would hope that the minister can tonight bring this unhappy debate to a happier close by assuring these employees that the memo of May 20 - and in fact there was also a memo of June 8 which said much the same thing - which gave the reassurance that once they established their merits for other positions they would indeed be given preference and consideration prior to any opening up of the job to the public.... Because at this time of unemployment I'm sure you could always find somebody on the public market who is more highly qualified and more highly trained than the person who is presently doing the job. We all know that.

I noticed, Mr. Chairman, that in the response to the other question which the minister answered for me yesterday regarding the computer position, he said that the man from Alberta was the only one willing to do the job. And he slipped in the very key phrase "at the salary offered." I would wonder if the minister would care to enlarge on that little phrase. Is he suggesting that the gentleman from Alberta who has been awarded the position is in fact coming to do a job for which he is really entitled to much more money, but the government is doing it on the cheap? Because in a field as sophisticated as computer technology you'll get what you pay for, Mr. Minister. I wonder why you slipped in the phrase that the reason the gentleman from Alberta got the job was that he was the only trained applicant who was willing to accept the salary offered, or words which had that meaning. I can't recall the precise words the minister used.

But I would just hope that the kind of reassurance which was included in the minister's memos of May 20 and June 8 really mean what they say. They certainly don't mean what they say in relation to Mrs. Ashmore. I hope she is the exception rather than the rule, but there are many other employees certainly wondering what their government employment holds for them down the road.

I wonder if perhaps the minister would elaborate just a little bit on the other job I mentioned for which one of the minister's present employees applied and was unsuccessful. It may be on the basis of merit, but the job went to this other gentleman who comes from Alberta or who is presently in Alberta, Mr. Jaques. The minister's answer was that he got the job because he was the only trained applicant who was willing to consider the salary that was offered.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): If the minister wishes to reply, I can wait.

HON. MR. FRASER: Go ahead.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, when the minister was in opposition, in Hansard there were many sanctimonious statements about hiring executive assistants. As a matter of fact, one of the major attacks by the Social Credit group - the original group, not the Liberals who joined them later on -was to attack the order-in-council appointment of executive assistants. What we said at the time when we hired executive assistants was that they would live and die with the government. We made no apology for hiring executive assistants and we went ahead and did it. But the minister was vocal, along with his colleagues from Peace River and the rest of the cabal. They would come in late at night and holler and whoop. That minister seemed to be more revived later at night. He would come in and holler and whoop and do his share about waxing eloquent against the hiring of executive assistants.

Who is Mr. Larsen? Well, I think the civil servants would like to know who Mr. Larsen is. He is an executive assistant. What are his qualifications? He was the former son-in-law of the minister.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Through you, Mr. Chairman. Hypocritical?

AN HON. MEMBER: Cheap shot.

MR. BARRETT: Cheap shot, my eye! I sat over there and took all the abuse hurled by that member

[ Page 3388 ]

and others around - that kind of sanctimonious speech. Not a word has been said in this House yet about you hiring, through you, Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Yell all you want! Laugh all you want, but hypocrisy gets to you, doesn't it? Let's get on with it.

The son-in-law of the minister gets a job for $19,000 a year. What are his qualifications?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: The former son-in-law. That's fair enough. Want to have a little patronage? Go ahead, gang. Keep it in the family. That's some sense of loyalty. Let it not go to friends of the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) or someone like that or anyone else. Keep it right in the family!

Hypocrisy! What's your justification when you sat on this side of the House and got up and yelled and hollered and screamed, and the first thing you did is pack your office with a son-in-law?

What happens to him, friends? Things are going good, friends. I'll tell you what happens to him. The taxpayer spends $400,000 to hire people for the British Columbia Buildings Corporation. You admit you spent $396,000 of taxpayers' money to hire people.

HON. MR. HEWITT: How much did you pay Bob Williams?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, yak, yak. You don't like it coming back, you hypocrites, you. You hypocrites! Yell all you want.

Mr. Chairman, keep them in order. Their turn is coming. The hypocrisy reeks and stinks, especially out of that minister's office. First of all, the son-in-law. Then what happens after $400,000 worth of taxpayers' money was spent to find 19 bodies? This is a matter of fact, and I hope his cabinet colleagues who have cabinet guilt go along with his decision. They've hired 13, the minister says. One of those 13 bodies is the former son-in-law of the minister. He goes overnight from $19,000 to $29,000.

