[ Page 2611 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Advertisement for ICBC actuary. Mr. Cocke –– 2611

Cost of tall ships. Mrs. Dailly –– 2611

Gifts to welfare recipients. Ms. Brown –– 2611

Northwood sale to Weyerhaeuser. Mr. King –– 2612

Employment of Lance Howey. Mr. Macdonald –– 2612

The schooner "Freelance." Mr. Lockstead –– 2613

Accuracy of Whips' information. Mr. Cocke –– 2613

Internal audit of Liquor Administration Branch. Mr. Macdonald –– 2614

Proposed meeting between Minister of Labour and B.C. Federation of Labour. Mr. King –– 2614

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Highways and Public Works estimates

On vote 141

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2615

Mr. Barnes –– 2616

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2617

Mr. Barnes –– 2617

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2618

Mr. Barnes –– 2619

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2619

Mr. Barnes –– 2620

Mr. Barber –– 2620

Mr. Nicolson –– 2620

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2620

Mr. Barber –– 2622

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2623

Mr. Davidson –– 2626

Mr. King –– 2626

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2628

Mr. Davidson –– 2629

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2644

Appendix –– 2645

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, we've got some distinguished guests in the gallery today from the far eastern part of Canada: Dr. Catherine Wallace, who is chairman of the Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission; Mr. John Thierry, who is a commission member and senior vice-president of the College of Cape Breton in Sydney, ova Scotia; and Dr. Helmut Schweiger, who is director of research and academic planning for the Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission. I would ask the members to make them welcome.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we are very honoured today to have as a guest in the House Mrs. Isabel Pollard of San Francisco. Mrs. Pollard has donated over 1,000 works of art, mostly Japanese but also some American and European pieces, to the Victoria Art Gallery. Mrs. Pollard has favoured British Columbia in general, and Victoria in particular, with these generous gifts. She started these donations in 1961. Mrs. Pollard has not been the kind of person who publicly wishes acknowledgment; however, I think it is important that this House recognize her very generous gifts -an American citizen who has great fondness for British Columbia.

I am honoured that she is here today, accompanied by Mrs. Hale of Victoria, and I would ask the House to welcome her and thank her for her generous donations.

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Speaker, seated in your gallery today is a fine young British Columbian. His parents have attempted over the years to instill a sense of fair play, politeness and good manners. I would hope that the members of the House will welcome my son Mark and follow the example that we've tried to set for him.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, from the northern part of our province, from the constituency of the Minister of Economic Development, I'd like to have the House welcome Bill Close and Jim Cuthbert. Bill Close is well known in his country.

MR. ROGERS: On behalf of yourself, sir, I would like to make an introduction to the House of an MLA for the constituency of Sunshine in the state of Victoria in Australia. Mr. and Mrs. William Fogerty are with us today. Mr. Fogerty is the MLA for the constituency of Sunshine. He is an opposition member and a member of the Labour Party. Perhaps the member for the Sunshine Coast (Mr. Lockstead) would like to say something. I ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I would ask members of the house to extend congratulations to one of our pages. He is 14 year-old Jamie Leckenby. Jamie is a ninth-grade student of St. Andrew's School in Victoria and has won two awards. He has received the citizenship award for his particular class from the school and on Thursday of this week will also receive the perpetual Kiwanis Victoria citizenship trophy in recognition of his abilities as both a student and a young citizen of this community. I would ask the me ers of the House to give him appropriate recognition.

Oral questions.

ADVERTISEMENT FOR ICBC ACTUARY

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Education. It's my understanding that Robbie Sherrell is getting lonely in Canada. As a result of that, he's advertising for an actuary in the San Francisco Examiner. Will the minister inform the House why we're going out of the country seeking employees for ICBC?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I've heard of that and I'd be pleased to take the question as notice.

COST OF TALL SHIPS

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, this question is to the hon. Provincial Secretary. In view of the minister's remarks an June 29,1977, as recorded in Hansard, that the cost of bringing the tall ships to Victoria would be approximately $150,000, could the minister now tell the House how much has been paid out so far for the tall ships?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have to take that question as notice and get the details.

GIFTS TO WELFARE RECIPIENTS

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources. As a result of an article in the newspaper dealing with a woman in receipt of welfare not being able to live on her payments, she has

[ Page 2612 ]

been receiving gifts of food. I think she received a box of strawberries and one or two other items. She was informed by the Ministry of Human Resources that these gifts of food had to be reported to the ministry so that her cheque could be deducted to ensure that she doesn't end up with more than she is allowed. Would the minister tell me whether it is the policy of his ministry to include gifts of produce and gifts of food in monetary terms, in terms of people in receipt of welfare?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps what's been presented here by the hon. member is certainly not the whole story, because I do believe I may be aware of this particular case. Where a couple is separated, instead of the husband providing alimony to the wife, he made an arrangement where he would provide food in return so as to not see it deducted from the income assistance provided here. If that's the circumstance, yes, that might be a consideration. If there is an arrangement between husband and wife to provide food in kind, then that could be a , consideration if that were done to circumvent or get around the regulations as they exist; otherwise, no.

MS. BROWN: Just to clarify it for the minister, Mr. Speaker, this is not an arrangement between husband and wife. This is a story which was printed in the newspaper about a woman who could not live on her income, the result of which is that one or two people in the community at large gifted her with food -a box of strawberries and, I think, some other produce. She was immediately contacted by her social worker and told that this had to be declared. Now it is quite possible that the minister does not approve of this, and this is the reason why I'm giving him this opportunity to stand on the floor and make a statement very clearly and unequivocally that he does not approve of this and that this practice is to cease and desist forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, this is question period, and I'm waiting for a question.

MS. BROWN: Would the minister do that? Would the minister stand on the floor of the House and say that gifts of food and produce are not to be included in terms of calculating what a person in receipt of welfare receives?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that if it's as she says, a box of strawberries and a box of apples, it's not considered.

NORTHWOOD SALE TO WEYERHAEUSER

MR. KING: A question to the Minister of Forests. I raised the matter with the minister privately some time ago regarding the pending sale of Northwood's forest holdings in the central and southern part of British Columbia to Weyerhaeuser. In light of the fact that the deal appears to be firm insofar as those two companies are concerned, will the minister give this House the assurance that he will hold public hearings to allow interested business people and citizens of the province to register their opinions before he validates or makes a decision with respect to that sale?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The question is purely hypothetical. The first thing that Weyerhaeuser would have to do would be to clear the application with the Foreign Investment Review Agency, and only at that time would the provincial government become involved. We have not been called into the matter as yet.

MR. KING: On a supplementary question, I appreciate that the deal would have to be cleared with the federal agency first. But what I would like, and what the people of British Columbia would like, is the minister's assurance that if that authority is granted by the federal agency, the minister who holds the final authority, the Minister of Forests in British Columbia, will hold a public hearing on this matter before making a decision behind closed ministerial doors.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Under present legislation regarding forestry in British Columbia, the Ministry of Forests has no authority whatsoever to interfere with share transfers such as are anticipated.

MR. KING: A supplementary question. Is the minister saying, then, that he will not interfere or intervene in terms of this sale of an important Canadian company to another foreign forestry company? Is that what he's saying?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm telling the member that the Ministry of Forests has no authority, no jurisdiction.

MR. KING: That's not true at all.

EMPLOYMENT OF LANCE HOWEY

MR. MACDONALD: To the Minister of Economic Development. The minister has an employee - or a person an contract I think would be a more accurate description - called Mr. Lance Howey,

[ Page 2613 ]

who is the European economic adviser, and is apparently paid through something called Foster Business Services, with additional amounts from the provincial government also. I am asking the minister if he will table the full particulars and the contract in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Not in question period, hon member.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, will you bring back to the House full particulars?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the member has been in the House a long time. He should know that that information is available from the public accounts committee of the House.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister consider giving that information to the people of British Columbia at this time and not a year and a half hence when it could be available in public accounts? Would he file the contract and make it public?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to inform the House that Mr. Howey is doing a great job as British Columbia's representative in Great Britain and Europe, working out of B.C. House in London, England. The terms of his contract and what he is being paid is certainly, as I said, available through public accounts.

THE SCHOONER "FREELANCE"

MR. LOCKSTEAD: My question is to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. Can the minister tell the House if the government is committed to the expenditure of any moneys at all on the schooner Freelance, whether she is delivered or not?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, the government has advanced moneys from the lotteries fund for the acquisition of the vessel against the security of insurance on the vessel in case of loss.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On a supplementary question, I wonder if the minister would be good enough to tell us how much. The second part of my question is: will this government be suing the Panamanian government? We have heard reports that the Panamanian government sat idly by while the ship was being plundered.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I want to put to rest any rumours that we are going to arm the Queen of Surrey and send her down.

On the precise figure, I'll have to take the question as notice. As to taking action with the Panamanian government, of course, that is something that would rest with External Affairs, if there proves to be any case for it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The press seem to have figures here, and the minister doesn't. So I suggest you read the paper.

Since the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has utterly failed to deliver a tall ships race attraction, as she promised so loud and long, can the minister assure this House that he will at least salvage and deliver the keel of the Freelance to our province? Perhaps it could be mounted in the museum and we would get something for our money.

FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR B.C. REFORESTATION

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I believe should go to the Minister of Labour, though the Minister of Forests may be involved. In a June 8 statement by the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration on Canada Works funds, the press release said that the Canada Employment and Immigration officials are also consulting with the provinces on ways to use the Canada Works funds to jointly develop large-scale projects with longer-term economic objectives. Following the First Ministers' Conference in February, these discussions are focusing on forest management activities. On the basis of these discussions, may we expect any federal funds to be available this year to assist in British Columbia's reforestation programmes?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. GIBSON: Just a slight supplementary; could the minister give us some idea as to the amount?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this matter is in the closing stages of negotiation. The figure of $2.5 million has been discussed, but except it will be more. That's insignificant in the total programme, I might say-

ACCURACY OF WHIPS' INFORMATION

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, since it's question period, I'd like to ask a question of the First Minister. My question is: when can the Whips depend on being able to produce accurate information for this House?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think perhaps it's a valid concern, but not a subject for

[ Page 2614 ]

question period.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll give you a little bit of a preamble. This morning I was told we were going along a certain....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps as a point during the House or in the House....

MR. COCKE: I would be only too glad to raise it at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: I would think that perhaps it would be a matter between the Whips, really.

MR. COCKE: Not on your life.

INTERNAL AUDIT OF LIQUOR

ADMINISTRATION BRANCH

MR. MACDONALD: This question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs about the great loss in the Vancouver warehouse of the liquor administration branch last year that the minister spoke about. Have you had an outside agency doing a year-end inventory or other accounting of the loss, and have they reported to you?

HON. MR. MAIR: No, Mr. Speaker, we've had no outside agencies taking a look at the liquor distribution branch, although it has been subject to an internal audit by the auditor-general and our own internal audit procedures.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, would the minister then make available the findings of that internal audit, as he calls it, to the House?

HON. MR. MAIR: The auditor-general's report, I presume, Mr. Speaker, will come forth in the fullness of time as she deems appropriate. As far as our own internal procedures are concerned, they come forward once again in the normal way through the ministry.

PROPOSED MEETING BETWEEN

MINISTER OF LABOUR AND

B.C. FEDERATION OF LABOUR

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Federation of Labour have issued a press release complaining that they have been trying since February to obtain a meeting with the minister to discuss occupational environment standards in the province and Workers' Compensation matters. Can the minister explain to the House why he has failed to meet with this labour organization - the central labour organization of British Columbia - for over four months?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I've answered this question an a number of occasions, and I'm sorry the member for Revelstoke-Slocan isn't aware that due to the business associated with the session and certain problems relating to a change in personnel in the B.C. Federation of Labour, it has not been possible to meet yet. The day before the B.C. Federation of Labour went to the press, they were advised by my office that as soon as the session was over in the next week or so, we will have a meeting on those matters and others as well.

MR. - COCKE: On a point of order, and with concern about the orderly progression of business through the House, Mr. Speaker, this morning I was handed a list indicating that the order of business would be Family Relations and then Constitution; two seconds before I walked Into the House I'm told that Family Relations is dropped. I notice that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is conveniently not here; however, he was here. And I just don't understand why, when we're trying our best to co-operate with the government in getting the business through the House, they suddenly make changes at the last second, when our caucus were prepared to do a certain job this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I can appreciate the member's concern; however, it is not a matter for the Chair to determine. We have a Whip system and the Whips arrive at agreements which are unknown to the Chair. And 'the Chair must respond to the matter of business called to order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to withdraw Motion 14 standing in my name on the order paper. And I suggest to the Premier that he have the courtesy to answer my colleague from New Westminster.

Leave granted.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. At the opening of last Fridays sitting the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) rose an a question of privilege - namely, a press release by the Ministry of Education relating to proposed legislation which had not yet been disclosed to the House.

The release in question, dated June 21,1978, states the proposed legislation had in fact been introduced in the House, and in that regard the statement was clearly premature.

[ Page 2615 ]

There have been a number of other occasions when members have complained that such announcements ought to be made in the House rather than outside, and the Chair has ruled consistently that it is not a matter which may be determined by the Chair. I refer you to Speaker's decisions in the Journals of the House, 1973, at pages 106 to 108, and the Speaker's decision, Journals of the House, 1976, at pages 107 and 108. These complaints have always been treated as grievances rather than as breaches of privilege and I therefore cannot view the matter before me on any different basis.

HON. MR. McGEER: Just on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to apologize to the members opposite for having made advance information available to them. I wouldn't have thought that would constitute an offence of their privileges, but I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, I will do everything in my power to see that it doesn't happen again.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a query on your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The ruling is not debatable, hon. member.

MRS. DAILLY: May I make a point of order on it, then?

MR. SPEAKER: You can raise a new point of order if you wish.

MRS. DAILLY: A new point of order, Mr. Speaker. If legislation that is to be introduced in this House is introduced outside the House, is there no redress for the members of the opposition?

MR. SPEAKER: This has always been a matter not ruled on by the Chair. It has always been a matter, as the ruling clearly states, not for the Chair to determine.

MRS. DAILLY: A further point of order. Would the Speaker then tell us who we go to for redress in this situation?

MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid I will not be able to give you direction in this matter. My responsibility as the Chair is to enforce the rules that are before me and not to give instruction in the rules.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With leave, I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave not granted.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC WORKS

On vote 141: minister's office, $180,378.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the tradition is that the minister be allowed to speak first during his estimates. However the appropriate member of the executive council who is acting as the minister is the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) .

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, I would ask if the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources has been designated by the cabinet as the acting Minister of Highways and Public Works.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister is standing, and perhaps in his opening remarks he will qualify that.

MR. GIBSON: But I think we should ascertain that in order that you know in what order to call on people, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, in the absence of the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) due to illness, I have been designated by the cabinet to undertake the review of his estimates in this House. Is that agreeable?

