[ Page 3191 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents.

British Columbia Assessment Authority annual report, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3191

Oral Questions.

Emergency Facilities at Vancouver General Hospital. Mr. Cocke –– 3191

Mr. Lauk –– 3191

Open-heart surgery. Mr. Cocke –– 3192

Extended-care beds. Mrs. Dailly –– 3192

Resource Revenues. Mr. Stupich –– 3192

B.C. Research Council. Mr. Lauk –– 3193

Matter of Privilege

Alleged bias on the part of Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3194

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Deterioration of health services in British Columbia.

Mr. Cocke –– 3194

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates (Hon.

Mr. Fraser).

On vote 193: minister's office –– 3195

Mr. Lockstead

Mrs. Wallace

Division on the motion that the Chairman leave the chair –– 3198

Mr. Hall

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Lea

Division on the motion that the committee rise –– 3205

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Mair

Mr. King

Motion to adjourn.

Mr. Lauk –– 3215

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 3215

Mr. Howard –– 3216

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 3218

Mr. Lea –– –– 3218

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 3219

Mr. Lockstead –– 3220

Mr. Mussallem –– 3220

Mr. Hyndman –– 3220

Division on the motion to adjourn –– 3221

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Deterioration of health services in British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker rules –– 3221

TUESDAY, JULY 8, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are two constituents and friends of mine from the town of Ashcroft in Yale-Lillooet constituency. They are George Nameth and his wife Betty. Betty is also the president of the Yale-Lillooet Social Credit constituency association. I ask the House to please welcome them.

MR. LEA: I ask the House to join with me today in welcoming two visitors from Edmonton, Alberta. Sitting in the gallery are the father and mother of the chief researcher for the NDP caucus, Mr. and Mrs. Milton McInnes. I would like to mention to the House that this game of politics is no stranger to Mr. McInnes. A week ago Friday he retired as a school teacher, after 30 years with the Edmonton school board. I would like to ask you to join with me in welcoming our guests from Alberta to the gallery today.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) I would like the House to extend a welcome to Mr. and Mrs. Roy Hunt, who are having a holiday in Victoria and visiting us today.

MR. D'ARCY: With us today from the garden village of Warfield are Ken and Gail Fines. I'd like the House to welcome them. I'd also like to mention that we have a long-time member of the House in the gallery, representing Omineca and latterly Skeena, Cyril Shelford.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have two introductions to make today. I would like the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. José Luis Perez Sanchez, who are here from Ottawa en route to their homeland of Spain. They have served as trade counsellors for the embassy of Spain in Ottawa. I would like the House to welcome them to our House today and wish them a very happy return to their homeland and a return back to British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, we have visitors from your constituency of Delta today, from Ladner. I would like the House to welcome Miss Megan Garr and Miss Sarah Garr, who are here with their grandmother from Sooke, Mrs. Virginia Kehoe. Of course members of the House will know these two young ladies as the daughters of Allen Garr, one of our outstanding journalists in British Columbia. Please welcome them.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker. behind you in your gallery today are the board. the executive director and members of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, who were in the precinct this morning. I'd ask the House to recognize them.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and myself I'd like to welcome to the House an old colleague and an old member of this House, Ernie LeCours. He came into the House with me in 1963, and the only difference is I've stayed a little longer than he did. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming him.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, included with members of the board of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind are Mr. Russell Fraser, chairman of the Board of Parks and Recreation of Vancouver, who is with us in the gallery, as well as Mr. Okven Dolan, chairman of the board of the CNIB, and Mr. Joseph Caruk, executive director of that organization.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today we have representatives from the Liard–Peace River Regional District and the Farmers' Institute of Fort Nelson. I'd like the House to recognize Mr. Jack Haan, Charlene Eggers, Mary Eaton, Andy Bailey, Jeremy Sellors, and, I believe, his son J.J. Sellors. I'd like the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are still three people who haven't been introduced yet, and I'd like to introduce one of them: Dr. Kwan, who is in the gallery, a formerly prominent psychiatrist in Hong Kong and a resident of British Columbia for a number of years. I'd like the House to make him welcome.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the British Columbia Assessment Authority annual report for 1979, including a financial statement, and filed under the requirements of section 17, clauses (a) and (b), of the Assessment Authority Act.

Oral Questions

EMERGENCY FACILITIES
AT VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question to the Minister of Health. The situation in the emergency department at the Vancouver General Hospital remains critical. Yesterday the minister told the House that he had asked for a report from his staff. Can the minister now tell the House what action he has taken to ensure that Vancouver residents get treatment in emergency situations?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, my staff have been in touch with the authorities at Vancouver General Hospital, and are assessing the situation so that a full report can be made to me. When I receive that report, as I indicated and undertook yesterday, I will bring its contents back to the House.

MR. LAUK: I have a supplementary to the same minister. In 1975 the New Democratic Party administration authorized construction of a new emergency facility on the old King Edward School site. The current administration has delayed construction and instead built the Pat McGeer memorial hospital out at UBC. Can the minister now tell the House when the new emergency facility will be operational, so that further closures at VGH will not be foreseen?

HON. MR. MAIR: Without admitting any accuracy at all to any of the preamble to that question, because I think the question is couched in inaccuracies, I certainly will nevertheless take the specific question as notice and bring back the answer.

[ Page 3192 ]

OPEN-HEART SURGERY

MR. COCKE: I have a new question to the Minister of Health. Open-heart surgery at VGH has been cut back by nearly 50 percent, particularly for some teams. One team that was performing 15 operations a week is now performing eight or less. What action has the minister taken to ensure that British Columbians who require open-heart surgery can get it promptly?

HON. MR. MAIR: Once again, without admitting the accuracy of any of the statements making up the preamble to that question, I will take the question as notice and report back to the House.

MRS. DAILLY: My question is to the Minister of Health. In St. Paul's Hospital there are a number of people who are waiting....

AN HON. MEMBER: They're ganging up on you, Rafe!

AN HON. MEMBER: Boy! Are you all sick today?

EXTENDED-CARE BEDS

MRS. DAILLY: Well, I can assure the minister it's no joke for the people who can't get in the hospital.

At St. Paul's Hospital there are a number of people who are awaiting admission for serious surgery and cannot get in, particularly in the orthopedic ward, where people are holding up beds simply because there are no other extended-care and intermediate facilities. available for them. Can the minister tell us what he is doing to alleviate what I consider to be an emergency situation for these very sick people?

HON. MR. MAIR: Again, I will take the question as notice and bring back details of that particular situation to the House. I will say that we are continuing the building of extended-care and long-term care facilities at the rate of about 1,000 beds a year. While I have stated before in this House that we can't expect to alleviate the situation immediately, the program was such that we had a far greater demand for its services, if I may say so, than we had anticipated. Nevertheless we recognize our obligations. We will continue to build long-term beds as fast as we can and continue to try to alleviate the situation. However, I will bring back a specific answer.

RESOURCE REVENUES

MR. STUPICH: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister confirm that revenues from BCPC are now estimated to be down some $300 million from the forecast tabled in this House on March 11?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm unable to confirm or deny that at this particular point in time. I would remind the hon. member for Nanaimo that this government introduced, under my predecessor in this portfolio, a quarterly reporting system. Close to the end of this month we shall have a report on the financial health of the province of British Columbia. The information will then be available to members of this House and for all interested members of the public.

