[ Page 3433 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An overdue Bill (Bill M 212) Mr. Gibson

Introduction and first reading –– 3433

Oral questions

Alleged censure of Dr. Clarke. Mr. Cocke –– 3434

Availability of infrared photographs. Mr. Wallace –– 3434

Federal payment for northern rail agreement. Mr. Stupich –– 3434

Consultation of labour minister in bill drafting. Mr. Gibson –– 3435

Functions of Dianne Hartwick. Mrs. Dailly –– 3435

Investigation of fishing industry. Mr. Lea –– 3436

Matter of privilege

Allegations by member for Prince Rupert. Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 3438

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Highways and Public Works estimates

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3440

Mr. Lauk –– 3440

Mrs. Jordan –– 3442

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3444

Mr. Barnes –– 3445

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3446

Mr. Gibson –– 3449

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3450

Mr. Lockstead –– 3450

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3452

Mrs. Wallace –– 3454

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3456

Mr. Skelly –– 3457

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3458

Mrs. Dailly –– 3459

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3460

Mr. Stupich –– 3460

Mr.Skelly –– 3462

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3462

Mr. Barnes –– 3462

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3465

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of introducing to the House a lady visiting from Surrey who is very active in the community. We are very proud to have here Miss Doreen Tuckwood.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce to the House three young British Columbians who have a non-partisan interest in the politics in this province, and hopefully after today will want to be replacements for many of us here. Young Ian MacLean, Michael Kaplan and David Gordon are sitting in the gallery.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, with us in the gallery this afternoon are two members of my constituency, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Palmer of Burns Lake. Richard is the co-ordinator of special services for School District 55, and I ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the House would extend a welcome to Mr. Garth Brown, who is in the gallery today. Garth is a member of the IWA and an active party worker for the New Democratic Party of British Columbia.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, you will be very pleased to know that in the gallery today is Mrs. Bate, from Qualicum. Mrs. Bate's late son, Tom Bate, sat in this House in the '50s and early '60s, and represented the Vancouver-Point Grey riding. I would ask the House to give her a very warm welcome.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have Mr. Ed McGill and his wife. Mr. McGill is the member for Brandon West in the Manitoba Legislature. I just want to remind the House that they've got more than one Conservative in Manitoba. I'd like the House to welcome him.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): I thought that Mr. Bate was the member for Vancouver South but I may be mistaken there. Is it Point Grey?

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be on my special good behaviour today, which should be very pleasing to you, because my constituency secretary, Mrs. Doris Mutch, is now present in the gallery.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct my friend from Vancouver Centre. Tom Bate represented Point Grey. There wasn't a Vancouver South in those days.

I would like to ask the members to join me in welcoming John Le Sage from Kitimat.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Victoria): I'd like to pay tribute today to the memory of a fine British Columbian who recently passed away. Mr. Ralph Edwards was a citizen referred to often as "the Crusoe of Lonesome Lake." He passed away at the age of 85 in Prince Rupert last Sunday.

Mr. Edwards moved into Lonesome Lake, near Bella Coola, in 1912 to homestead. In 1923 he began feeding a flock of trumpeter swans which were resident to the area and were subject to food shortages in the winter. In 1936 a landslide at the outlet of the lake raised the water level eliminating most of the natural feeding areas. At t~is point Mr. Edwards began a large feeding programme to support the swans. Up to 400 pounds of grain were brought in each year, at first by pack horse and eventually by air. He was appointed a migratory bird warden and was awarded the Medal of Service in the Order of Canada in recognition of his efforts.

The population of swans is still intact, the numbers fluctuating between 300 and 400. They migrate each spring to Alaska but return every winter to Lonesome Lake. Mr. Edwards was well known and respected by the members of the Canadian Wildlife Service and the fish and wildlife branch in my ministry and by many British Columbians and Canadians.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sure that all of the members of the House are aware of the contribution of Mr. Edwards and would want your words, if you so desire, relayed to the family of Mr. Edwards.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): This afternoon in the gallery we have two very special guests. I would like the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Dick Mersman. I ask the House to give a very special welcome because Mr. and Mrs. Mersman are from St. Louis, Missouri, and like our own British Columbians, they extol the virtues of British Columbia daily and bring many, many people to British Columbia through tour visits that they bring to our province.

I would like to also suggest to you that all of us have to apologize for the salmon which Mr. Mersman caught in British Columbia - it was only 26 pounds! I would like the House to welcome them and tell them that the salmon catch will be better on their next trip.

[ Page 3434 ]

MR. BARRETT: As a former resident of the city of St. Louis, county area - Brentwood, Clayton - I would like to welcome the Mersmans to British Columbia. I have many friends still in St. Louis. I'll write back and apologize for the fact that you only caught a herring on this trip.

Introduction of bills.

AN OVERDUE BILL

On a motion by Mr. Gibson, Bill M 212, An Overdue Bill, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

ALLEGED CENSURE OF DR. CLARKE

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. I would like to take the Minister of Health back to Thursday, July 5. Reading the Blues, the minister says as follows: "I had hoped I wouldn't really need to say this but I can tell you that members of the Health Officers Council of B.C. have voted to censure that member." He was talking in terms of Dr. Clarke. I would like to ask the minister where he received this information.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): I don't think it matters where I received that information. I would like to say, however, that the word "censure" was improperly used by myself and should not have been used. In answer to the question from the member for New Westminster, on that day that he mentions I had some information to that effect.

I have subsequently discovered, at least in the words of the senior health officer in that organization, that in fact Dr. Clarke was not censured. What happened was that the health officers voted in a large majority to support, as I mentioned before, the experimental programme of the government. Mr. Speaker, I used that word incorrectly and if I have caused any problems I apologize for that. Once in a while we goof in the terms that we use. I did on this occasion and I'll take the responsibility for that.

AVAILABILITY OF INFRARED

PHOTOGRAPHS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. Does the minister still consider that a man's home is his castle in regard to the B.C. Hydro proposal and its Big Brother approach to determine heat loss from British Columbia homes by sending a U2 spy plane to take infrared photographs? Since this appears to be an invasion of privacy, can the minister tell the House how readily the photographs will be available to real estate salesmen and companies involved in the selling of insulation materials?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, as I understand it this is an experimental programme and could be useful in the first instance in determining what large commercial and industrial installations are losing energy - wasting heat, in other words. Whether or not this technique could be applied to individual homes is something for the much longer-term future.

MR. LAUK: Is nothing sacred?

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): It sure isn't Socred!

MR. WALLACE: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since readings are to be taken during the hours of darkness when most people are in bed ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame! (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: ... has B.C. Hydro considered asking for the co-operation of the Kinsey research institute? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR

NORTHERN RAIL AGREEMENT

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. We've previously established that the government has received $54 million from the federal government in connection with the northern railway agreement. I did give the minister notice that I would be asking precisely what date that money was received.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for giving me notice of his question. The financial agreement that he refers to was entered into on March 31 of this year between the governments of Canada and British Columbia regarding the settlement on B.C. Railway capital expenditures on the Dease Lake line and the CNR capital expenditure on the proposed other line to December 31,1977.

It provides for a federal payment to the B.C. government of up to $81 million. The $54 million

[ Page 3435 ]

first instalment from the government of Canada for its share of the Dease Lake line capital expenditures was received by the province on April 1,1977.

MR. STUPICH: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I know that the books are kept open for a few days after the end of the fiscal year. I wonder whether that $54 million will be included as an item of non-budgetary revenue in the fiscal accounts for the year ended March 31,1977.

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, Mr. Speaker. The item, having been received on April 1, will show as a non-budgetary revenue item in the current fiscal year ending March 31,1978. The bill before the House at this time is associated with the payment of that over to B.C. Rail and covers the expenditure for the same.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, I suppose this question could have been avoided had we had the fourth-quarter report that was going to come out. I wonder whether the government has any intention of bringing forth the fourth quarterly report, or does it intend to wait until the abridged public accounts are ready?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, Mr. Speaker. We've already established that we will be tendering only the abridged public accounts. They will be released, I believe, some time in early August.

Incidentally, the payment to which the member refers has been recorded in the Ministry of Finance expense accounts and the funds invested in short-term bank deposits.

CONSULTATION OF LABOUR MINISTER

IN BILL DRAFTING

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the great concern of the B.C. Federation of Labour and others over the bargaining unit decertification provisions of Bill 65 and Bill 68, could the Minister of Labour say if he was consulted in their drafting?

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Improper!

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'm sorry, hon. members. I could rule on the question if I had heard it fully. I'm sorry but I didn't catch the full import of the question because I was distracted by something else, hon. member.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I asked the minister if he was consulted in the drafting of certain sections of Bills 65 and 68.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): It's a message bill, Mr. Speaker; it's clearly out of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Dr. Pat, let him answer.

FUNCTIONS OF DIANNE HARTWICK

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I have a question for the hon. Provincial Secretary. In August, 1976, her executive assistant, Dianne Hartwick, defeated candidate for the Social Credit Party presidency, was appointed her executive assistant.

My question to the Provincial Secretary is: why is Ms. Hartwick's name not listed along with all the other ministerial executive assistants in The British Columbia Gazette quarterly instalment?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, Ms. Hartwick's responsibilities cross four social services portfolios with responsibility to the Provincial Secretary. As such, she isn't listed under my directory as Provincial Secretary because she doesn't report directly to me but through the four social services committees which she liaises among.

MRS. DAILLY: She is appointed as your executive assistant at the salary other executive assistants receive, I believe. Yet I understand what you're saying is she is primarily doing work with Human Resources. If this is so, why is she not put through the public service to work in Human Resources as anyone else would be?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, the responsibility which Ms. Hartwick undertakes is one which covers four portfolios, as I have outlined and as was outlined in the press release which accompanied her appointment.

As to the deletion from The Gazette, I would not have knowledge of that but I can certainly inquire after it. I'm sorry, I just don't have that knowledge. I don't have the knowledge that she was deleted from the list, but I will find out why and how and so on for the hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Are we to understand that Ms. Hartwick, although she is employed or working in the Ministry of Human Resources, reports to the Provincial Secretary? Is that what the minister has said?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes.

MR. LAUK: Would the hon. minister indicate whether she has received any complaints about this from the minister of Human Resources?

[ Page 3436 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, could the Provincial Secretary explain to this House as to the legal authority of Ms. Hartwick being with the ministry of Human Resources when indeed the only record that is public as to her responsibility is an order-in-council dated August 13,1976, wherein Donna Dianne Hartwick is appointed executive assistant to the Provincial Secretary at the annual salary of $19,500? Clearly that is the legal authority for you to hire a political assistant. We do not have a copy of any authority transferring her. On top of that, Mr. Speaker, we find that her name does not exist, as is required by law, in The Gazette.

I ask the Provincial Secretary: if she is no longer working for the Provincial Secretary and if this order-in-council has been rescinded, who is paying her and under what authority?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm not so sure in my own mind if the question is even in order, but I'll take the question as notice and pursue it.

MR. BARRETT: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There are no supplemental questions to a question taken on notice, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I have a new question. I ask the Provincial Secretary....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you sought to gain the floor on the basis of a supplemental question, which I have said is not in order when a question has been taken as notice.

MR. BARRETT: The question is in order that I gave - is that it? She said it might not be in order.

MR. SPEAKER: She's taking the question as notice, hon. member.

INVESTIGATION OF FISHING INDUSTRY

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): I have a question, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Minister of Economic Development. Could the minister tell me whether or not there has been initiated within the government a review of the fishing industry in all aspects?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the member asked that question, because the other day the member made certain allegations in this House about the fishing industry and about a certain industry which we were endeavouring to help - statements, Mr. Speaker, which I'm surprised to learn were completely unfounded. I've done a little bit of research on the completely unfounded allegations made by the member, and erroneous statements they were....

MR. LAUK: Did Arthur do it for you?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd be most pleased to relay to the House the facts of the fishing industry. I must say I'm indebted to the member for asking this question on this particular date.

There was a statement, Mr. Speaker, attributed to the member for Prince Rupert regarding the fishing industry, where he stated that independent canneries are being wiped out in a single season....

MR. LEA: Point of order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would both the member for Prince Rupert and the hon. minister take their seats for just one moment?

There is some direction with respect to the asking of questions and the giving of answers in this House.

One of the things , that comes up and that I have reviewed just today is that no debate shall be allowed during questions. Now it seems to me that to interrupt an answer or to interrupt a question with a point of order would be very incorrect. I would like it, if anyone can show me any specific reason or any rule or order or any reference that says the Speaker should allow interruptions in the question period, either in the stating of questions or the answers by points of order, if they would please bring it to my attention.

MR. LEA: Point of order. Mr. Speaker, if I ask you what time it is and you tell me it's Friday....

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

MR. LEA: Yes, the point is that the minister was not answering the question. If he wants leave of the House to make a statement, I, for one, would be glad to give it to him after question period.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! It seems to me that in question period, in recent days particularly, there's been an attempt by those people stating questions to do anything but ask a question or a supplemental question. They skated all the way around the issue, made political statements and then, when political statements are given in retaliation, there seems to be a feeling that the member who is answering the question is abusing the members. If in fact you wish to state questions and supplementals, and allow the same courtesy in that respect as in the answering of

[ Page 3437 ]

questions, I'm sure we'll get far more questions into the question period and far more answers.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll be most happy, because I understand the member.... (Laughter.)

Point of order, Mr. Speaker: Can the bell interrupt a member when he's answering his question? I've never....

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd ask leave to give the answer though. Yes. I'd ask leave to give the answer. Do you want the answers? Mr. Speaker, I ask them: do they want the answers to their questions? I ask leave to give the answers.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEA: If the minister has a statement to make about the fishing industry, I would ask leave of the House to allow the minister to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, hon. member, it's not your position to ask leave on behalf of some other member. Does the hon. minister ask leave?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm asking leave.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Pardon me for that interruption.

Now I presume that the member for Prince Rupert was asking if I had started a study of the fishing industry based on allegations which he made in this House a few short days ago about there being a secret cartel in the fishing industry.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to state that to back up his statement - I attribute this to a statement in The Vancouver Sun which he made in this House; unfortunately I wasn't here and didn't hear it - he said independent canneries are being wiped out in a single season. Another statement attributed to the member was that Francis Millerd and Sons, Nishi Industries and Queen Charlotte Fisheries were all hit.

The facts, Mr. Speaker, and the reasons we haven't conducted that study, are: No. 1, Francis Millerd and Sons is not out of business. The company will operate this season under the name of Millerd Fisheries Ltd. and the changes in the name are due to deaths in the Millerd family. There was no loss whatsoever.

Nishi Industries Ltd. is out of business. Nishi was a very small operator who priced himself out of the market largely by paying very high prices for salmon. No. 3: Oakland Industries is operating under new financing in the name of Oakland Fisheries Ltd. As for Queen Charlotte Fisheries Ltd., the Prince Rupert plant was sold to J.S. Millen Fisheries Ltd. and is now operating with a full complement of employees.

The Richmond plant - you know what has happened there. We did, as you know, everything possible and made an offer to keep that plant operating. As a matter of fact, I just wrote a letter yesterday to the chairman of the board of the British Columbia Development Corporation thanking them for the hours that they put in in that particular.... They certainly went beyond the call of duty.

Here is another statement which I presume the member is asking us questions about. It says: "B.C. Packers has signed a first-ever contract for export of eight million pounds of sockeye salmon representing the bulk of an average year's pack to Japan." I'm still quoting the member. "The situation demands an immediate government response and a public inquiry to determine if British Columbia's small independent firms and workers in the fishing industry are being sacrificed to help bring about a secret international cartel."