Mr. Chairman, that's the kind of stuff that hotline shows were made of when we were government -with no foundation. We said clearly that executive assistants would stay with ministers. But in this instance the former son-in-law of the minister has been jumped over all those civil servants. Four hundred thousand dollars of taxpayers' money was spent on consultants, and guess who ends up with a plum job?

AN HON. MEMBER: Merit selection.

MR. BARRETT: Merit selection! I want to tell you, it's too bad he doesn't have more daughters. That would be access to more jobs.

Stinks! It smells. It's a matter of shame, especially coming from that minister and that group that sanctimoniously sat here in opposition and attacked every single executive assistant. But never was there this kind of bypassing of public service, using taxpayers' money to go out and hire consultants. Miraculously, my friends, the consultants come up with his son-in-law. Miracle of miracles! That's the kind of stuff that Hollywood musicals are written about.

Those sanctimonious speeches given by that minister! You tell us what your qualifications are for deciding why your former son-in-law gets a $29,000 job. You go to the Social Credit convention and tell them why. You go back and read your own speeches. The vicious statements you made in wry humour -and you sit here, a friendly, happy minister. We respect you as a friendly, happy minister. But your hypocrisy and your shams should be exposed for everyone to see. Let the judgment be made on that basis. Nineteen thousand bucks for his son-in-law!

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You're too polite to raise it, Mr. Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) . But let me tell you, that woman who wrote you the letter knows what's going on. That buzz goes all through the civil service. Do you think that does something for the morale of the civil servants to see the minister's former son-in-law come in at $19,000 a year and then within months go up to $29,000, after we spend $400,000 of taxpayers' money to select the best heads?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Vicious attack!

MR. BARRETT: Yak, yak, yak, you former civil servant. Yes, all of you. Thank goodness we got rid of one, but we sure picked up a dandy.

It's late at night to raise this kind of hypocritical behaviour. It's late at night to even discuss these kinds of embarrassing things: $29,000 for a son-in-law after we spend $400,000 of the taxpayers' money. You read those hypocritical speeches given by the former Liberals and the former opposition, and you sit there, Mr. Minister, and you try to rationalize.

You can think it's politics that I'm raising here. You're darned right it's politics. You're darned right it's politics when I sat over there in government. We

[ Page 3389 ]

honestly said that we hired executive assistants, but we didn't shove people. through the civil service or spend $400,000 of the taxpayers' money to find cushy jobs for relatives .,

That's what it is. Jobs for relatives. If I may use the member for Columbia River's (Hon. Mr. Chabot's) description: "Jobs for the boys!"

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You can say everything you want. Get up and explain it and talk about it. You'll have your chance. The Chairman's fair. Get up and explain to us why you sit with a cabinet colleague who's moved his son-in-law up from $19,000 to $29,000 a year after the minister admits they spent $400,000 finding the best brains. You could have saved us $20,000 on his head by just going ahead and blatantly appointing him. You didn't have to go through that crass manipulation. That's what it is, crass manipulation.

Every one of the civil servants who has dedicated their life and their energy and their commitment and their professional talents to public duty in this province gets a wet fish in the face from Cariboo by being told that the way to get promotion is to be related to the minister.

Oh, it's not very nice; it's nasty. Oh, it's really unbecoming to raise this. I want to tell you, you brought it on your own head by your own behaviour when you were in opposition. You would have thought there would have been better standards. It's a lower level. And if you don't see any conflict of interest in that, especially related to your old speeches, then you ought to hang your head in shame.

All those hotliners got out there and they said: "Oh, the NDP hired executive assistants." Even Cyril Shelford didn't get a job! He's still stuck out of the cabinet. But a son-in-law gets $29,000 a year after $400,000 of the taxpayers' money is being spent. They say it's merit. Merit, my eye!

Mr. Minister, you should be ashamed of yourself. But there is no shame, is there? It was all a game when you were in opposition. Say anything and do anything. Make any wild accusation just so you could get power. Now that you've got power, you come in this House and you tell us that you authorized $400,000 of taxpayers' money to hire the senior executives of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation. Lo and behold, who do we find as one of the senior executives? None other than his former son-in-law who was hired at $19,000 as an executive assistant and now gets $29,000 as the public relations man for the British Columbia Buildings Corporation.

You defend the minister's hiring of his son-in-law in the face of all those applicants from the civil service? You get up and tell us all about it. Yes, we'd like to hear the Premier's explanation of $400,000 of taxpayers' money spent to hire people and one of the positions goes to the minister's former son-in-law. You tell us, in light of your old speeches, how you justify explaining to those people who pay their taxes to this government how the former son-in-law of the minister gets a key top job.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Not related. At least when the Premier hires an in-law he keeps them at the order-in- council level and doesn't play any games. I give him credit for that. The brother of his brother-in-law is kept at the order-in-council level. The Premier at least admits that.