MR. STUPICH: I appreciate the advice that information will be coming at some future date, but I'm simply asking whether certain information is available today. I thought the minister would have some estimate as to just what the shortfall is in BCPC revenues at this point in time.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to assist the hon. member today.

MR. STUPICH: I have another question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of Finance confirm that BCPC sales are now down to half the level of the sales of last year, measured on a daily basis?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think that the two answers which I have given the member — one general and one specific — would apply in answering this particular question. The information will be available, not at some future date, but indeed before the end of this month, on a quarterly reporting basis.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly looking forward to the elaboration in the quarterly report, because certainly previously such quarterly reports have never indicated the daily sales of natural gas.

However, on another question, can the Minister of Finance advise whether stumpage revenues are down, not by any specific amount, but down from the level predicted in estimates?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I am not able to answer precisely, but I must say that in discussions this morning I found the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) to be very optimistic about the health of the forest industry in British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: Is that why he is not here?

HON. MR. CURTIS: We not only answer questions, but we attempt to give direction as well; he is over there.

MR. BARRETT: Is that the Minister of Forests?

HON. MR. BENNETT: You don't know anything, do you?

MR. BARRETT: I didn't know that, my friend.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I believe everyone in the House is pleased that the state of the forest industry is healthy right now, but my question was: are the revenue estimates in line with the budget presented on March 11, or does the Minister of Finance at this time know whether they are higher or lower? What is his current estimate of the revenue estimates? I did not ask whether the industry is healthy but about government's revenue estimates. Are they up or down, compared to the figures presented in the House on March 11?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, there may be some variation.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, we are making some headway. "There may be some variation." This is from a govern-

[ Page 3193 ]

ment that keeps people informed. Can the Minister of Finance hazard a guess as to which of those two alternatives we might expect? Will the revenues be up, or will they be down?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, if one takes this to its conclusion, the member could ask a question every day that the House sits with respect to the finances of the province of British Columbia and its components for that day. This government was the first government in British Columbia to introduce quarterly reporting.

Mr. Speaker, we have within a very few weeks then....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That party, when it was government, didn't bother to inform the people on a quarterly basis. It ran to an election when the news was bad.

Mr. Speaker, the answer will be coming very soon and I will assist the member, and all members of the House, at that time. I suggest that this government does not want to operate its finances on guesses, and I was asked for a guess by that member who was the Minister of Finance.

MR. STUPICH: I shall continue to try to get some information from the minister. I asked him for estimates, but he prefers to use the word "guess," and he prefers not even to make a guess.

I started out asking for estimates, and this question would not have arisen had the minister not previously chosen to comment on questions about revenue forecasts and about steps that he might take before the end of June to deal with what was a situation of concern to him.

The public is aware of the questions that have been asked, and is aware that the minister is aware that something has gone wrong, and is aware that the minister is considering some action. I think the public deserves some answers now, rather than sometime in the future.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that the member was not in the country when I made the statement. I think a number of people understand that this government has the capacity to move as situations dictate, and that is precisely what is happening. What will be the case a month from now, or five months from now, no one in this room knows.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Just one question at a time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that I have identified for the people of British Columbia, to the extent that I was able at the time, some areas of concern to the government of British Columbia. They will be reported on in full detail when the quarterly report is released.

B.C. RESEARCH COUNCIL

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. Can the minister confirm that a Mr. Allan Mode is the new executive director of the B.C. Research Council?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Can the minister confirm that Mr. Allan Mode is a nuclear researcher from Livermore, California?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Could the minister indicate Mr. Mode's scientific background and qualifications for that job?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'd be happy to provide those, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Can the minister advise why a nuclear researcher was selected, particularly from the Lawrence Laboratory, which has a reputation for nuclear weapons research?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm afraid, as usual, the member is all mixed up.

MR. LAUK: Can the minister advise whether Mr. Mode's appointment signifies a shift in the Research Council's priorities towards nuclear research?

HON. MR. McGEER: I can assure the member that, as usual, he's all mixed up and all wrong.

MR. LAUK: Well, straighten us out then.

HON. MR. McGEER: Apart from that, the member should know that the B.C. Research Council is an independent foundation under the Societies Act. That's not one of their objectives — in the past, the present or the future.

MR. LAUK: The minister is the chairman of the board of the B.C. Research Council, is he not? Just nod your head.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: If the minister wishes to spread the blame, that's fine.

First of all, we know that the Lawrence Laboratory in Livermore has defence contracts to investigate nuclear research, and that Allan Mode is a significant scientist involved there. Does the minister deny those facts?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Can the minister help us in this regard? Can the minister advise why a U.S. national was chosen for this important post when qualified Canadian scientists are available?

HON. MR. McGEER: I will endeavour to get that information, but the board of the B.C. Research Council, which is an independent foundation, made the choice. I would be happy to try to get the information for the member, but he could gain that information himself if he were to seek it directly.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, on behalf of the member for Vancouver Centre I would ask leave to have this question period continue, providing the member will continue with this line of questioning.

[ Page 3194 ]

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. MAIR: I rise on a question of privilege. Owing to the unusual nature of the matter, I wish to give notice of my intention to raise this question of privilege at a later time. I think a brief statement of the facts will indicate to Your Honour why this unusual request is made.

On Monday, July 7, on the BCTV 11 p. m. news. Mr. Harvey Oberfeld did a news story concerning Mr. Speaker which contained filmed statements from the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). These statements both implied and alleged bias on the part of Mr. Speaker. As soon as I was able to, that is today, I instructed my office to demand tapes and transcripts of this newscast from BCTV news.

I raise this notice now so as to bring my concern to this House and to Your Honour at the earliest opportunity and to advise Your Honour that I will formally raise the question of privilege along with the supporting evidence as soon as I am able to do so after its receipt. I might say that I have now received a report that Mr. Peters of BCTV is actively considering whether or not he will release the tape. The newscast was last night, July 7, and I am raising this today at the earliest possible time.

Of course, Mr. Speaker is not anybody's Speaker within this House; he is the Speaker for the whole House. Because of the difficulty I have in obtaining the necessary evidence to raise the question of privilege and offer the House's protection to Mr. Speaker, I make this unusual step of giving notice of my intention to raise the question of privilege.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, under what order does a member rise to give notice that he intends to rise at a future date on a motion of privilege?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition raises a good point, one with which I must confess at this moment I am not personally familiar. In past cases I have undertaken, and will again in this instance, to endeavour to come back to the House with an informed decision at the earliest opportunity. The point raised by the Leader of the Opposition will be considered by the Chair.

HON. MR. MAIR: On the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition, may I just say that I find myself, and of course the House finds itself, in this position: that in order to raise a question of privilege one must have evidence. The evidence, as I am advising the hon. members, is not available to me. Rather than....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. member, before recognizing the Leader of the Opposition I must caution members at this point that to engage in what is apparent to the Chair to be a debate rather than a point of order would be very much out of order. Nonetheless, the points made by the Minister of Health will also be considered. I must say at this time that it would be most improper to continue further debate on the subject.

HON. MR. MAIR: I have no desire to debate whatever. Perhaps I can seek the Chair's guidance. Presuming that I have advised the House at this point of my intention....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will assure the member that the House is fully cognizant of the intention and statements of the minister. The matter will be considered in that vein.