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to report to this House that the Ministry of Highways and Public Works has just completed the busiest year of its history. It is maintaining this high level of activity into the coming year.

Three years ago this government announced a catch-up programme to restore B.C.'s highways to a condition which the citizens could be proud of. This programme resulted in many accomplishments in the last year: construction by contract, 275 miles, two-lane equivalent; paving by contract, 385 miles, two-lane equivalent; paving by ministry crews, $135 miles, two-lane equivalent; seal-coating by ministry crews, 280 miles, two-lane equivalent; construction and paving of passing lanes, 120 miles; 623 day-labour projects on the sideroad system which provided direct peak employment for 5,000 hired equipment operators and supporting workers.

Last year the minister reported to the House that he placed a high priority an improving

[ Page 2616 ]

the efficiency and effectiveness of the ministry's maintenance crews. The citizens of B.C. do not want poorly maintained highways and roads in this province any longer. The ministry is a maintenance management system which keeps track of costs and productivity for 120 maintenance activities.

I wish to report that improved productivity has been accomplished in 75 of the 120 components. Had these reduced unit costs not been made, maintenance expenditures in the last year for all activities would have been approximately $12 million higher than actually spent. As a result of this reduction in unit cost, we have been able to improve service by undertaking more maintenance work. This accomplishment and our maintenance programme is a result of an effort by all levels in the ministry. Managers and foremen have reviewed scheduling and allocation of equipment and men. Some hired and contract equipment has been integrated into the maintenance programme. Operators have improved their skills through training and dedication. We have continued to perform a good job, but more quickly than in the past.

Another important factor is that many of our highways had deteriorated to the point that maintenance costs were too high. It is this government's philosophy that a highway must be in a maintainable condition before it can be successfully maintained. This government's catch-up capital programmes to upgrade our highways system are already starting to pay off and reduce maintenance costs.

The Ministry of Highways and Public Works plays an important role of implementing the roads portion of the Revenue Sharing Act. Road network plans are required for each community to define the network of roads which, when developed, will allow local trips to use other routes rather than overloading our main highways.

The ministry's transportation planning Section 1s working with many communities and giving assistance in development of these road network plans. There are 44 network plans in progress at this time. The government is very concerned about improving the system for processing subdivisions and development applications. I hope that recent comments about problem in processing subdivision approvals did not give the impression that no development is underway in this province. Last year the ministry received 3,000 applications for subdivisions or developments. Of these applications, 2 per cent were rejected by the Ministry of Highways for access, safety or highway considerations; 7 per cent were rejected by other agencies for health, zoning or bylaw reasons; and 91 per cent were approved.

With such a large number of applications each year, which involved 15 other agencies as well as Highways, it is essential that a foolproof system be developed so that all applicants are dealt with promptly and developers advised clearly of the requirements for approval of their projects. The processing of subdivision applications is an example of the many administrative procedures which must be reviewed to ensure that the ministry is operating efficiently in serving the citizens of the province.

Mr. Chairman, I would now welcome any questions relative to the forthcoming programme of the Ministry of Highways and Public Works, a ministry that is concerned at last about upgrading roads in this province, building new routes and making sure that the tourists that come to British Columbia and the people who live here have a good network of highway systems.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to ask this minister any questions, because obviously he is not prepared to answer them.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I will answer any questions.

MR. BARNES: I'm sure you will, Mr. Minister of Mines.

I would like to say before I start to comment on the estimates that I am sorry the hon. member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is unable to be with us in defence of his ministry. I regret to acknowledge that he hasn't been with us now for several weeks. The House has not kept us informed, however, on a daily basis as to his condition. I can only assume that he obviously isn't well enough to be here, but I'm hoping that he will be recovering soon.

With that, I'll just make a few comments about the B.C. Buildings Corporation which I had hoped to address to the minister and which I think are quite serious. Some of the events that have been happening with the corporation should be reviewed. I'm thinking specifically of the tendering process - that are, the small tendering processes under, say, $10,000. The maintenance contracts to bidders is one of the concerns that I have, and I have before me a series of bids that have been submitted in the past year by some 13 companies. It's curious how the bidding seems to have gone. It's quite a lengthy list that I have, but I would like to just ask the Chair to indulge me for a moment so that I can try and put it into some kind of perspective.

Bids for jobs in the Capital Regional Dis-

[ Page 2617 ]

trict on any given maintenance job have ranged anywhere from $2,070 to as much as $8,000, $10,000 and some of them as high as $11,000 and $12,000. The point of this is the method of tendering. As I understand it, a bidder submits a closed tender to the appropriate authorities in the Buildings Corporation who do not open it until they are before a public meeting. The bids don't seem to be consistent; there seems to be a problem, for instance, with one bid which seem to be the same thing all the way through. For instance, on some 13 jobs the same bidder submitted an amount of $2,790 right through, which was obviously a bid that didn't seem to be related to the job. I'm wondering whether this person had an opportunity to review the work that was to be bid upon, or whether he was just submitting a figure that he thought would be low and would be in a position to win the bid.

Then we have the competitors who are bidding for the same job in a range of $8,400 to about $9,300, and they were consistently bidding that way all the way through. Another bidder bid $15,000 on the same job, and consistently did this right through. The question is: how does the Buildings Corporation decide the capability of a bidder who is bidding, say, $2,700 or $2,000 for a job that someone else is bidding $12,000 or $13,000 for, when the policy generally, although not necessarily, is to award the bid to the lowest bidder?

There is one company in particular here that has been successful - Pacific Building. Pacific Building was one of the bidders that won on 231 Menzies. Jones Properties won on Michigan Street, and Five Star, which is also Western and Five Star, won one on Menzies and one on Michigan, two an Superior, and there is a third one as well. But Pacific won 15 out of 20 of these competitions, and the highest bid they made was $2,800. They won on all of these, and the highest one was $2,880. The competitors were bidding as much, in some instances, as $22,000. Could the minister indicate how that could be, before we go any further? I would just like him to explain why the lowest bid was accepted on jobs which obviously should require far greater investment on the part of a company.

I'm no expert on the cost of doing maintenance, but if $2,880 is a bid for cleaning a government building, and there were 15 of 20 jobs won by this one bidding company, and other competitors were bidding as much as $22,000 - they vary, but one is $22,000 - I just wonder if that is a ploy on the part of a competitor to win the bid and gain some kind of control over the jobs that are available, and lose money on them, with some other objective. I don't see how they could afford it. For instance, just to do the ordinary cleanup would require the hiring of at least a couple of people. For even one person at the minimum wage of $3.50 per hour for eight hours, it would come to $25 to $30. Over a year you would be far in excess of the amount of the bid - let alone the equipment involved, insurance, time, the profit margin that any bidder would be interested in and so forth. I'm wondering if you would like to clarify that before we proceed too much further.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member for Vancouver Centre has questioned the range of bids and how the B.C. Buildings Corporation determines the capabilities of those that participate in bidding. First of all, the billing manager analyses the best value of these bids and the terms under which they have tendered, at all times recognizing that it's important to keep with the lowest bidder on any of these janitorial contracts. The 15 out of 20 that were the lowest had their bids accepted on the basis that they had previous experience. I might say that that is one of the criteria for accepting any tenders on these positions.

There are clauses in the contracts signed between BCBC and those that are awarded these contracts on the basis of a 30-day cancellation in the event the work is not up to par. The work performed in the maintenance of these buildings is closely monitored by the building manager. If the performance is down at all, the contractor is informed that his work capability has fallen behind and that he must upgrade these capabilities if he wants to continue with his contract. In other words, it's brush up or get out.

I think that pretty well answers the questions. It's difficult to comment on the range of the tenders on these contracts because each and every company would have different criteria and probably different financial objectives as well.

MR. BARNES: I want to thank the minister. I suppose, in fairness to both of us, we were a bit surprised to find ourselves here this afternoon. Therefore we will have to formulate response to questions as we go along.

However, this is a matter that has been uppermost in my mind throughout the period that we have been waiting to finally get to Highways and Public Works. I don't know if I have stated this very clearly; in fact, I doubt if I have. I don't think the minister has grasped the full implication of what I am suggesting is happening. The particular company I am referring to is Pacific Building

[ Page 2618 ]

Maintenance. I find it rather curious that this particular firm has successfully won 15 out of 20 competitions with an average bid of under $3,000.

I am asking the minister to assist me, realizing that he hasn't normally been responsible for this ministry but is merely attempting to respond. But I did a calculation on the cost per week of just one person who would be working what I understand is normal - three or four hours - on a building. I believe there are some regulations controlling the amount of time a person doing maintenance can be in a government building; I think it's after 4:30 until about 9 o'clock - say four or five hours. It's possible for a person working on this part-time basis to earn something like $60 in a week on five days which, I suppose, if you extended that over a year, would be considerably more than the amount realized on the bid in the first place.

I'm wondering why a contractor would bid for a job which wouldn't even pay for the one person, let alone pay for his maintenance costs and his capital investment, and wouldn't consider any margin that he must have to cushion himself in terms of a prof it. Yet this particular firm has won 15 of the 20 bids.

I would like to know more about the policies an behalf of the building maintenance, because they have certain regulations that control the successful bidder - such things as insurance. They are required to carry their own insurance which, I would imagine, would be considerable; The Housing Corporation of B.C. assumes no responsibility generally for whatever happens; this person is totally responsible. For instance, here is one of the sections dealing with conditions of our successful bidders: "The contractor shall pay promptly all persons employed by himself upon the work having been done, and the wages should be current to competitive wages." This means that there will be at least a minimum wage. "...being required to carry sufficient insurance, liability insurance and so forth." I think if we could just have an explanation....

I talked to the minister a year or so ago on the same question of bids and which ones would be accepted and not accepted. He told me that the lowest bid was not necessarily accepted. These bids we're talking about now are less than $3,000 per project. The competition has made as much as $12,000 in some cases -$13,000 1 can see here. In other words, many, many times more would 'seem to make sense in terms of overhead and costs, but none of these were successful.

The only other successful bidder was Jones Properties - they won two at $2,600. Five Star Western won two, one at $22,000. And on that particular bid, Pacific Building Maintenance lost it; they had bid $40,000. But all of the others - 15 out of some 20 that were being bid for - they won at less than $3,000, which doesn't seem to me to be an equitable way in which to operate. I think that that is the main criticism that I have of this system that you're using. I'm wondering whether or not, in fact, its just a formality that the bidder can bid on a job without ever seeing the job and without having any knowledge of what is involved in it. Either that or he's doing it just to get control over government projects with a view to perhaps winning a larger, more lucrative contract at a later date. Perhaps something like that must be happening, because I cannot see any logic in a company bidding $3,000 for a job that obviously would be three times that much at the very minimum.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member suggests that there is a strong possibility that the company that was awarded 15 of these 20 contracts is bidding on the assumption that his bid being low, he'll have an inside track and then, at a later date, there is a possibility of an adjustment.

MR. BARNES: Not an adjustment, just an inside track.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, that's equal to suggesting that he could come and plead poverty at a later date and there would be an adjustment at that time.

MR. BARNES: I hadn't thought of that, but that's very....

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, that's a situation he would have to assess at the outset. In the event he's unable to fulfill the job at the price that he has bid, then he would have to relinquish the position and come up for bid again.

The member for Vancouver Centre makes a series of assumptions that it's going to take so many hours to do this and so many days to do that. First of all, you have to be able to determine whether you're talking about an office or whether you're talking about a warehouse. The type of maintenance would differ to a substantial degree in those instances.

Then many of these contracts you're talking about, I presume, would be directed towards small offices where the maintenance would be minimal and where the time involved might be as low as two hours per day. You can't an that basis assume that its going to be eight hours

[ Page 2619 ]

a day and that the individual possibly will lose money on it, having accepted that contract.

We will, however, look at the question that you raise about winning 15 out of 20. If one of the small maintenance companies has that many contracts, we're prepared to look at it. Maybe he has sufficient work at this time and we should look for other bidders on any future work. As I said before, we have to look into the question. We always have to have a tremendous amount of respect for the lowest bidder, without necessarily always accepting the lowest bidder, because the lowest bidder, in some instances, might not be able to conform with the terms and conditions that are set out in the contract. So under those circumstances, from time to time, but not frequently, it would be necessary to go to another bidder than the lowest bidder.

MR. BARNES: Little by little we're getting there. I might point out that Pacific has received other contracts from the government, but before I proceed to those, let me just name the locations because you may be right. I haven't seen these facilities myself. Maybe some of them are garages, warehouses, or one room office buildings, but here are the ones that they won: 503,506 and 514 Government, 321 Menzies, 524,5262 528 and 559 Michigan....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Those are all houses.,

MR. BARNES: Well, we'll see if they can be done in five minutes - that's the point - The others are: 446,515t, 539, 545t 611,613, 626 and 630 Superior. The point is not. whether they're houses or not, but how long it take to clean them up and whether it is really a good deal for a contractor to do each one of those for less than $3,000 on a two-year contract, which is what they've signed up for.

Now this same contractor, Pacific Building Maintenance, received substantially more interesting contracts from the government, such as the medical building on Blanshard for $221,000, the new courthouse extension on Broughton for $239,976, and the motor vehicle branch for $64,000. 1 don't have a comprehensive list of everything that they have won. These figures seem to be more in line with what would be expected if a person is going to be serious about doing maintenance at the standards that we expect if our public buildings are going to be maintained.

I should point out also that I understand that not only are the contractors required to provide their service on a regular basis, paying union or minimum wages, but they are also required to keep the coin dispensaries up, in terms of sanitary napkins, toilet tissues, soap, cleaning detergents and so forth. All of these things being considered, I still think the fact of this specific company winning 15 of 20 contracts at a ridiculously low bid of $2,700 to $2,800 is really quite remarkable. In light of the evidence here where some of the other bidders who were unsuccessful were bidding more appropriate figures - $5,000, $13,000 and so forth - and we have a person coming in with a blanket, across-the-board sum of $2,709 in about nine tenths of these bids and winning them, it just seems rather odd to me, and I'd like the minister to clarify that.

I would like also, speaking of the Buildings Corporation, to get a report from the minister on the present status of the employees that were transferred. What is the situation at this time in terms of how many of them are now employed and how many opted for early retirement? Just what is the status of that staff that was transferred from the Public Works ministry to the new Buildings Corporation?

I am not, as I said, going to elaborate on too many other things, because I think if the minister can answer these questions, which are the main ones that I had, perhaps we would be able to expedite the estimates.

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, the Initial buildings that you identified are the small, old-time homes here in James Bay that have been converted into temporary offices until such time as the government can afford more appropriate offices in the parliament buildings precincts. Many of those buildings would take probably from one to two hours per day to do the maintenance work on them. That probably is why the bidding has been substantially lower than those other three buildings you have identified, which are fairly substantial public buildings. These were done by public tender and this company was the lowest bidder in these particular instances on the three large public buildings, and they were awarded the contracts in the figure range you have identified - the $200,000 range.