Now the fact is, from informed opinions, that there are probably half a dozen such contracts between B.C. companies and Japanese trading companies. Japanese companies will write such contracts in the hope of securing supplies. They are usually written to indicate willingness to purchase up to a certain quantity, knowing full well that supplies cannot be acquired. In fact, if there were 10 million pounds of sockeye available, B.C. Packers may secure one-half of that total; 78 to 80 per cent of that amount would be canned - that is, of canning quality. At the very outside, then, B.C. Packers may be able to export one million pounds of sockeye. Export regulations allow for export of only the very highest quality fish, appropriate, of course, for freezing. Most of the B.C. catch is of canning quality.

There is a significant degree of competition between B.C. companies to secure salmon, herring and other species which are in short supply. There is no evidence of a cartel. About 59 companies participated in the herring fishery last year, the highest number ever.

Mr. Speaker, I just have to say that this is another instance of an uninformed member who hasn't done his homework throwing allegations across the floor to mislead the people of this province.

MR. LEA: I ask leave to make a statement in reply.

Leave granted.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is obvious to

[ Page 3438 ]

me that the people who inform the minister haven't informed him of all the facts. For instance, he doesn't seem to know that the Millerd Fisheries no longer do any of their canning. That's one aspect of the B.C. fishing industry that's gone. They no longer do any of their canning. He obviously didn't know that.

But I believe that the most important thing the minister said is that because of last week's events they haven't had a chance to begin a study into the fishing industry. He should have checked with the Premier of this province, who, when the minister was away, said that the government had in a number of various departments. -

MR. LAUK: Was he telling the truth?

MR. LEA: Now I'd like to know which minister is levelling with this House. Is it the Premier, who said that the study and the review had begun, or the Minister of Economic Development, who just now stated that they haven't had a chance to begin the study?

It's almost, Mr. Speaker, the same as saying that there are no seatbelts in the car, and you look in the back and see with a television camera that there are obvious seatbelts.

Over and over and over again in this House we get conflicting statements from the ministers and from other people, and even conflicting statements among themselves. It's obvious to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier forgot to tell the minister what he said in the House so the minister didn't know what the Premier said. We now have the truth: no study is being done into the fishing industry in any department and the Premier did not level with this House when he said that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. If we're going to enter into a full-scale debate, that's one thing; but for anything other than that, there must be leave granted to make a statement.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Well, Mr. Speaker, I asked leave on a question of privilege.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's no leave. You've had your statement.

HON. MR. BENNETT: This is leave on a question of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: If there is a question of privilege before the House, then the Speaker must listen to it. The Speaker will determine what he heard, and I heard the hon. Premier say a question of privilege.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has made allegations as to the authenticity of statements I made to this House.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm listening at the moment, hon. members, to the Premier, who is on his feet on a question of privilege.

MR. LAUK: A point of order must be heard at any time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I must first deal, hon. members, with the question of privilege which has been raised by the Premier. I cannot deal with a point of order on a question of privilege or at a time the question of privilege is being stated to the House.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of privilege. That point of order is always in order. This is the most partial Chair I have seen in a long time -an absolute disgrace!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince Rupert made statements as to the accuracy - and, in fact, he questions the honesty - of the Premier of this province in this House. I wish to state that he has selective hearing. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) said he hadn't initiated an inquiry into his specific charges. I wish to reiterate that he is wrong when he makes those allegations against the Premier of this province, and that, indeed, an inquiry is going on into the fishing industry in the Recreation and Conservation branch of this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

HON. MR. BENNETT: But nobody with the experience of having to deal with the member for Prince Rupert puts very much faith in the charges and statements he makes in this House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): There is no order in this House.

[Mr. Speaker rises. ]

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Alberni will unequivocally withdraw the statement which I heard, which was to the effect that there is no order in this

[ Page 3439 ]

House. Withdraw that, hon. member.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat. ]

MR. SKELLY: I withdraw.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong again!

MR. SKELLY: I didn't say I was wrong. I just withdrew.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, with respect, on a question of privilege, if the matter is not a question of privilege, this is why I raised the point of order. The Premier quite often stands in his place and seeks out whatever comes to hand to interrupt the proceedings or to take an improper place of precedence in debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. LAUK: He did so again, and I raise that as an important point of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You don't want to know.

MR. LAUK: In a question of privilege, if it's raised by a member of this House and it's not a question of privilege, a point of order should be raised by any member of this House. It's his right to bring it to the Speaker's attention. That's the first point of the point of order.

Secondly, the standing orders provide for any member to rise in his place to correct a statement. That's not a question of privilege, as the Premier stated. The Premier knows full well that that was not a question of privilege but used it to gain the floor. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, with respect, to have regard for the standing orders which allow for any member to stand in his place and correct a statement that directly concerns that member.

MR. SPEAKER: In reply to the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre, and for the benefit of all the members of this House, may I say this? I intend, within the next few days, to research thoroughly the matter of questions of privilege and points of order as they have been used, and often abused, by this entire assembly.

There's ample precedent in Beauchesne and May with respect to the device which is used by members when they rise on a point of order to interrupt the proceedings of the House in order to detract from a statement or a debate that is taking place. It's called an abuse of the rules of the House when that happens. Many abuses have occurred in the last few days. I give warning to all sides of this House that this Chair does not intend to put up any longer with the abuses which have occurred. I say that equally to all members of this House. It is not the position of the Chair to allow the discourteous performance that has taken place in this assembly to continue any longer.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to call Motion 13 standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave not granted.

MR. BARRETT: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. Were there some noes? You don't want to discuss the very matter....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's the Speaker's place in the chair....

MR. BARRETT: I didn't hear noes.

MR. SPEAKER: I did, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was only asking for clarification.

MR. LAUK: I'm rising under standing order 42 (l) . During introductions, I was correct and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) was correct - the late Thomas Audley Bate served in Vancouver-Point Grey from 1953 right through to 1966, when he was elected in Vancouver South and then passed away. A by-election then occurred.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you for the correction, hon. member.

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.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The evening before last I heard from the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) , who is in his seat this afternoon, some allegations against my office and my ministry, which I investigated. I drew them to the attention of the House yesterday afternoon when the hon. member was not in his seat. It has reference to the estimates which are before the House at the present time, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask now, and I would like to ask

[ Page 3440 ]

through you, Mr. Chairman, to have it clearly established on the record, as clearly as it was established on the record that a misunderstanding by the Hon. member for Vancouver Centre was perpetrated the evening before last....

The allegation was that.1 authorized the removal of a brand new carpet in my office. The fact is that the Public Works department at the time removed a carpet that had been laid in 1965 at their initiation and according to the plan established by a former administration. So fact No. 1 is that it was not a brand new carpet.

The second allegation that was made was that the cost of the carpet now in my office was a cost that far exceeded that of the planned carpet which the Public Works department under this ministry wished to lay. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that the carpet installed in my office - the office of the Provincial Secretary -- is cheaper by more than $200 than the so-called Rattenbury carpet, and the Hon. member alleged in this House that it was a far costlier carpet.

Yesterday 1 asked for the Hon. member to apologize to the House, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say through you to the Hon. member that there are only two reasons why he would make those allegations on the floor of this House to this assembly: one is that he is ignorant of the facts - and 1 will accept that; I would like to accept his apology if he was ignorant of the facts; the other, and the only other interpretation that can be taken, is that he is misleading the House. On either account, Mr. Chairman, I would like him to stand in his place and apologize to the House for the allegations which he made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would remind the hon. Provincial Secretary that it is perfectly in order in committee to make a correction on a statement made by any member of the House. However, it is unparliamentary to say that another member misled the House, particularly if there is any deliberation to that particular phrase at all. Therefore I would ask the Hon. Provincial Secretary if she was imputing improper motive to the member, and, if so, she must withdraw.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, 1 would be pleased to withdraw the words "misleading the House" and I will leave it to the Hon. member for Vancouver Centre to correct the statements.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The statement stands corrected. Every member's word as an hon. member....

The first member for Vancouver Centre on the vote.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I raised these remarks on this vote the other day and this is what has encouraged the Provincial Secretary to take the unusual step of entering the debate twice. The remarks of the Provincial Secretary were drawn to my attention yesterday, so I double-checked and 1 found indeed that this was the carpet the Provincial Secretary is having laid. Is that correct? Is this it here?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: 1 didn't doubt the choice of carpet. Sure, anybody can get....

MR. LAUK: Now I ask all the people of British Columbia to have a look at this carpet. You tell me whether it's worth $200 less or more to lay this carpet in a Crown minister's office. It's Social Credit brown. I'm amazed that the Provincial Secretary, a day after the remarks were made, would rise in her place and ask me to apologize for her having such poor taste - with great respect. I do apologize to the people of British Columbia for having a Provincial Secretary with such poor taste.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think the member is aware that....

MR. LAUK: Now getting on with the vote....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, I think you are aware that statements can be corrected but a personal attack is not permissible in the House. 1 would ask the Hon. member to desist from attack.

MR. LAUK: I will desist from a personal attack, Mr. Chairman, and 1 won't breathe a word to the people of British Columbia about this carpet.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, 1 don't like his taste in parties, so I don't mind when he talks about my colour scheme.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Now to vote 146.

MR. LAUK: On vote 146, 1 should remind the committee....

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to wear that?

MR. LAUK: No, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) has already bid on this carpet. 1 will. wear another one.

Mr. Chairman, the committee should be reminded that it was the Hon. Provincial Secretary who went across this province and claimed to the people of British Columbia ...

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Are you going to

[ Page 3441 ]

withdraw your remark?

MR. LAUK: ... that the NDP had a secret police force, and that was a lie.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: 1 didn't do it in this House. I'm asking you to withdraw that remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: That was not true.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We are on vote 146.

MR. LAUK: She has not yet stood in this House as a Crown minister and apologized to both this party and the people of the province of British Columbia about lying to the people of the province! There was no secret police force!

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

MR. LAUK: She knew it at the time but she went across this province and claimed that was so! Dr. Goebbels couldn't have done a better job.

[Mr. Chairman rises. ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Vote 146, let me remind the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre, is the vote of the Minister of Highways and Public Works. It is for $158,130 and has to do with the administration of the Ministry of Highways and Public Works.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, 1 am pleased to speak on this vote. 1 certainly don't want to discuss carpets other than to say that ....

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Only one member may have the floor at one time. 1 recognize the hon. member for North Okanagan.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, you rose in your place and 1 took my scat. That does not relinquish my place in this debate.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll abide by your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LAUK: When the Speaker or Chairman rises in his place, all members are to take their seats. 1 did so, and according to the standing orders 1 do not relinquish my place in the debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Was the member rising to speak on vote 146? He did not state his intention to rise on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: No, 1 didn't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Therefore you, had no precedence. If you are rising to speak on vote 146, then 1 will recognize the first member for Vancouver Centre if the member for North Okanagan defer.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd be pleased to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

MR. LAUK: If 1 take my scat will 1 relinquish... ?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, in his most recent remarks the member for Vancouver Centre made reference to the word "lie." 1 would like him to clarify to this House whether he was impugning the character of the hon. Provincial Secretary in implying that she was lying or extending a lie to British Columbians.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not hear the remark. However, if the remark was made 1 must ask the member to withdraw. Please withdraw, hon. member, and we can continue.

MR. LAUK: 1 impugned no improper motive to any member of this House.

HON. MR. BAWLF: You said the word "lie." Withdraw!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 146. First member, Vancouver Centre - may we proceed, please?

MR. LAUK: My complaint, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Minister of Highways and Public Works allowing his staff to pander to the tastes of ministers in decorating their offices is simply this: the carpet was ordered for that office and was on the way, if not already laid, when the minister chose a carpet from Eaton's - which is a lot better than the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , who has had his on order from Italy or something....

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's not true!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, Garde, it is so! It goes with your white shoes!

[ Page 3442 ]

MR. LAUK: I understand the Attorney-General wanted a carpet in cathedral purple or supreme court red, but I understand that, having regard for the recent comments of the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) , he has ordered orthopaedic purple, which would be very, very much in character with an Attorney-General who has back problems. I greatly sympathize with him, indeed.

Mr. Chairman, the cost per yard may well be slightly below the carpet that has been laid traditionally in these parliament buildings, but what I'm trying to protest in this committee is that ministers are being pandered to by the Ministry of Highways and Public Works.

I think it is appropriate for the Minister of Public Works, who is an honest man, to conduct the proper activities of the department in decorating the parliament buildings and precincts according to the proper design that has been established, and not cater to the panderings of a Provincial Secretary or anyone else. For heaven's sake! What is this going to do to the image of the province of British Columbia when the chief minister in charge of protocol, who invites consuls and ambassadors into her office, has Social Credit brown on her floor? That is very embarrassing and that is the point I wish to raise, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman - you having now assumed the chair - you are a gentleman of exquisite taste! That taste, over the years, has been eroded. You were once a member of the CCF. Nevertheless, I ask you: would you have this carpet on your office floor?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't really intend to discuss carpets but it is a little disturbing....

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, could you explain to me the procedure for recognizing a member?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, the procedure is that the Chairman has the right to recognize any member on the floor and the first member who stands is the one....

MR. BARNES: But you have that option -whether it's the first member or....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you kindly take your seat? I have recognized the member for North Okanagan.

MR. BARNES: You've answered my question, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. JORDAN: Perhaps the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, wasn't in his place but I was recognized by the Chair - or the member for North Okanagan was formally recognized by the Chair and deferred to the first member from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) . I'm sure the hon. member for Vancouver Centre would want to be very fair to all members of this House.

Mr. Chairman, as I say, I don't want to talk about carpets but I do become a little disturbed when I listen to this debate. The hon. member keeps waving that carpet around; it looks to be very much the same colour as the carpet we have in our family room. I'm beginning to wonder if I want to go home after this.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: It's a good carpet. (Laughter.) We have horses, too.

My intention in rising in this debate is to discuss a matter of interest to the people in North Okanagan and one that is really rather sensitive. There would appear to be some concern on the part of the people about a highway development programme that has been initiated by the city and yet may not rest well with the people. There's also a danger that it may, in fact, be the only alternative open to both the regional district and the government. I refer directly, Mr. Chairman, to Highway 97 and the possible alternate which has been proposed.

I would like to read into the record at this time the fact that the original agreement between the Highways ministry of the government of British Columbia and the city of Vernon was that when 32nd Avenue was designated as Highway 97 through the community but did not complete its extension to Highway 97 north, it was agreed that when the city was ready, we would complete that extension.

In the ensuing time, the city has developed substantially and the proposed area for that extension joining Highway 97 south with 97 north is not really available any longer as a proper development link.

At the same time, Highway 6, which links into 97, has seen considerable development on its perimeter, both from the Lumby-Lavington-Coldstream area as well as on the outskirts and within the city of Vernon. What we have is a focal point of congested traffic with nowhere to go in any sense, whether to link with Highway 97 north or south or with Highway 6. At the time this agreement was made, Mr. Chairman - and I bring this in because it also affects the minister's vote - there was a linking street between Highways 6 and 97 north called 27th Street. This street is a people street. It was then and it still in large part is now. It is a street bounded by a number of churches, schools and single-family dwellings. The planning for the area would indicate that there may be some multi-family developments within its perimeter that will be feeding onto this street. It is

[ Page 3443 ]

essentially a people street.

On this street is one of the historic buildings in the province of British Columbia, the Vernon courthouse. Its construction took place at the initiative of the Hon. Price Ellison, at that time Minister of Agriculture in the government of British Columbia. The courthouse is historic, not only in its time and because of the life that has gone on within it, but because of its architecture and the fact that it is constructed with native granite from the region.