HON. MR. MAIR: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the point I wish to clarify I did not have an opportunity to raise. Am I prejudiced in a future motion if I do not raise it now, knowing of the circumstances but being unable to produce the evidence?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is most improper to address questions to the Chair at any time. The matter is taken by the Chair and will be considered, and a report will be brought back on that specific matter. I must ask that the debate be concluded at this point.

HON. MR. MAIR: Perhaps Mr. Speaker will consider the concern I just raised.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker has instructed this House that when members stand on a point of order they are to refer to the standing orders. That has not been the procedure so far, and I want the House to be reminded of that.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House pursuant to standing order 35 to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. The matter of urgent public importance is the deterioration of health care services in the province of British Columbia. In 1975 the NDP government had a new emergency ward plan for Vancouver General Hospital, which would have increased their capacity to handle emergency cases. This facility still has not been completed by the Social Credit government despite the fact that they have been able to plan and complete a new teaching hospital at UBC since then. In light of the fact that the hospital administrators are now being forced to shut down the emergency section of the hospital because they can't safely cope with further admissions, the government must take immediate action to rectify the crisis situation.

Secondly, the Vancouver General Hospital has been obliged to close 200 beds for lack of staff, because of a lack of government priority for health care.

Thirdly, open-heart surgery at the Vancouver General Hospital has been cut back as much as 50 percent. On a weekly basis, the one Vancouver VGH heart surgery team has a capacity to do 15 operations and is now down to performing seven to eight operations a week.

Fourthly, the Health minister (Hon. Mr. Mair) has made statements blaming the former NDP government for not providing sufficient funds for ambulances and the paramedic program. We introduced that program in July 1974 and we built it up over the next one and one-half years. The Social Credit government has been in power for four and one-half years and they've done nothing to carry on the program that we started.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Immediately on being elected in 1975....

[ Page 3195 ]

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, there is a point at which a motion under standing order 35 ceases to become other than a speech. The member is asked to explain briefly what the intent of the motion is and then, as the member is fully aware, submit the full document to the table. At the point the member is now, I must advise that we are approaching a speech and a full debate rather than a brief submission of the points that the member wishes to raise. Would the member now continue and come to a conclusion?

(Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll conclude by saying that they're understaffed in the emergency health services. I will send this document to you and I ask that the emergency debate be considered at this time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. As has been the practice of the Chair, the matter will be reserved and a decision will be brought back to the House without prejudicing the member's position.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)

On vote 193: minister's office, $212,089.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I was just checking one final little note. It may, in the long run, bring down the government today, but I'm not quite sure about that at the present time. Mr. Chairman, this debate has been going on for some time. I and my colleagues have a number of issues to raise with the minister and the government relating to transportation and highways in the province.

At this time I wish to introduce a new element that comes under the jurisdiction and within the administrative authority of this minister and probably this vote, as Minister of Transportation and Highways. As everybody in this province is aware, we generally export raw materials and goods from this province at quite a great rate, and yet, Mr. Chairman — and I'm going to prove it by the statements I'm about to make, by introducing a certain number of facts and figures later on in this discussion.... The point and the questions and the topic I wish to discuss this afternoon with the minister relate to the lack of a merchant marine and water transportation in this province.

Now, Mr. Chairman, before you reach for your mike, I would like to remind you that I have checked Beauchesne, I have checked May, I have checked standing orders and I have checked with other people in this House, and I find that this debate under this minister's estimate is perfectly in order. If perhaps the fine gentleman to your left would do a bit of research, he could get the correct pages in May and Beauchesne for you; but I'm sure he has them off the top of his head.

In any event, back to the topic. What we are discussing here this afternoon is the lack of a merchant marine in the province of British Columbia, and, in fact, this nation of Canada of which we are all a part. I am demanding today that this provincial government embark upon a positive course of action promoting development of a domestic merchant marine under the Canadian flag. During debate of the Transportation ministry estimates in the Legislature, he said the cabinet should reverse its present negative and weak-kneed approach on this matter. In fact, that cabinet and that government, Mr. Chairman. In my view, have been weak-kneed in this whole...have not even discussed it, have not even made a serious issue of this matter when they have engaged in federal-provincial conferences in Ottawa. I've seen nothing come out of that ministry and government in this regard.

I hope the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is paying attention. Well, he isn't, as a matter of fact; but I hope he'll at least read Hansard. Perhaps his secretary could read Hansard and she could give, him the highlights, because this does involve federal-provincial relations as well as world-wide trade on the part of Canada and particularly British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I'm demanding that this government consider the operation of a British Columbia-based merchant marine fleet by a very simple policy change. I'm proposing that, due to the fact that in this province we export large tonnages of coal, lumber, fish, rock resources in general, resources of all kinds — usually unfinished products, because, generally speaking, this government has not embarked upon a policy of processing our products in this province — where agreements are signed with off-shore customers, what we should be doing, in my view and in the view of my colleagues and my party, is that we should, when we sign those contracts, ensure that a certain percentage of the product and goods that we sell and send from British Columbia should be sent on Canadian ships manned by Canadians and built by Canadians in Canadian shipyards.

I might point out in passing, Mr. Chairman, that the unemployment rate in the shipbuilding industry in this province, while it's not the worst it's ever been, as of this morning stood at about 39 percent. Are you aware, Mr. Chairman. that on the coast of this province we have some of the most highly trained, highly qualified people in all of the world — in terms of mariners, from the master mariners right down to the seamen? We have the technical capability of constructing vessels in this province. The shipyards generally, anywhere, are only working, depending on the time of the year, at between 40 and 60 percent capacity at any one given time.

Yet what has this government done about it? Has this minister raised his voice in Ottawa or in cabinet? No, sir, not that I'm aware of. I haven't heard anything about it. I have a lot of reports from our federal members of all parties. I have extensive correspondence from people engaged in the shipbuilding industry, from the people who man our vessels and from the union, the Canadian Merchant Service Guild, and from many other organizations. But I've heard not one word from that government over there. They've been negligent in their duties and responsibilities to the people of this province and this nation, in my view. As I stated, this policy could be used to create work for British Columbia shipyards and seafaring crews if only we had a government that took an interest.

There's another tack, Mr. Chairman, and that is that we

[ Page 3196 ]

don't have to say, when we're signing a contract — for instance, I'll just say it's with Japan on a coal transaction.... We are shipping large amounts of coal from the southeast sector of this province. Someday in the future, presumably, if we ever reach $138-per-tonne coal, we'll be shipping coal from the northeast sector as well. I'm not saying the signed contract should say that 40 percent, or whatever the percentage may be, must be shipped in Canadian bottoms. What I'm suggesting is that where we sign a contract with a foreign firm — in this case we're discussing coal — we say: "Look, the royalties.... We'll give you just a little better deal on the price of that product." Just to pick a price of a product out of the air, let's say it's $85 a tonne. If that resource is shipped on a flag of convenience from a foreign nation, charge the full $85 per tonne. However, if the government agrees, we could say: "Look, we'll give you that product for $83 a tonne, providing you utilize Canadian vessels, manned by Canadian crews and built in Canadian shipyards." That's one positive suggestion I'm putting forward from this very responsible and positive opposition.