Mind you, the B.C. Buildings Corporation has looked at the number of contracts that Pacific Building has been awarded, and on the basis of the workload they appear to have at this time, the officials of the B.C. Buildings Corporation have come to the conclusion that possibly this is the time for them to pause to make sure that they are able to look after the workload they have accumulated by being low bidders on these maintenance projects. So

[ Page 2620 ]

there is a pause at this time to ensure that the workload that they presently have accumulated can be fulfilled.

Now regarding the employee situation, as a result of application, the mobility agreement worked out in conjunction with the B.C. Government Employees Union last summer, only some 300 former Public Works employees remain to be permanently placed by the Public Service Commission. All of them have been productively assigned on a temporary basis to various ministers. Some 100 Public Works employees have been permanently placed in vacancies throughout the government. About 70 have elected early retirement and 80 have chosen the severance pay option available to them under the same mobility agreement.

MR. NICOLSON: Payoff.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I strongly resent the remark made by the member for Nelson-Creston suggesting it is a payoff when an agreement is made between the government and the union representing the employees, the B.C. Government Employees Union, to try to place these men who are being displaced because of changes in government structure. Jobs have been created in other ministries and those who have taken severance.... The member for Nelson-Creston suggests the terms and conditions under which the agreement was signed by the two parties is a payoff . Now that's disgraceful. I can't say anything else for that except it's a disgraceful statement from the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. BARNES: I wouldn't go so far as to say it is a payoff , but I would suggest that in instances where the person close to the age of retirement has had the option of taking on a job that may not have been appropriate for them, it's been my understanding that the Buildings Corporation has been most considerate of these employees and has allowed them, in some instances, not to report to work but to continue receiving their pay. I'm not suggesting that's bribery, but they didn't want to make an issue. When a person is close to retirement, rather than make an issue out of the fact that you're going to have to retrain someone at 63 years of age who is sort of at the borderline.... I know of one case where a fellow says he has been receiving his cheques for several months and hasn't reported to work. I don't intend to name him but I think you probably have a number of persons in this category. You know that they haven't been reporting because there hasn't been any work for them. Rather than jeopardize the individuals who have been good enough to share this information with me, I suppose I should just leave it at that.

The member for Nelson Creston is not entirely out of order, Mr. Chairman, in suggesting that the government may have been trying to avoid any embarrassing situations by leaning over backwards with employees.

MR. BARBER: I have some questions for the acting minister on staffing within the departments of Public Works and Highways and in particular in the Public Works section of it. I wonder if the minister could tell us what the total approved complement was in the Ministry of Public Works as of January, 1975, and what the approved complement is this month or the last month for which the minister has accurate figures. If you could give us that information now, I have a series of other questions.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that there certainly is something wrong when people get notices three days before Christmas giving them about one week to make up their mind whether they want to be transferred to another part of the province, to take a voluntary retirement or to just leave with severance pay. That's in fact the type of treatment that has been going on under this government. I think it is a shameful thing and I want the people of this province to know that there are thousands of dollars being wasted under this policy of doing away with public servants who know the equipment that they are dealing with.

Up in Nelson, Mr. Chairman, for the simple little replacement of an O-ring, which the regularly assigned public servant would have been able to fix for about 90 cents, a contractor was brought in to fix it - and I see some people laughing, somewhat amused, so I guess they know this story - and he started to disassemble the compressor. Mr. Chairman, that blunder alone would probably have paid the wages of one highly priced civil servant for over a year, the way they got carried away with that.

That is the type of blunder that is being repeated day after day around this province, by calling in people who do not have the familiarity with the equipment that has been kept going for years and years by the faithful, well-trained and dedicated public servants in the former Public Works department and jobbing out the work under this insane policy. There have been blunders right in these parliament building walls in terms of equipment that has been ruined and material that has been cut improperly - cost overruns

[ Page 2621 ]

in these very buildings and all over the province.

What I want to ask this minister about, before he gets into a bad mod....

HON. MR. CHABOT: I never do that.

MR. NICOLSON: I'd like to say that I am pleased to see that the Taghum bridge is well under way and that they are following the essential plan which we arrived at through a democratic consensus, through public involvement and public input. Mr. Chairman, it's rather interesting that we were going to build a bridge at Taghum and tenders went out. It was for a reinforced concrete structure. The departmental estimates came in at one figure and the tenders came in at an enormous figure, at a time when there were tremendous shortages of even rebarred concrete and you could hardly even interest a contractor as this province was booming so much back in 1974 and 1975 under the then New Democratic Party government. The province was booming so that you couldn't even interest outside contractors in doing a job, and just to be polite they would submit ridiculously high estimates. So being prudent, we sought other means; we looked at a possible relocation to another site.

The people of that area felt that that was not quite right, and they challenged me to go back and ask the engineers if there wasn't a third option of going to the original site -which was a straighter route, which was better in every sense - if there wasn't some alternative to putting in a reinforced concrete structure. Indeed, when asked about this, the Department of Highways design engineers suggested there was indeed a third option of going back to the original site, , putting in a pier in the middle of the river and using steel. Years later - now, last year - when the tenders were put out, it did indeed come in even cheaper than the original tenders, in spite of the inflation which has taken place. So work is proceeding and I'm pleased to see that. The people in the area did say they would rather wait and see the job done right at the original planned location than see it moved. I am pleased to see that that work is going ahead.

I am also pleased to see that upgrading work has proceeded along the Kootenay Bay to Creston sections of the road, that this year we will finally - and I do believe there has been some delay; it could have occurred at least a year earlier see the opening - and the paving, I trust of the Castlegar-Salmo link, called the Ootischenia Meadows link.

Mr. Chairman, I have at this time some very modest requests to make of this department, and they are these. I was called out one week ago to look at the house of a Mrs. Heffler who lives an a section of road which cuts down past Creston and goes down to the U.S. border, past and through the Indian reserve. At an intersection just north of that highway and the Erickson backroad, we see that highway work is proceeding and that the Ministry of Highways has built up the roadbed of that highway approximately 10 feet. That means that when Mrs. Heffler walks out of her front door, she proceeds about five feet and she is at the base of that highway. I would ask the minister to have the air, light and view committee review that situation. It is a difficult situation inasmuch as she is not quite the legal owner of the property and it is a little complicated. I would be pleased to personally provide some details of this.

I bring this matter up to show that just a little bit further south.... We have the Ministry of Highways doing something which, to my mind, has never been requested, but further south we have a real problem - a problem and a congestion which has created fatal accidents -known as the "black bridge, " over the Goat River. The black bridge on the Goat River is something which I have been bringing up in this Legislature for several years, and it is really, I think, the top priority in the Nelson-Creston riding, certainly in the Creston Highways District. In talking with people in the community, it is something that should be done.

So while we have a little bit of a problem with raising the level and improving the grade and the standard of that highway, just a little bit to the north, about one mile away from where that work is being done, there is a very dangerous piece of road where accidents occur with almost monthly frequency, and fatalities have occurred.

One other section which I would say is extremely dangerous is called Little John's Corner; it's on Highway 3 just east of Creston. This is an area which I believe, through some political intercession many years ago -when the Department of Highways was straightening out the road and there was a piece of private property affected by this - there was a very odd and very dangerous curve put into the road.

Only last winter I had driven by that way;

15 minutes later I camp back and I saw a school bus sitting across the road. Another car had gone into the ditch, fortunately on the top. If you go off the other direction, you go down an embankment which, I would say conservatively, is at least 30 feet, but

[ Page 2622 ]

possibly 50 feet. It is very dangerous, and certainly I've heard a lot of complaints about this corner. But when I saw that school bus and realized that it could have gone down aver that embankment, without seatbelts and with those very unsafe seats which are in school buses, I then went to the RCMP and asked for some documentation of the accident record on that intersection. I was given documentation of several fatal accidents and many property damages.

I would like to point out that these are two very important priorities. They're not major projects of the magnitude of a Taghum, Bridge, or of an Ootischenia meadows link, but certainly, in terms of human life and property damage, I think it would be a very wise thing-and in fact, a cost benefit analysis if one considers that the province owns the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. I think we have a double interest to ensure that the very best highway safety standards are maintained at those two sections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm rather surprised to listen to that member for Nelson-Creston plead for highway improvement in his constituency after the disinterest and the neglect and that former government's ho-hum attitude about highway maintenance and highway upgrading in this province.

He talked about the Taghum Bridge. It took a government that's concerned about highways and the needs of people in this province to get on with the job of Taghum Bridge. I'm rather surprised you'd even bring that subject up, after the difficulties you had in the last election, dealing with the Taghum Bridge, and your playing engineer in your constituency on that issue. They almost ran you out of Taghum during the last election.

MR. NICOLSON: We saved millions of dollars.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, certainly you saved millions of dollars because the project has been undertaken by an efficient government; that's why it's saved millions of dollars. Now he brings to my attention - and I'm rather surprised that the member has not taken this matter up with the Minister of Highways before - about the question of Mrs. Heffler having some problem with light, air and view.

MR. NICOLSON: One week.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh. well, I apologize to the member if it's been only one week since he's known about Mrs. Heffler's problem. I assure the member that we will look into Mrs.

Heffler's problem; we'll have the committee examine it forthwith.

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) talks about the work complement. I'm sorry that we don't have the figures before us for 1975. We do have them for March 31,1977. Net Ministry of Public Works complement affected by corporation's creation March 31,1977, was 1,674 jobs. The B.C. Buildings Corporation has absorbed 1,198 of these positions. That leaves a difference of 476 position, of which 304 have exercised these options: permanently placed in public service, 84; early retirement taken, 70; severance pay taken, 80; remained with parliament buildings crew, 70.

So that makes up 304 of the 476. What we really have at this time is 172 unallocated positions between what existed with Public Works and what presently exists with the B.C. Buildings Corporation, plus the exercise of certain options, which included opting into the public service in another ministry.

MR. BARBER: If the minister will bear with me, to make sure that I understood him properly I will repeat the figures. I want to make sure that they are absolutely correct.

As at March 31,1977, within Public Works alone there were 1,674 approved positions, all of which were presumably filled. Of those 1,674, there were 1,198 absorbed by the Buildings Corporation, leaving a difference of 476. Of those 476, there were 304 positions approved and filled, which were handled in the following way: 84 have been placed permanently elsewhere; 70 took early retirement; 80 took severance pay; and another 70 are employed elsewhere in the parliament buildings, leaving 172 unallocated. Are those figures correct?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's right, except the 70 have remained with the maintenance crew for the parliament buildings.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, this may be very pleasant for debate, but it's virtually impossible for Hansard to pick up the remarks, so please wait until the -Chair recognizes you.

MR. BARBER: The minister said earlier that a number of persons have been assigned to temporary positions, those persons having previously worked for the Ministry of Public Works. Could you give us an idea of the number of persons who are presently working temporarily for the Buildings Corporation and/or the Department of Public Works, as we used to know it? How many persons are affected by that? If the minister wishes, we could handle this an-

[ Page 2623 ]

other way: I could ask you all of my questions now and wait for answers or we could do them one by one. Which is your preference? Could you give me an indication of haw you would like this handled? Basically what I want to find out is what happened to the 172 unallocated positions. In particular, I want to find out what is going to happen to the persons who are presently being employed temporarily only, when at the end of the deadline - March 31,1979, 1 believe - they will be out of work altogether. That is the line of my questions. If the minister could instruct me, I will ask them all at once or one by one.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I said before in response to the member for Vancouver Centre that 300 former Public Works employees remain to be permanently placed by the Public Service Commission, and all of them have been productively assigned on a temporary basis to various ministries.

Up to March 31,1979, those positions not absorbed by the B.C. Buildings Corporation will be absorbed by the Public Service Commission. These people will be assigned to other ministries of government. Right now there are 300 positions on a temporary basis. By March 31,1979, the objective is to have them all permanently placed in government service.

MR. BARBER: Where do these 300 come from? Of the figures the minister read to me and I read back to him, where do we find illustrated the 300 temporary positions that the minister has just referred to? Is it the 1,674, the 1,198, the 476, the 304, or the 172? Where does the figure 300 derive from?

HON. MR. CHABOT: It comes from the 1,674 complement of March 31,1977.

MR. BARBER: So then I am to understand that of the 1,674 positions approved as of March 31,1977, there are now 300 temporary? Is that separate from the 1,198 who have gone to the B.C. Buildings Corporation?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. BARBER: If that is separate from that, we are then dealing with the 476 persons, of whom 304 have been taken care of in several fashions and the 172 are presently unallocated and doing God knows what. Is that correct?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. BARBER: Then are these 300 temporary positions working for the Buildings Corporation now or are they working for the ministry?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, they are working for other ministries of government.

MR. BARBER: That have nothing at all to do with the Buildings Corporation or the Ministry of Highways and Public Works.

HON. MR. CHABOT: None of these are deemed to be with B.C. Buildings Corporation, but those positions remaining with the parliament buildings construction crew are deemed to be temporary positions.

MR. BARBER: I was advised about three months ago that certain employees within the former Ministry of Public Works proposed to walk out one day because they were not at all convinced that their jobs and their careers and their mortgages and their families were being protected by the agreements that had been obtained. The minister's adviser will know about the walkout. It was a real thing. It happened, or was to have happened had a certain deal not been made - Well, the deal was made at the eleventh hour. What I want to ask now is what has been the practical result of that deal for those people. What happens to them on March 31,1979?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Those temporary crews that were affected are presently working on the construction of the parliament buildings. It is anticipated that on March 31,1979, they will be placed permanently in other positions of public service. They are the 70 that I mentioned that are on the construction crew.

MR. BARBER: So this is separate from the 70 persons whom you indicated have been assigned to the parliament buildings maintenance crew under the 304 figure.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Those are the same guys.

MR. BARBER: Same guys? Haw can you count them twice? You've told me that you are including the figure of 300 temporary positions as separate from the 304 that you otherwise described. Now you're telling me that you have counted them twice. Where are they? It's been extremely difficult for myself, as a capital city MLA, who as you can imagine has heard frequently from public servants in my own riding about what is going to happen to them, to try and understand the figures you have presented.

I'm sure the Chair appreciates that it is a difficult position. This is not the ordinary

[ Page 2624 ]

Minister of Highways and Public Works. He's acting, and it's kind of difficult for him as well, and I respect that. But it has been most difficult to understand the intentions of the government in dealing with 1,674 persons whose lives and careers have been affected by the establishment of the B.C. Buildings Corporation. On several occasions I have had phone calls and received letters, some signed and some not signed, giving extremely contradictory information about what is going on here. It's very confusing just as an MLA to try and understand it. I wonder if the minister could tell me now if we are talking about 370 temporary positions or 230 plus 70 that have already been obtained and placed.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The total is 300 individuals that are on a temporary basis. That includes the 70 that are on the construction crew at the parliament buildings. There is probably some confusion between positions and individuals, but it's 300. These people who are on temporary positions at this time will be permanently placed in the public service by March 31,1979

MR. BARBER: At the outset I asked the minister, when he said that there were 1,674 positions concerned, whether or not these were in fact approved positions that were filled. He nodded his head and said yes. So I take it that all of them, including the 230 or the 300, depending on how you count the 70, are also approved positions that were filled.