HON. MR. BAWLF: It's Rattenbury architecture.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, thank you, hon. minister. It is and I think it's unique, in part, in its structure.

The MLA for the area at the time became very much aware of the need to try and preserve this building, not only for its architecture and history but to make it more usable and to also face the problem of sound which was creating difficulties within the courts and offices.

With this in mind, a major portion of land in front of the building was purchased by the government of British Columbia and a unique park, representative of the times, was developed. Called Justice Courts, this park was created not only as an expression of the time of our day but as a means of helping to preserve the courthouse and its functions. It was planned at that time that 27th Street should be rerouted in front of the park, along with acquisition of more land to extend the park; and that 27th Street, now between the courthouse and the park, should be reduced to a service road.

At that time, we felt that this was in keeping with the planning of the city of Vernon and any tentative agreements which had been made between the Highways ministry and the city, as well as forever assuring the preservation and use of that building. We also planned, at that time, to acquire more property adjacent to the courthouse in order to establish a government complex within that region, with its accessibility assured and the noise factor reduced.

In the meantime, other circumstances have taken place and we find ourselves in the position where the city of Vernon is seeking to designate 27th Street as a highway and link it to Highway 97 south with an extension called the Polson extension which would border the new regional college site. I would like to suggest that it may well be important to have the Polson extension linking up 27th Street, Highway 6 and the college in order to provide an eastern access to the college, if in fact it is to be a community college. It demands that there be access. But whether or not 27th Street should become the major highway is the question. There is no question that the noise factor and the volume of traffic is going to be disruptive to the churches, to the schools and to the people who live along there.

Even more serious is the fact that the highway is going to erode some of the created Justice Court Park. This loss would be regrettable. Although it's minimal, it nonetheless defeats a lot of the purpose of the park's creation.

The other factor which is very significant to the region of the North Okanagan is that unless there is an alternative in terms of maintaining the courthouse's effectiveness, we are in grave danger of jeopardizing our regional provincial offices and the court systems that take place within that building. Those who work in the building have made it very clear.

Mr. Chairman, the debate over the last two or three weeks has been somewhat prolonged, somewhat acrimonious and somewhat dominated by some of the members who are now sitting in this House in the opposition. I would hope, if nothing else, they would extend government members at least the courtesy of reasonable quiet when they are taking a few moments to express their constituents' concerns.

Those who are currently working within the confines of this unique building - including the courts - have advised me as MLA, the city and others concerned that there is no way they can carry on court functions if the noise factor continues to exist. It also brings into serious question whether or not we should proceed with any type of further government office complex in that area, as originally planned. The matter of soundproofing the courthouse is certainly one of interest, but very questionable as to its success.

I have brought this up, Mr. Chairman, because, as I mentioned, it's a very sensitive question in our area and I think it should be aired. Frankly, I don't have all the answers, but I would request the minister at this time to take an unusual step and, before deciding to proceed with the city of Vernon's request, we immediately commission a study to look at any other alternative which might be available to the Highways ministry and the city of Vernon.

There's a serious problem in terms of local traffic coming in from Highway 6. It's heavy-duty traffic -it's logging traffic - and we don't want to deter it. It's very important to the economy of our area, but it is a problem. If the minister could give his assurance.... I realize it's asking a lot. It's in the middle of the year and I'm sure most of his estimates that haven't been passed yet are well spent. In fact, my own Highways engineer told me that he had a $350,000 deficit that he'd like to pay, and I said I was sure he could as soon as the estimates were through.

But this is such a serious thing for our community. It's a matter of great concern to our citizens. I think that even if we come up with a negative answer, they would like to be assured that we as a government are sensitive to their concerns. I know this Highways

[ Page 3444 ]

minister is.

I believe we're in agreement that the days when our much respected and very accomplished engineers can go in and say, "That's the way the traffic has to go; it doesn't matter what happens to the community or the people, " are gone. And I say this with the greatest respect to the engineering profession. We owe them a lot, but somehow we have to listen and we have to be sensitive to the community's reaction to highway development. I think we have to remember that parks and public lands that exist do have a place and, where possible, we must avoid trying to disrupt them.

This brings me to my next point, which is another serious and sensitive area. It relates again, Mr. Chairman, to Highway 6, as that traffic enters the easterly side of Vernon, proceeds beside a school on 25th Avenue, and turns left to Highway 97 south or proceeds down Okanagan Avenue to Okanagan Landing. There has been a design done and I regret that my request was not heeded - and perhaps not properly made - to have an alternate looked at before this design was done. But the design that has come up, that has been presented, allows for the widening of 25th Avenue and the removing of a small portion of the park area in order to allow for a lefthand turn slot.

If this was really going to accomplish something for the traffic congestion there I don't feel I would be so concerned, but when one examines the plan it would indicate that there will only be about four or five vehicle spaces in that lefthand turn slot. It really is not going to assist the traffic problem. It means that the congestion and noise within that area will grow increasingly, we will have lost some parkland, and the road is adjacent to a senior secondary school.

The city of Vernon has made it quite clear, both through their citizens and mostly through their engineer, that they don't want to impose one-way streets. I would suggest, Mr. Minister, a study to indicate whether a one-way traffic flow in this particular instance would not be more acceptable to the citizens of the area and, hopefully, to the city.

If we did this we could have a flow of traffic coming from Highway 6 further along and turning left on 28th Avenue. It would proceed down 28th Avenue and its direction would be either right or left on Highway 97 within the city. The incoming traffic down Highway 97 south would turn right on the existing 25th Avenue and all traffic which was going from Highway 6 to the Okanagan Landing area would go down 25th Avenue.

I suggest that while the solution would not be perfect, the saving of the parkland, the diminishing of the noise factor for the school and an easier flow of traffic would be well worth the effort. I would ask the minister to have this looked into immediately before any irreversible steps have been taken.

Before I bring up the last two points, I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of the people of the North Okanagan to thank the minister, his staff, his executive assistants and all the engineers and people in the ministry for the courtesy and the effort they have made in our constituency and for the benefits that are now developing in the traffic area. We appreciate it very much. While we are asking for a few more, we understand you can't have everything.

At this point - maybe I should say "however" - the most welcome passing lanes on Highway 97 are now in place and we're very grateful to have them.

But they are , causing some problems. For example, one ends on an outside curve on a corner, and within less than 100 yards there is a culvert overpass with a cement abutment. It's a very dangerous situation. I think some of the difficulties that are being caused in other areas are because the lines aren't on yet, but when one examines it - I took the time on the weekend to go over these both on foot and twice by car, and I'm certainly not an engineer - I think for the volume of traffic we have that we'd be wise to look at either extending these or at putting in two more to carry southbound traffic within the next year. I would leave this with the minister.

One last point I would like to bring up is the Oyama corner, which is a famous corner in the community of Oyama on Highway 97. There's a crossover between each side of the community and Highway 97; fruit flows, children flow senior citizens flow and traffic flows very heavily. We did have a plan some years ago to reroute one of these roads. I would like to revise this and bring it to the minister as soon as it has been approved by the regional district. The reason it was cancelled before was that there was a change of government and they didn't seem to feel that this was important in terms of priorities. It may well have been, but at this time it is important and I believe the traffic volume is there. What is more serious is that the potential for a serious accident between vehicles and people is very great.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time. I realize these were very local issues, but the people of the North Okanagan like to know that some of their particular concerns are brought to the floor of the House. On their behalf again, I'd like to thank the minister and all his staff for what they've done for our area.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): I thank the member for North Okanagan for those kind remarks. I'm personally aware of some of the problems you brought up and we'll certainly look into them. I would suggest, though, going from back to front, that you get your opinions on the Oyama problem in to us because we'd like to continue on the upgrading in that general area of the North Okanagan.

[ Page 3445 ]

On the observation you made on the passing lane, the staff will immediately take a look. At least additional signing is maybe required there. The fact that the passing lane stops on an outside curve really shouldn't happen, so the deputy minister will look at that right away.

Regarding where Highway 6 junctions with Highway 97, I'm not sure where that is but I believe that is under design right now for a left-turn slot and so on. We'll have to look into your suggestion of going to one-way traffic. But I'm very aware of that intersection. It's a real mess around there and we'd like to get on with cleaning it up.

I think your major problem, really, is the alternate to Highway 97, which is pretty well plugged on 32nd Avenue; the alternate is 27th Avenue. I believe the status of 27th Avenue is a secondary highway. We have already helped upgrade it through contribution of funds to the city. But the immediate problem is the noise that ensues from the heavy traffic of the courthouse there. I'm pleased to tell you today that an acoustic engineer has been appointed to go up there and make a noise survey.

Now your remark was that it mightn't do any good, but at least we're going to take a look at that because I've had letters from judges regarding this, saying they can't hold court there any longer unless we do something about it. We have to get on top of it right away to see whether we can help the acoustics in that building. I believe we have July and August to do it because the courts won't sit. That's what we've done about that. I'm not sure whether the engineer is up there or not now but I believe he is or on his way right away. I think that pretty well covers the points you brought up.

- We'll have to look in a hurry at the junction of Highway 97 and Highway 6 because I think the designer is practically ready to go do the work.

While I'm on my feet, the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) asked some questions yesterday and I answered in part. I'd like to answer now for the record for that member. He's not here but I know he was here earlier. He was referring to the Blanshard Street extension. The total cost of properties purchased for this road extension was $3,696, 812. The number of property owners from whom property had been purchased to date is 62. The number of owners whose property right-of-way has been gazetted with no settlement to date is 10. These 10 have been gazetted under the Highway Development Act. To date we have indication that one property owner of these 10 will be proceeding to arbitration.

The other question that I answered partially last evening is regarding St. Ann's Academy. In Victoria there are two parcels of land in question. The first is the actual site of the building. The other is across academy Close, which is commonly known as the annex. Assessed values are as follows: St. Ann's Academy, land value - $609,820; improvements -$293,090; the annex, land value - $49,670; and improvements - $56,010. 1 believe that answers the questions the member had on that.

MRS. JORDAN: You're quite right - and this is what prompted me to bring this up in the House because your estimates are up and it's not always appropriate to contact you in your office because you're on the floor - the design for that intersection is not only completed, it's there now. I was quite disturbed and disappointed to find that the suggestion I had sent through to the department earlier hadn't been acted upon. The design that's in does allow only for the original suggestion.

I asked the engineer to phone me this morning but he hasn't had time. I believe I can confirm that there are only about five lefthand turning slots within the design, so the effort doesn't really seem to be worth the cost involved in terms of dollars or the cost involved in terms of loss of the park area. I would hope that perhaps this could be looked into immediately as an alternate.

MR. BARNES: We were speaking a few days ago about tendering, Mr. Chairman. I just want to ask the minister if he received a letter from the B.C. and Yukon Territory Building Construction Trades Council in the middle of last March. They were inquiring about the policy respecting the support for the trades in the province, namely the carpenters who were in the millwork trades. They mentioned the courthouse in Vancouver and the one in Burnaby and New Westminster hospital as examples of cases where the government had opted for jobbers outside the province. They were wondering what the policy was in light of the 28 per cent unemployment among carpenters in the province.

One of the things they mentioned that I suppose was a reply.... I don't know if this is just their suspicion or whether you replied to the effect that you were dealing with the lowest tenders. They were wondering if you would be following the concept of awarding contracts to the lowest tender , in which case, I suppose, they were being outbid. So please answer that one when you get an opportunity after I am through.

I am going to change the subject a bit. This is to do with the Glenshiel Hotel, which is owned by the government. It is a boarding hotel. I would like the minister to advise the House of the present status of this facility, which houses some 80 residents - senior citizens, by and large.

Could the minister indicate whether or not the government intends to retain this facility, as had been the intention of the previous government, for posterity? Will there be a continued low-cost facility for senior citizens, possibly in the future being

[ Page 3446 ]

incorporated in an expansion programme as part of this precinct? Or does the government intend to relinquish title and turn this back to the private sector, as was indicated by the minister earlier?

Also, could he comment on the occupancy level at the present time? I understand there are approximately 25 or so vacancies. There have been vacancies that have not been advertised, so there doesn't seem to be a policy of keeping the facility fully occupied.

I would also like to know a bit about the costs or the monthly rates paid by the residents. It was my understanding that they were paying something like $367 a month and that the increase was to $400 a month. That, I understand, would have exceeded the 10.6 per cent. Well, mind you, that's a boarding facility and I don't know if the AIB would include a boarding facility in any event, nor would the landlord and tenant legislation. But the fact that you're dealing with people on fixed incomes and retired people, I'm wondering if it would not be consistent with the government's attempt to be of assistance to this category of people to not exceed the 10.6 per cent annual increase on costs - or at least the cost of living, which is less. So could you comment on that?

Also could you indicate the structural arrangement within the management of that facility? I understand it is managed by a private, not on a lease.... I'm not sure about this. I'd like to know if it's on lease, the conditions of the lease and how it is dealt with in terms of its accountability to the Ministry of Public Works. I would like you to comment on whether or not it is presently licensed to serve alcoholic beverages. If it licensed, what type of licence does it have? Could you verify if there have been some violations of this licence?

It is my understanding that licensed premises are required to purchase their products from Liquor Control Board outlets by use of a special form - in other words, all products that are going to be retailed at the liquor outlets excluding the 7 per cent tax. That is paid when it's retailed across the counter. My understanding is that this is not the case at the Glenshiel. What is happening there is that they buy the product out of their pocket. People are going to the liquor store the same as I would, buying a product, taking it to the shelf and selling it in a licensed premise with no accountability in terms of a form showing that they didn't pay the 7 per cent tax. So the Liquor Control Board has no record of what alcohol was purchased by their facility. So when you buy it across the counter and just put it on the shelf, there is no record. I could be bringing in my booze from anywhere - selling bootleg or anything else. So I just wondered if you could indicate whether or not that is happening at the Glenshiel. If it is happening, the question of accountability in the present operation would obviously be one which I'm sure you would be concerned about.

The other thing is, is there a manager? And if there is a manager, is this person full-time and is he under a contract? Do they have a lease type of arrangement whereby they not only receive a salary but have some kind of a profit-sharing potential under the terms of employment? I raise that because I had representations from some of the residents there that the particular manager, who receives a fairly substantial salary, works at another place full-time and is very rarely at the Glenshiel Hotel. So the tenants have no one to turn to. I just wonder if this is the case; if you could indicate who this person is and how much the salary is; what the conditions of him employment are; and whether working somewhere else. Could you clarify some of these questions for me?

Now I would like to say in addition to this, just by way of philosophy: I would like you to clarify the status of the Glenshiel Hotel in terms of its value to the government. I've heard that if it were turned back to the private sector, as was indicated by yourself a little better than a year ago, that it wouldn't be a very good hotel in its present state and it would be prohibitive in terms of someone buying it and trying to use it as a hotel source of revenue. It would be quite a costly operation. So perhaps what someone may have in mind is buying it as a speculative venture and maybe planning to raze it. If you were to sell it, would you have any riders on any conditions of its use, keeping in mind the precinct and the interest that it would have to the government?

HON. MR. FRASER: The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) has raised an interesting subject. I happen to know something about the Glenshiel Hotel. I did state that we would probably be disposing of it. We haven't taken any action along that line but we still feel the same way. It's a boarding hotel. You are correct that its occupancy maximum is around 72, and at the present time the occupancy is 52. So there are 20 vacancies. The rates, I am given to understand, are from $280 a month to $360. Further, I understand they're at the maximum that they could go under the law.

Regarding the facility itself, we understand that the building is very badly run down. A lot of upgrading would have to happen, electrical-wise, plumbing-wise and so on. That's one of the things they're looking at.