I wish to carry on. Let me spend a bit of time on this — not the afternoon, but a bit of time, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you seemed to have some trepidation at the start. The debate you're offering is quite in order under the estimates before us. The only comment I would make to you, though, is that it would be more in order under vote 204, transportation policy. The Chair will consider that vote well canvassed when we come to vote 204.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: If I may, just for your edification, I would remind you that it has been the practice in this House for the last 3,000 years — or is it 113 years? — that we generally discuss the overall items we wish to raise in this Legislature under the salary vote of the minister. There is a quiet agreement in this Legislature that we don't recanvass the same material under the various votes. We don't want to be here till Christmas, you know, or New Year's or whatever. The fact is, I can tell you and give you my word as an honourable gentleman of this House, that I will not recanvass the same material. I'm perfectly in line with the custom of this Legislature. Thank you for your very good advice, Mr. Chairman.

Anyway, to carry on, I think this would be an appropriate time, because we are a constructive opposition.... If the government members would listen to us, they would be in much finer political shape in this province today. It is appropriate for me to put forward a few suggestions at this time which embody the recommendations and the feeling of the people in my party. We in our party do not believe that Canadian Pacific, for example, or any other Canadian firm, should receive subsidies and tax deferrals or that they should register ships under flags of convenience in order to avoid paying taxes. We in this party do not support corporate welfare burns, Mr. Chairman.

The federal government would not tell the Canadian public that the foreign-registered fleets of Canadian Pacific, for example — and other Canadian firms — are in fact Canadian-owned, because it would likely prove too embarrassing to them to have to explain that Canada is subsidizing firms to hire foreign crews and evade Canadian taxes — by the federal government's own admission. In its published report on the shipping policy of Canada, a copy of which I have in my possession, at this point in time there are approximately 111 Canadian-owned ships registered under foreign flags.

Is the government now going to tell us that these firms are not evading Canadian taxes and hiring foreign crews? The government seems to take the attitude that what the public doesn't know won't hurt it. That, in my view, is the wrong tack.

Before I continue with these notes I want to point out that I feel very strongly that this provincial government, along with every other maritime province in Canada, must take a very strong position with the federal government, perhaps something along the line of the Jones Act, where Canadian goods from Canadian ports must be shipped on Canadian vessels manned by Canadian crews and built in Canadian shipyards. Further to that, we in our party are fully prepared to recommend that all Canadian companies owning ships under flags of convenience register them in Canada, pay Canadian taxes and employ Canadian crews. That is a proposal that makes eminent good sense to me.

I was about to say earlier — when I was so rudely interrupted by my bad memory — that the provincial government must make strong representation to Ottawa to reintroduce significant and substantial subsidies to Canadian and British Columbian shipyards to construct those vessels in this nation. We must make every effort to have the federal government take an active interest and represent the best interests of British Columbians abroad, to all of the nations we deal with. Other nations have the guts and are successful with this policy.

Do you realize, Mr. Chairman, that at one time Canada had the third largest merchant navy in the world? As a result of federal government policy.... I am not blaming the Socreds for this one, but it is people like this Social Credit government who sold the Canadian merchant navy down the river. They sold the merchant fleet and the fine people manning that industry down the river. I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman — as I did last year and will again this year — this is a matter of serious and grave concern. If Canada as a nation is to take its place as a responsible and respectable member in the world trade markets and world policy-making decisions, then I demand that this government take a strong stand on this issue starting now. I guarantee that when the party I represent returns to power, that will be one of the first acts of that government. We will take that kind of action to ensure that we have a strong merchant marine based in Canada, and particularly British Columbia.

This caucus opposes the assertion of the Minister of Transportation and Highways that Canada has done well by shipping on foreign-flag vessels and therefore does not need a Canadian merchant marine for deep-sea shipping. Have you ever heard such hogwash? The government believes that by shopping on the world market Canada can get the best transportation deals. But Canada has not gotten the best deal; we all know that. Every thinking Canadian on the coast of British Columbia is very well aware of that. Canada has lost thousands of jobs and federal income tax revenues. It has suffered a very negative impact on its international balance of payments by using foreign-flag carriers. The government's policy is typically one-sided and narrow. It has not considered the impact on Canadian jobs and the economy as a whole, in my view.

The British Columbia NDP has long supported the creation of a merchant marine for Canada and for British Col-

[ Page 3197 ]

umbia. We need a fleet of ships built in Canada by Canadians, as I said. Even Transport Canada's own policy statement, entitled "A Policy Statement for Canada," admits that a Canadian-flag fleet would help ease Canada's balance-of-payment problems, would create a shipping industry responsive to Canadian shipping policies, and could provide additional work for Canadian shipyards and other marine-related businesses — peripheral tertiary businesses related to that industry.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

We in Canada ended 1979 with an unemployment rate of 7.9 percent. B.C. had an even more alarming 8.5 percent rate of unemployment at that time. That figure is approximately the same today. In effect what we are doing, if we don't pursue an aggressive policy of building up a merchant marine in this province and this nation, is exporting jobs from this country and this province.

Without a Canadian flag fleet, Canada cannot hope to institute the proposals that I have outlined above for Canadian-flag carriers to handle at least 30 or 40 percent of these operations. As I said, Canada at the moment has the tenth largest international seaborne trade in the world. Yet what do we have in terms of vessels?

The federal government, in its misunderstanding, uncaring attitude, particularly to the maritime provinces in the area of shipbuilding and merchant marine.... It distresses me greatly, and genuinely, that all of our governments, particularly the maritime governments and the federal government, have not taken more of an interest in this field. One has to ask why. I can give you some answers and at least some opinions, but I think that would take the rest of the afternoon. I think everyone associated with the industry is aware of this.

If you'll pardon me, I've got a little note here. I'm just reading a little note to myself here. Nothing to do with these estimates. It was somebody asking me for a date tonight. I'm sorry, whoever you are, I'm busy.

I have at my disposal here.... I'm not going to delve at length. One of the most interesting documents I have is entitled "Marine Transport Policy for Canada." This program was worked out by provincial and federal policy committees within our party, particularly in conjunction with our delegates from maritime provinces, and with certainly highly trained, interested, technical people who were available. The document is very lengthy. I originally intended to read the total document into the record, but I think I've made my point reasonably well without taking up a great deal of the time of the House. But there are one or two things dealing with this particular topic that I still wish to mention.

The master mariners — once again, usually located in the maritime provinces, with a large contingent in British Columbia — have agreed with the proposal that I am once again putting forward today. I won't quote them at length, but they do talk of the "weak-kneed approach by provincial governments across Canada" — not only this government in British Columbia. We have not taken an approach at the federal level for various political reasons — we'll check the outline in detail; in fact, I have the complete information before me. We have not pursued an aggressive policy in this regard for political reasons, which really bothers me a great deal — that is, certain sellouts, trade-offs and political considerations for certain large transportation firms operating within Canada today. That's part of the reason in a nutshell, and that's not good enough. It's not good enough for me, not good enough for my party, certainly not good enough for this caucus.