But this minister has gone one step further. He has insulted every civil servant in this province. Don't tell me it was by accident that those consultants discovered your former son-in-law. Don't tell me it was coincidence that you discovered him as an order-in-council executive assistant. It stinks! Four hundred thousand dollars looking for him? It stinks!

The member for Oak Bay got up and read a series of letters. I listened to those letters, and he deserved better from you than the kind of flippant, silly answer and attack that you gave him. It is not only his duty-, it is his elected responsibility to bring constituency problems directly to the floor of this House if there is no other outlet. In light of the fact that you, Mr. Minister, for two days have not said a single word to explain how your former son-in-law gets in this job when that member gets up and relays your own memos and you don't respond, then you are a flop. You stand exposed, as nothing more than a bundle of shame!

How do we expect to go out and recruit people on a non-political basis throughout this province and say: "Come work for the government." How do we expect to go out and explain to people why $400,000 of taxpayers' money was thrown out the back of a truck by that minister. He talked about garbage tonight. It was right out the back of one of his garbage trucks - $400,000 to hire his former son-in-law.

The Premier will get on television and explain this, I hope. The Premier will go out hustings and answer questions in Social Credit Party circles and say: "It was only accidental that Alex found his former son-in-law a $29,000 job."

Hypocrisy! Bunk! Stinkum! It's all coming back to haunt you. You hoped it would just go away and fade. You hope that members like the member for Oak Bay won't get up and raise legitimate problems of legitimate people who have put in years and years and years of public service in this province, never to be diddled around before through the public service. All of a sudden they get memos that are now filed as

[ Page 3390 ]

disclaimers by that minister.

Shame! It stinks! You get up and tell this House why your former son-in-law got $19,000 and up to $29,000 after we spent $400,000 of taxpayers' money to find him a job. Get the Premier to explain it to the boys in one of your caucus rooms.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): If the minister would care to answer, I'd be happy to yield my place to him.

Yesterday we warned the minister that if he continued to mishandle the British Columbia Buildings Corporation as he has done to date, it would become the centre of scandal and charges of scandal and maladministration. That's happening already. We learned tonight that his own former son-in-law was evidently promoted to a senior position.

We warned the minister that if he didn't open the bidding to public tender and public procedures, and indeed the hiring procedures of the B.C. Buildings Corporation, it would become the centre of scandal and charges of scandal and maladministration. Those warnings are coming true.

We warned the minister that his mishandling of the establishment of the B.C. Buildings Corporation .would lead to the ruin of morale within the public service and within his own department. That's coming true; the hon. Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) has more than amply documented that. Others of us could and would have, had we had the permission of the individuals concerned to use their names. At the moment we don't. We may soon, and if so, I promise I'll use their names I~ere and document those cases too.

Because of the mishandling and the maladministration of the establishment of the B.C. Buildings Corporation, the warnings about that corporation becoming the centre of charges of scandal and charges of maladministration are coming true.

I have some questions for the minister about his report prepared by Peat Marwick, which he refuses to release. The minister tells us, if I understand it correctly, that as of May 30 the billings received on an hourly basis from Peat Marwick, the firm engaged, totalled $396, 5 5 1. Do I get that figure correctly, Mr. Minister? I noted it at that time.

I would presume, Mr. Chairman, that by the time the summer is ended there will be at least a half-million dollars in billings from this particular firm, judging by the time they were hired and judging by the work that they continue to do for this government. This is a half-million dollar baby that the minister has given birth to, and he refuses to produce the report.

Is Mr. George Giles still in the employ of the Department of Public Works? If so, what is his present position and what are his present duties? Could the minister tell us that, please?

HON. MR. FRASER: To answer the second member for Victoria, Mr. Chairman, George Giles is still the deputy minister in the Public Works section. He is assuming some other duties now, but he still is officially the Deputy Minister of Public Works.

MR. BARBER: Is Mr. Giles on leave at the present time?

HON. MR. FRASER: Not that I know of.

MR. BARBER: Has he been appearing for work regularly in the last few days?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, as far as I know.

MR. BARBER: I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, as have other members of the opposition, why Mr. Giles hasn't been on the floor during the debate on this minister's estimates.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): What's that to you?

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's none of your business.

MR. BARBER: Oh, I think you may find that it has a lot to do with us and with the contents of the Peat Marwick report.