Now as I understand it, from my frequent contacts with the Public Service Commission, that means an approved position that is filled as a permanent position. Now if that's not the case, what definitions have been changed that would now allow the government to suggest that 300 of them are temporary and indeed may result on March 31,1979, in the discovery that some of those people are so temporary their jobs end on April 1,1979? What kind of protection do these 300 have?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the complement on March 31,1977, was 1,674. It's hard to determine whether there were any vacancies. The job complement, the full number of employees that could be gainfully employed, was 1,674. There might have been 100 vacancies at that time. So all I can say is that those names of those individuals that are on the temporary basis at this time are well known to the Public Service Commission. They're well known to the B.C. Buildings Corporation and they have been given commitments that jobs will be found for them in the public service by March 31,1979.

MR. BARBER: So as I understand the minister's statement, the 300 persons whose jobs we're talking about have been guaranteed permanent public service employment as of April 1,1979, when the present position expires. Okay-

Now we're talking about another set, and this is the figure 172 to which the minister earlier referred. He said there were 172 'unallocated positions" that have resulted from the conversion of the Ministry of Public Works to the B.C. Buildings Corporation. Assuming that I've understood the minister correctly, these 172 are separate from the 300 whose futures you have just now guaranteed in this announcement. What now, will the minister tell the committee, is the future for those 172 persons, and what options are available to them?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, is the Galena Bay ferry an the blink or something? I see the mikes have gone up.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: What a shocking statement from a member who's no longer concerned because redistribution will move Galena Bay out of his riding. He's no longer concerned about those poor people just south of Revelstoke. What a shocking statement! I thought I'd never hear that in this House. There are still people in British Columbia you have a right and a responsibility to be concerned for.

MR. COCKE: Why did they choose you - the most incompetent of all ministers?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I know where you should be right now - in VGH. That's where you belong. You've got a lot of problems there that you created, and you should be there trying to solve them.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, loll repeat again for the member: those 300 temporary positions this time will be permanently assigned; the 172 he's worrying and concerned about are jobs that no longer exist. So it's just that the positions are not there and they're not filled. We're worrying about the individuals now and not the positions - making sure that those who haven't taken an early retirement or haven't entered into a severance

[ Page 2625 ]

agreement have an opportunity of being placed, not in jobs that no longer exist but in jobs that will be available for them in other ministries of government.

MR. BARBER: I then have to ask about an apparent double standard. The minister indicates that 300 lucky human beings, have been guaranteed work as of April 1,1979. However, 172 not so lucky human beings have been told that there are no jobs for them, that there are no guarantees and there is no future. Now unless I've misunderstood, that's what the minister has just said. What I want to know is: what justifies, in the mind of the government, this different treatment of these two groups of people? Three hundred individuals are guaranteed a future and their mortgages get paid and their kids get shoes and the rest of it; that's good and I'm glad for that. What I want to know is: what justifies different treatment for the 172 persons to whom we're now referring?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I think we're confusing people and positions, really. We're talking about 300 people and we're talking about 172 positions. The 300 people who are presently employed on a temporary basis are filling part of these 172 positions which will be phased out. What we're saying is that those 172 positions will disappear, but those people - part of those 300 - will be moved on to another government ministry once those positions have been phased out on March 31,1979. So it's a question of confusing people with positions.

All we're dealing with are 300 people who are temporarily employed by the government in temporary positions and who will eventually, by March 31,1979, move into permanent positions. But those 172 positions that we're talking about will no longer exist, and the 300 people will be employed in other positions in other government ministries.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I'm well aware of the difference between an approved position that's filled and an approved position that is not filled. The minister told us that at March 31,1977, there were 1,674 approved positions in the Ministry of Public Works. I was told that by the end of 1977 - and I presume that means fiscal rather than calendar, but I don't have my notes in front of me and I can't confirm it for certain - fewer than 50 of the 1,674 approved positions were vacant at the time. Now if that's the case, well over 100 persons who had jobs approved are apparently out in the cold, because those jobs don't exist and the persons are not protected. You can't have it both ways.

I appreciate the semantic differences and the practical differences as well between a person in an approved position and a person in a temporary position and so on, and it's largely on those differences that the government has made its case. But the point is....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, who hasn't taken severance yet?

MR. BARBER: Well, you can talk about this severance thing, but the point is there is a difference. Okay. You told us that only 80 persons took severance pay. That's not 172; that's got nothing to do with the 50 that were vacant. I'll get back to that in a moment.

I want to ask a question now that the minister may have to look up. Could you tell us what was the average cost per person of the severance agreement settlements, and what has been the total package cost of the severance pay agreement that has been awarded to the 80 persons who, I understand, have chosen to terminate their own employment with the Ministry of Public Works? On the average, how much per person and in total is the most nearly precise cost you can give us for the total severance pay settlement?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I don't have those figures with me, but it would be based on the length of service of the individual. That would have a bearing on it. So it would be very difficult to to come up with an average figure because there'd be a great cross-section of different services with the public service. But let me say again that there seems to be some confusion.

I don't know - maybe I'm not getting it across or you're trying to confuse me or something like that. But anyway, what I've said and what I'm saying now is that each and every one who has not accepted severance pay or early retirement from Public Works, or hasn't moved on to B.C. Buildings Corporation - there are 300 being employed on a temporary basis at this time - will be permanently assigned by March 31,1979.

If the member wants to see those figures an the amount of severance pay that has been allocated to these employees that opted to take severance pay, we do not have them here, but we'd be glad to make that information available to him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the minister about standing orders that advise us not to get into tedious and repetitious debate.

[ Page 2626 ]

MR. BARBER: I'm concerned about this question of security within the parliament buildings. As the minister is aware, there are now employees who are privately hired, who work in the parliament buildings themselves. Those include employees who work within the offices of the government and, indeed, of the opposition. I wonder if the minister might inform us whether or not there are any bonding provisions concerning the qualifications of these employees to work in offices where security, confidentiality and discretion is a matter of some concern. I am by no means suggesting that anything improper has occurred involving employees who work in the buildings and are no longer bound by the oath of secrecy that the Public Service Act may earlier have required of them. What I am asking about is whether or not there are any provisions comparable to oaths of secrecy, whether or not bonding of any kind is now required that would reassure members of this Legislature that discretion, secrecy and confidentiality regarding the employment of persons who actually work in our offices are being maintained and observed. It's a matter of serious concern to some of us. I'd appreciate hearing from the minister what precautions the government has taken in this regard.

MR. DAVIDSON: I have three different items specific to my own area that I'd like to bring up with the minister. I would like to know if the minister has a starting date and a completion date on the upgrading of Highway 10 between Highway 17 and the Chillukthan Slough in Ladner.

Secondly, I would like to know from the minister what priority, if any, is attached to the second and third phases of the rebuilding of Scott Road. The first phase has already been done. The second phase is from 96th Avenue to the Pattullo Bridge and the other phase is from Highway 10 to 72nd Avenue on Scott. If the minister would care to answer those now, I will leave the third part until he's finished that.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I paid close attention to your admonition that one should not be tedious and repetitious, but I would like to go back to questions raised by my colleague, the second member for Victoria, with respect to the placement of those previous employees of the Public Works department who were not able to gain employment with the new BCBC. The minister, I believe, indicated that they would be placed by March 31,1979. Is that correct?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'd just make this point. On February 23,1978, a letter was put out over the signature of G.L. Tomalty, chairman, staff relocation committee of the Ministry of Highways and Public Works, containing this last paragraph an the first page:

"Employees who have opted for public service placement and have not been placed prior to March 31,1978, will be assigned to a ministry in their present geographic location and will be advised to this effect by my committee prior to March 31, 1978."

That sounds to me like a commitment for placement in other departments as of March 31 this year, not next year. I don't know whether the minister's advice is correct or not, but it is certainly at variance with the letter put out by the person responsible for the staff relocation. I just make that as a passing point, and ask whether the minister would like to respond to it.

I'm interested in the conditions that were required of new employees of the B.C. Buildings Corporation. I know that the minister would like to explain to me some of the documents that have been put out to these people who were seeking employment with that agency, or transferring from Public Works into the new corporation. There is one document that these applicants were presented with, I understand, and it is under the heading of British Columbia Buildings Corporation. It's entitled, "Avoidance of Conflict of Interest, " and it is a form requirement that presumably employees must fill in along with their application, or certainly as a condition of their hire with the B.C. Buildings Corporation.

Quite frankly, I think it is a pretty good thing to have a conflict-of-interest requirement in an agency such as this that will be doing quite a business - numbering in the millions of dollars perhaps. I can appreciate that requirement. I think that's a fairly good one, although I would question whether or not the normal declarations of public officials might not be a more appropriate agency for dealing with that conflict-of-interest requirement than starting a rather scatter-gun approach to the problem of conflict of interest - as among politicians, senior ministerial officials, and yet another standard for employees of Crown agencies. I wonder why we could not have some uniformity in terms of the obligations on all people in the government service.

Another form was issued to applicants and prospective employees of the B.C. Buildings Corporation. I am particularly interested in this one. It's entitled "British Columbia

[ Page 2627 ]

Buildings Corporation Payroll System." It's a very interesting document or circular, Mr. Chairman. I know the minister who is handling the estimates for his colleague will be particularly interested, because he used to be a Minister of Labour in this province, albeit for a short period of time - mercifully. This little epistle, this little gem, I think I should read into the record of this House. It says:

"At the present time the corporation's payroll is being manually prepared on a twice per month basis, i.e. on the 15th and last banking day of each month. It is anticipated that a computerized payroll system will become operational by January 1,1978. Briefly listed below are the features of the system:

"1. Pay on a bi-weekly basis, i.e. every second week."

That's profound.

"2. Payment by direct bank deposit rather than by pay cheque.

"3. A detailed information pay slip will be mailed to you showing all earnings and applicable deductions, both for the current pay period and the year to date. In essence you would receive approximately 1/26th of your annual salary every two weeks under this system."

My question to the minister is: has his ministry, which issued this circular, made application to the Board of Industrial Relations of this province seeking authority to violate their requirements, their legislation, their law?

Mr. Chairman, I took the liberty of contacting representatives of the Board of Industrial Relations and found that no such application had been made at the time this circular was issued. I want to know how the minister Justifies breaking the labour standards law of this province by issuing an arbitrary circular like this, which arbitrarily determines that, rather than workers receiving a cheque for services every two weeks with a full statement of earning and deductions, an arbitrary right is claimed by the ministry to make a bank deposit. Now that can be done with the agreement of the parties, and with a waiver by the Board of Industrial Relations. But I found it very curious that at the time this particular circular was issued, no such application to the Board of Industrial Relations had been made.

I think it is a serious matter when we have the government itself violating the law in this province. I don't know whether that was done through contempt or ignorance, but neither is acceptable in terms of violating the statutes of this province. Ignorance of the law will not be tolerated in the courts on behalf of citizens and I see no reason why the government should be excused an that basis either, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the particular circular that really captured my imagination and my attention and shocked me to the bone, as I'm sure it will shock all other citizens of the province of British Columbia, was the last one of the three, which again is a circular that was provided to all applicants for employment in the new B.C. Buildings Corporation. Certainly, as I understand it, it was a condition of their employ with that agency. I want to read this into the record of this House, because it has become an all-too-familiar pattern, an all-too-familiar characteristic of this particular government that they deal in the twilight zone, a shroud of secrecy, with some kind of phobia with hiding from the public scrutiny the affairs that the taxpayers of this province put out their tax dollars for.

I'm going to read this article.

"British Columbia Buildings Corporation deed of secrecy. I as an employee of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation, impressed with the importance of the utmost secrecy being observed in the discharge of my several duties, under the direction of the said corporation or any of its members or employees, do hereby solemnly declare that I will preserve the closest secrecy in regard to the transactions of the said corporation with its clients and the state of the accounts of the individual firms, corporations or others with whom it does business, and that I will not at any time, under any circumstances, or in any manner or way, directly or indirectly make known to any person or persons the transactions of the said corporation or its clients or the secrets of its business under my charge or passing under my notice or otherwise known to me, either while I am in the employment of the said corporation or after leaving the service of the said corporation; nor will I at any time exploit such information.

"In testimony whereof, this declaration subscribed by me on the date below mentioned. (Date and signature.) "

It sounds a lot more grave than marriage vows. Does it have to been sworn before a notary of the peace, a judge, or what other kind of official seal would be required to make this kind of deed of secrecy? What on earth is this government afraid of, Mr. Chairman? What are they trying to hide? What do they anticipate

[ Page 2628 ]

that this public corporation is going to be doing that is funded with your dollars and mine? What kind of nefarious conduct would they be engaged in that they have to keep a shroud, a cloak of secrecy over it and put out this kind of document which I have never seen in the private sector?

Mr. Chairman, I don't know what this government is coming to. I think that if an employer in the private sector required this kind of cloak of secrecy, the employees in the province would revolt against that kind of requirement. Surely if a position within the corporation is that sensitive with respect to bids, with respect to financial transactions, then that employee should be bonded. But this is a circular that every applicant, every employee of the former Public Works department received, presumably, whether they're a janitor, or whether they sweep the floor, whether they polish the minister's shoes. I've got the wrong minister - I apologize. Regardless of what their function may be with the department, this is scandalous, outlandish and frightening. What on earth are these people running? What kind of monstrosity have they created here?

AN HON. MEMBER: Iron heel!

MR. KING: Iron heel is right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I don't wish to have to interrupt this debate to read a citation about moderate and temperate language in the House. I ask that the members take it under consideration.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that the minister meant anything untoward by his reference to the iron heel. If he wishes to characterize the government that way, all I can say is that he's much more familiar with the government than I am. I take his counsel seriously.