Secondly, the shipbuilding industry in this province — that major industry in which we have so many qualified technical people who are capable of constructing any type of vessel conceivable in the world today, with the possible exception of nuclear-powered vessels, which we don't want anyway.... Various people I quote here say the very same thing. I won't quote them or go into a lot of length, but this is a very recent article appearing in a in B.C. Business Magazine for May of this year. They say, of course, that part of the problem is due to the drop in the Canadian dollar, inflation rates, etc.; that's part of the reason there's been this general decline in the shipbuilding industry in Canada. But the fact is that this very knowledgeable gentleman, Mr. McLaren, says that that is not the primary reason. These are all factors. The fact is that the provincial government and primarily the federal government have failed to pursue a shipbuilding policy in the best interest of Canadians. That's the underlying story.

Any of these documents I've quoted from I am willing to make available to the minister, or table if necessary. The are public documents, all a matter of public record. Mr. Chairman, I could go on and on. I've been going through this stuff, gathering material and researching this matter for many months. I'm personally vitally interested in this matter.

Before I sit down I do have one or two more items. I just want to give you an example. The largest owner and operator of vessels.... These are Canadian vessels owned by a Canadian firm, but based in other countries for flags of convenience to escape paying decent wages to their crews, to avoid paying their fair share of taxes to Canada, who in the interim receive subsidies from the Canadian government and, in some cases, I am told, from the provincial government in some areas. That company — I am not going to get too personal — happens to be CP. Canadian Pacific is making a great point — you watch their television commercials — of saving: "Canadian Pacific — we travel the world. We do this for you. We own and operate great hotels. We sail the great oceans," etc. What they fail to tell you is that they are doing it at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer and worker. This company — I can name the vessels because I have every one listed here — operates under flags of convenience. I'll go through it: the J.V. Clyne, the N.R. Crump based in Bermuda, you name it — areas where you can get a crew, perhaps, and a licence to operate a vessel for practically nothing. Great savings to the company but a great detrimental effect to Canadians. No, I'm not blaming CP or any other company involved in this transaction. I am blaming the federal government and this weak-kneed provincial government here today for allowing this to happen. That is what I am blaming.

Another matter I wish to raise and bring to the minister's attention, because he is ultimately responsible for these matters, is that we now know that the federal government is embarking upon a destroyer life-extension program because they've been tardy in constructing new, modern vessels for the safety and welfare of Canada, to meet its naval commitments. What I am suggesting to the minister today is that the next time he talks to his federal counterpart in Ottawa he doesn't ask, but he demands that the fair share of this destroyer life extension program take place in British Columbia and that at least half of those destroyers be modernized and refitted here in British Columbia. We want our fair share, and in this case — I've thought it through carefully — half is our

[ Page 3198 ]

fair share. I want to hear the minister get up and say he is going to fight for us British Columbians for a change instead of selling us down the tube.

That is not all. The federal government is currently considering this actively, and will probably in the near future let two major contracts for the construction of two huge icebreakers to serve Canada and Canadians. It is a good program; I am totally in favour of that program. However, as early as this morning in my discussion with the appropriate people in Ottawa, I find, much to my alarm, that the federal government is considering constructing both of those ice vessels, when the contract is let, on the east coast. I love the people on the east coast, I have nothing against them, and I think it would help them in every way possible. But I think, as British Columbians, that government has a responsibility to fight for British Columbians. If I was sitting on the other side of the House I would demand that one of those major icebreakers be constructed here in British Columbia by British Columbia citizens in British Columbia shipyards. That is the least the federal government can do.

I want to tell you that I would threaten the federal government a little bit if I were that minister. I would tell them: "Look, Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Pépin, Mr. Perrault, if you do not accede to our request we will only elect two Liberal members east of Winnipeg." That would scare them.

I have one or two more points while I have the floor. I know these estimates are coming to a close. By the end of next week or the week after we should be through so I might as well get in one or two little constituency items. To change the topic, I am going to tell the minister I did appreciate the $1.25 million that was expended on the Sunshine Coast. Some of the work is in progress now. That was good. It wasn't enough. It was better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, so we'll accept that, but there is a great deal more to do.

I spoke with the deputy about this briefly. We do have an area of great concern in my riding revolving around the Gibsons bypass. I know that the minister's deputy and the minister himself, I understand, have expressed a willingness to meet with the delegation from the area to discuss this ongoing problem, which has been a problem ever since I've been around politics. Hopefully, once and for all he will take some positive action to resolve that particular problem. I hope the minister will consider that. You don't have to reply to that, because I've discussed it with your deputy. He has all the information. A delegation will hopefully be coming to Victoria shortly, and I hope, Mr. Minister, you will be able to take 15 or 20 minutes to meet with them after the debate of these estimates is terminated.

Once again, a great deal of work was done on Highway 20, which serves my area to Bella Coola, although most of the road is in the minister's riding. In a lengthy discussion I had with a number of people in that area yesterday regarding this topic, they said that for those areas that you did something about, they thank you, and for those areas which you have done nothing about, they asked me to get on your back to get with it and finish the job up there.

One other area is a small project and I cannot for the life of me understand why the minister took such a negative attitude toward this little project. Between the communities of Powell River and Westview — the mill site and the populated area of Westview — there is a very, very bad, crooked hill called Willingdon Hill, or Gravel Hill as everybody knows it. I wrote to the minister and the ministry and I spoke to the municipal people. It's a real bottleneck, particularly when you consider the construction work that is now taking place by the MacMillan Bloedel Company. It is the only link between the mill site and the community. All I requested — it was a very simple request.... We have paving crews in the area now, I understand. There was no reason why they couldn't have just simply said: "Yes, let's do this project." That idea was a simple bypass, two lanes, so that people could pass. It's much-travelled and there is very heavy traffic because it is a bottleneck area. It would do as an interim solution until the highway design program and the gravel pit are worked out, which may be five to ten years down the road according to the minister's own people and the municipal planners. It wouldn't have cost but a few bucks; it would have got you a few political brownie points. I might have picked up a brownie point or two myself along the way. We would have accomplished something useful. But the answer was: "No, we can't do it." That's nonsense. The only things you can't do are those things you don't want to do. Anything we want to do, we can do. I can tell you that. So I'm asking the minister quietly — you don't have to answer this one again. I have your response in writing already. But I did tell the municipality and the 200 or 300 people who wrote me on this topic that I would raise it in the House. I have raised it, and perhaps the minister would be good enough to make a commitment of yes or no. Yes, we're going to spend those few dollars. After all, by special warrant you are spending hundreds of millions. Surely you can take just a little bit of a chunk out of those millions of dollars you are putting in Cariboo and put in a simple bypass while the paving crews are there anyway.

I have a number of other items to raise regarding water transportation on the coast of British Columbia, but I think I'll let that matter go as a number of my colleagues are expressing a great impatience to ask the minister some very deep and penetrating questions.

MRS. WALLACE: I was very interested in the remarks that my colleague for Mackenzie was making relative to the need for a merchant marine here in British Columbia. This is a subject matter that certainly relates to far more people than the minister responsible for transportation and communication. It is a policy decision that would face all of cabinet. I've been somewhat shocked as I sit here to find not more than three cabinet ministers in their places during this debate that relates to a policy matter that would affect the jobs in British Columbia. Certainly the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) should be here. The Premier should be here listening to what we are saying. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

[ Page 3199 ]

NAYS — 26

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MRS. WALLACE: While the cabinet is in the House, if the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) would like to respond to the member for Mackenzie I would be glad to yield to him, because I think we're all interested in his comments relative to the merchant marine. Are you prepared to answer now, Mr. Minister?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. FRASER: I would like to answer a few of the questions posed. To start with I'd like to go back to answer questions from the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) that were unanswered last evening. The member asked about the Kilmalu pedestrian overpass on the TransCanada Highway on the Island. The reply I have here is that the ministry and school district are studying the whole question of movements to and from the school for the local area. Crossings of the Trans-Canada Highway are one element in the study. They expect to be able to make the necessary decisions in a few weeks.