[ Mr. Schroeder in the chair. ]

If I may continue, the minister has, throughout his estimates, had on the floor not one, two, three, four, but indeed five public servants to advise and counsel him. That's reasonable and fair enough; I don't object. Indeed, I admire their stamina. Good for you! I'm amazed you can put up with it.

I'm curious as to why Mr. Giles has been absent throughout, as to why the most senior public servant within the Public Works element of his ministry is absent. I will go on to ask whether or not the minister would be prepared to release to the public the report, consultations and advice that to date have cost $396,551 and that were prepared for the government by the firm of Peat Marwick. It's my understanding that the report contains material relating to key personnel and to senior personnel within that department. I ask again about the absence of Mr. Giles from these debates.

It's my information that the report, as indeed the minister hinted tonight, contains further recommendations which have yet to be enacted into law, policy or procedure. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if what that means, in fact, is more bad news for the

[ Page 3391 ]

public servants of British Columbia. The report may well suggest that more than the present 800 so-called "surplus" public servants are in fact in the future going to be determined surplus themselves.

If the report, to use the famous phrase, "names names, " and if the minister is concerned about not embarrassing particular public servants who may in fact be criticized in this report, this opposition - and I'm sure most fair-minded people - would think it most reasonable to delete those particular sections from the report. That's fair. We have no quarrel, no criticism with that procedure. It's reasonable, and if you tell us that's what you've done, we'll believe you and we'll honour that. If the minister indeed finds that that's the most particular problem with the report which together with the other consulting services will have cost us half a million dollars by the end of the summer, I predict - almost $400,000 as of May 30 - then surely the minister might agree to table the remainder of the report.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) has informed the House tonight about the most interesting role of Mr. Larsen. We should like to see, Mr. Chairman, whether or not a job description for that position was prepared by the firm of Peat Marwick. If so, will the minister table it? If so, on the basis of that job description, will he tell us what the qualifications were, at least in writing, for that position before it was filled, and again in writing, the qualifications of the gentleman who now holds it?

We are interested in finding out whether or not there are other aspects of development both .personnel and programmatic recommended by the firm of Peat Marwick, of which we should properly' be informed and of which we should properly be told in advance. It seems to us, Mr. Chairman, that the refusal of this minister to release that report, even though I'm suggesting, at least on my own behalf and perhaps on behalf of my colleagues - I've not asked them about this. . . . It seems that to delete from it the names of individuals who may be criticized or discussed in the report would be a fair procedure.

His refusal, his failure and his total unwillingness to release the report suggests to us that it contains more bad news for the public service and more suggestions of further dismissals. Indeed, it might not reflect quite so well on the actual job descriptions that were proposed by Peat Marwick and, indeed, might not reflect so well on at least one of the persons who has subsequently been chosen to fill that position.

I want to remind this minister that this opposition, including the hon. Conservative leader, has tried to impress on him the extent to which his own maladministration of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation has damaged morale within his ministry - or, rather, within what remains of it. Tonight he has an opportunity, by releasing that report and by consulting through that process with his own ministry and with this House, of beginning to repair some of the damage he's done to morale.

If he refuses to take that reasonable step, then all that will happen is that the present suspicions and fears will grow and will continue to plague him in his own ministry. We don't wish that for him.

I'd like to repeat, finally, that every member who has spoken in this debate about this particular minister, critical of his performance as we may have been, has always suggested, because we feel it, that this particular man who holds that portfolio is really a gentleman. We like him, critical as we may be of some of his political statements and, indeed, some of his political friends. That particular minister is not an enemy of ours. He's certainly not an enemy of mine. I think lie could save himself a fair amount of trouble and save this House an awful lot of time if he agreed to table the report. Otherwise I'm afraid we're going to have to continue to ask questions about why some people aren't here to advise the minister; about why certain people have obtained certain jobs and on what basis; and whether or not the report contains, as the minister himself hinted earlier tonight, further changes and further proposals for transfers and dismissals.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, it's a very interesting debate. I'd like to clear up a few points here.

First of all, dealing with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) saying that I hired a firm of consultants for $400,000 - or $395,000 or whatever it is - to come up with my ex-son-in-law for a job, that, of course, is completely erroneous. I never asked for their advice on that subject and I take full responsibility for that. He has worked for me since the time I've been a minister. He assumed a lot of responsibilities - and still does - for the phasing down of Public Works and the transfer over of BCBC. I didn't need the consultant firm of Peat Marwick to advise me on that situation at all.