You ask if it is going to be expanded. I think I'd have to say I don't think it will be, because the basic unit is not in good condition and a lot of money would have to be spent upgrading it.

As far as the day-to-day operation is concerned, there is a manager in charge on a salary basis and on a full-time basis. He reports to a provincial government committee: the assistant deputy minister, Mr.

[ Page 3447 ]

Rhodes; and two other people of Public Works. They are the management committee that the manager reports to.

Regarding the alcoholic beverages, yes, they have a licence for wine and beer. You lost me a bit on the tax bit; I'm not just sure there.

Regarding the manager who is there and whether he has two jobs, I understand he only has the one full-time job but two nights a week he goes to the Empress Hotel for training as an innkeeper, but he doesn't get paid for that.

Evaluations. The price paid for the Glenshiel Hotel, whenever that was - I believe it was in 1974 -was $590,000. Recently an evaluation was made, I don't know who by. The evaluation is roughly $325,000 now, but I would point out that part of the land that went with the Glenshiel has been put over into the park that exists there. I haven't a value on the land that has been set aside in the park.

It seems there are a lot of problems there. I would just like to tell this House, Mr. Chairman, that I recently received a letter from a hotel owner in the city of Victoria wanting to know what the government was going to do about it. He'd gladly buy it and continue on with the operation under its present conditions and give lifetime occupancy to the 52 citizens that are there. We haven't taken any action on that. If we decide to dispose of it, it would be out in public tender; we would put it up to public tender but we haven't made that policy decision yet. I'm going to ask for some direction from the government on this shortly, but I haven't done so yet. We've had offers.

I want to emphasize the last time that I made remarks about the Glenshiel, it upset the residents there, and I have no intention of doing that. I'd like to make clear that anything that is done will be given full consideration. As I say, we already have an offer to purchase the property and give lifetime occupancy to the building, but I don't know how we handle a situation like that, because we would advertise it for public bidding and that could well happen.

The other thing that you didn't mention is that we are losing money on the operation. It is not a great deal, but we see that loss increasing due to repair work that is necessary and so on. So while we're not that concerned with the losses, I think at one time it was breaking even or making a few dollars; now we've gone the other way just slightly. The assistant deputy minister tells me that it will probably increase the losses because of the condition of the building generally.

Regarding the B.C. and Yukon Territories Building Construction Trades Council, I recall getting a letter from them and they were concerned about their high unemployment rate I'm not sure, but I believe they also came to see me - or a delegation of tradesmen did - and were quite concerned about their problems.

We have always given the largest contracts to the lowest bidder. As a matter of fact, just recently a very large contract went to a British Columbia bidder. We ruled out a bidder from the province of Quebec on the basis that he thought he was low bidder but apparently he wasn't when the proper calculations were made.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair. ]

The government has recently announced that they will go up to 10 per cent to give the business to British Columbians, so we are very conscious of that fact. Some of the contracts we are letting are $4 million and $5 million each and if you have them in British Columbia, if the bids were, say, 20 per cent higher, we're talking about a lot of money. There is a tolerance there. As far as I know, the contracts that are currently underway there have practically all gone to British Columbian firms.

MR. BARNES: You don't like to debate, Mr. Attorney-General? Don't you think this is an important subject? You're sitting over there yelling: "Aye, aye!" You want to rush out of here. I thought we were here to do the people's business. You surprise me!

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): No wonder they put you on waivers, Emery!

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for clearing up a number of questions that I had. I just have a few further remarks on those points that he made.

First of all, the occupancy. You suggested it was approximately 52, 1 think, and there are about 20 vacancies. You indicated that the Glenshiel was not breaking even, although the losses were minor. I would just like to ask if it would not be sound business to at least advertise those vacancies and keep them filled until such time as you have made your decision to submit the sale to the public on a competitive basis.

I know that many of the people in there realize that when they leave they will not be replaced by a policy decision that was made by the government some time ago not to replace those people, just to give them a guarantee that they would not be evicted. Perhaps there are people who would like to live there, even though they realize that they would have no guarantee that they would have the same privileges as the people who are there at the present time. This could be a source of revenue and I'm wondering why it is that the government doesn't at least find some way to utilize the space.

There have been a number of complaints about

[ Page 3448 ]

maintenance. You indicated yourself that the place is somewhat rundown and requires a fair amount of work in this area. I understand it is to the point now where even light fixtures aren't even 'replaced any more. This has been the case for some time. At what point do we make it comfortable for the people and at what point do we economize? There are some difficulties.

Back to the question of the purchase of the alcohol. You indicated that you didn't know for sure about the tax as far as purchasing alcohol. I think this is probably the one area that I would suggest you would want to find out about as quickly as possible. It has just come to my attention, and I'm only raising it. I'm not laying a charge, or suggesting that that is true even. But if it is true, I would think this would be in violation of liquor legislation in this province and it would be wide open, Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , for abuse.

I had a liquor licence at one time and I know that I used to purchase my alcohol with a special form without paying the tax because the Liquor Control Board knew at all times how much I had in storage.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Well, yes. Apple Jack and other things - Kelowna Red. I even imported some Henry's Lowball from Oregon, I think - 39 cents a gallon. You didn't know about that, did you? I had some stuff I used to use myself . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: Ooh! (Laughter.)

MR. BARNES: ... but that wasn't for sale, so you haven't got anything there.

Mind you, I will suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there is a possibility that someone. . . . -

HON. MR. GARDOM: You haven't got over it yet.

MR. BARNES: That minister must withdraw that remark, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.) He told me I haven't got over that yet. What are you suggesting by that? Those are aspersions being cast upon this hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps if we could get to vote 146 we would have fewer interruptions.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I almost take offence at that, but not quite. With a big smile like that, how can you be offended?

I think this is a matter that should be investigated, Mr. Chairman. It could be a serious problem. I'm not in a position to say whether it is happening, but when it was raised I thought you would want to investigate it. Certainly if a place is licensed to sell liquor in the province of British Columbia, there are regulations that have to be followed. You have to go to the liquor store and you have to see the vendor, fill out a form, you buy your stuff, and you sign for it. They know how much you're buying under that number. You go back, you put it in your stock and you sell it. When you sell, you charge 7 per cent tax on everything that you sell and it's recorded on a tape. The liquor control guy can come in and take a look at any time and see what your stocks are and see whether it all tallies. They know how many ounces you are selling, right down the line.

Now if you have a situation, on the other hand, where you can reach in your pocket, take some money, go down and pay the 7 per cent tax, get a bottle of wine and go back and sell it without having to record this at the liquor control....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is this under this minister's vote?

MR. BARNES: Yes, this is on the vote, very definitely. The Glenshiel Hotel has a licence to sell alcohol. I'm wondering whether or not they're operating within the regulations. Strange - Public Works is a very vast field. As you know, everything happens in Public Works.

In this particular situation, although it's a small operation - it's only a boarding hotel - it does cater to the public. People do go in for lunch and dinner and they have drinks. It's my understanding that the staff may go down to the liquor store, buy a bottle, put it on the shelf and sell it, and that bottle is not recorded anywhere in the records. To me that is not the way you operate under a liquor licence in this province. I may be wrong, but if that's happening I think the minister should want to look into it.

It's certainly open for abuse, because you don't have to ever go to the liquor store.... No one knows when you're going and when you're selling it. Just forget it. Sell it and put it in your pocket; there's no record. The liquor control board couldn't say: "We sold you so many bottles of booze last month; where are your receipts?" - because there's no record. I'm not going to belabour that. I raise it and I hope you'll look into it and assure the House that that's a false alarm.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: The auditor-general could be interested in that, I know. I know this minister wants to get finished and I certainly feel that with his co-operation so far today, there's no doubt about it -we will probably move along very fast.

I want to make one other point, then I'm going to take a bit of a break and come back with some things on highways. You suggested the government

[ Page 3449 ]

shouldn't be in the business of running a hotel - that was your original statement a year ago about this particular facility - but is that in relation also to the future of this precinct? It's my understanding that the precinct is constantly being developed and refurbished and expanded. You've got a long-range plan as well as an immediate one. That hotel is in a strategic part of this complex. It's vital and certainly in future years it will be much more valuable than it is today as far as the people of British Columbia are concerned.

It seems to me that we're having it right now about as cheap as we're going to ever get it. If we can even make it pay for itself, not only are we providing a valuable service for the public, we are subsidizing a very worthy group - the pioneers of this province who are now retired and who certainly deserve any opportunity to get a bit of a break in their twilight years or towards the end of their lives. We should not be too concerned if we lose a few dollars. On the other hand, we're ensuring that we have control over a valuable piece of property for future consideration. I just wonder about the economics in relinquishing this valuable piece of property on the corner of Douglas right across from the parking lot there. That might be a questionable move.

HON. MR. FRASER: I would like to deal with the member's further questions now, Mr. Chairman. First of all on the fact of the vacancies, I'm advised that we're already non-competitive with the private sector. In other words our rates are high, we're losing money and we can't get the business because we're not competitive. The other thing is that you're probably aware that of these 72 rooms only 14 of them have baths. Apparently that is another problem because of getting occupancy which is not too attractive.

The main things that are wrong with the building are the heating system and the water system. They have to be redone and the roof has to be replaced. So we're looking at major repairs.

We have another option here. Rather than selling it as a going concern, we could demolish the building after we phase out the 52 that are in there. So there are some options.

As far as keeping it in the precinct area, I would say that the precinct area, Mr. Chairman, now comes under my colleague, the Hon. Sam Bawlf, and we're going to have discussions on this subject. I'm going to take it up with him regarding the Glenshiel because that now really comes under his jurisdiction - the precinct area.

Regarding the sales tax, you raise a very interesting point there. It probably should be brought up under the Minister of Consumer Affairs, but I understand that in this operation we are paying the sales tax for the liquor that we purchase from the liquor vendor and then in turn we retail it and we charge the sales tax back out again. That's the way that operation is operating now, according to information I have.

I think that probably cleans up your questions.

MR. GIBSON: I'll be very brief, because these estimates are going so well this afternoon. I don't want to repeat everything that has been said about the usefulness of encouraging people to take bicycles in our society, especially out of town, but the minister yesterday suggested that 0.5 per cent of the Highways budget was maybe too much. I just want to point out to him that in the state of Oregon they're using a full I per cent on the bicycle paths and trails vote and they're finding a usefulness for that amount of money. So I hope that he'll keep an open mind on that.

I would like to ask him to consider publishing for bicyclists either a map which indicates British Columbia highways which have suitable road shoulders for bicycle riding or, alternatively, a mimeographed list of mileages where it is possible. I found, for example, that riding up and down the Island Highway a person can go for 10 miles or so where there is a nice paved shoulder, and then they come to another five-mile stretch where there is not a paved shoulder. It would just be nice to have some visual indication where you're going to find good riding conditions.

Now I had mentioned to the minister earlier on -he wasn't able to answer it the other evening but he said he'd look into it - the question of sound baffles along the Upper Levels Highway in North Vancouver similar to what has been very well installed in West Vancouver. What I would like the minister to do, if he would be so kind, would be to assure the committee that he will ask his department to do a complete study of that portion of the Upper Levels Highway within North Vancouver to see where baffles might be effective and the cost economical.

Next I would draw to his attention again that problem at the end of George Street where it comes into the Upper Levels Highway just east of Lloyd and before Mackay Creek. There have been problems of rocks from passing cars and even one car going off the rails and into this particular dwelling. He has a representation on this on June 27. 1 don't expect him to be able to reply on that detail today; I just want to make the representation and ask him to look into it carefully.

Finally, before I sit down, one new subject: I would like to ask him something about general policy on the judging on bids. I have a case example here, Mr. Chairman, that relates to the construction of the curtain wall on the new government building in Vancouver. I'm told that there were two bidders. One was a firm called Zimmcor Aluminum, which I believe is a Montreal firm, and Central Glass, which I understand is a British Columbia firm. The bids, I

[ Page 3450 ]

understand, were roughly $1.3 million each, with Zimmcor underbidding Central Glass by about $8,000.

The account I have is that Public Works considered the two bids essentially equal and therefore sent them to Economic Development to get some kind of a recommendation as to which one would be best accepted in terms of benefiting the British Columbia economy. That's a reasonable procedure, and I don't argue with that. Now I understand that the advice they got back from Economic Development was such that they awarded the contract to Central Glass, which was the higher bidder by $8,000, on the grounds of dollar value of Canadian content.

I'm told that Central Glass said that their U.S. content, their supplies for this curtain wall, was $587,000 whereas Zimmcor said it was $614,000. Zimmcor claims that there is no way that Central Glass can keep their U.S. content down to that amount. That may or may not be the case - that's something for experts to determine.

What concerned me was the allegation of Zimmcor that there's no way that Central Glass would be monitored and followed up on this. In other words, the element that was critical to the making of a decision - namely, the amount of Canadian content - would not, in the end, be monitored. I'd like the minister to tell the committee whether in fact that is a correct description of how this or similar bids might be awarded. If it is, what steps are taken to ensure that suppliers do in fact live up to their representations to the government with respect to the percentage of Canadian content?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Vancouver-Capilano, going back to front, I'm aware of Zimmcor Aluminum and Central Glass, and you're correct. You have all your facts straight. But there was a lot higher Canadian content in the Central Glass and it was awarded to them. As far as how we monitor it, that's a real good question. We have Concordia Management in charge of the job and, hopefully, that's what they're there for - to monitor those sort of things for all the contracts and to make sure they do live up to how they bid.

MR. GIBSON: Will you ask them to do so in this particular case?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I'll be glad to point it out to them and tell them to monitor it.

As for the George Street problem, yes, we'll look at that right away. On the sound baffles, I agree with you, and we'll look into that right away. I don't see why we can't do as well as we did in West Vancouver on that.

Regarding maps, I agree with you. I don't know what problem that is for the ministry, but we're trying to get more information out all the time. It's a real good point for the cyclists that they should know. We've got lots of maps, but none specifically for bicycles. That's a real good suggestion, and we'll look into that to the point of getting some maps for bicyclists. I think that clears those questions up, Mr. Member.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): I do have a few questions for the minister on highway and road matters regarding my riding. I was disappointed when these estimates started out last Monday, I think it was, Mr. Chairman, and the minister described his highways programme as a catch-up programme. I was a bit disappointed in that remark because I think our government under the NDP did much-needed highway work in British Columbia. I. know that in my own riding there was a rational amount of highway work taking place every year, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me now.... As a matter of fact, I know that I'm not now aware of one, single, individual capital project - highways project - taking place in my riding at this point. I may be wrong, but I'm personally not aware of any.

AN HON. MEMBER: How come?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister, or possibly the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) , asks: 'How come?" I didn't want to get into this, Mr. Chairman, but if we must, we must. The fact is, if he wants to know how come, it would seem to me that perhaps the minister is spending the money in his riding and cutting off some of the other ridings. I hope I'm wrong.

I'm particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, about Highway 10 1 up the Sunshine Coast. I would be very much appreciated by the residents of my riding, and by myself, if the reconstruction of that highway could be continued on a rational basis, a little bit every year. I'm not asking for a great big project. Over the last three years - excluding this year, but prior to that - we had a little bit of work being done every year. It was maybe only three or four miles. That highway should be completed at least up to Pender Harbour.

There are also a number of major side roads in my riding, and I won't go into them all. Mr. Chairman, approximately four years ago the staff in the Department of Highways developed what they called the five-year plan for the Sunshine Coast area of my riding. That includes Powell River and Texada Island. Every year a certain amount of work was done. I had seen that five-year programme, and it was a good programme. I would have liked more, but I wasn't greedy. But it seems to me now, Mr. Chairman, that this programme has stopped. I'd like to know from the minister what has happened to that programme.