Regarding the Koksilah pedestrian overpass, I would like to confirm that the pedestrian overpass is being designed and will be installed when the four-laning is completed. The four-laning is being held up by the railway overpass, which requires a CTC order. They will not issue the order, as a railway abandonment is still under review.

Regarding the Malahat passing zones, the suggested signs "No Passing When Traffic Approaching in Either Lane" were tried in this area and we still had a bad accident record. Therefore the no-passing zones for downhill traffic were created. Since these no-passing lines were painted, the accident record has been good. The comment I have on this is that the main offenders are the morning commuters, but we did have not only on the Malahat, but on other parts of the highway system, passing zones on downgrades and we eliminated some of them, because the engineers felt it was increasing the accident hazard. That was one area — and I myself am aware of that area that you point out — but that's the reason that no passing is allowed — because of a safety measure.

I don't how to respond or where to start and finish with the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) regarding the merchant marine. I would just like to say first of all that this government has no intention of promoting in any way a merchant marine. That could well be wrong but, really, this has always been a government of Canada jurisdiction. and as far as I'm concerned it'll stay there. We have our hands very full with the problems we have now on the Pacific coast regarding ships, and I think we're only asking for further difficulty by even considering it, so we are not considering that at all.

I'd like to give a version of the shipbuilding industry to the House. The Government of British Columbia and the B.C. Ferry Corporation — one or the other, or both — are the best customers on the Pacific coast. With all the guff peddled by the government of Canada and other governments, we're by far the best customer.

Putting another hat on, speaking as the chairman of the B.C. Ferry Corporation — and I know it will go back — we can't get delivery of vessels from them in the agreed time frame now, and that's a serious item. We have signed contracts, so I don’t think they're doing too badly. Apparently we're employing them up to their capacity or over when we can't get delivery of vessels. At the present time we have two C class vessels under construction. They have been under construction for 12 months — one in Victoria and one in Vancouver. Right now they're telling us they don't think they can meet the delivery dates. Because of our renovation work and building new vessels. I understand at the present time that the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the government employ 500 employees on a 12-month basis in the shipyards. That's been going on for some time and it will continue to go on. So I think the government of British Columbia and the B.C. Ferry Corporation are doing more than their share to support the shipyard industry on the Pacific coast.

Regarding the government of Canada involvement in that, I believe the shipyard subsidy that now exists amounts to about 20 percent of the cost of a vessel. Our government certainly appreciates that. There were rumours that that was going to be withdrawn, I believe on June 30, 1980, but that hasn't happened. I expect it won't happen, but a subsidy comes from the government of Canada in that regard.

I really don't know what the member for Mackenzie was getting at when he talked about Canadian Pacific. He was talking about a subsidy. It might be the government of Canada that he was referring to, but to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, our government doesn't in any way subsidize the Canadian Pacific.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: I see. he's really referring to the government of Canada. I want to make it clear that our government, either through B.C. Ferries or the government of British Columbia.... I'm not aware of any subsidies that the CPR get, whether it s marine, rail or whatever it is.

When we talk of CPR, I might say that a policy that we're trying to follow — and I refer to CP marine — is that our government is trying to develop a transport policy to keep the private sector in place as well as the public sector. I think this is a very vital issue in relation to transportation to Vancouver Island, because, quite frankly, what I'm saying is that the B.C. Ferry Corporation doesn't want all the business to Vancouver Island, and we'd like to see the private sector stay in there. That gives us another option.

The member for Mackenzie implied that the Social Credit government had sold the merchant marine down the river. I want to make this abundantly clear and correct him on that. We've never had a position such as selling them down the river at all. He was trying to get a little bit political. The member for Mackenzie is an optimist forever. He said: "When we return to power...." Well, my remark is that he's forever an optimist on that.

[ Page 3200 ]

Regarding employment, I believe the member was trying to say that if the British Columbia government developed a merchant marine it would create employment. Well, I guess it would. But I would like to point out to the committee that through the B.C. Ferry Corporation we now have 2,600 full-time employees in the B.C. Ferries system, and we have 400 in the Highways ferry system. So we now have 3,000 full-time employees in water transportation in the province of British Columbia.

The other irony of the member for Mackenzie's argument about a merchant marine is that yesterday, when we were on airports, he gave me quite a lecture to stay away from anything to do with airports. Today he argued the opposite saying that we should get right into the marine business. I don't quite follow that rationale.

The last item that he brought up was the destroyer building program, Mr. Chairman. That really is a federal matter, as he said. I believe that to get some of that construction here, the proper place would be to take it up under the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development. It could well be that they are already pursuing that. I do know that the private sector, shipbuilding-wise, are pursuing that business as well.

That about replies to the member for Cowichan-Malahat and the member for Mackenzie. I'll probably be able to reply later regarding the Gibsons bypass. Yes, I've heard about the Gibsons bypass. I'm not so sure that that's a priority on Highway 101; I doubt it very much. I think the main road linking the communities is a bigger priority; some of it needs rebuilding.

The last item he mentioned was the road in his riding, Highway 20, from the ocean at Bella Coola back 50 miles. I'd just tell the House that in 1978-79 we spent about $5 million rebuilding that whole section of road in the Mackenzie riding and getting it completely paved. That was all concluded just prior to snowfall last year.

MRS. WALLACE: I thank the minister for his answers. There were two or three things I wasn't quite clear on.

First of all, he doesn't speak very good Salish or Cowichan — that's Koksilah. Am I to understand that that is being held up until the CN appeal for abandonment is okayed? If that's the case, I understand the CN has withdrawn its application rather than make public the figures they were ordered to make public by the CTC, relative to the amounts of dollars they had in shipment. This can go on forever. It may be 20 years before that's resolved. I hope he's not saying that he's not going to put in that Koksilah overpass until that time. Certainly the four-laning is now within a stone's throw of the location of the proposed Koksilah overpass: the proposed site is between the railway crossing and where the highway is now four-laned. So it would be very simple to finish that and get that overpass in without waiting for what may be an interminable amount of time. It is critical to have that in. I'm glad you're reviewing the one down in the Shepherd-Kilmalu. When you get that decision, I hope that within a couple of weeks you will let me know what the decision is.

I was also interested that the accident statistics had improved on the Malahat since the solid line was put in. I wonder if the minister would be good enough to let me have those statistics privately. I would like to have them to pass on to my constituents who have raised this problem.

One point that wasn't touched on was my concern about the 90 km/h test zones. I'm wondering why those zones were chosen. Is it intended to make that permanent because of the very peculiar nature of the Island highway?

I asked for some clarification as to whether this report for 1978-79 made any division of funds relative to the proposed redistribution between Cowichan-Malahat and Nanaimo. I gather that that's not the case. That didn't become effective until April 3, after this report was issued. That's correct; it wasn't included. For those reasons, because it isn't that, I am wondering why in fact we have things like this $4.50 that I talked about and a couple of $1 items charged to Cowichan-Malahat, when in fact it would cover for the whole year. Even more, I'm wondering why in the Nanaimo district we have a dollar for the Cowichan Lake road and a dollar for Chemainus road widening; they certainly weren't in the Nanaimo area. Even more, I'm wondering how any money at all for the Thetis Island ferry terminal was charged to Nanaimo.