For the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) , regarding the deputy minister, George Giles: I make decisions as to who sits on the floor and who does what. I would like to point out to you that I have the chief executive officer of BCBC, and the Assistant Deputy Minister of Highways and Public Works, Mr. Rhodes, here. I name him because of the fact that there are two assistant deputy ministers on the floor here. So I have senior people here from BCBC and Public Works.

Quite frankly, Mr. Giles - and this has been known for some time to Mr. Giles - is at the present time a full deputy minister and he will be going over to another portfolio on April 1,1978. He's aware of that. In the meantime, he is melding into that job and spending his full time with Public Works. He's

[ Page 3392 ]

spending part of his time with the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation consulting with that ministry regarding the precinct area in Victoria, which he's very capable of doing. He's actually trying to carry two loads. I would say his time now breaks down to about 70 per cent for our portfolio and 30 per cent advising the Recreation and Conservation ministry on the precinct area, which was taken away from this portfolio last fall and given to the portfolio of Recreation and Conservation.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to deal again with what the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) mentioned regarding naming names. The Leader of the Opposition is very good at churning things inside out relating to Mrs. Ashmore. I'm the last person in the world who should say a riding problem shouldn't be brought up in this House. The only observation I had was that I was very surprised the lady was named by name. I could see no reason for that, and I had to use the name because it came from there. That's the only observation. I think it could have been brought up on the floor without using a name because we're talking about a posted position. I think the people, in that case, should have done that.

I would like to say this, furthermore, about this position and the letter the lady got: that's the last letter any employee gets worded in that manner.

MR. WALLACE: At least that's progress.

HON. MR. FRASER: I think that pretty well deals with the observations that were brought up in the last little while.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, what the minister is saying tonight is that he ordered $395,000 worth of taxpayers' money to be spent for consultants to help him set up the British Columbia Buildings Corporation. Is that correct? That's correct. That's what you told us.

Now what you've revealed tonight is that among their responsibilities were recruitment of, and advice on, staff. What you have revealed tonight is that even though you spent $400,000 to perform that duty, you reserved the right to yourself to override any advice they gave in any event. You admitted to us here tonight that no matter what they came up with, you were going to shove Larsen in that job anyway. That's what you've said. So not only was the $395,000 blown on the basis of giving some understanding that the minister has gone outside for advice, but he reserved the right to say to himself: "Even if I go outside for advice, Larsen's going to get the job anyway." So why did you bother spending the $395,000? Spare us the pain, spare us the agony, Mr. Minister, of that kind of doubletalk and expense of $395,000.

The minister gets on television - and I saw him with my own eyes - saying, "I've gone to the experts and I've asked for their help, and this is what they told me for $395,000. We've hired 13 of the 19. We're getting their advice; we want to run it in a businesslike fashion."

Lo and behold, the minister admits , tonight that Larsen got it in spite of what they came up with. How many applications? What kind of competition did Larsen go through? How many people were considered for the job? Are there not literally dozens of people in Public Works or other sections of government service in the thousands of employees who deserve a shot at a $29,000-a-year-job? How many interviews did you give in your office before you decided on Larsen? How many did you give? Did you interview anyone since you took it out of the hands of the $400,000 consultants? You admit tonight that you did. Then how many interviews did you give to other applicants? How many applications were there for the job? Did you post the job or did you send a little postcard along to Larsen and say: "Hey, I think the job's coming up."?

It stinks! You ought to have enough sense to know that even if you're going to appoint him, you at least should have had a guise of some panel or board and that he was lucky enough to draw a number out of it. But you didn't even bother with that. It's so crass; it's so stinky. You just stand up here and admit tonight that you plucked him out of your office and put him in a $29,000-a-year job. You blew $400,000 on consultants because you had your mind made up anyway. The kid was going in; the fix was in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: The sanctimonious, hypocritical speeches of the Premier and his former colleagues in opposition saying, "Order-in-council." Sanctimonious hypocrisy pedalled around this province, saying that they were going to run a businesslike administration, blowing $395,000 to $400,000 up against the wall. His only explanation for it tonight is to stand up and say: "Well, I ignored them anyway. The kid got the job., ,

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You may not understand it. You can't even recall your own name when it's convenient. I want to tell you this: that member who is interjecting....

Interjections,

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

MR. BARRETT: There he is. That member who is

[ Page 3393 ]

interjecting was the loudest spokesperson against any plot that he thought was going on. Yip, yip, yip. Take it easy, buddy, you're going to be run over by a boxcar, if you're lucky.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): You sure put your foot in that one.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, what the minister has said here tonight is that $400,000 was spent of taxpayers' money, and regardless of what the consultants said, his son-in-law was going to get the job - and he did.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. You admitted it; you said so yourself. He comes in as his executive assistant at $19,000. All right, we're not beefing about that; everybody's entitled to an executive assistant. You found that out as soon as you became cabinet ministers. Little late education, but you found it out.