Seriously, Mr. Chairman, this is scandalous. I just can't believe that this kind of document would be put out and circulated to each and every applicant for employment in the B.C. Buildings Corporation. If the Job is sensitive in the way of being a party to negotiations for real estate where there are large amounts of the taxpayers' money involved in a transaction, that's fair enough; no one would argue with that. Perhaps that person should be bonded. But to suggest that each and every employee of the corporation has to sign this kind of threatening and really archaic kind of document is just beyond me. It falls into a pattern that alarms me. We have seen other ministers put out documents from high-level officials of their ministry threatening discipline and dismissal if there is communication that might even tend to reveal secrets of the ministry. I suggest that if the ministry is functioning well and efficiently, and if the government is functioning efficiently and well and if they take proper cognizance of their responsibility as a public agency to be accountable for the expenditure of funds and for their policy decisions, there's no need to hide from the public; there's no need to keep secrets; there's no need to threaten employees that if they discuss the terms and conditions of their employment or any other facts with respect to their employment with that agency they are in breach of some ironclad document of this nature. It's frightening and scandalous. I'd like to hear the minister's reaction; I hope it's less frightening and scandalous.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The oath of secrecy is a fairly standard oath of secrecy. It's one that is recognized in the private sector as well as the public sector. The member says that maybe the employee should be bonded. Well, I suggest that more than likely a bonding company would require that an oath of secrecy be taken by those employees they would be bonding. This oath of secrecy deals with employees working for the B.C. Buildings Corporation. Those employees are involved in the opening of bids, some of which can be in the $10 million to $15 million range. There is a need for secrecy in that respect. The employees are involved in cleaning of offices around this building as well. I think there is a need for an oath of secrecy in that respect - where they go into MLAs' and ministers' offices. I don't think that it-s anything quite as offensive as the member for Revelstoke-Slocan attempts to portray.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan also talked about the method by which the employees are paid. The employees of the B.C. Buildings Corporation have their money deposited in banks. I'd like to tell the member that this was done after application and approval of the Board of Industrial Relations, of the Ministry of Labour and with the concurrence of the trade union. So that very dramatically shatters the kind of story he attempted to portray.

MR. KING: Before or after the issuance of that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's been done with the concurrence of the the industrial relations

[ Page 2629 ]

board.

I think that pretty well covers the questions.

You were talking about another directive or a letter regarding assignment of employees coming from Public Works. When we are speaking of March 31,1978, we are dealing with the B.C. Buildings Corporation coming into being on April 1,1978, and the assignment of the employees on a temporary basis, not the permanent assignment. The target date for the permanent assignment is March 31,1979. There are temporary employees being assigned permanently from time to time, and we would hope that by March 31,1979, the bulk of them will be appointed. Let's hope that there aren't too many. Let's hope that between now and then most of these will be placed on a permanent basis so that the anxiety of being in a temporary position will be resolved. I think that answers the questions put by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. DAVIDSON: Did the minister wish to reply to the questions that I asked earlier?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member for Delta asked about Highway 10 in Ladner and the Chillukthan Slough. Well, there's curb and gutter, and a new bridge - he wanted to know when there'd be curb and gutter and a new bridge over the Chillukthan Slough. Well, it's anticipated that the design will be complete this fall. Scott Road, Old Yale Road to Pattullo Bridge will be done this year - the design is being done now. And 96th to 80th Avenue is not in this year's programme. I think that answers all the questions put by the member for Delta.

MR. DAVIDSON: That answers two of the questions for the member for Delta. I have a third, Mr. Chairman. Each year I rise in this debate to inquire about a third crossing of the Fraser River, and each year it seems that the situation alters little from the year before. The only thing that changes is the tremendous amount of traffic that is forced to use the Massey Tunnel and the Pattullo Bridge when trying to move north to south across the Fraser, and vice versa. The situation is becoming even more critical now than it was when I addressed this problem last year, and even more so than the year before that. I just hope that next year the situation will not be the same. It's not unusual to find five-mile lineups on either side of the Massey Tunnel, depending on which time of day - whether it be 7 to 9, or 4 to 6 in the evening. Last_ Friday night, at approximately 6 o'clock, traffic was lined up southbound through the Massey Tunnel for approximately 4.5 miles. This is not a unique occasion; it's not something that happens just every now and then. It is something that is happening an a more regular basis with every passing day.

The Greater Vancouver Regional District estimates indicate that the traffic through the tunnel will double within the next six years. We have a growing number of people using our ferries; we have a growing number of people who are taking up residence on the south of the Fraser; and I would point out again this year, as I pointed out last year and the year before, that over 80 per cent of the people who work in the area that I represent work out of the area that they live in. In other words, 80 per cent of the working people of my area commute to and from Vancouver city.

Mr. Chairman, the people in my area do not begrudge a $50 million SeaBus, nor do they begrudge the amount of money spent in operating that service at a continually growing deficit. But sooner or later, we expect to have something in return. We have needs, we have priorities and we cannot be expected to use two two-lane bridges, the Pattullo and the Massey Tunnel, as sole methods to commute back and forth between work and home. It's only going to take one serious accident in that Massey Tunnel to possibly tie up traffic for a considerable length of time and to possibly result in a very serious disaster. We had an experience early last year when an oil truck had some very serious problems there, and we wouldn't want to see that happen again.

We simply cannot say that because of the cost of the project ... and I realize, as members of this assembly, and certainly as members of Treasury realize, that we are talking in terms of $150 million to $200 million for another bridge. But we can't just keep hiding behind that excuse. The cost would have been about $25 million some 12 or 14 years ago. We're talking in terms of four to five years for completion of the project from the time it starts, and by that time we're going to be looking at the doubling of the traffic. We simply can't wait any longer.

I have here a bumper sticker: "New crossing now. Lower Fraser River Crossing Improvement Association." Years ago, before the Massey Tunnel even came Into existence, there was a continual amount of pressure from pressure groups not to service that area. It was the wisdom of the previous government that the Massey Tunnel go ahead in any case, and the results of that are seen today. We've had tremendous growth, tremendous development and tremendous expansion in the area that is now

[ Page 2630 ]

Tsawwassen, Ladner, North Delta, Surrey and White Rock. All these areas have experienced tremendous growth and that growth is continuing.

Mr. Chairman, I simply again direct a question to the minister: when can we expect some positive, concrete action on a crossing - not more studies and not just simply promises and vague slogans or whatever, but just a simple commitment as to when the very serious need for this crossing will be realized by this government and some very serious action taken? Could the minister respond at all on that question?

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I second the member for Delta's admonition that this government should forget their sloganeering and their vague promises and get on with dealing with the needs of the people of this province. The member for Delta has it absolutely right. I know he is ashamed to be a part of that kind of vagueness and empty promises and I don't blame him.

Mr. Chairman, the deed of secrecy is not something that is prevalent or usual at all in the private sector or anywhere else. It indicates a certain clandestine desire of this government to hide the conduct of their business and to hide the policies of their new Crown corporation from the taxpayers of British Columbia, and it is seedy and unseemly, and I can't characterize it with enough phrases of that ilk, Mr. Chairman.

The minister talks about bonding, and I can tell the minister that when one is bonded you do not have to swear an oath of secrecy or a deed of secrecy. The bonding in itself is the protection that is required, and I myself, having been bonded, and my colleague for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) having been bonded, were never required to fill out this kind of scandalous deed of secrecy. This is more permanent than marriage and more threatening than divorce. My goodness! I've never seen such a document before. A deed of secrecy certainly sounds a great deal more significant than owning a deed to some property. I don't know what the penalty would be for violation here. It sounds like excommunication or something.

MS. SANFORD: Ominous.

MR. KING: Ominous indeed it is. The clandestine machinations of a corporation out of control, that's what the minister is presiding over. It's shameful, Mr. Chairman. I don't accept that at all.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, the village of Nakusp has been dealing with the Ministry of Highways for the last three years with respect to their main street, which is Broadway. There was an agreement tentatively reached - I forget whether it was three or four years ago - for the joint participation of the village and the Ministry of Highways with respect to the widening and upgrading of that street. The village has come up with referendums providing the funds for their portion, and for the second year in a raw at least the Ministry of Highways has failed to come up with their share of the allocation for that arterial road, which is also the main street of Nakusp. It's very important to the conduct of local business in that community, and I think that when the village has honoured their part of the bargain the ministry has an obligation to honour its part.

I would like the minister to tell me whether or not the ministry will be in a position this year to provide the funds necessary for the completion of Broadway Street through the village of Nakusp. I would appreciate that information from the minister and his cooperation in getting it done. It's not a major thing. I don't think the allocation is outlandish by any stretch of the imagination, and I see no reason why it can't be undertaken.

Mr. Chairman, the other progress report I would appreciate having from the officials of the minister's department is with respect to Highway 6. south of the village of Silverton, * commonly referred to as the Cape Horn Bluffs. I've recounted so often in this House the danger and the unique, one-lane characteristic of that route that it is not necessary for me to do so again. It's a very short section, and it is preventing the development of a very significant tourist potential, as well as being a complete pain in the neck to local people who have to travel that route year in and year out.

One of the things that I think makes it more imperative this year is when the people in the Kootenays see a brand-new route being developed through the Coquihalla Pass and they've been waiting for years to have that one-lane goat trail completed in the Slocan Valley. It's a bit much. I think the Ministry of Highways has got its priorities distorted quite badly. I would certainly appreciate an up-to-date report an when the people of the Slocan and Nakusp area can expect Highway 6 to be completed to a standard two-lane highway from south Slocan to its connection with the Trans-Canada at Revelstoke.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like

[ Page 2631 ]

first of all to answer the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) on his inquiry regarding the proposed Annacis crossing. The Ministry of Highways is presently looking at the start-up of final design this year on that proposed crossing. There are, however, some difficulties that will have to be resolved with the municipalities concerned, especially on the north side, and with GVRD.

Also, decisions have to be made on the incorporation of transit facilities into the system and we'll take into consideration the concerns that have been expressed by the member. It's a very costly project which he's suggesting ought to take place and I concur with the member that the lead time required is about four years for this project. If we foresee its necessity today, certainly there will be substantially more required four years hence. Anyway, the final design is underway at this time an that project.

Now the member for Revelstoke-Slocan brings up the question of Main Street in Nakusp. The project which he's suggesting be undertaken is one of $300,000, which is $150,000 between the municipality and the provincial government. It's been the lack of funds...

MR. KING: Lack of funds? What are you spending on the Coquihalla Highway?

HON. MR. CHABOT: ... and other priorities that have restrained the ministry from undertaking this project at this time.

MR. KING: Aw, shame on you!

HON. MR. CHABOT: I might say that the ministry has received correspondence from the village in which they've expressed their extreme concern at the delay of this project being undertaken at this time, and the Ministry of Highways is prepared to reconsider their position on the necessity of upgrading Main Street in the community of Nakusp. If you'll only pass these estimates, I'll rush the Blues up to the minister personally for his personal attention, so that we can get on with the reconsideration of the need for upgrading the street in Nakusp.

The Cape Horn Bluff s were brought to my attention by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan. The design will be ready in September; it's a $3.5 million job. The ministry agrees that it needs doing; the ministry hopes to be able to start up construction later this year.

MR. KING: What is the plan?

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's rock excavation work and widening of the highway there and the job appears to be one of $3.5 million. So the two concerns that have been expressed by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan are well in hand.

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take this opportunity to concur with your remarks about a third crossing of the Fraser River, especially if that crossing was to service the North Delta area from North Delta across to Annacis Island and then into what would become the Marine Way extension into Burnaby.

I have two items that I would like to discuss during this minister's estimates, and the first has to do with the Ministry of Highways. As you know, there is virtually no highway development in Vancouver South, although we do have one bridge, namely the Knight Road Bridge. I would take this opportunity to compliment your ministry in the refurbishing and the relandscaping of the overpass at Marine Drive and the entrance to the Knight Road Bridge. I noticed that you used private contractors to do the relandscaping of the bridge. I would like to ask first: will private contractors continue in the future to maintain the landscaping around the entrance to the bridge an both ends? Secondly, if that's the case, do you feel this is going to be a continuing growth throughout the province in maintenance of highway landscaping projects and other projects, if you will? It's my feeling that this government and the people of British Columbia will benefit greatly by putting a lot of the maintenance work in projects like this into the hands of the private sector. I would hope that the ministry will continue the very exciting project we have seen in the Knight Road Bridge.

My second point has to do with the Ministry of Public Works and specifically the grounds surrounding the legislative buildings. I'm talking about the grounds bounded by Government, Superior, Menzies and Belleville Streets. In that particular area we have three buildings of any size: the carpenters' shed, the audit branch building and the motor vehicle branch. I realize that some of the buildings, particularly the motor-vehicle branch, have some historic value, although I don't think you could ever argue the point that they have any architectural worth to them. It's my contention that the grounds surrounding this building should be park, and that those buildings should be phased out. The legislative buildings should be surrounded by a greenbelt, bounded by the streets that I've just mentioned.

The building that's now housing the motor-

[ Page 2632 ]

vehicle branch was built in 1894 by the Public Works Department of Canada. I would argue that the architect must have been the first graduate of the Lego school of architecture, because it's possibly the ugliest building we have in Victoria - certainly the ugliest public building. Further to that, the building passed into the hands of the B.C. Police Commission and then, when the RCMP took over the policing of the province, it was turned over to the motor-vehicle branch. For the life of me I can't understand why that building still exists adjacent to one of the most beautiful buildings in the Commonwealth. I would hope that the ministry has plans to remove it, along with the audit branch, from the grounds, and also the carpenters' shed that's found on the southeastern comer. I would think that perhaps the small building on what would be the southwest corner would have some value, although I haven't been able to find out what the history is behind it. It would appear to be some sort of a carriage garage.

My question is: does the ministry have a phasing-out programme for the buildings adjacent to the legislative buildings? If so, what is the time frame between now and when they will disappear and we will have decent grounds surrounding this most beautiful of buildings?

MR. BARBER: The carriage house and garage as mentioned by the member for Vancouver South were used by the Lieutenant-Governor when he had his offices in this building at the turn of the century and prior to the Depression. I agree with you: architecturally and historically they have value. As to the rest of the buildings, they are trash. I agree with you as well they should come down. They're ugly thing that diminish the value, worth and setting of the Legislature itself. They should be torn down.

I want to talk for a couple of minutes about a policy matter of concern to the minister in his capacity as being responsible for highways and transportation in the province. I want to talk this year, as in years before, about bicycle paths, about bikeways, and about the fact that in the great cities of North America the private automobile has little, if any, future. I want to argue that a healthy, efficient and cheap alternative to the private automobile lies in the construction of commuter bicycle paths in the hearts of the great cities of our own country. That most certainly includes greater Vancouver and greater Victoria. I want to argue that commuter bikeways offer a cheap and human means of transporting people and even, to some minor extent, goods around the cities of this province.

I want to point out to the minister that in states to the south of us they have recognized already the financial and human worth of the bicycle as a sensible and sane alternative to the automobile. In the state of Oregon, for instance, they have a full-time state highways planner whose job it is to consult with local planning authorities on the design, the designation and the construction of commuter and recreational bicycle paths. In the state of Oregon they've recognized, as we in the province of British Columbia have yet to recognize, that the automobile, as a significant means of transporting people in our major cities, has no significant future. It costs too much. It burdens us too much. It poisons the air too much. Its roads and bridges ruin our neighbourhoods too much. We cannot afford the private automobile at the present extravagant scale that we've become used to.