[ Page 3451 ]

This includes upgrading of major side roads, a certain amount of day labour, and this kind of thing. Perhaps one of the minister's staff people could let the minister know when he answers and he could tell us what happened to this programme. I know that I'm very interested in finding out what happened to that particular programme.

Last but not least, I would Re to deal with Highway 20, most of which, by the way, Mr. Chairman, is in the minister's riding. I'll be honest. The minister has done quite a bit of work and has authorized quite a bit of money for that highway which services Bella Coola, which primarily serves residents in my riding. However, in the Bella Coola Valley itself there has been no major highway work done in that valley on the main highway for quite a number of years, Mr. Chairman. I'm asking the minister now to consider repaving the highway up through the valley, from Bella Coola proper, up through Tweedsmuir Park. As a matter of fact, I would very much like to see a new highway. As you know now, the famous hill up over the mountain in Tweedsmuir Park is quite a dangerous hill and it's closed off during the winter for some long periods of time, particularly during spring breakup.

There is another route that could be utilized. I know it's an expensive job but it would lower the highway by some 2,700 feet and I think the savings in the cost of snow removal alone and trying to keep that highway open over the years would eventually pay for that highway. So I hope that the minister will consider that project.

Mr. Chairman, another project I'd like to talk to the minister about, because it does fall under the purview of his department, is the need for a provincial government building in the Sunshine Coast area. That is the Sunshine Coast Regional District, which includes everything from Langdale and Gibsons to Pender Harbour and Egmont. The government is presently renting premises for the various provincial government functions all over the peninsula. There is no centre of activity; people are scattered from Gibsons to Sechelt to Pender Harbour. In other words, the government is renting these premises all over the place.

I do know that the former Minister of Public Works was reviewing and looking at sites in that area, with a view to eventually - perhaps - constructing a government building in that area, and perhaps placing a government agent in that area. People presently living in that area have to travel to Vancouver or to Victoria or wherever for a lot of functions, such as applying for land, for example. I would like the minister to tell me today, Mr. Chairman, that he will have his department look into this matter once again.

One other item under Highways, Mr. Chairman, is of some concern to me. Perhaps the minister can give us an answer when he rises to answer these questions.

1 would like to know if the Ministry of Highways is still using 2, 4-D, 2, 4, 5-T or other chemicals to clear bush along the highways. If so, in what areas are these chemicals being used and what chemicals are being used? And what amounts are being used, as the hon. member to my right points out, although I really think he's on the left.

The last topic which I wish to discuss at this time is the ferries. As you are well aware, your ministry operates quite a number of ferries in British Columbia - 14 of them in salt water and some of them operating in my riding. I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Minister, to one particular route, and that's the route between Powell River and Courtenay, currently being served by the Sechelt Queen. There's been a considerable amount of problems on that route, as you well know. We were finally able to get a bigger vessel on that route; shortly after that larger vessel went on the route, the fares were doubled and, in some cases, tripled. Traffic was reduced. I am told, by about 40 per cent, although I think it's up a bit now.

I appreciated the larger vessel, but one of the problems with it is that commercial traffic has a problem. At certain tides, certain trucks and vehicles can't load or unload because of the height factor. I do know that the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) is responsible for B.C. Ferries in this Legislature. They have, sitting idle at the moment, a vessel called the Queen of Tsawwassen which is not being utilized. That vessel is 20 years newer than the present Sechelt Queen. It has bow thrust propellers for manoeuvrability in the smaller wharves in the Courtenay and Powell River area. It carries approximately 20 more vehicles, I understand. So I hope that the minister will talk to his counterpart in Transport, the Hon. Jack Davis, to see if we can perhaps utilize the Queen of Tsawwassen on that route.

I should tell you about the Sechelt Queen, Mr. Chairman. Approximately a year and a half ago, food services were taken off of that route and that vessel. I really don't know why. Machines were put in but the food is inedible; I can tell you from experience. I utilize that vessel to get home on a great deal and the food is inedible. The machines don't work half the time.

There's a great number of complaints and I'm sure you've gotten reams of letters on this whole subject. I know that the various chambers of commerce, TIC commissions and the rest of them are complaining steadily about this food situation. There's no reason for it in my view. The people who were formerly hired to work on the ferry to serve food are still there. They're still hired as clean-up people. But they would just as soon have a proper food service on that vessel and on that route, as would most of the passengers. That route does take I hour and 40

[ Page 3452 ]

minutes. It's comparable to routes I and 2, Mr. Chairman, and I think we deserve the same treatment as people on routes 1 and 2.

Also, Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister would consider - and there's no reason why we shouldn't do this - free passage for senior citizens on a week-round basis. I know that we now have free passage from Monday to Thursday for seniors and that rates are in line with B.C. Ferries. But I don't see any reason why we should not have free passage for senior citizens on a week-round and year-round basis on that route.

You know, in our area, in order for various groups to function they must travel on the Texada Queen, the Powell River Queen and the Sechelt Queen - the school groups, the various ball teams and young hockey teams and baseball teams, Girl Guides, Brownies, the whole bunch. They pay quite a high rate. I'm not saying that these groups should perhaps go free, although if I had my way I'd let them go free during the week when traffic is down anyway. The vessels are usually used at only 25 to 40 per cent capacity at the most, so I don't see any reason why these groups - these ball teams, these school bands and the rest of them.... I know there are special rates with seven days' notice for some groups - not all - but I think it would be good politics. It wouldn't cost you anything; it wouldn't cost you anything at all. I don't see any reason why we can't do that.

There are two or three last items here, Mr. Chairman, before I take my seat. I wish to draw to the minister's attention one item that has been raised by the Powell River Tourist and Industrial Commission. They asked me to ask the minister this question, which I will. I really don't have any views on this item, but the item was - I think the minister has received correspondence on this matter - that they would like the Sechelt Queen possibly transferred to B.C. Ferries. I really don't know what the reason is for their thinking, unless perhaps it's because B.C. Ferries honour resident-commuter cards. In other words, if you're a resident on the Sunshine Coast anywhere from Gibsons to Langdale to Powell River to Texada Island, you can get what is called a resident-commuter card and you get a slight fare reduction on all B.C. Ferries. I think it's a saving of about $2 on a vehicle and $1 for a passenger -something like that. The resident-commuter card is not honoured by Highways' ferries - in other words, the Sechelt Queen.

I have correspondence from the minister. I'll be fair, Mr. Chairman: the minister does answer correspondence. He gives good answers; I really appreciate that. Not all the ministers do that. You get a response but you don't get any real answer. But this minister does answer his correspondence.

In any event, the minister advises me in correspondence dated May 24 of this year that on that particular route the fare structure will be in line with B.C. Ferries, and in all fairness it is, except for one item - the department does not recognize resident-commuter cards.

The rationale for not honouring these commuter cards is this. Just listen to this! I was told that if the Highways people recognized resident-commuter cards on that route, then they would have to do the same for people in Courtenay and Campbell River and what-have-you. But that's nonsense, Mr. Chairman. If we wanted to use the rationale for not recognizing cards, then we might as well say that everybody in the lower mainland should have a resident-commuter card - which, by the way, they should. But anyway, they should have the cards because the people on the Sunshine Coast have them. The ferry docks at Horseshoe Bay so everybody in the lower mainland should have a resident-commuter card, which is ridiculous.

So I'm asking the minister now if he'll make a commitment in the House this afternoon that they will recognize the resident-commuter cards for people on the Sunshine Coast-Powell River area.

HON. MR. FRASER: To the member for Mackenzie, I'm happy to hear from him. Regarding the local preference, to go from back to front here, for the Comox-Powell River run and the Sechelt Queen - we are opposed to that.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I know. That's why I raised it.

HON. MR. FRASER: I understand the B.C. Ferries don't give that either where they have these short runs, so we're not at variance with them. But we'll take a look at it again. On all ferry problems, we have a ferry study going on now and I'd recommend that they certainly go into Comox and Powell River. Bring all these things there to them, Mr. Member, because you're right. We do get complaints and so on.

That's what I'd recommend there, but I wouldn't hold out any promise at this time until we get that study. Put this into that study and they'll report back here. It won't take all that long.

On the Powell River suggestion, I would just say, Mr. Chairman, to the member, that I'd like that suggestion put to the study group that's going there as well. It was the Powell River association that wanted B.C. Ferries to take over this run. Make that suggestion there, and that will get back here properly.

Regarding the complaints about food on this run, I've heard these before. Apparently the problem was that when this run was taken over by Highways, as I understand it, from B.C. Ferries, they had a catering service. Highways has never had a catering service, and so they went to nickelodians, or whatever you call them. There have been a lot of complaints about

[ Page 3453 ]

that. Again, I think that's an item to give to the ferry study people.

It's the same with commercial vehicles which you mentioned. The Queen of Tsawwassen.... I would like to see this put into that committee.

Getting on from that, the next item you had here was spraying. It's my understanding that I said last year there would be no spraying of 2, 4-D, and then I find out the odd time it happens. It's one of those things that's hard to get a handle on. Just recently we said no more 2, 4-D. Apparently they had some stock of it and they did some spraying in the Kootenays here a little while ago. It's stopped. It's contrary to policy to spray with 2, 4-D, but they are spraying some with another chemical - I'm not too clear what it is.

We've also got a real problem with our rights-of-way all over the province. They're all growing up and we're supposed to be cutting them and we're not getting that done. I think I said on Monday in my opening remarks that we certainly have a problem. I'm going to take the spraying of the roadsides to the committee of cabinet that we have to try and get some better resolution than we have on it.

On the government building, I wasn't clear just where that was, but we'll look into that, Mr. Member. I can tell you from what I know that there is no high priority for a government building in the area at all. We're in the midst of this transfer, but it hasn't a high priority. That might not say that it doesn't come up shortly.

Now dealing with the subject that I know best is our mutual problem, to the member, Mr. Chairman, Highway 20 from Williams Lake to Bella Coola is a distance of 300 miles. Probably 50 or 60 miles of it are paved and the balance is gravel-surfaced road. But it now becomes a very important link in our highway system because of the withdrawal that you're aware of, Mr. Chairman, and the member is aware of, of Northland Navigation from service to Bella Coola. It's been very unsatisfactory since, but it's put an extra priority or a higher priority on Highway 20 than has been had in the past years. We're aware of that and have been working on it. For the information of the House, we have spent over $2 million on this piece of road since last fall.

For the member on the mountain, we have spent half a million dollars. I'm happy to tell the House that here about three weeks ago we got our first truck and pup trailer down the mountain for the first time ever. I realize the next week the same truck and trailer went over the bank, but they couldn't even get a trailer down the mountain until about three weeks ago. It's a very treacherous piece.

Regarding the other route, to get away from this switchback mountain, which is 14 miles in length, there is another route surveyed out - I think you're aware of that - from Towdystan down the Atnarko River and into Bella Coola on more or less a water grade. I made noise, Mr. Chairman, that we might do something about it, and immediately Nimpo and Anahim Lake got up in arms. Now we're looking at a route from Anahim Lake south to hit the Atnarko and then into Bella Coola, because I don't think any of us want to see the communities of Nimpo and Anahim Lake bypassed - which the Towdystan route would have done.

They're out there looking at that, but I would like, Mr. Chairman, this member's help. It isn't a large monetary problem to build this new road. The biggest problem we have in the Highways ministry is the environment. Environment Canada and the fish and wildlife branch of Recreation and Conservation.... The Atnarko is an excellent salmon river, and according to the highway engineers we have to come close to that river and blast rock and so on, and those environment studies are going on now. Any help you can give would be appreciated.

I don't think that Environment Canada is that uptight about it. I think this can be resolved. We have a three-mile canyon area in there that we have to get through to get this water grade. I think if we all get together we could maybe start on that route next year. The financing I don't think would hold us back, and I think for the better living for the people of Bella Coola in your riding and certainly for the maintenance of highways.... We have snowfalls in the mountains, as you know, of seven feet at a fall. It's very difficult. We have difficulty there this spring with spring breakup, and the whole road collapsed on us from Anahim west. It's very difficult, but now it's the lifeline to the community of Bella Coola. We're determined to bring it up to a better standard.

As I said, we spent $2 million or $2.5 million on it and we will spend that much money again by Christmastime this year so that that road won't collapse on us in spring breakup next year. A lot of those funds are going to be spent from Anahim west. It was impassable for even bulldozers to get through in May, it was so bad. As a matter of fact, we have at the present time 114 mudholes corduroyed and that is going back 25 years in highway maintenance. We stopped using corduroy, I understand from the engineers, 25 years ago. They have got so bad there we have had to go back to corduroy and then cover the corduroy with gravel. So we are going in there now and dig all those holes out - seven or eight feet deep - and replace it with proper gravel so it won't happen next spring.

Regarding the Highway 101 and the Sunshine Coast, we might have our priorities mixed up, Mr. Chairman, but because of the traffic density we're going to do some more work. We haven't anything lined up at the moment, but the traffic density doesn't give it as high a priority or the urgency that we have in a road like Highway 20 that is all of a

[ Page 3454 ]

sudden the lifeline of a community.

While I'm on that subject, because of the boat situation on the coast, as you well know, Mr. Chairman, the other higher priority has become the Stewart-Cassiar road to service the community of Stewart. I place the communities of Stewart and Bella Coola as very high priority for road construction. It's costing a lot of money but we're determined to get them decent roads by 1978 so they won't keep failing and so on from spring breakup.

That pretty well covers what you brought up, Mr. Member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman. Regarding the five-year programme for the Sunshine Coast from Gibsons to Powell River that the Ministry of Highways had initiated some years ago, I'd like to know what happened to that programme or if the ministry is going to continue that programme.

One other item is that the minister referred to the study team to look at various aspects of the Ministry of Highways-operated saltwater ferries. I did read the press release and you did discuss this in the House the other day. I'm not quarrelling; I think it is a good idea. I think it is the way to go, as a matter of fact. But perhaps you could tell us, Mr. Minister, what the terms of reference of the committee are and when you have asked that the study be completed.

One last item before I sit down. Mr. Minister, I really disagree with you on commuter cards. I see no reason at all if, as you say in your correspondence, the fare structure on that route will be kept in line with the B.C. Ferry Corporation fares, why resident commuter cards could not be honoured on that route. I really see no reason why that item has to go to a ferries standing committee. It just make plain common sense, Mr. Chairman.

One last item, Mr. Chairman. I don't have to tell you about politics. You've been in the game some 20 years longer than I have and much longer than that, probably. It's good politics! Do it! There's no reason in the world why you can't do it. All it requires is your signature on a memo. That's all that is required, Mr. Minister, and it would be in keeping with policy of your government in terms of B.C. Ferries. In fact, it would be in keeping with your own statement.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your remarks. We'll take another look at it, Mr. Member.

Regarding the terms of reference for the highways study, I'll send those to you in the mail. I have them here. It is three pages and I don't think we want to read it.

On the five-year programme you refer to, I believe the ministry feels that was your five-year programme, not theirs. They have done a lot of work but we will look at it some more.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, last year during the estimates of this minister I raised several items and I would like to thank the minister for his response to at least two of them. He has seen fit to do some paving on the Shawnigan Lake Road. I was a bit disappointed that there wasn't a little more design study put into that. Some of those comers are very sharp and ungraded, but it has been paved, and that much I do appreciate.