There is no rational explanation to this House or to the taxpayers of this province, Mr. Chairman, why that minister, having brought his former son-in-law, Mr. Larsen, in at $19,000, having ordered the expenditure of nearly $400,000 of public funds to go out and recruit people and set up "a businesslike administration. . . ." Who lands on his feet in a top job in that corporation with no competition, with no recommendations from the consultant, but plucked into that position by the minister on straight, crass, openly admitted, interfering patronage? The former son-in-law of that minister. I said before and I say again, it stinks!

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I want to reply to the Leader of the Opposition and straighten him out. I'm sorry he's so confused; maybe I was the one who confused him.

Dealing with my former son-in-law, he is not hired by the B.C. Buildings Corporation. He is hired by the minister's office. He never was hired by the B.C. Buildings Corporation, and he isn't tonight, and you know that he wasn't.

I want to explain something else to you, Mr. Chairman, and to this House. My former son-in-law still works for the minister's office. You're making a big issue about the consultant fees, and they have submitted a report. We have hired the chief executive officer the way they recommended. He's sitting right beside me here on the floor.

AN HON. MEMBER: Table the report.

HON. MR. FRASER: We have hired other people and have continued to hire them-, this is coming out of the consultant's report. Do you expect us to follow their advice entirely? I guess the minister has some responsibility, but we certainly intend to follow their advice in the greater portion from now on until we have the B.C. Buildings Corporation into place. That will take quite a while, as I've explained here in this debate. When that's all done I hope that the people of British Columbia will have full value for the consultant fees that we have spent.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the minister is now beginning to contradict himself as the heat comes in. The minister said earlier in reply to my questions that he had been assigned to the winding down of the civil service preparing for the BCBC. Is it not true that Larsen's full-time assignment is to develop the BCBC and to do the public relations for the BCBC? Of course it's true. You said so earlier tonight. Go back and read what you said to this House.

Now you say that he's assigned to your office. He's got a $29,000 job to do the public relations for the British Columbia Buildings Corporation. The minister said that earlier himself.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the order in the House. The minister has admitted earlier tonight that Mr. Larsen's function is to wind down the department and do the public relations for the British Columbia Buildings Corporation.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Of course it is, and I accept the minister's earlier statement. Why else would Mr. Larsen get a $10,000 raise in salary?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Now you tell us why you're contradicting yourself. The $10,000 raise in salary is an explanation of his new duties and his new duty, as said by the minister, is to do the public relations for the British Columbia Buildings Corporation.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: You want to say he's in your office. He's been assigned to this. Your own statement here tonight is that that's his assignment. Don't try to change your story within 15 minutes. At

[ Page 3394 ]

least give it a half hour. You're not fooling anybody, Mr. Minister.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): I was going to discuss under the minister's estimates Public Works buildings in my constituency, but it's a disappointing note, Mr. Minister. We don't have any Public Works buildings in Vancouver South. But we do have two stretches of Department of Highways highway.

MR. BARNES: Change the subject.

MR. ROGERS: It's under his estimates, hon. member, and I know you know the rules. I'm speaking through the Chairman, and I want to talk about highways in Vancouver South.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Vancouver South has some constituency problems he wishes to bring to the attention of the minister.

MR. ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've always chided the minister about the fact that we only have about 600 metres of highway in our constituency. So this year he did a special effort for Vancouver South and put the only piece we've got on the front of his annual report. Of course that's very exciting for us, because there it is - the north end of the Knight Street Bridge on the front cover of your 1975-1976 annual report. We're delighted.

Recently you made an announcement which wasn't carried by the press that we'd actually awarded the contract to clean out the weeds at the end of the Knight Street Bridge. I'm going to bring up a point that I brought up last year that my constituents bring up to me at least once every six months, and that is that you can't get anybody to cut the grass at the end of the Oak Street Bridge.

I know you paved it and we're delighted about that, and all the people who live in the dormitory suburbs to the south now can speed across the Oak Street Bridge when they've finished watering in the Fraser Arms.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get Graham Lea to cut the grass.

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

MR. ROGERS: Honestly, Mr. Minister, I want to tell you that we're delighted with what you did with the Oak Street Bridge. Your department is to be congratulated on the smooth way that the bridge repaving was carried out because there was very little interruption of traffic flow. Despite the dire warnings of mayors of the various municipalities on the south side of the Fraser River, the whole thing went off with very few, if any, hitches.