Among the alternatives that should be considered by a prudent government is that cheap, efficient and healthy alternative called the bicycle. It's been recognized for 30 years in Europe as a cheap, healthy and efficient alternative to the automobile. It is now being recognized in some of the American states as a cheap, healthy and efficient alternative to the automobile. It should and Tm, t be recognized in British Columbia as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: It won't sell in North Vancouver.

MR. BARBER: Yes, I have relatives there and I agree with you. But certainly on the flatlands, throughout the Fraser Valley and in the city of Victoria as well, there's no problem at all topographically with the construction of bicycle paths. There is no problem socially as the need is great and the will to use them is apparent.

In greater Victoria in 19751 was involved in the establishment in what been known as the Regional Bikeways Committee. We prepared a report, the bulk of which has been now adopted as policy by the Capital Regional District. Similar interests have been displayed by other regional and local authorities across the province. In Victoria now we have 14 miles of bicycle paths - We could use a lot more but it is a beginning and local government here deserves credit for what they have done.

I call on the minister to determine and hopefully to announce a policy that will guarantee that when new highways are constructed in this province, where it is appropriate, sections of those highways will be added and widening of those highways will occur in order to guarantee safe access by cyclists to them.

[ Page 2633 ]

I call on the minister to create within his ministry an office of bikeway planning that would see the provincial Ministry of Highways, in collaboration with local planning authorities, municipal and regional, designate and establish routes for recreational and commuter bicycle paths. I call on the minister as well to co-operate with the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, in particular, in the planning of bicycle paths for recreational purposes across the province.

One of the studies that was undertaken and has never been acted upon is that of conversion of the, old CN rail line up the Island, from here roughly to Nanaimo, for recreational bikeway purposes. I've traveled that line off and on over a period of years, hiking and walking and cycling parts of it. It's a beautiful line. The CN right-of-way up the heart of this island is a gorgeous piece of real estate and a beautiful opportunity for people to engage in very healthy and very delightful recreational pursuits. The opportunity for a family to go up that bikeway, to go across those trestles, to enjoy an aspect of this island that has been largely closed to them is one that should not be omitted by a government that realizes the recreational as well as the transportation value of bicycle path planning and construction in this province. There are other equally beautiful opportunities for recreational bikeway construction across the province. Everyone agrees that it is a good way of doing the public's business to encourage the public to be less reliant on the auto. Everyone agrees that roads and bridges and freeways cost too much and deliver too little.

Everyone agrees as well that the bicycle itself is increasingly a popular and necessary way of moving people about. We have all the agreement we need. What we lack is the leadership and the money to get the job done. I call on the government to pay serious attention to the need that has been expressed by planning and recreational and sporting authorities across the province and to establish an office of bikeways planning within the Ministry of Highways. Even the Premier, jogger that he is, would I'm sure be delighted to see even more cyclists speeding past him at 30 miles an hour as he jogs his way to work in the morning. Commuters need the service. People interested in recreation need the service as well. People who have been hit and injured and in some cases killed by automobiles while an their bicycles need the protection as well of a safe system of bicycle paths across this province. The system serves commuters; it serves recreational interests. It is a system that we badly need.

In particular and in conclusion I call the government's attention to two excellent private member's bills, M 208 and M 209, listed on the orders of the day and sponsored by the member for Vancouver Centre and myself, which I very much hope will be called and passed by this House 'prior to dissolution in a few days' time. I would thank the minister for his comments on bikeway planning as it relates to transportation systems and development across the province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member for Victoria talks about bicycle paths and parks. Well, if he wants to raise that subject at the appropriate time, he should raise it under the Minister of Recreation and Conservation's estimates. I agree with the second member for Victoria that there is a need for more trails and more bicycle paths in British Columbia. I would like to see the bikes off the highways, because they're a menace not only to themselves but to other people using the highways.

First of all, I would like to say that under the revenue-sharing legislation is included a 50-50 sharing formula with municipalities on arterial street networks and this in fact includes bike paths. So now there is a formula within municipalities for the recognition of construction needs for bicycle paths. The Ministry of Highways is providing six-foot wide paved or asphalt stabilized shoulders on all our main highways. Three hundred miles of shoulders are being created an an annual basis in British Columbia, which facilitates the use of bicycles on the shoulders here. We in British Columbia have approximately 2,000 miles of trunk highways with paved or stabilized shoulders. The ministry is encouraging municipalities to provide wider sidewalks or bicycle paths, as I indicated before, under the revenue-sharing formula.

MR. BARBER: What about an office for bikeway planning, like they have in Oregon?

MR. LAUK: Bureaucracy!

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, the member for Vancouver Centre automatically and immediately is opposed to an office of the type you've described. He says it's too much bureaucracy. Well, I'll have to accept his advice in that regard.

The second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) brought up the question of landscaping and landscaping maintenance. The ministry is all for this kind of effort and beautification procedure, but it's a very costly item. The undertaking of landscaping

[ Page 2634 ]

and landscaping maintenance will be done partly by the ministry and partly by contract. It is anticipated that most of the work will be done by contract, rather than by employees of the ministry.

You raised the subject of three buildings in the precincts of the parliament buildings. The carpenters' shed is due for demolition this fall. The usefulness of the audit building between the Douglas Building and this building is presently being reviewed and a decision should be forthcoming in the not too distant future. The motor-vehicle building still has some use. Whether you like the building or not, it has some historical significance, as some people recognize.

MR. LAUK: Were you born there?

HON. MR. CHABOT: There have been some renovations on the interior of that building in recent years, and it is not the intention of the Buildings Corporation to phase out the motor-vehicle branch at this time.

MR. LAUK: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the minister mistook what I said. A bikeways office is a darn fine idea. Having regard for the superfluous bureaucracy that exists in the department, they should eliminate some of that and put in an office for bikeways. It's a fine idea and it shouldn't be misinterpreted that I'm opposed to it, and I fully support the hon. member for Victoria's suggestion.

Private automobiles is the topic that I wish to address myself to and to bring to the attention of the ministry. I couldn't help but let my mind wander, as I heard the suggestion of more bike paths, to the thought of the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, a long-standing member of this Legislature, pumping his way to work dressed in a yellow raincoat, together with cap, on a tricycle up the pathway through Victoria to the parliament buildings, in the pouring rain.

There is a serious divergence of philosophy occurring not only in this Legislature but in the province, in the country, and in North America generally, and it has to do with the private automobile and the expense of the private automobile that we've taken for granted. Certainly the private automobile has had its greatest success in North America, because we've had a relatively sparse population with great distances to travel. There is that tradition of the free spirit which the private automobile has provided, going on your awn time with a certain amount of independence. However, of the urban areas - and we've only got a few of them in Canada - there are at least half a dozen that require greater attention with respect to public transportation. The cost of the private automobile in these urban areas has been so great as to cause many right-thinking citizens sober reflection on the 1950s and 1960s policies of most governments in North America, which favoured a freeway and automobile crossing system.

The great debate that took place in the 1960s and early 1970s in Vancouver was on the third crossing of the Burrard Inlet. That debate is still very fresh in the minds of a great many citizens of the city of Vancouver and the debate opened up a great many areas to the understanding of the ordinary citizens. For the first time, people were talking about the economy of the private automobile and the tremendous waste of producing a $5,000 or $6,000 machine for one person or one family. The tremendous industry that's churned up to provide that kind of transportation system has to recede in the last quarter of the century. We've got to re-emphasize in our economy that which is great or good for the commonwealth and de-emphasize the tremendous emphasis of the private automobile, but not to the extent of eliminating one for the other. No one can propose that, and economically that would be silly and disastrous. We can't re-tool and reshape our economy in even a 10- or 15-year period to that extent.

But it is time the provincial and municipal governments emphasized public transportation and started in the urban areas to de-emphasize the use of the private automobile. Certainly, in many ways, if you are a member for Delta or if you are a member for the North Shore ridings in the greater Vancouver area, it might be an unpopular position to take. But politicians cannot always count noses. They can't always take popular positions. They've got to take positions of leadership.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Need I add, by the way, the environmental disaster in the urban areas caused by the automobile - much greater, much more reinforced because of the numbers of vehicles in city streets? What about the health of our constituents - and I'm talking to the members for Vancouver South on the government side of the House as well - and what about our children who live in the cities, who suffer health problems because of the negative environment created by the private automobile? We're poisoning our people. We're dividing and cutting up communities through freeway systems. And we thought - those of us who have fought the battle of the third crossing of the

[ Page 2635 ]

Burrard Inlet - that the battle had been fought and won; those of us who watched with great interest the battle of the Spadina Expressway in Toronto thought that the battle had been fought and won. But still we have rearing their ugly heads the people who want more freeways, who want to divide and cut up our cities and destroy communities and destroy the environment for our families.

We are creating cities for automobiles, not cities for people. And this battle, this argument has been fought and won in the United States but is being ignored in Canada. It's being ignored in the city of Vancouver and it's being ignored by this provincial government. I'm really quite surprised.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, there is the First Minister who thinks it is very amusing. He and his predecessor Social Credit Premier did to their riding what I would think no MLA would like to leave as a legacy to his constituency, and that is the most disastrous strip development in North America. But that's land use as well as freeway system.

It is no laughing matter, Mr. Chairman, and I wouldn't get up and make this speech if I hadn't heard the minister say that the Annacis crossing is in its final design stage. I find that a shocking admission for him to make. Is it the decision of the government to build that crossing, Mr. Chairman? Is it the decision of the government to defy common sense and even an attitude in urban areas that opposes this kind of freeway development?

We hear the First Minister, the Minister of Highways and the former Minister of Transport all talking about the waste of money that it cost to build the Dease Lake and the Fort Nelson extensions, because they look upon those projects as profit-making projects - or they should be profit-making projects. They look upon public transportation as being a profit and loss situation; but, if they build a freeway or a bridge at tremendous loss with no return whatsoever, they ignore that, there's no profit and loss consideration for that. What is the difference in philosophical approach here? It's almost a madness. Jonathan Swift would make great hay if he were alive today and saw that on the one hand railways have to make a profit and, on the other, highways don't. I'm certainly not arguing to put tolls on the highways, but I am arguing that a shift in philosophical emphasis should be made to reflect what's happening in the last part of this century. Governments that will not take the lead and fall behind, such as this one, not only create a disaster for themselves, but for all of us. We all go down the tube with you, and that's bad news.

The people of Vancouver will not tolerate, Mr. Chairman, the Annacis crossing proceedings. And if you think you've seen grassroots revolts, you will have seen nothing until you have seen the protest in the city of Vancouver that will revolve around the building of Annacis Island crossing. There will be no gerrymandering in the world that will save the two little member's from Vancouver South (Messrs. Rogers and Strongman) who seldom speak in this House. Nothing In the world will protect their political futures from that kind of a revolt. You mark my words. The only way is to include the North Shore with Vancouver South. That might protect them from that kind of revolt. I will caution this government, and put it on the record for Hansard: I warn you that the Annacis Island crossing will be fought, and fought extremely hard by the greater number of people living in the city of Vancouver.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I always like hearing from the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) . I don't know if he is still driving that $20,000 Mercedes Benz or not; but, anyway, if it is still belching as much smoke as I've seen it belch.... Nevertheless, he's talking on behalf of the people who should be riding buses.

Now what I said in response to the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) was that, regarding the Annacis crossing, the ministry is looking to commence final design this year. But you have to take into consideration that during the rush hour period there are 9,000 people who cross the Fraser River by the Pattullo Bridge or Massey Tunnel in each rush hour, and out of those 9,000 people, only approximately 500 are crossing in buses.

The minister agrees that we roast increase bus ridership. The planning and design that will take place is one that will include special bus links an freeways and bridges. The ministry is assisting municipalities to plan and construct arterial street networks to enable better bus routes and bus services. The minister recognizes full well that there is a need for switching people from using their cars to riding buses, because that is the most sensible way for traffic to move in a city such as Vancouver. Every assistance is being rendered to municipalities and encouragement is being given in the designs of the various new accesses and the new structures for bus traffic. The member hasn't suggested anything new. He is just confirming the attitude that is already prevalent in the Ministry of High-

[ Page 2636 ]

ways and Public Works.

MR. LAUK: Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, that attitude just expressed by the minister on behalf of the Highways ministry has not been reflected in the new transit authority Act. It does nothing for public transit. It just shifts the debt on the municipality. I know the hon. minister would like to have it differently.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, we are on vote 141. We cannot reflect on legislation or matters requiring legislation.

MR. LAUK: Well, there are a good number of people in Vancouver South who would like you to reflect an it, Mr. Chairman. I've been hearing about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That may very well be the case. However, the standing orders of this House are not such that this would be the time for that debate. I would ask that you remain relevant.

MR. LAUK Didn't we pass that bill, Mr. Chairman? It's now a statute. I can discuss statutes of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Matters requiring legislation.... In any event, hon. member, this is the office of the Minister of Highways and Public Works.

MR. LAUK: Are you suggesting that we are still controlled by the monarch?

Mr. Chairman, the expression by the minister of what I am saying is contrasted with the actions of the government. Although the expression is very nice, it is not consistent with the actions of the government. We're talking to a government here that has a policy of developing a wasteful type of system of freeways and crossings that should be checked. In spite of the gerrymandering, I think that after the next general election it will be checked.

MS. SANFORD: I have a number of issues I would like to raise briefly with the acting Minister of Highways and Public Works.

I don't know whether the acting Minister of Highways and Public Works is aware of this, but one of the busiest highways in the province is the section of the Island Highway between Courtenay and Campbell River. The Minister of Highways and 'Public Works is aware of that fact; I'm bringing it to the attention of the acting minister. It's a very heavily traveled portion of road. This year there is one small section that is being changed to accommodate four lanes of traffic, but it's only a mile out of the 29 miles.

What I would like to ask the minister at this time relates to the future plans for the Island Highway between Courtenay and Campbell River. You are probably aware, Mr. Chairman, that there is a good deal of four-laning going on all up and down the Island Highway, but, as far as I am aware, there has been no decision made as yet with respect to four-laning the section, say, from. Bowser north. I would like to know this afternoon what the Ministry of Highways and Public Works is thinking with respect to four-laning the Island Highway from about Bowser north. Or is it the intention of the government to put in a bypass at this time which would bypass all of those communities, leaving the Island Highway pretty much as it is at the moment?

The next question relates to Alert Bay. Alert Bay has a number of problems: they are a very small community; they have a small tax base and they never have enough money to do even the basic things that most municipal councils can do. Earlier this year they were in discussion with the Minister of Highways and Public Works with respect to the possibility of having the Ministry of Highways and Public Works put in some paving on the few short miles they have in Alert Bay. The council informs me that they have not yet had this confirmed, although the minister indicated that he hoped the ministry would be able to accomplish that paving at Alert Bay this year. Could the minister advise me this afternoon as to whether or not that is going to happen?