I also asked him about some identification for people in wheelchairs or handicapped persons to find the hidden elevator. The minister did put some signs around this building, but unfortunately he not only put them in but he tore them out again when he was carrying on the modifications in building what has fondly become known to me and some of the other people who have to walk out of here on a rainy afternoon or evening as a little area that we call Fraser Lake. The signs seem to have disappeared, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the minister will assure us that they will be placed back and in obvious positions so that people in wheelchairs or other handicapped people will be able to find that entrance to the building.

The other point which I raised last year was to do with the Thetis Island ferry. The minister assured me at that time that he would do something about including Kuper Island, where that ferry also calls, in the advertising of that ferry. Now we've had a couple of small signs appear which say "Kuper Island, " but I noticed in his annual report he still talks about the "Thetis Island ferry, " and the tickets still talk about the "Thetis Island ferry." I think the point I made last year was a very valid one - that that ferry is now serving, as a vehicle ferry as well as a foot-passenger ferry, the native Indian population on Kuper Island. In all fairness to that population they should have the same recognition as the residents of Thetis Island.

The minister has been carrying on this year a great deal of highway construction in my constituency. I don't have the same complaint as the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) ; in fact, I have so much construction going on I can hardly get from Victoria to home.

I have some mixed feelings about this. We have a situation on the Island which is a unique situation. That four-laning of the Island Highway is not only four-laning the Island Highway but it is four-laning the one and only artery for local transportation in a great many areas. It's an artery that has to be used for local transport. It's unique in that there are no alternative routes in many areas, or if there are alternatives they are very long and hazardous and time-consuming. So it's used as a commuter, local-traffic type of thing and it's also used as a portion of the Trans-Canada Highway.

[ Page 3455 ]

The four-laning of that highway with all grade crossings from all the incoming roads is creating a great deal of concern among the residents of my constituency, as the minister will be well aware and has been evidenced by the number of queries I've been passing along to him for lights at intersections. If all those queries are granted, Mr. Chairman, we're going to have one continuous series of stop-and-go all the way between here and Nanaimo, because there are so many intersections coming into that highway that it's going to take away the main purpose of four-laning a highway to make a thoroughfare that will carry through traffic out of the area.

I suggest to the minister that this is a real problem and he's going to have to look at some overpasses or underpasses or some other way of getting access off and on that highway. In the meantime, if he's going to avoid mayhem on that highway, he's going to have to accede to the many, many requests for stoplights along that Island Highway. The one stoplight that I'm sure the minister knows 1 have in mind is at Boys Road, where we've been crying for a light. There's a major shopping centre open now and a left turn out on to the highway to go back into the city of Duncan. It's a real hazard. 1 shop in that shopping centre and sometimes I'm 10 minutes getting out onto that highway. I've had every possible explanation - and 1 think 1 must call them excuses - because I'm convinced that the minister in his wisdom is waiting until the four-laning is complete before anything is done there. At that time I'm sure we will have a light at that particular intersection. 1 don't know how many of the others we will get but that one we will have.

My query to the minister, Mr. Chairman, is to do something now, because it's going to be a while, in my estimation, before that four-laning is completed there. Either give us an assurance that that will be completed within the next month or so and the light goes in, or else make some temporary provision to provide some safer kind of exit in and out of that particular intersection.

Another problem the construction on the highway is causing is a problem with maintenance in the Cowichan area. As I'm sure the minister is aware, when there is excessive construction going on in an area the local road crew becomes involved in that construction, and as a result the routine maintenance often gets pushed to the side. We're finding that query after query that is routed through the regional director is very belated in getting any attention. I'm told over and over by the officials in the minister's department that the problem is that they're so busy because of the construction that they don't really have time to do the maintenance. Now we have a lot of unemployed in this province, Mr. Chairman, and 1 think if that's the situation perhaps that minister should have a look at giving us a few more staff in that area so we can get on with the routine maintenance.

Those were the rather routine and general comments I wanted to make about some of the specific roads in my constituency. It relates, Mr. Chairman, to the provision of the Highway Act which provides for one-twentieth of a piece of property to be, in fact, expropriated. The Act still reads that way and legally that is correct; it can be done. My understanding is that we have been moving away from that and some compensation has been made for the value of the property involved.

To witness that, I want to talk about a specific case, and that is Hillbank Road. Hillbank Road had a 66-ft. right-of-way for part of its length and then it was reduced to a 33-ft. right-of-way. Unfortunately, when the road was put through it was not put in the centre of the right-of-way and when it came to the end of the 66-ft. right-of-way, it continued on off the 33-ft. right-of-way on the property of my constituent, who lives on Hillbank Road.

That is a condition which has existed over the years. It is a condition which my constituent has drawn to the attention of the Ministry of Highways many, many times. It's a condition that has caused my constituents to attempt to fence off their property. In placing their fence posts even back from their line, they were so close to the actual road that there were many problems with people coming in at night and tearing the fence down because it was too close to the road. It's been almost a situation of harassment over the years for this particular constituent.

Now there have been negotiations to widen the right-of-way. The constituent was approached by Mr. Mercer, I believe it was, from Burnaby who asked to get an appraisal on the property. This would indicate, Mr. Chairman, that there was some intent of making a payment in recompense for the value of the property. The constituent was asked to get an appraisal; they did so. They got an appraisal - $13,500 for the half-acre of property. That was the appraisal obtained from an independent appraiser and they paid for that appraisal.

In the meantime, they received from another official of the ministry a form duly made out offering them $500 for the clearing they had done, asking them to sign it and return it and they would receive the $500. My constituent naturally complained about this. I understand that your deputy minister contacted this person, discussed the matter with him, said there were other considerations and talked about things like the taxes they had paid on this land over the years, though granted that would be a very small dollar sum. But he did indicate to my constituent that there were considerations.

The next thing that happened, Mr. Chairman, was that my constituent got a registered letter, this time

[ Page 3456 ]

offering $750 for the clearing and offering to build fences and provide gates and provide gates and asking that it be ~signed and returned.

Now that's where it's at, Mr. Minister. My constituent is sitting with his registered letter, very concerned. Had 1 had an opportunity to deal with you before your estimates came up on this off the floor of the House - and 1 did advise your secretary that 1 intended to raise it because of the fact that if 1 was going to raise it on the floor I would have to do it now, and 1 hadn't had an opportunity to discuss it with you before.... I'm concerned that this kind of thing is happening, and I'm sure you would be concerned, Mr. Minister.

People out there in good faith are being... I don't like to say misled, but certainly they are misconstruing at least - or construing incorrectly if it is incorrect - some of the comments from some of your people. When they go out and get an appraisal, they have every right to expect that something like this is going to happen; there's going to be some recompense for the land. I realize that it's a moral obligation only. Legally the Act says that you can take up to one-twentieth. But, Mr. Chairman, 1 do not believe that the minister really believes in expropriating property from people who have worked hard to buy that property and have tried to improve it and make a home on it.

1 would ask the minister to give some very serious consideration to not just this particular case but to all cases where this kind of hardship and confusing information is causing people to become very distraught and emotionally concerned. They are having a great pressure put on them over a great number of years, really, because of this very strange situation where the road was built on their property.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Cowichan-Malahat, I'm aware of the problem you just referred to. I'd just like to review it for a moment for the House. It's a 25-acre parcel of land. There is a public road straddling the common boundary with their neighbour. There's also a power line alongside the road.

My ministry wishes to establish a surveyed 66-ft. right-of-way with a 33-ft. width from each property. Each owner will lose one-half acre. We have offered fair and liberal compensation for improvements to the land, mainly for clearing. There is one-twentieth of this land available for resumption, as you mentioned. We have also promised to erect fences and gates as required. The owners wish the full road allowance to be taken from the neighbour. 1 think, Mr. Chairman, that the owner is the one whom you were discussing. Presently, neither this ministry nor the adjacent landowner feel this is a fair arrangement - to take it all away from the neighbour and not from the people involved.

But to conclude on that note, I'm quite willing to meet the owner of that property with you at an arranged time in the not-too-distant future to see if we can't resolve it. That's just a brief report on it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, they sure are.

MR. LAUK: What about the, policy? Why don't you pay for it?

HON. MR. FRASER: We've offered to pay for it. We haven't expropriated. There's been an offer of paying for the improvements to the land and the fences and so on.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: You know, there's the public treasury to think about, too. We have to think about that. If we buy this land, we have resumptive powers. What is really going on policy-wise is that we now have resumptive powers and we're paying as well.

MR. LAUK: This is confiscation. I thought you were against that.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, you're fully aware, Mr. Chairman.... The member for Vancouver Centre here says it's confiscation. I guess you'd call it legal because everybody is entitled to return one-twentieth to the Crown if it's needed for public use. I think that you, as a solicitor, know that.

MR. LAUK: It's legal, but it's still confiscation.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, I don't think I'd call it that.

Mr. Chairman, would you get this member silenced so I can answer the member for Cowichan-Malahat?

Regarding the maintenance problem because of construction which you're referring to: that has no connection at all. If you're not getting maintenance, the construction's not the problem. The maintenance crews do no construction; all they do is maintenance. We'll look into that because there shouldn't be any relaxing in the maintenance at all because of construction. Almost all of the construction in that area is under contract. The maintenance crews should be working as normally as they ever worked. We'll look into that.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat brought up Boys Road. I've heard a lot about Boys Road and the traffic problem there. We couldn't do very much there because we couldn't deal with it. The property is owned by an Indian reserve. But I'm pleased to tell

[ Page 3457 ]

you that there will be a temporary light up there within 45 days. We have made an arrangement to get that done. After all the years that it's gone on, it seems to be clearing up.

MR. LEA: A temporary light will be there forever,

HON. MR. FRASER: The member for Prince Rupert says a temporary light will be there forever. I was told a long time ago that in public life there's nothing more permanent than something you call temporary. (Laughter.) But I'm not saying that in this case.

The four-laning of the Island Highway, yes, there'll be problems but we'll face them. There will have to be more signaling and so on. It creates problems but we also had a congested two-lane road. Eventually, we'll get it all up to a better standard for the intersections and so on.

Thetis and Kuper islands: I agree with you and I think the staff will get something done about that. In other words, there will be more notification regarding Kuper Island.

The last thing the member brought up was referred to as "Fraser Lake" outside these buildings. We dealt with that yesterday. That is temporary - again.' It's not completed. I understand they're soon going to fill up below the curb there. So it will be level and then, hopefully, Fraser Lake will disappear. That should happen, I understand, in the next couple of months.

MRS. WALLACE: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would be very happy to meet with the minister and the owner involved in this property. The one point that I do want to reiterate though, is that one of your employees advised this constituent to have an appraisal done on the property. I think that the very fact that that appraisal was done certainly gave some indication that there was going to be some recompense. That's certainly something we'll have to consider when we look at this situation.

Relative to Thetis and Kuper Island: I hope too that you'll remember when the tickets are printed again - and they were just printed after we had this assurance in the House - that this time Kuper Island does go on the tickets for that ferry as well.

MR. SKELLY: I'd just like to ask a few general questions of the minister first, and then maybe some questions relative to highway problems in my riding.

The first one relates to the minister's concern about the slow-moving traffic on highways. The minister has made a few statements about slow-moving traffic. I understand that he has expressed some favourable support for the bear-in-the-air system that we now have on the Island Highway on Vancouver Island, which is partly to pinpoint violators who are exceeding the speed limit and partly to identify those who are impeding traffic by moving too slowly on the highway. This is a difficult thing to enforce using police methods.

I know there is a section in the Motor-vehicle Act that is designed to prohibit people from obstructing traffic by moving too slowly on the highways, but I'm wondering if the minister has considered legislation that they have in Washington state, where there are pull-outs provided on the Washington state highways and signs posted. The North Cascades Highway, 1 think, is one of the highways that's posted and has pull-outs provided so that slow-moving traffic can pull off onto a paved shoulder. The roads are signed in such a way that slow-moving traffic is informed that if five or more cars are following then they must pull over by law and allow traffic to proceed, regardless of how fast they're going. I'm wondering if the minister would consider something like that. 1 realize it is in the Motor-vehicle Act, but by providing signs and paved pull-offs at the shoulder he might accomplish more than by police methods which hope to identify and to prosecute slow-moving traffic.

Some vehicles can't move that fast by the way they're constructed or the type of vehicle - campers, heavy trucks and this type of thing. If the paved pull-outs are provided and signs are posted, then 1 think it would be more helpful than police methods.

Another thing I'm concerned about is the policy regarding designation of arterial roads within municipalities. I'm questioning the minister as to whether this is a policy thing or subject to the discretion of the minister. I would like to use the village of Tahsis as an example. Tahsis has requested the minister to designate the main road in Tahsis between the end of Head Bay forest access road and the government wharf in Tahsis as an arterial highway. The minister has said it was contrary to the department's policy because there was no through traffic to other communities, but it's a little inconsistent in this case, because in communities such as Zeballos there is an arterial highway between the government wharf and the forest access road to Nimpkish Valley. Also in Gold River between the government wharf and the highway to Campbell River, that area is designated as arterial even though it ends at a government wharf.

1 think that the minister should be consistent in the case of Tahsis. 1 would urge him to reconsider his decision on that arterial designation and proceed with arterial designation in Tahsis. The RCMP has written to the village and 1 believe a copy has been sent to the minister stating that the main road in Tahsis is in very poor condition. It's narrow, there is not enough room for pedestrians when two cars are passing on the main road, and they're concerned that there could be a dangerous accident there with possible loss of life or injury to pedestrians. So on that basis I would ask the

[ Page 3458 ]

minister to reconsider designation of the main road in Tahsis and to make that an arterial highway.

Just some projects in the Alberni constituency: I realize that the minister is proceeding with completion of the bypass on the Island Highway for Parksville, and I congratulate him for proceeding with that project. I note the bridge is now under construction and the project is well along. As I said, I appreciate that he is proceeding with that project, which was sent to tender under the NDP government. I'm wondering if the minister has plans to continue the bypass or if plans are underway now to continue the bypass south and west of Qualicum Beach to rejoin the Island Highway north of Qualicum Beach, as has been under consideration for a long time. What's going to happen after the Parksville bypass is complete and what's the time schedule for proceeding with the Qualicum section?

Some of my constituents have been in touch with the ministry concerning work on the road between Courtenay and Port Alberni or between Cumberland and Port Alberni. At the present time those are logging access roads, but they are fairly widely used by tourists. It gives access to areas of Strathcona Park, to Della Falls, the highest falls in North America, to some of the lakes in the area - Elsie Lake and Great Central Lake and to Forbidden Plateau. My understanding is it would take a very small amount of work in that area - maybe $60,000 to $100,000 - in order to clear out some of the problems on the road to make it accessible to all types of vehicles rather than simply 4-wheel drive, as is the case now. Will the minister consider expending money on that route in order to provide a kind of tourist circle which will help in the economic development both of the Cumberland and the Alberni area? I think it would be a valuable tourist access route in central Vancouver Island.

So I would like the minister's comments on that and possibly some assurance that money will be spent on the same basis that money was spent on the Head Bay forest access road, where the Highways department, I believe, turned over funds to the Forest Service to develop that road between Gold River and Tahsis.

Also, just before the NDP left office, the planning was completed on the Cameron Lake section of the Alberni highway - about three-and-a-half or three-and-three-quarter miles. I understand that all the surveys were done, that work was ready to proceed, it was ready to go to tender and quantity surveys has been completed. I'm wondering when the minister is going to proceed with that section of the road. It's inadequate now. The ministry has admitted that the alignment is inadequate and that work needs to be done on the road. I would like to know when the minister plans to proceed.

Also the minister has had some statements concerning traffic patterns within communities and he has upbraided some municipalities for not improving traffic arteries through those communities and taking some of the pressure off provincial highways.