But I would ask you once again to speak to whomever you speak to in your department who has the Briggs and Stratton and the lawnmower and get them to cut the grass. If it's not cut again by next year, I'll bring it up again if you're still the minister, which I'm sure you will be.

AN HON. MEMBER: His son-in-law will be the minister.

HON. MR. FRASER: In reply to the member for Vancouver South, I have sent word to the region engineer of region 1, Burnaby, congratulating him on the job they did in his region for supervision of the paving of the Oak Street Bridge. You're quite correct: every mayor said chaos would come and we had no difficulty at all. I appreciate your remarks regarding the Oak Street Bridge. I assure you that the same engineer will hear about the grass there very shortly.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm absolutely appalled to hear the minister's admission tonight that his former son-in-law has been hired at a salary of $29,000 a year. The minister has made some conflicting statements and I'think the minister, Mr. Chairman, owes this House an explanation of precisely what the duties of Mr. Larsen are, and precisely what method was adopted in selecting Mr. Larsen for the position he now holds.

Was it through a competition? Who conducted the competition? Was it the Public Service Commission or was it the minister himself? In his earlier remarks the minister made this statement, Mr. Chairman. He said Mr. Larsen had assumed a lot of responsibility for "phasing down Public Works." Now what are his duties? Later the minister said: "Mr. Larsen is employed as public relations director in my office." Now if he is not an employee of BCBC and if his function is not going to be related to that new agency, is the minister telling this House that he is now setting a precedent of employing full-time in his cabinet office a public relations director at a salary of $29,000 a year? Is he going to be a political hack for the minister at $29,000 a year? Is this a precedent? Mr. Chairman, I wonder how many other ministers have family relatives in their offices....

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's the worst kind. (Laughter.)

MR. KING: Well, I can imagine it would be the worst kind if the member for Columbia River is admitting it, Mr. Chairman.

I wonder if the other ministers have relatives in

[ Page 3395 ]

their offices as public relations directors. What are their duties? The minister has an obligation to clarify to this House precisely what Mr. Larsen's duties are. Has a new position been developed in the public service of this province?

AN HON. MEMBER: Davidson wants a job.

MR. KING: I'm not familiar with any position that was available through the public service as a public relations director associated with the minister's office, or even the department.

Mr. Chairman, I administered a fairly active department of government and managed to do it without employing a public relations director.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You should have.

MR. KING: No, we did very well, Mr. Chips, and we had no trouble with budworms. We didn't get sprayed in our own constituency. Mr. Chairman, the minister has an obligation to explain to the House. It's not good enough to get up and try to dodge and weave and avoid and evade the question. This is a very, very significant and important issue.

As the Leader of the Opposition indicated, we don't mind if the Premier wants to employ a relative in his office as his executive assistant, or press secretary, or whatever he is.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a relative of a relative.

MR. KING: That's fair enough. I think a minister deserves some political security in terms of that kind of confidant. I don't argue with that. But it's quite another matter when political appointments of this kind - which Mr. Larsen was; he was a political appointment of the minister in the first instance.... But then to transfer him, to slip him surreptitiously into some other role in the public service, with a $10,000 salary increase is absolutely unforgivable and unacceptable.

MR. BARRETT: Did the Anti-Inflation Board approve that?

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, what galls me so greatly is the fact that unemployment in this province is at such enormous heights. We watched on television in the last few days literally thousands of young people pushing and shoving'for a chance to get a job at the Pacific National Exhibition in Vancouver. Some were injured. Some fainted. What chance have they got in the system when the avenue to employment and promotion in this province is only through being related to a cabinet minister?

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Garbage!

MR. KING: You can't pass this off and expect the people of this province to take anything but a cynical view of what is going on in British Columbia.

MR. KAHL: Garbage again!

MR. KING: That's $29,000 for what - $29,000 for what duties? To wind down and phase out the public service, the minister said. That's what the minister said. I ask him to check the Blues if he shakes his head about that. He said: "He has assumed a lot of responsibility for phasing down Public Works."

Now isn't this interesting, Mr. Chairman? Here's Public Works being phased out - 800 British Columbians threatened with the disruption of their employment after years of service with this government - and lo and behold, the guy who has assumed a lot of responsibility for that phase-out and is jeopardizing those jobs for those faithful public servants, is none other than a political hack. He's a relative of the minister who, in his phase-out of those jobs and placing those British Columbia citizens in jeopardy, has developed a job for himself at $29,000 a year. How sweet it is! And those are the moral and ethical standards of this Social Credit business-oriented government? Is that what you stand for?