I'm being as brief as I possibly can, Mr. Chairman, and I'm trying not to elaborate on any of these.

The next question relates to the need for a new ferry on the triangular run - Port McNeill, Alert Bay and Sointula. There is no doubt that the overloads that are taking place there at the moment indicate that some action is needed by the Ministry of Highways. Is there going to be a new ferry to replace the M.V. Nimpkish on that run?

Next question: the Quadra Island ferry. Again, we have the same problem where we have overload day after day after day on that run. What is being planned to relieve the current congestion on the Quadra Island ferry? That's the ferry that runs between Campbell River and Quadra Island.

Could the minister also advise me when the ministry anticipates that construction of the new bridge at Courtenay is going to begin? I know they are working on designs and plans at this stage. Could you tell the House when that

[ Page 2637 ]

construction will actually start?

The next question relates to the fact that a policy was adopted by the Ministry of Highways with respect to inter-island ferry runs. Ferry runs between the islands in the southern Gulf are free of charge to the residents of the islands, so they're traveling from one island to the other and they don't pay anything. That is not true, Mr. Chairman, in Comox constituency. I'm wondering if the minister this afternoon could advise what steps are being taken to ensure that there is some sort of equity in the policy of the government, because inter-island ferry traffic in Comox riding is not free. They have to pay, and that is not what is happening in the south Gulf Islands. For instance, they have to pay an that triangular-run ferry between Port McNeill, Alert Bay and Sointula.

Another item which concerns me a great deal relates to the fact that the ministry has decided that they're going to use 2, 4-D along the highways again; they're going back to spraying. You may be aware, Mr. Chairman, that the previous government did away with spraying along the highways of the province. The Minister of Highways announced when he was appointed that he would continue with the policy adopted by the previous government, and that there would be no spraying of defoliants along the highways in British Columbia. That policy has now been reversed and spraying will again take place along the highways in this province. Could the minister please advise us this afternoon why that policy change has taken place? It worked before; people were out there clearing the brush along the sides of the highways. There are still about 100,000 people in the province looking for work. Why is the Ministry of Highways reversing its policy and going back to the use of herbicides along the provincial highways?

The last point that I would like to raise briefly with the minister relates to the fact that a number of students are hired to work on the Highways' ferries during the summertime. The complaints that I'm getting a-7e from people who are normally employed as auxiliaries on those ferries. They find that they're not being called in to work as of ten as they usually are, because students are, in fact, being employed. I don't object to student employment at all, Mr. Chairman, but the question really relates to the fact that students are being hired. The auxiliaries are not being hired as often as they normally are, but there are additional costs, because the students are quite often from areas outside of the area in which they are working and have to be housed at the various hotels or motels or lodges in the area in which they happen to be working.

Now surely, Mr. Chairman, the additional costs of moving students into an area in which they do not reside in order to get them on the student summer employment programme must be ta!-en into account when decisions are made to get students working on the ferries. The auxiliaries are being overlooked for a period of time, or at least not hired as frequently as they normally would be. I wonder if the minister would be willing to comment an those six or seven points?

MR. LOEWEN: Our biggest concern in Burnaby Edmonds happens to be transportation. We are tired in Burnaby-Edmonds of having our residential areas criss-crossed by highways, with the automobiles from New Westminster and from Surrey using our residential streets to commute to their jobs in downtown Vancouver. Mr. Chairman, to the minister, it is time that something is done in Burnaby and the lower mainland with respect to transportation. As I've said on numerous occasions, less is spent in our downtown area for transportation than anywhere else in the province of British Columbia. The word is coming loud and clear from my constituents that they will be most obstinate with respect to future transportation development unless they have an understanding of the overall objectives of the Ministry of Highways with respect to transportation.

I'm somewhat amused by some of the members getting up and rather hysterically speaking against one crossing and for another crossing, against and for rapid transit. In Burnaby Edmonds we're easy to get along with. All we're asking for is a simple, sound, overall transportation plan. We do not want all the resources of this government in one direction or the other. We are reasonable people. We simply want a sound policy. Yes, there are those who have proposed that we put up a fence on the New Westminster-Burnaby border and we say to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke): "Keep your people at home." There have been those who have suggested that we put a fence an the Fraser River and say keep the Surrey people at home. However, all we're asking for is a rational, sane, sensible, reasonable plan. We want the transportation off our residential streets. We want to get the people from New Westminster and Burnaby downtown to the downtown city of Vancouver as quickly as possible without interfering in our way of life.

One of the rumours, Mr. Chairman, has been that the Stormont Interchange, sometimes called the Newcombe Extension, is going to be

[ Page 2638 ]

built very shortly in Burnaby-Edmonds. If that is so, what I need as the member for Burnaby Edmonds is some assurance that in fact it will not simply again be the dissecting of a suburban residential area in the interest of the commuters from New Westminster and Surrey. I need to have some assurance that the residents who have paid good and fair dollars for their homes along Newcombe will be protected.

I don't know what the best plan is. However, there are those who have suggested that a subway be built. It is only three or four blocks from the corner of 10th and McBride to the George Darby property, and some have suggested that this connector be built underground. Well, maybe there's some good argument for that. However, the rumour has come to me that the Edmonds street connector will also be built connecting the Stormont Interchange. Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to know that I oppose the construction of the Edmonds Street connector without reservation. The suggestion has been made that the Edmonds Street connector, according to the preliminary design, would go smack through Burnaby Park. Mr. Chairman, this would once again not only dissect a very key residential area, but it would also dissect one of the major parks in my constituency. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the people in my riding just would not stand for the Edmonds connector going in. They need some assurance.

We also take a look at our freeway going through Burnaby. It is my suggestion that we have the only freeway in Canada which could be called a stop-and-go highway. On the freeway going through Burnaby, if you travel at all during rush hours, many a time at different intersections the traffic actually comes to a dead stop.

MR. GIBSON: It's the country's longest parking lot.

MR. LOEWEN: As the member on my right says, it's the country's longest parking lot -possibly the largest as well.

Mr. Chairman, as British Columbia is rapidly trying to scramble into the modern age, we do need some assurance in Burnaby that as traffic commutes from New Westminster and Surrey, somehow there will be an improvement in the facilities such as a freeway to hasten the traffic through Burnaby as quickly as possible, because we really do not want to have this traffic linger - in fact, stop and go -on our highway parking lot.

Mr. Chairman, I am encouraged by this government's passing of the Urban Transit Authority.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We have progressed from the passage of that bill to vote 141 in the Ministry of Highways and Public Works. Please address your remarks to that vote.

MR. LOEWEN: It also happens to be that the minister sits on the board of the Urban Transit Authority. Therefore I am encouraged that I believe there is a move to co-ordinate all attempts to encourage rapid transit and light rapid transit and improve our highways system. I am looking forward to the day when there will be a comprehensive plan so that I can go to my constituents and say that we do have a plan, so that the people, for instance, on Newcombe need not throw up their hands in exasperation and say: "What is this government doing?" We're looking forward to that plan. We have had many promises on Marine Way; many elections in Burnaby have been fought over the Marine Way. I would like to have some assurance from the minister that I could pass on to my constituents that the Marine Way, in fact, will be built; that it will not just be planned and replanned and planned again; that this government in fact can deliver its election promises and will, in fact, produce and build a Marine Way, as has been promised.

It appears to me that the opposition is willing to pass this vote quickly. Therefore I will hasten on with my last point. It has come to my attention that a very good place for.... As we are reorganizing different departments, it seem most illogical first of all that the legislative buildings should be in Victoria rather than the lower mainland. However, I believe a very good argument could be made to move the motor-vehicles branch into the lower mainland. I can think of no better place than Burnaby. I would concede that possibly with the riding of New Westminster being the centre of automobile activities, the savings to the taxpayer directly and indirectly would be enormous.

Let me ask you, Mr. Chairman: is the motor vehicles branch there to serve those working in the branch or is it there to serve the public? My suggestion to the minister would be to consider seriously the moving of the motor vehicles branch either to Burnaby or to New Westminster.

I would like to compliment the new Minister of Highways this afternoon, and I'm sure he will be able to answer all my questions.

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, let me say that the motor-vehicles branch has nothing to do with the Ministry of Highways and Public Works. Let me say that there is no considera-

[ Page 2639 ]

tion being given by the government of British Columbia to moving the motor-vehicles branch from Victoria to any other community.

He talked about Marine Way in Burnaby. I want to give him assurances that it will be built as soon as design and present soil testing is complete.

Stormont-Newcombe will be built after due consideration of the best possible design, probably with noise-preventing berms - soil humps. Consultation with the municipality and the residents will be undertaken.

There are no plans for the Edmonds connector.

Mr. Chairman, I was going to answer several questions posed to me by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) , but she is not here. Maybe I had better....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Will she read them, or is she just trying to put the questions on the record? I want to say that there's never been any constituency in British Columbia that has had a greater highway programme than the constituency of Comox in the last three years. This government recognizes the need for highway links, for transportation means, and for the promotion of tourist development in British Columbia, and that's why they've paid attention to each and every corner of this province, ensuring that there is a fair distribution of dollars and ensuring that highways are constructed to render access to these people. It just so happens that the highway from Sayward to Port Hardy has received a little more attention than other regions of the province. When the highway is completed this fall, there will have been $65 million spent on that highway between Sayward and Port Hardy.

The member talks about the four-laning of the Island Highway from Courtenay to Campbell River. The objective is to four-lane the existing highway, with some minor relocations. She mentioned Bowser, and Bowser will be a bypassed region. Several projects are presently under design with emphasis an future work in areas of highest traffic count.

Paving, Alert Bay. The details of the member's requests are presently under review by the ministry.

Alert Bay ferry. There are no immediate plans, but we hope to provide a larger vessel when it can be arranged.

Quadra Island ferry. The ministry proposed a larger ferry several years ago, but met with very strong objections by the residents of Quadra Island. More trips have been added to the small vessel, rather than putting on a larger vessel because of the tremendous outcry from the people of Quadra Island. It just clearly indicates the kind of reaction that this government has to the wishes of the people.

Courtenay Bridge, 17th Street. Tenders will be called in January, 1979.

Use of 2, 4-D. The ministry does no brush control with chemicals. Brush control is all done by cutting. The ministry does not use any chemical sprays which contain 2, 4-D.

The student employment programme is not being used to displace existing auxiliary employees, and the concerns that you have brought to our attention will be examined on the question of those employees.

MR. LLOYD: I'd like to compliment the acting minister, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, for his surprising capability with the Highways portfolio. In English or French, he's done very well. Before requesting specific information on some of the projects in my riding, I'd like to compliment the real minister (Hon. Mr. Fraser) for his enthusiastic and tireless leadership. I'm sure the minister has traveled the highways of the province from one corner to the other, by automobile, more than any previous minister we've ever had.

AN HON. MEMBER: And jet aircraft.

MR. LLOYD: Not by helicopter, like some of the other ministers. Certainly it's quite a comparison to the last Minister of Highways, the minister of potholes from Prince Rupert. His major emphasis was: "Go home, tourists -our highways are crowded. We can't afford to patch them up."

In any event, this minister has not only paid attention to the major highways, rebuilding them, widening them, paving them, but he's also put a great deal of attention on the rural road reconstruction and the recreational road rebuilding, and certainly my constituents really appreciate the emphasis in this particular area.

He's also cleaned up a lot of the amalgamation agreements very satisfactorily, particularly in the situation of Prince George. They really like sitting down and dealing with a very realistic minister and ministry. They really see quite a difference between this and trying to get something finalized under the last administration. Also, the future construction programme in Prince George - the arterial route, the bridges and overpass priorities - has been very well negotiated, and I think the city and the Highways minister

[ Page 2640 ]

have a very good idea of where we're going there.

However, one of the specific areas of my concern is the major reconstruction that's taking place an the first seven or eight miles of the Hart Highway to prepare for the fourlaning. There is some concern right now about the cost sharing on the storm sewer. The city has to pass a major money bylaw for their share of the construction of the storm sewer, so I think they are quite concerned about when this sharing agreement will be formally agreed to and they can proceed with their storm sewer installation so that the four-laning can go ahead next year.

I must say there has been a very impressive rebuilding programme on the Hart Highway in general, up the Parsnip River to McLeod Lake and in the Prince George area to Bear Lake. They're doing a rerouting past Summit Lake at the present time, and certainly the widening and paving is a real welcome change on that most dangerous highway that we have left in the province. However, there are a couple of major sections left yet - the section from Bear Lake up past Davie Lake, Kerry Lake and the adjoining section at McLeod Lake. I think a lot of the people at Mackenzie - and a lot of the freight haulers and the local residents - would like to know roughly when this entire stretch will be fully under contract and if there is any completion date that could be set at this time. I know it is a major job, and certainly they have been really attacking it.

One of the other priority projects I'd like to have some information on is the project you are working an at the east end of the CNR railway bridge at the airport hill. This is a project that requires co-ordination between the Highways ministry, the BCR and the CNR. It's one of the most dangerous areas we have left close to our city. It's a major route out of the city and certainly we are just waiting for a major accident on this particular stretch, when a runaway log truck or freight truck comes down and creams a whole bunch of cars or school buses sitting waiting for the traffic piled up. I know, again, the planning and the designing have been taking place on this, but we would like to have a firm commitment an when we can expect the actual construction and relief of this major problem.

Finally, I would like to get some information on the relocation and the construction of the Highways maintenance shop in Prince George. They're still using a shop that was built in the early 1920s. As it is the major centre for maintenance in that particular area, I think they would like to know when they can expect to get Into a proper shop.

They've been letting a. lot of their work out to the Vanderhoof and Quesnel shops, and I think they are really eager to see some movement along this particular area.

Again, I would like to stress that my riding does appreciate the major work that the Highways ministry has done in our area. They've really been taking care of a lot of the backlog that has piled up over the years.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm going to be very brief, Mr. Chairman. As you know, there are many hundreds of miles of roads, highways and byways in the riding, and we could spend the next two days on the whole thing.

First of all, I would like to express some appreciation to the ministry for a very recent project that didn't take place. There was almost a minor revolution up at Texada Island about two weeks ago, because Highways were going to use toxic chemicals to clean bush along the road. I did get in touch with the deputy, and he made this decision the very same day, and that project was stopped. They are going to hire somebody with an axe to go and clean off the Texada thistles by hand. That's the way Highways should be going.

However, I should say the minister made a remark that toxic chemicals will not be used by Highways and, while I know the ministry is reducing the use of toxic chemicals and hoping to phase out the programme over the next year or two, I do have a list of all the areas where these chemicals will be used. It's not as bad as it could be, but even if it's used in one location it's too much. Anyway, that's not what I'm here to talk about.