In the case of Port Alberni, Redford Street is now designated as an arterial highway. The ministry has promised to upgrade Redford Street before declassifying it to a secondary road. It only involves possibly half a mile of road - extending it to four lanes, curbs, gutters, storm drains and this type of thing. The city has allocated funds; they're simply waiting for the Highways department to proceed with that project. I would like to know when the minister plans to give that project the go-ahead.

Also on the roads west of Port Alberni, there's a tremendous amount of traffic between Parksville and the Pacific Rim National Park on the west coast; but there are some very inadequate roads connecting Parksville to the west coast national park. One of these sections is between the Great Central Lake cut-off where the new project is on the Tofino highway and the city of Port Alberni, along the Somass River and then along Sproat Lake. What does the minister plan to do? When does he plan to upgrade that section of the road in order to accommodate that heavy tourist traffic?

Finally a project on the west coast itself, near Ucluelet. Indian reserves have typically been deprived of good road access. As a result there are a lot of deaths and injuries to Indian people attempting to get back to their homes from communities where services are provided. This is the case with the Itasoo Indian reserve on the east side of Ucluelet Inlet. When the NDP was in office, we began construction of the road from the Ucluelet-Tofino Highway right up to the Canadian fish road there but it didn't go right through to the boundaries of the Indian reserve.

The road is now completed and I thank the minister for that, but I would like to see the road and the people in Ucluelet would like to see the road completed right up to the reserve boundaries. There are something like 500 people living in that area. Many children who go to school who have to take the school bus over some fairly unsafe and poorly maintained roads. I would like to know what plans the minister has to carry that project on right to the boundaries of the Itasoo Indian reserve to make it safe and convenient for the 500 people living in that community to gain access to Ucluelet and to the outside world.

HON. MR. FRASER: We'll take a look at your last question you asked. We haven't any immediate plans on, Mr. Member, but we'll take a look at the Ucluelet reserve.

The part west of Port Alberni has high priority with us and I would say from that that means next

[ Page 3459 ]

year.

The delay with Redford Street is that we're fairly busy with the design. They're working on the design there and I would hope we could get something on that in the next three or four months, I'm told, to get it ready to go to tender call.

You mentioned the Cameron Lake-Alberni section. I'm advised by the chief engineer that the Lantzville-Parksville route will be given priority over the Cameron Lake-Alberni section and we'll be going ahead with the Lantzville-Parksville first and then the Cameron Lake-Alberni. We're aware of the priority needed there. I think that means work will start this year on the Lantzville-Parksville. So the Cameron Lake-Alberni section comes next.

Regarding the road, you are correct that people from Cumberland or Port Alberni or both met me when the cabinet was in Courtenay. We said we'd have a look at it. We've authorized funds to be given to the Forests so they can do the work. What the local people were concerned with when they met me was culverting across the river or bridge. It wasn't a big item, We're authorizing the funds to go from Highways to Forests. We don't want to assume the road, because you're fully aware that if we do I think we have to take 12- and 14-ft. logging bunks and shrink them to eight feet. I don't think Forestry would appreciate that.

MR. SKELLY: How much money is involved.

HON. MR. FRASER: Ten thousand dollars or less, I understand, Mr. Chairman, to the member.

The area south and west of Qualicum. We're only considering that. We haven't made any decisions there at all, Mr. Member.

The Parksville bypass is underway, as you mentioned.

We'll reconsider the Tahsis problem regarding a designation of arterial, but there seems to be a little difference of opinion here. Where you point out that we have the odd one designated, the staff tell me they've just rejected some other applications on the same basis. So I'm inclined to agree that we'd better be uniform in what we're doing. We'll certainly reconsider that.

We now get back to my remarks regarding slow driving, Mr. Chairman. To the members of the House, I sincerely mean that we should do something about it and we have done something about it. We've put out the helicopters to assist. The other thing, though, and you're right - you mentioned pull-offs. We're building pull-offs and better signing and so on to help, but it will take quite a while to get all the pull-offs. We already have constructed some and we want to step that up.

I might say that the last weekend that we were out was highly successful. It's hard to say whether the patrolling was all that successful because there were different traffic patterns than took place on May 24. But I think it is helping, and the next weekend we're looking for-ward to, which is the heaviest of the year, is Labour Day. We're going to monitor with helicopters every weekend from now on until Labour Day. They were monitoring with helicopters for a couple of weeks before last weekend to try to help with ground communication. That's what we're trying to achieve.

Now we haven't looked at legislation. As you're aware, Mr. Chairman, I think that under section 139 of the Motor-vehicle Act, it is an offence now to impede traffic by slow driving. Maybe we should be looking at legislation like they have in the States. This has been brought to my attention, and we'll do that. We haven't up to this point. I'm aware of it; it's been pointed out before.

I firmly believe anyway, as one person, that we certainly have to enforce the fast driving and the drinking driving, but we have never tried to enforce the slow driving before. I'd like to go through that first. It's very difficult for the enforcement officers to enforce it and consequently they haven't been trying to enforce it. Now they're getting assistance by the helicopter and it looks like we're getting full co-operation from the RCMP. Maybe with building more pull-offs and that we can resolve a lot of this problem and make our roads safer to drive on. That's our basic purpose in the exercise. As I say, we'll be continuing to monitor with the helicopters each weekend and I don't think it will be necessary after the Labour Day weekend.

MR. SKELLY: I have just a final question on the designation of arterials: is this a matter of written policy in the Department of Highways or is it ministerial discretion? I'm wondering because of the inconsistency in the case of Zeballos where they do have a provincial road designated right through town from the government wharf to the end of the forest access road. This inconsistency shows up in a certain area where one community next door to another community isn't entitled to.... Tahsis isn't entitled to what Zeballos already has. It looks unfair and it is an inconsistency. I'm wondering if it's a case of ministerial discretion or if there is a stated policy of the department.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, it's ministerial discretion. Whoever designated Zeballos made a mistake.

MRS. DAILLY: My question to the hon. minister is on the Oakalla lands. I know yesterday you mentioned a committee had been struck. I have just a couple of questions on that committee. First of all, what is the purpose of the committee? Secondly, who

[ Page 3460 ]

are the members of the committee? Will it include, specifically - this is my concern - members of the Burnaby council?

I wonder if the minister would also give some idea of what your policy and your government's policy is ultimately with reference to the handling of the present Oakalla lands.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, we haven't struck the committee yet that I'm aware of. We're going to right away. I promised the Burnaby council we would. Hopefully we'll strike the committee almost immediately and they'll certainly be represented. The overall policy as far as the Oakalla lands are concerned.... We're dealing with about 300 acres of quite prime land; there are about 150 without structures on it as 1 understand it. That's what the committee is going to look into - what designation to make of the lands. The government has announced of course that we're going to phase down Oakalla and build correctional centres other places. But we have to be very careful we have this ongoing before we deal with the part of Oakalla where the structures are.

I believe the final idea with the Oakalla property is the phase it out, but it's really going to take some time. I'm not just sure from the correction side what they.... Oh, yes it's the remand centres they will use the new structures for. That will leave just parts of Oakalla for the corrections - the ones serving the sentences under two years. So the first step really is to get the remand centres built. I understand it involves about half the prison population at Oakalla. That will then look after them and then, eventually, Oakalla will go. But we haven't made the other move to build for the people who are serving time. The government hasn't done that. They have only said that they would build remand centres to take that type of prisoner out of Oakalla. That is about half the prison population.

Immediately we want to deal with the lands that are vacant, and deal with Burnaby and the community, to get them into use because they're really not used at all at the present time.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I really didn't think 1 would get onto these questions so soon in this debate. I did send the minister some notice of four short questions 1 wanted to ask, but first I'd like to say that I do appreciate the way he handled a question at Wellington where an overpass was being considered. Although I had some difficulty in getting in touch with him a number of times, I know that he was working on the problem and did satisfy the people in the area.

The first question is with respect to the proposed development at Duke Point in Nanaimo and the concern of the Nanaimo Indian band that some reserve land will be used for the new highway approaches, if there are new highway approaches to that land. They have had assurances from some spokesman in the Ministry of Highways that this is not being planned at the present time.

I'm not so much opposed to the idea of using Indian land, if this does become necessary; I'm simply concerned that if there is even any longer range plan to use reserve land, then the Indian band be approached very soon in the scheme of things so they will have an opportunity to negotiate properly with the ministry. It's not so much reassurance for the Indian band that I'm looking for as reassurance that they will be consulted early in the scheme of things -even if the existing roads are going to be improved for the time being. In the long range, if there is a determination to use Indian band land, then I think they should be approached very early.

The second thing I would like to raise with the minister - and there has been a fair amount of correspondence on this from the residents of a trailer park - is the Parksville Mobile Home Park. I know the minister has been involved in this because he's been sending me copies of the letters he has been sending to them.

I think it's unfortunate that they couldn't have reached some agreement with the minister for the provision of a left-turn slot. It's a large mobile-home park. There are something in excess of 100 units in that park now. The recommendation from the ministry is that traffic would simply pass on the right - that's coming south - while others may be lined up trying to get into that park.

In one of his letters he says that the traffic count doesn't justify a left-turn slot at the present time. Now it would seem to me that the time to have put in that left-turn slot was when the highway was being improved. While on the day the highway was being worked on maybe there wasn't a traffic count to justify it, certainly the need for that left-turn slot is going to be apparent very soon. I would hate to think that we would have to wait until there was a serious accident before the minister would be convinced that a left-turn slot was required.

I wonder whether this is being looked at or whether the decision has been made that nothing will be done about that left-turn slot for the time being. I would ask him to reconsider it. I wonder whether any reconsideration is being given.

The third question is with respect to some property that the Navy League of Canada is concerned about. They have a building that they have been using for many years for Navy League work. It's a building that has been appraised fairly recently -I'm not sure just who did the appraisal - as being worth something like $129,000. It's in a sad state of repair and they have plans to spend about $40,000 improving the building. The Ministry of Public Works

[ Page 3461 ]

has offered them a one-year lease. The lease has perhaps even been renewed by now because it was up on July 1.

But to spend $40,000 on a building that is already appraised at $129,000, and to have nothing more than a one-year lease to work on, is not all that satisfactory. The Navy League of Canada would like to have a longer lease on it. They talk about a 99-year lease. I think perhaps that's asking for more than they are likely to get. They would like to have a longer lease. They would like to be able to purchase the property and, of course, they would like to be able to purchase it at a nominal value. I did talk to Mr. Goode and he couldn't do anything about it. He suggested I raise it with the minister, and I'm doing that now at this opportunity.

The other thing that I wanted to ask about was an announcement in the press arising out of a public planning meeting when questions were asked about a bypass for Nanaimo. I still have questions as to whether a bypass for Nanaimo is the proper thing to be thinking about at this time. Nevertheless, there has been a lot of talk about a bypass over the years. The answer from the spokesman for the Minister of Highways at the time was that there would not be any planning of a bypass for Nanaimo until there were some definite plans with respect to the Gabriola bridge - the bridge to Gabriola, probably as part of a crossing of the gulf. Nevertheless there would not be any planning of the bypass until there was more work done on the planning of the bridge to Gabriola, and I wonder what is going on.

HON. MR. FRASER: As you know, we were in Nanaimo recently and I met people there. I might say that I'm quite concerned about the city of Nanaimo. It's one of the towns that's choked with traffic on the arterial. We looked around the city. I'm sure that some members of our staff are now going to the city to try and plan some bypass there, but as you are probably aware there are real problems because we've maybe got to go into residential areas to get a bypass. But we are concerned about it and we want to deal with the city to find out if we can get through on a bypass because the main arterial there is something else, believe me, as far as choking the city's economic life off is concerned. So if the planning people haven't been there, they're going to go to the city of Nanaimo about that.

Regarding the Navy League of Canada, if you would tell them to write me, we'd certainly consider putting another year on their lease to justify the additional expense you say they have to be put to. I don't think that's a big problem.

I'd like a letter, Mr. Chairman, from the member regarding the mobile-home park at Parksville. You say there have been letters regarding a left-turn slot, but the staff are not aware at this moment about it.

Maybe it can be looked at. The chief engineer is not aware of the problem.

Regarding Duke Point and the developments that might take place there, I might say that I'm advised that the natives there don't want any part of us. There's a problem and as long as it exists, that's the way it will stay. They don't want any highways through there, through their property. I suppose this will pose a problem when the development of Duke Point takes place, but that's the situation. I believe the ministry people were talking with them - I don't know how far back - and they said that they didn't want to talk to us at all and that's the situation at the present time.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, just briefly on this question of a bypass, it is something that has been talked about for a long time. There are problems. I can recall, I think, a couple of years ago when the local Highways manager gave me figures of traffic arising from the south that is still on the road by the time the traffic is north of Nanaimo. It was something like 5 per cent of the traffic. So I wonder just how much relief it is going to give the congestion of the streets of Nanaimo - even the arterial highway in Nanaimo - to have a bypass.

It's not a very popular thing to say in Nanaimo and not for the MLA to say, but I question whether a bypass is really going to do very much. I think it is a matter of planning the traffic within Nanaimo rather than a bypass. It's a hub city: the traffic arises in town through B.C. Ferries and heads north and south. There is some traffic, and it's frustrating to be driving behind loads of logs as you are driving through Nanaimo and to be met by truckloads of logs going the other direction. There is some of that. But it is a minor item. It isn't going to help much. It's not just a matter of planning a bypass, which is extremely difficult unless you go on the west coast of Vancouver Island to get the route.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The Navy League - one year is not really what they are asking for. There is correspondence on this. It has gone not to the minister but to someone in his department. It's not one year they want. They want a long lease to justify spending $40,000. For a volunteer organization to spend $40,000 improving a building.... They are working with kids, Navy League cadets and that kind of thing. They want to be able to buy the property. They are talking about a minimum of an acre of land, I think. Alternatively, they want a long-term lease. I will correspond further with the minister on that.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Nanaimo, I would like to make an

[ Page 3462 ]

observation. I agree with you that the city of Nanaimo hasn't done as much as it could have regarding its internal problems, but I'd like to make another observation regarding its amalgamation. They haven't had as much as other communities I've seen -I don't want to mention names. In view of that, we're considering helping them with their problem because I really feel that they got the lesser end of the deal with the amalgamation in view of some others that took place in the province.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say I appreciate that very much. They do need planning help and, of course, dollars as well. I'm just saying that the bypass is perhaps not the kind of help they need, but I do appreciate your remarks.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to follow up on an issue that was brought up by the member for Nanaimo, and that is the Parksville mobile-home court left-turn lane. My office in Parksville has been corresponding with your office directly. You have paved the shoulder on the righthand side to allow traffic to pass on the right of vehicles that are waiting to turn left heading south on the Island Highway. There has been a serious accident there already on April 16. The woman involved still has not recovered. She was rear-ended while waiting to turn left.

I think that by paving the shoulder you are encouraging people to pass on the right, which is illegal and which increases the danger. There is still the danger that traffic waiting to turn left will be rear-ended, plus there is a problem, in a 50-mile-an-hour zone, of getting people around on the righthand shoulder. I believe that a left-turn lane there is desperately needed. I hope you will proceed with that. Most of the people in that mobile-home court - there are over 100 units there - have petitioned for it. I would like to see it. All that it involves now that you have paved the shoulder is a little white-lining on the road. I hope you will proceed with that.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Alberni, we'll look into that right away. It sounds as if we have to do something.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon the minister mentioned the 10 per cent allowance for local bidders competing for tender with Public Works. He said they made some attempt to assist them, when I was asking about the letter written by the B.C. and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council.