MR. KAHL: Garbage!

MR. KING: We see the Premier of the province smirking arrogantly about the conduct of his ministers. Mr. Chairman, this is the most shameful and disgraceful revelation that I've heard of in government. It's not funny; it's not a darned bit funny.

MR. KAHL: Go back and look at your record!

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, those who treat all these things in a light manner and view them as being humorous are doing nothing more than displaying their arrogance. I suggest to the House that the people will deal with that arrogance in due course. They certainly will.

I certainly expect the minister to get up and explain. I want a full account - and I think the total opposition wants a full accounting from that minister - including a job description and including advice. I think the minister should table the correspondence relating to any competition that took place, the number of applicants who filed applications for the job, who were the people involved in conducting the interviews and when they conducted them. This is information that this House has a right to, Mr. Chairman, and the minister is not going to be allowed to brazen it out. This is a very, very serious matter.

[ Page 3396 ]

1 can just imagine, Mr. Chairman, the headlines that would have been screamed across the major newspapers of this province had the NDP government ever indulged in anything as seedy as this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: We saw the headlines!

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, we have many of the cabinet benches who were in the official opposition during our tenure of office against whom wild charges were made without foundation. We had lists in the newspapers of executive assistants of all the ministers questioning their salaries. We admitted frankly that these were people selected by each minister as our executive assistants and we required political affinity with them. But never did we interfere with the public service in terms of the choice of people for civil service employment with the government of the day.

I wonder what the newspapers and the hotliners and the radio and television reporters would have said had they ever found one NDP cabinet minister guilty of slipping in, in a seedy fashion, some member of his family to a high-paid job, apparently without competition, for undefined duties. Then we find the minister responsible trying to brazen it out in this House instead of accepting his obligation as a minister of the Crown for full accountability, in the most arrogant fashion and giving flippant responses to the members when they raise these serious issues.

This is a scandalous thing. There are five minutes left and I'm going to give that minister an opportunity to get up. If he can't do it tonight, at least give an undertaking that he will file with this House all of the relevant correspondence and give a precise, detailed account of the mechanism by which his ex-son-in-law was hired to this cushy job in the minister's office.

HON. MR. CHABOT: There are two sides in this House, in case you don't know it. Mr. Chairman, we've had a great revelation here tonight. Something new has been exposed. At last the opposition has found out that a Mr. Larsen works in the minister's office. At last they've found out that Mr. Larsen is in the office of the minister of Highways and Public Works.

Everybody knows Jimmy Rhodes, the former head of the Energy Commission, Petroleum Corporation and B.C. Hydro, was a roommate of the former Premier, the part-time Leader of the Opposition who's developed a new style tonight. He was a roommate - and they talk about political patronage. The gall and the crass of those people!

AN HON. MEMBER: Deny you know Bob Bonner!

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, let me tell you this, Mr. Chairman. Prior to the Social Credit government being elected, there were two political hacks in the Minister of Highways' office; there were two political hacks in the Minister of Public Works' office. Mr. Larsen has replaced those four men in that office. There's been an addition made recently because of additional responsibilities of BCBC being imposed, and there have been two appointed now instead of the former four. So regardless of the salary increase, Mr. Chairman, the taxpayers of this province are still saving money.

In the event, Mr. Chairman, that the opposition doesn't recognize his position, his position is that of a liaison co-ordinator. You know, their research is not very effective, because that position has been in place since the month of May by order-in-council.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, they pay $80,000 for research, and their research isn't very good.

All of a sudden tonight, Mr. Chairman, oh, there's a great revelation exposed by the Leader of the Opposition and the second member for Victoria, who indicated: "Oh, we found out tonight!" Where was that $80,000 research in the last two months? What was he doing? Was he building condominiums, ripping off widows or putting his mother-in-law on the payroll somewhere to cut down on income tax?-No, they can rant and rave all they want, but they haven't done their homework. There's apparently a reason for the gap in the questions being put forward here tonight.

MR. BARRETT: Barnum and Bailey and Chabot!

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, there's a reason. There are cheap politics here that stink on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. If they were concerned, they would have raised the issue during the question period a, long time ago. No wonder, Mr. Chairman, the press say they're the worst opposition this province has ever seen. They're shallow in their questions. I want to tell you, if they were genuine in their concern, they would have raised the issue some time ago.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom-moves adjournment of the House.

'Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11: 0 1 p.m.