I was just in touch with people in Bella Coola this morning, and I want to tell you that Highway 20 is vastly improved. It's now only a five-hour drive from William Lake to Bella Coola on Highway 20. 1 grant you that most of that highway is in the Minister of Highways riding, but it does serve the Bella Coola valley and its much appreciated. However, while we were up in that part of my riding, I might mention to you, Mr. Chairman, that in Ocean Falls, which has approximately 1.5 miles of highway - that's all. They've got craters on that road that you can bury your truck in I kid you not. I hope that the minister and I know that he's got lots of good help there - perhaps can just very quickly tell me if they're going to do any work in that 1.5 mile road to Ocean Falls.

Mr. Chairman, once again I want to remind the people in the Ministry of Highways about a major highway programme. This is Highway 101 going up the Sunshine Coast through Powell River. Under an NDP government there was a

[ Page 2641 ]

rational amount of highway improvement taking place every year on that major highway. But under the Social Credit government there has not been one foot of upgrading of that highway done. From Half Moon Bay north about 28 miles to Earls Cove, I would suggest that the ministry seriously consider going into a rational programme. I'm not asking for 28 miles of highway next year. We can do three to five miles every year, a reasonable amount of work, and serve the needs of the people in that area.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister as well if perhaps his deputy can help him with this - if I have your attention. This is the proposed grid system of road and sidewalk improvement for the Sunshine Coast area. At one time it was a five-year plan; I understand now it's a 25-year plan. I would like to ask the minister if perhaps we can just speed that whole proposal of a proper grid system on the Gibsons-Sechelt-Sunshine Coast area up a little bit. Twenty-five years is a little long, you know. Some of us probably couldn't live that long.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Hurry up yourself.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Okay, just hang on.

While we're discussing Highway 101, there's one very bad area in the Powell River area along Marine Drive, which is part of Highway 101. It's sort of falling into the ocean. I know it's a major job and I know that the ministry is having continuing discussions with the municipality on this section of highway, but perhaps the minister could let me know what the status of those discussions is at the moment.

This is kind of important, Mr. Chairman. It doesn't affect too many people, but I think it's important. I just received this letter on May 25, signed by the minister. I'll explain the situation very briefly if I can. On the Sliammon Indian reserve, there are approximately 50 leaseholders - people who lease property and have built homes on Indian reserve property. These people pay taxes.

The Indian band itself does not have the equipment to upgrade this particular piece of road. It's called Klahanie Drive. But the Indian band had approached the Ministry of Highways with a view to using and borrowing the equipment. They would supply the people, they would supply materials. All this is very routine; I won't get into the whole thing.

The local Ministry of Highways people, by the way, were quite willing to take part in this joint venture with the Indian band. However, I received a letter approximately a week ago where the minister says he is afraid of setting a precedent by doing some work with an Indian band on an Indian reserve. Mr. Minister, I think that is quite the wrong approach to take. I think the Ministry of Highways should be working closely with Indian bands all over this province, not only in my own riding.

I just thought I'd point this out to you. I know that my raising this matter in the Legislature won't change your policy. But I might as well tell you right now that should we form a government again, we're going to change that policy because that's not a good policy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. You are aware that's out of order.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, I wasn't, frankly, but if you say so.

I want to ask the minister one other question. I do have correspondence and I won't go into the whole thing again. I know other people want to speak.

I would like to ask the minister what the policy is on snow clearing. I will tell you why I ask this question. There were a lot of cases this last winter, because of a very heavy snowfall. There was one very severe case on Texada Island where people were snowbound for three days or something in that time frame. They approached the Ministry of Highways, and I know they were busy attempting to keep the main roads clear. But there was a local logging operator in the area who had offered to rent his equipment and would have cleared the road out so these people could get out. The Ministry of Highways said no, they had no money to rent equipment or hire people who were not with the ministry. So I would like to know what the policy is on snow removal and emergency situations when highway equipment is not available.

As it turned out, another logger in the area got his machinery going and they got these people out. But the fact is that I would be seriously interested in knowing what your policy is.

Just to switch the topic very quickly, Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about Highways-operated ferries for just a moment. I want to know, for example, if the ministry has any plans to build a new vessel for the Powell River-Comox route. You shake your head. There are no plans?

The old Sechelt Queen now presently serving on that route is a pretty good vessel. It has quite a good capacity. But it's only got about three years of life left in it and if you don't start making plans now, you know what's

[ Page 2642 ]

going to happen. We're going to end up with the old Sechelt Queen sinking, or whatever happens to old boats, off the Panama Canal or whatever.

While we're discussing that particular vessel, I would like to tell you the food on that vessel.... It's an hour and 20 minute run on that particular route. You've got a few machines with stale food. I want to tell you I ride that vessel all the time and the complaints I hear, not only from the regular users and residents but from the tourists, you wouldn't believe. By the simple act of hiring one more person on each shift, I am told, we could have proper hot food. The stoves are there, the tables are there, everything is set up for a proper galley on that vessel. And yet you've got these 10 machines that serve outdated month-old sandwiches and buns. Nobody patronizes them unless they're starving to death anyway. So perhaps the ministry should be looking into that aspect - I have a number of other questions here but I know we have a lot of people who want to speak.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'll answer some of the questions that have been put to me here. First of all the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) asked about the Highways maintenance facility in his constituency. There is a new Highways maintenance building recently leased in Prince George. It will be in operation very shortly, if not right now.

The Hart Highway storm sewer project: in the last two days the ministry has written to the city of Prince George asking for their proposed schedule of construction. The Hart Highway is expected to be completed within five years.

The east end of the the Fraser River bridge is being planned, but it is a most expensive project and no firm commitment can be made at this time.

The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) talked about spraying and weed control. The Ministry of Highways mailed to him personally a copy of a three-page press release, which was issued on June 13,1978, clearly outlining the programme for spraying and weed control in the year 1978.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That wasn't the question, Mr. Minister. You made the statement that there was no spraying, and that's not true.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I'm saying that there will be no spraying of weeds in which the spray contains any 2, 4-D.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: There are at least two dozen other types of toxic chemicals, Mr. Minister. Surely you understand that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: This was in response to the concern that has been expressed regarding 2, 4-D. Highway 101 on the Secret Cove to Madeira section: a $3-million project is contemplated not for this year but...

MR. LOCKSTEAD: After the next election?

HON. MR. CHABOT: ... maybe next year or the year after that.

The member brings up the need for maintenance of roads on Indian reserve leases. It is a requirement of a band to maintain these roads in return for the lease rentals which they receive from these leases. Those roads aren't public roads and the Ministry of Highways has no jurisdiction off public roads.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: They pay taxes.

HON. MR. CHABOT: There are a lot of people who pay taxes who don't have public roads, my friend - in case you don't know it.

The member brings up the question of the Comox-Powell River ferry....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Ocean Falls.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, the Comox-Powell River ferry here....

Ocean Falls paving - the ministry will look into that. That's a public road you're talking about; that isn't the old Bob William dream up there in Ocean Falls, is it? Is that a public road or the Bob Williams dream?

AN HON. MEMBER: We're talking about the Martin Valley Road, a mile and a half.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's a public road? Okay, we'll look into the question you posed on that. The ferry food that you've so castigated is regularly checked.

AN HON. MEMBER: By whom?

HON. MR. CHABOT: By whom? Who do you think checks food in this province - the Minister of Highways or something? The Health ministry.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I earlier brought up the problem of two very dangerous areas in the Nelson-Creston riding, both in

[ Page 2643 ]

the Creston highways district; one is Littlejohn's Corner. I'd like to read for the minister some information which was supplied to me by the RCMP and it indicates the frequency and the estimate of damage which has been incurred at this particular intersection. It indicates also the injuries and the deaths over a short period from December, 1974: Miller & Brown Transport incurred $35,000 damage. Two days later Smith Transport incurred $40,000 damage and injury to the driver. I assume it was a couple of cars in the next accident in January, 1975 - $5,000 damage, with minor injuries. In April, 1975, V. Fair Trucking -$20,000 damage; a truck in June, 1975 -$45,000 damage.

Then in September, another lumber truck, $45,000 damage; in June, 1976, a traffic fatality and $3,000 damage; in November, 1976, property damage of $4,000, and another one of $1,500; and in May, 1977, another transport truck, $5,000-damage.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Do you want me to move the committee rise?

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, then don't be surprised if I do.

Mr. Chairman, some members in this House seem to feel that there's some kind of a time limit an the demands of the people in their duty. I should think that if they seek office they should be here to serve and not concerned about getting out of here by July 1.

Mr. Chairman, in May, 1977, as I said, another transport truck, and in the month of December, another property damage of $6,000, with one injury. In February, 1978, there was another truck and, three days later, another truck with $15,000 damage and injury to the driver. That adds up to $225,000 property damage, one fatality and four other injuries on that one intersection from the month of December until this memorandum was prepared in March, 1978.

So over a rather relatively short period of time, almost a quarter of a million dollars.... Certainly it would be a quarter of a million dollars because these were estimates made by the RCMP at the scene of the accident. Normally the actual traffic claims run much higher than a quarter of a million dollars. It's a very short piece of road which, I believe, was allowed to take a very abnormal direction. As I pointed out to the minister earlier today, last winter I saw an accident involving a school bus. If the school bus had gone over, we might very well have had one of the major tragedies in British Columbia. As the minister will notice, more than half of these accidents involve large equipment. Certainly a school bus would be very hard to manoeuvre over this area. I would also point out that at the Black Bridge there have been four injuries in one incident, four in another, and one injury in another, making nine injuries in that same time period. There has been only $20,000 in property damage, but there has been a continued accumulation. The ministry is improving the highway access leading up to the Black Bridge. If the Black Bridge itself is not replaced, I think that the improvements to the highway will prove to be a detriment and could well lead to traffic fatalities at that intersection as well.

I notice that the minister has been very well briefed. The ministry is to be congratulated for having come into estimates and taking things very seriously as they always do and making every effort to have answers at hand to questions. Before these estimates close, I would appreciate hearing of some commitment from the minister on this. Also, I believe it's the Erie Creek bridge at the old Rotter Mill on Highway 3, just south of Salmo, which burned in 1974 - the Bailey bridges have still not been replaced. I would like to know when improvements will be scheduled for there.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The question of Littlejohn's Corner is one which is a very difficult one because of the difficulties posed in the realignment of the highway there. The ministry recognizes that it is quite a sharp curve, but in spite of the sharpness of the curve, it is well signed and there are guardrails along that area. In fact, the ministry gives special attention to sanding in the winter months to minimize the kinds of dangers that exist by that sharp curve at Littlejohn's Corner.

I'm told that the area bridge plans are all ready and hopefully something will take place in the next few months.

MRS. WALLACE: I have just a couple of brief comments an which I would like a response from the minister or the acting minister. I would like to add my congratulations to the job he's doing. It's not an easy task and he seem to be coping very well. I've had some correspondence with the ministry relative to the threelane section an the Malahat.

The ministry, in its wisdom, has decided to double-line all the three-lane section. Now I'm not going to get into the merits of my suggestion versus their suggestion, but I

[ Page 2644 ]

would like to point out to the ministry that it is not a complete solution, because I drive that area three and four times a week. As I had indicated earlier, people who disregard the no-passing signs also disregard double yellow lines in that instance. It is happening. We're having people passing on double yellow lines in spite of the fact that you have done that. You have completed that now and it's something that you could perhaps work with the Attorney-General on in some way to ensure that the law is obeyed. Because, in fact, it wasn't obeyed when it was "no passing when uphill traffic approaching" and its not being obeyed now that you have double-lined it all the way. So the problem is still occurring. Perhaps its not occurring quite as often, but we're still not out of the woods as far as accidents on the Malahat go.

The other point that I wanted to raise, one that concerns me very gravely - and its one I raised here before - is the Crofton road from the highway into the Crofton mill and the public wharf there. This, as the minister may or may not be aware - but I know that his staff will be aware - is a very winding, narrow, crooked road with a terrific amount of traffic. We have the chip trucks going in and out - We have lumber coming in and out. It's one of the most heavily traveled roads any where on the Island and it is in very poor condition.

When I contacted officials in the ministry, I was advised that the reason it couldn't go ahead was that it went through Indian lands and the Indian people were not prepared to make the land available. However, enquiries subsequent to that indicate that the native Indians are prepared to do a swap. The municipality has land that they are prepared to sell. The price seemed fairly reasonable. I'm concerned that the provincial government is hiding behind this native Indian thing when there is land available there and the municipality is prepared to move.

Really, Mr. Minister, if we don't have something done on that road, we're going to be in for more of the kind of accidents we had where four young people were killed in one car accident. We've had a lot of fatalities on that road. It also serves the Crofton community, and you couple that community in there, which is a growing community, with the major truck traffic on that road - its winding, curving, hilly nature - and it's a setup for future fatalities. The longer it goes, the more fatalities are going to be on the head of that minister.

Inasmuch as there apparently is a way to move, I would hope that the minister can assure me and the residents of my constituency that we will be going on that and very shortly.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, on the Crofton road, the ministry is dealing with the Indian band at this time. They have just authorized an impact study with the band and this impact study will take into consideration the swath which you brought to our attention.

The three-lane sections an the Malahat: there will be more shoulder paving and more shoulder lining, and hopefully that will improve the situation.

Vote 141 approved.

Vote 142: general administration - highways, $5,115, 924 - approved.

Vote 143: highway maintenance, $153,925, 075 - approved.

Vote 144: highway construction - capital, $157,258, 637 - approved.

Vote 145: Hydro development - highways, $11,750, 000 - approved.

Vote 146: safety engineering division, $5,837, 073 - approved.

Vote 147: Glendale laundry, $1,718, 735 -approved.

Vote 148: government-owned residences maintenance, $186,000 - approved.

Vote 149: employees' salaries and benefits, $4,120, 000 - approved.

Vote 150: building occupancy charges, $15,523, 267 - approved.

Vote 151: computer and consulting charges, $1,751, 500 - approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy files answers to questions 42 and 24. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

[ Page 2645 ]

APPENDIX

42 Mr. Gibson asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry tho following questions:

1. What is the advertising budget of the Western Canada Lottery Foundation (Western Express) and the Provincial Lottery Corporation (the Provincial) ?
2. What percentage of this advertising budget is spent in British Columbia?

The Hon. Grace McCarthy replied as follows:

1. " Western Canada Lottery Foundation, $1,435, 438, and Inter-Provincial Lottery Corporation, $1,046, 641.
2. " Western Canada Lottery Foundation, 39.6 per cent, and Inter-Provincial Lottery Corporation, 36.7 per cnt.-

24 Mrs. Dailly asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry the following questions:

With reference to the "smile" campaign, announced by the Minister-

1. What is the cost of this program to date?
2. What is the name, the amount paid, and the service rendered by each company or individual receiving payment under this program

The Hon. Grace McCarthy replied as follows:

1. " The cost is $1 35000.
2. " Name of the company, Ronalds-Reynolds & Co. Ltd. amount paid, $135,000; and services rendered, public relations, advertising, distribution, and acquisition of all materials."