I don't really want to debate this, but I just want to remind the minister that he said the 10 per cent would be of assistance, indicating that the low-bid approach was still in effect. 1 wonder if, despite the low bid, there is no policy of consideration for the fact that there are certain problems that the building trades face. Carpenters have been going through special training programmes - apprenticeships. There is a fair amount of investment on behalf of the provincial government to train people. So the base has been expanded as far as new craftsmen are concerned. This is probably contributing to the problem of the '118 per cent unemployment in that profession, and also the fact that the economy is somewhat depressed.

I feel there should be some indication that even though they may not be able to outbid competitors outside of the province, there should be more than just the 10 per cent answer under the circumstances at this particular time when our economy is so bad and the unemployment is such as it is. I'll leave that as a concern that I have. 1 realize you have already given an answer to it.

The other matter you've already talked on, Mr. Minister, but 1 have a few extra questions I'd like to raise about the use of helicopters in the Hope-Princeton and in the Duncan areas during the last holiday weekend, July 1. You have indicated some concern about slow drivers, et cetera, and are attempting to try and cope with this problem. Did you indicate at the time you made your remarks the costs involved, the number of helicopters involved, the manner by which you engaged the RCMP... ? I understand they were part of the teams that were doing the work.

In dealing with this problem of slow drivers and the use of helicopters there is certainly nothing but support, as far as I'm concerned, because 1 agree that the slow driver is a hazard on the highways. There should be some attempt to deal with this type of driver, because they do frustrate people and cause emotions to rise. You get excited and next thing you know you have people taking chances, et cetera.

However, there is one interesting aspect of this to which I'm sure you've given some thought. I can recall that when we were the government, the Minister of Highways had to deal with a similar problem in talking about tourists and the problems that tourists can cause on the highways. At that time, 1 think we were being ridiculed and accused of being anti-Yankee and so forth because he was going to deal with these people who were extra loads on the highways, who were unfamiliar with the terrain, and who were perhaps sightseeing. So in your efforts to try and get rid of these slow drivers and laggards, especially during the holiday season and during the summer, you probably will be dealing with a lot of visitors. They won't all just be local citizens. I'm just wondering if you have considered that as a factor while you're trying to find a solution to the problem.

I did say something, I think, about the plan that

[ Page 3463 ]

you proposed a little while ago at Stanley Park - the widening of Stanley Park causeway in my riding, the West End of Vancouver. There was going to be something like, I think, $3 million or better offered free of charge to the city of Vancouver. I understand that project is somewhat in abeyance right now; it hasn't actually been accepted entirely. I'm not sure what the present status is, but I know it was rejected at one time by council and the parks board. But they have had a chance to study it and I think you are probably getting close to some decision. I'd like for you to comment on just what the most recent agreements appear to be.

I would say that I was a little bit suspicious of the proposal, and I wondered if it was part of a conspiracy on behalf of you and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) to widen Georgia Street - to try and find a fast way for people to come in and out for that new convention centre that you plan to put up down there. Maybe this is all tied in with why the Hotel Vancouver is closed. Stranger things have happened! I was wondering if we would find that it would be.... One hotel in Montreal, I believe, has been closed for some time; at least there was a proposal for expansion and the hotel became dormant. It just isn't happening. We may find some interesting things develop with the Hotel Vancouver. Anyway, you know how it is when you are in the opposition. You're wondering what the other side of the coin looks like.

I was just wondering if the widening of the Stanley Park causeway had any relation to any plans that had been discussed with the city manager or the city planner that we didn't know about. When you offered to put in the lighted bike paths and to improve the drainage system and so forth, I thought, well, that all sounds good but what does the minister really have in mind? He's just becoming a real altruist and good will ambassador?

In any event, I would like for you lo carry on the philosophy of the use of the bicycle, not just as a recreation vehicle, . though, but as a means of transportation - to carry the concept a little further. I've stood in the House before and recommended this even when we were the government, and we managed to get the shuttle system in the Massey Tunnel. I also suggested it to our Minister of Highways at the time it was a new idea and didn't get too far.

I'm still campaigning to try and include in the design of highways and roads some consideration for the possibility of cyclists actually using the roadway, perhaps without very much cost. Just in the design approach, a little space could be made available for cyclists. I've done a lot of cycling on the Island and on the mainland and I've observed that with just a little forethought a stripe could have been put along the roadway, 18 inches or two feet. Perhaps the road could have had a little bit of a rise at one point that wouldn't have interfered with drainage but would have allowed the cyclists to protect themselves from the regular vehicular traffic.

This certainly is in keeping with the idea of good health. I'm sure the Minister of Recreation and Conservation would agree that more people on bikes are better. The Minister of Health would agree that the more people riding bikes, the better chance for the instance of cardiac arrest going down. More important, the cost of fuel is going up, the cost of automobiles is going up, the cost of living is going up. If we could get people using bicycles again, it would be a really good socialist idea if you were to move in that direction. We can use some of the European countries as models. If you don't like that, we can go to the orient where at 5 o'clock in the morning you have masses of bicycles going down the main road in Peking.

I think we could do a lot in our rush to try and resolve things in this community. We could do a lot that we're not doing, and I don't think anyone is opposed to doing these things, Mr. Minister. It's just a question of leadership, and I hope that you will talk to your engineers and try and resolve some of these problems.

It's regrettable that we weren't able to use a little bit more foresight in the planning of the Otter and the Beaver, because as we know now we could have had people on bicycles going back and forth, although the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has indicated he is interested in doing something about that problem. The point is we do not have facilities for bicycles. I would like to see that improved.

Mr. Chairman, would you bring this hon. member for Revelstoke- Slocan (Mr. King) to order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member, it's not apparent to the Chair that he's bothering you.

MR. BARNES: He's been steadily rapping over there on the sidelines.

I've just a very brief note. It will take me only a few seconds to run down these. I just want to get them in the record. Mr. Warren Fitzgerald from Enderby, B.C., has written. This particular person is in a community around the Shuswap River that has something like 60 elderly people there with children. They find themselves stranded except by boat. They are unable to negotiate from home into the normal stream of the community. From the correspondence I have it's been 90 years since they had a bridge. You probably know the place.

This man has spent 30 years trying to convince the government that they should do something, and lie lost his wife, who drowned in the Shuswap River during those years. The children are having to be boated across the river to go to school on a daily

[ Page 3464 ]

basis. Apparently the river is somewhat hazardous. It's not a very big community, but in the interests of those people who are willing to pioneer in those remote areas and live under those conditions and inhabit places where most people probably wouldn't want to live, I think we should encourage and help them.

The other point is that I would like to ask the government if it contributed any money to the Point Red Marine in Port Moody. That's the new federal marina there in Port Moody. That's below the CPR railway tracks. Did the Department of Highways participate in that development along the highway? It had to be widened. There was an access to the....

HON. MR. FRASER: Where is this?

MR. BARNES: The Point Red Marina - the new federal marina in Port Moody. Actually it's a moorage. They don't launch boats there. There is something like a 1,200- to 1,300-boat capacity and some 700-car capacity area in Port Moody. The reasons I was asking is because there has been some complaint about the hazard involved in going across that road. There is no point in belabouring it if we have no involvement, but if we did, I was going to raise it.

A little courtesy, Mr. Member, from.... Where are you? (Laughter.) You're my MLA - I should know where you are from.

AN HON. MEMBER: Esquimalt.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Don't you know where I live?

MR. BARNES: Esquimalt, that's right. Show some consideration for your constituent.

AN HON. MEMBER: He lives in Oak Bay.

MR. BARNES: But you don't live in your riding I find out - neither do 1. Well, we'll drop that; we won't raise that point.

Mr. Chairman, one other point.... Let me see.... You know how it is, sometimes you can lose. .

Believe it or not, I do have a question.

I'll go on memory, then, until I find it, because it looks like somebody sabotaged me.... I had a confidential letter and that's why I can't find it....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'll bring it back as soon as it's xeroxed.

MR. BARNES: I really mean that, Mr. Chairman -the letter has disappeared. I'll find it eventually, but it was from a company called A.S. King Logging. Have you ever heard of that company?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure.

MR. BARNES: A.S. King Logging. Well, I had some comments that were written to me in confidence by someone, and they were really quite upset. I wish I could find it because I'm going to have to go from memory and that's never as good as the real thing. Well, you're lucky. I can't find it, but it was loaded.

From my memory, Mr. Chairman, I just want to relate to you that it was suggested that Mr. King of A.S. King Logging had received considerable concessions from the Department of Highways respecting the ability to purchase used equipment, that he was permitted to get used equipment from the Department of Highways and repair the equipment and sell it back to the Highways at considerable benefit to himself. A number of local people were of concern about this.

As well, he was also in a position to gain certain concessions in respect to contracts. Unfortunately, I can't read the specifics into the record, but that I s just by way of inquiry. I'm not suggesting that there's anything irregular. But you know how it is; you want to pass on these matters for the record.

Oh, this is from your riding of Quesnel. It's in your home town. A dear little old lady, Mrs. E.A. Berg, senior citizen, says all she wants is to have the snow shovelled from her access where she turns her car around. Now she lives in an area that she says is not serviced by regular transportation and all she want is to be assisted. Because of her age, she has a great deal of difficulty and she thinks the snowplow should try and assist.

Now these are the kinds of little things that I'm sure most of us in politics don't usually take the time to debate in the House. But I'm just passing it on because I think I ought to be concerned for every individual, despite the minister's comments the other day, Mr. Chairman, that we don't want to involve ourselves with individuals; we're dealing in numbers and units and positions. But this is a little lady in his riding. I hope he will check his records and see if there's anything he can do to assist her.

MR. KAHL: Aye!

MR. BARNES: Not yet, but very, very soon.

One other question: I notice that this one was on your list of capital expenditures. This is the Channel Parkway outside of Penticton. That's at the bypass coming off at the Skaha Lake area. There's been some concern on that particular project and there are interests involved. A shopping centre is apparently in the area where the diversion is going. It's not really the best route and you've been invited to come out and take a look at the most natural, logical route. I think it would involve some co-operation with the

[ Page 3465 ]

Indian reserve. I'm not sure if you've looked into that, but there seems to be agreement on behalf of the community. People have investigated and surveys have been done. Everyone feels the logical route is straight ahead. But there seems to be a very obvious conspicuous detour route going around this shopping centre. It doesn't look logical. People are wondering if you have looked into that.

There is just one final note 1 want to make. This one has to do with another project that is taking place near the Peace Arch in Surrey. It's out near the Pacific Highway and Highway 499.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you still talking?

MR. BARNES: Not much longer - about two minutes. The people in that area feel that the Ministry of Highways has made a decision to develop a six-block area which is an extension of 172nd Street between 2nd and 8th Avenues. They feel that by doing that you are going to compound a problem as far as the local community is concerned. They feel the most logical and cheapest route is a road parallel to the highway. I'm not familiar with that situation, quite frankly, but 1 have made some notes. They feel the frontage should be along Highway 499. The cost would be cheaper, the people would be happier, and it wouldn't disrupt the community. In fact, it would improve safety and make it much better for emergency vehicles, and so forth, that are coming in. Apparently they have a very serious problem during weekends and rush hours when cars are backed up all the way to the border. This makes it difficult for them to use their normal traffic arteries, which are plugged up. They feel a frontage road would be the answer.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the minister will be pleased to know that 1 have been fortunate enough to receive the gracious relief of the Whip. He is going to allow me to be absent this evening. Come on! Let's have a thump on the tables!

I'm hoping this minister will be lucky enough to get, through his estimates today. I'm sure he will because he has been very co-operative so far. I'd just like to say, in closing, that since 1 won't be here when his final vote goes through, 1 want to congratulate him, in all sincerity, on being a really good sport. He certainly has shown himself to have a lot of energy and a lot of strength. He has had a trying time, but we all have. Being a long-time politician, lie realizes, I'm sure, everything that I, as a new politician, am trying to tell him. I won't make a long speech, but 1 certainly want him to know....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Order! (Laughter.) The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is interrupting, Mr. Chairman. I want him to know that I regard him as a good Canadian citizen who works for the things that he believes with the best of his ability. That's what we really want to protect in this province and in this Legislature. With that, good luck, Mr. Minister, I'll be keeping my eye on you.

HON. MR. FRASER: I appreciate your last remarks, Mr. Member. I'll quickly try and answer the questions you raised.

The 172nd Street extension in Surrey has been agreed to by the Surrey council and I understand it's going ahead. They have looked at the other areas that you mentioned - 499 - and rejected them - that is, Highways plus the Surrey council.

But regarding the Channel Parkway at Penticton, our problem there is native claims. I don't think any resolution.... It was agreed by the engineers that Channel Parkway wasn't the right way to go, but it was the only way to get relief for the city of Penticton. Now it's reversed itself and they want us to look at the original right route. That's the last I've heard. That is what is going on right now.

Regarding the lady in the Cariboo over snow removal, Mr. Member, I didn't catch the name but the Highways ministry has a snow removal policy. The lady or any other citizen of the province can get help from the Highways ministry by applying to a board for snowplowing in the wintertime. They get in there after they've plowed the main roads, schoolbus routes and so on.

MR. BARNES: The name is E.A. Berg on R.R. 4.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I think she's on a side road at the end of about four and a half miles.

MR. LEA: You know her cousin, Ike. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, right!

Regarding A.S. King buying and selling equipment, I'm not aware of that. The Highways ministry has a policy of disposal. Surplus is turned back to the Purchasing Commission and they sell it. I'm sure they're not selling anything, but A.S. King Logging is a contractor that works for the Highways ministry; they are one of our better ones. We pay him by the hour for his equipment. He takes his order with the rest of the local people on day labour. He doesn't do actual contract rental of equipment.

Regarding the Port Moody marina, we have not assisted there in any way in the Highways ministry. Mr. Fitzgerald - and the Shuswap River problem for a bridge - I understand he's written to the Queen as well as the Prime Minister of Canada, and this is the first I've heard about it. I haven't received any correspondence on that one.

You mentioned bicycles, Well, I mentioned here

[ Page 3466 ]

yesterday that we are paving more shoulders all the time, and we're prepared to step it up even more, Mr. Member.

On Stanley Park, you brought up a fair-sized issue there. I'll try and deal with it as best I can. First of all, there was a proposition, as I'll put it, by the council and the parks board. It was their idea to put a passing lane in - the council, that is. I'm sorry to say the Highways ministry got in controversy over that, over a proposal that wasn't their at all.

Our basic problem there is that we have to do repair work on the causeway that is ours. I understand it's in very bad condition. If they don't want a passing lane - they being the city council and the parks board - and they want to fight and so on among themselves.... But what I'm saying is that as far as the Highway ministry is concerned, we've got to do some repair work on the causeway or the people there will be running on gravel. That is as simple as that. So we don't want to get into any more controversy. We have to proceed to fix the Stanley Park causeway because it is in imminent need of repair~ It is going to be shortly drained and so on and so forth, and I believe surfacing.... We don't want to get into any of those controversies at all. We've had enough controversies with people, and then we become the whipping boy. We own the roadway and we've got to repair it, and we're going to get on and repair it. It sounds as though it won't be with a passing lane. So that's where that's at.

You mentioned the tourist visitors. Yes, we want to be courteous to our visitors.

Concluding on helicopters, for your information, Mr. Member, to the House, the RCMP were doing the helicopter work on the Island and the Highways ministry were doing the helicopter work from Hope to Boston Bar and Hope to Princeton. I have a note here - I can't read it very well - but it says that.... I don't want to be pinned right down on this, but it says: "For nine weekends, including the Labour Day weekend, the cost to the Highways ministry would be approximately $12,000. That's a small price to pay if it'll improve the fatal accidents.... So I'll sit down.

Vote 146 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.