The books seem to be in a very bad state of disrepair. It makes me a bit incredulous about the other figures, when I find those kinds of obvious apparent errors. I'm wondering if the minister would at least clarify in writing to me at a later date — if not on the floor of the House — just what in the world has gone on with those accounting figures. They seem very strange.

Just before I put this book aside, I would like to deal with the item on page 159 which talks about the air services branch. You show the various planes which the government has. You list the flying hours for each of them: it comes to a total of of 5,879.6 flying hours.

Looking down under the various subdivisions, it talks about air ambulance flight time — 528.6 hours; air ambulance transfer — 442.1 hours; aerial photography — 739 hours. When I add them up I get a total of 1,309.7 hours, which leaves 4,569.9 hours unaccounted for. I'm wondering if the minister will tell the House where in excess of 4,500 hours were spent; they're not accounted for anywhere here that I can see. If I've missed something, I'm sorry.

From that table there seems to be in excess of 4,500 hours flying time unaccounted for in your report. Because this is a rather sensitive area and a very expensive one, I think the minister should explain to the House just where those hours were spent in actual flying time.

I want to deal just briefly — and advise the minister — with the kinds of problems that have occurred in connection with the double-bridging that has taken place. He informed the House earlier that this wasn't going to be done under this budget; it was going to be done under Bill 7, I think it was; but certainly it is his responsibility. He will remember, I think, that at one time he and I were in Ladysmith together and he commented to me about the terrible conditions at the Chemainus River, and that he was going to do something about it. And he certainly did do something about it. He got it much more passable, because the one bridge was closed off and it was much better. It was fixed up very shortly after that. It might be of interest to the minister to know, if he's not already aware, that it is only within the last couple of months — and it was a long time ago that we were in Ladysmith — that that has been completed.

At the same time that this has been going on, just south of Duncan, in a very congested traffic area, on the Cowichan River...and that's been completed even more recently. It has been a total disaster while that particular bridge was being installed. One of the things that made it so difficult for people trying to travel that area was the fact that there were

[ Page 3201 ]

three different departments under the ministry involved in doing work there.

There was one group of people doing the bridge. They would set up certain programs and certain traffic controls. At the same time, the people who were doing the approaches would, with no consultation whatsoever, set up certain programs to put in the approaches, which meant additional traffic controls. Of course, there's a stop-and-go light there as well, which normally stops the traffic coming out onto the highway. That light eventually was switched to a flashing light only, because along with these two crews a third crew went in and took out a bridge on Allenby Road, which was the only alternate route to use while the other road was being fixed. We had a shemozzle. It was right at Christmastime. People waited for half an hour just to get into the line of traffic. It was just a total disaster.

It's over and it's done with. There are complaints. I know I have forwarded one complaint from a local merchant. That was during last summer. The access to his restaurant was completely blocked for hours. The stores that are behind the red and green light are contemplating putting together a dollar-and-cents package, to try and get some compensation from Highways because of the drop-off in their businesses as a result of this unprecedented kind of delay and accumulation of a great many areas of roadwork all being undertaken at once.

What I'm suggesting to the minister is.... I know he can't do anything about improving that one at this time, but I hope that in future, when such projects are being undertaken, he will make some move to ensure that the various jobs are coordinated so that you don't have those kinds of traffic congestion.

The only thing that I'm glad of is that there were no serious accidents — there were a lot of minor accidents, but there was no loss of life — particularly at Christmastime when there were no lines visible, just nothing there. I'm thankful that there was no loss of life. But I hope that the minister will, next time he has a project like that underway. make sure that the various work groups coordinate their activities.

Of course, the minister knows I'm concerned about what has happened on the Cowichan Lake road. I started to talk about that last night, and the fact that the pavement was torn up and left. The local people had to go in and re-pave, and the number of accidents that occurred there with glass damage — not just glass damage.... The ministry finally did come through and do some repairs for glass damage. At first it was a bit difficult to get, and the problem is that there was no public announcement of this. You go into Youbou and every other car has a broken windshield. When I said to them, "Well, you know, you could have had it replaced," they would say: "We didn't know that." Unfortunately, there was no public announcement made. The requests had to be in within 30 days, I think the time was, or they weren't considered.

There was a lot more than glass damage. The classic case in point was the chap who had a brand-new car. He bought it in Duncan, drove it up over that road and found that his paint was completely pock-marked. That was thrown out because it wasn't considered.... So he had that loss.

Now there's a lot of confusing evidence as to whether or not the road was properly posted. The ministry says there were warning signs up. Unfortunately, I didn't drive that road just at that specific time, so I can't vouch for whether there were or were not. But there are a great many of my constituents who drive that road every day and who maintain that the signs were very unevident, and that you were onto the thing before you ever saw them.

That has now been completed and it's a good job. I thank the minister for what he's done there. It's a nice job now, but the problems that occurred in having it done were a bit disastrous. Also, the fact that paving equipment which was promised faithfully by the local Highways people to go to the Cowichan Bay area to do the paving required there as soon as the Lake Cowichan road was completed was a promise that fell by the board. The equipment was taken over to the mainland. I think the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) fell heir to that equipment for roads in his area. In the meantime we have a very bad situation on the Cowichan Bay road right in the middle of the tourist season. I understand the minister has indicated that that will be completed by August 1 or thereabouts, but I would certainly like his assurance that it won't be any later than that, so that we can at least have half the summer season to have that road in shape. It is a very bad time to be paving a road like the Cowichan Bay road — in the middle of the tourist season. It should certainly have been completed in early June or else done early in the previous fall so it would have been ready to go, because that does deter tourists from going in there. The Cowichan Bay people have been having sufficient difficulties with the various other things that have been going on in the Cowichan Bay area, which makes everything very uncertain at this point in time.

I would like to deal very briefly with the ferries, particularly the Mill Bay–Brentwood Bay ferry. What are the plans for its future? Are there any thoughts of discontinuing or rerouting that ferry? Also I suggest to the minister that the schedule should be reviewed to make it more appropriate for people who commute, and for people who would otherwise use that ferry. I have missed that ferry every time I've tried to catch it when I'm coming off the ferry at Swartz Bay. It cuts a great many miles off my route home if I can catch that ferry but I've given up trying because the schedules don't jibe. You simply can't get off a ferry at Swartz Bay — even if it's right on time — and get to Brentwood Bay in time to catch the ferry to Mill Bay. It means you have an hour or two wait so you may as well drive around. I think if those ferry schedules could be coordinated a bit better the ferry would get a lot more use.

There was some talk, at one time, of rerouting one B.C. Ferries ferry to somewhere in the Hatch Point–Cherry Point area — having one run from there, and perhaps having the Brentwood ferry come into that area rather than into Mill Bay. There was also talk of having maybe one ferry a day, or a couple of ferries a week — the B.C. Ferries — come into that same dock if that kind of facility were put in. I know that study was being undertaken because I was interviewed about the possibilities there. I'm wondering whatever happened to that because that was quite a while ago. I'm wondering whether it's still under active consideration.

The final thing which I have, which is a very minor one, is a letter from the minister assuring me that the name the Queen of Chemainus will be considered for a future ferry. I'm wondering whether that name consideration is still active and whether or not it has been decided that one of the ferries will be named the Queen of Chemainus.

MR. HALL: I first of all want to say that I've been enjoying the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and

[ Page 3202 ]

Highways. It says a lot for the province when you consider that for all these hours we've been dealing with a huge department ranging from waterborne traffic to bridges and highways, showing what a complex and difficult terrain the minister has to deal with. For that I think the whole ministry has to receive some congratulations in grappling with those problems. While we're offering criticism on the basis of some of the things we find as MLAs among constituents, we realize that oftentimes the response will be one of priority listing and availability of money. The only time, I think, that we as MLAs will perhaps get a little bit short about it is when we see some apparent bad administration and bad decision-making on the part of the cabinet and the ministry itself. I think that the estimates so far have shown a great deal of understanding on the part of the MLAs and of the officials in the problems that are facing us in a very complex situation.

Let me then deal, if I may, just briefly with two or three points on the ferries — very small points, but ones which I've often wondered about. I suppose one could deal with these by correspondence, but oftentimes you put these in your file to deal with during estimates. First of all, one thing came up while the estimates have been going on. That was when I was returning to Victoria on Monday morning. I happened to be queuing up in the news-stand for my morning Province — not a very worthwhile endeavour, I might add, to queue up for a Monday Province.... Of all the Provinces produced, certainly the Monday one is probably the least worthwhile one to queue up for. But I happened to notice I was standing next to a chief steward who was on leave. He was obviously on a busman's holiday. He was on the ferries although he was on holiday. Then I talked to a chief steward who was on duty and I said: "What on earth is going on? Why are 40 people queuing up in an area that could only humanly contain some ten people at best to buy a 25-cent newspaper?" I wasn't passing any value judgment on the 25 cents for the Province. They said: "Because we only used to get 30 percent of the revenues in the honour box."

If that is true — and I have no reason to doubt for one second that I was getting anything but the honest truth — and if in fact the ferries are only getting 30 percent of what they were supposed to be getting in terms of revenue from those newspaper sales out of an honour box, I think that should have been publicized and I think somebody should have been prosecuted in terms of straightforward theft of an article in the normal commercial way. That doesn't relieve us from the responsibility to do something about distributing a newspaper on all the sailings per day, when we are trying to buy a newspaper, queuing up for it and paying somebody over $1,000 a month to sell a 25-cent newspaper. I just think somebody's going to have to come up with a better idea than that, and I do suggest that if you haven't already come up with it, surely to goodness we have somebody in our ferry fleet that can.... Or else let the Province and the Sun come up with the idea. What we are doing now is, with the greatest respect, not very sensible.

I have a second point on the ferries. I know that the tendency is towards smaller and more compact cars, but as the owner of a larger car, for more than the obvious reasons, it seems to me that one of the things you are going to be faced with is when two large cars go on the mezzanine floor you will always get somebody who is a little bit less than pleased about it. I can't understand why, when the mezzanine floor's ramps are lowered, the loading officials can't put import or compact cars up the ramp as they are loading and put larger cars on the basic deck until at least one line of cars have been loaded on the mezzanine floor. That would in effect give you much more room on the mezzanine floor. I don't see why that can't be done. It surely to goodness would be only a matter of waving one car on with your right hand and one car with your left hand. I don't suggest, by any stretch of the imagination, that I am a traffic policeman but I would have thought that could be done.

The last point on the ferries is one which I have a certain vested interest in, as Mr. Gallagher will know. Why on earth have you changed the name of the Queen of Surrey to the Queen of the North? Isn't that going to jinx the boat or something? How many times can you change a boat's name? That ship, when recommissioned, was renamed the Queen of Surrey. I can understand their changing the name from Stena Danica to the Queen of Surrey, but why change it from the Queen of Surrey to something else? If I don't get an answer to that question, you are going to get a letter from my wife. I've got the picture of her throwing the bottle of champagne at the sharp end, and she is rather upset, Mr. Minister, so I really would like an explanation of that.

May I now turn to something a lot more serious than the last question. I engaged in correspondence with the minister, starting some eight months ago, regarding truck safety. When the minister first arrived here in 1969, following the resignation of one of the Attorneys-General of the previous government, he will remember that from time to time I, as an opposition member, used to talk about commercial transport, truck safety and minimum commercial safety standards very frequently. I was very concerned and I wrote to him about certain happenings on our highways and investigations that he was dealing with. He was good enough to respond to me and tell me that he would keep me posted on certain investigations. He has kept me posted on one. I've not been posted too recently, but that's not the point of my conversation.

Interestingly enough, when he found out, earlier on this year, that some 80 percent of the trucks he had seen travelling the B.C. highways were defective, I was already in possession of the information from last year based on some research I was doing with the Washington State Patrol with Governor Dixie Lee Ray's office and other areas which indicated that that kind of figure was going to be the figure that he would find out. May I apprise the House of some of those kinds of figures? We all know what the figures said when the Highways minister of British Columbia announced that 80 percent of the trucks were defective and some of them should have been and were ordered off the road. The Highways minister was suspicious and asked for overloads, mechanical safety, load security and so on to be checked.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair, ]

If we go back to last year we'll find that in September we could have foreseen that kind of situation in reports that were available. According to the intergovernmental surveys and correspondence that go through the minister's office from the state of Washington, nation-wide figures from the federal Department of Transportation were indicating that the incidence of defective equipment in truck accidents was growing in Washington state. The Washington State Patrol, along with the utilities and transportation commission, had been working for safer trucks through intensive inspection programs. Their findings have been startling.

[ Page 3203 ]

In May 1979 an inspection found that 185 out of 296 units were defective — severely enough to require them to be taken out of service. An inspection in the Kennewick area in July took 154 units off the highways until repairs could be made, and during the past week — this is the week of September 8 — an inspection at the federal weighscale resulted in 103 arrests out of 156 units inspected. One of the arrests involved a flatbed truck loaded with twelve 500-gallon containers of chlorine gas. That also links up with another problem that the minister was looking into regarding dangerous loads.

What we're dealing with here is some method of inspection of commercial vehicles, because I know that we will be an exact reflection of what happens in the United States. Indeed the kinds of defective equipment, lack of a maintenance program and lack of supervision that we've seen, which I've referred to before in speeches, takes place in this country just as it takes place in the States. We don't have in this country or this province the kind of inter-commerce inspection levels that they have there, although theirs are obviously now becoming inadequate compared to what they used to be some years ago.

As witness, the report I have from Colonel Landon, the chief of the Washington State Patrol, says, for instance, that traffic accidents involving heavy trucks claimed 4,624 lives in 1978 — a 40 percent increase since 1975 in the United States. Last year heavy truck-related deaths accounted for almost 10 percent of the 50,000 traffic fatalities. It's my contention, Mr. Minister, that that will be scaled down to equal, on a 10 percent basis, the kind of figures that we will see in British Columbia.

I don't want to take up the time in the House by reading all of this correspondence. I'll certainly pass it on to you if you're interested. We're dealing with the kinds of fatalities, things going wrong, defects, and things that they're finding out in their inspection and it means that we have to set into operation the kind of inspections that they have. I'd like to hear from you what your investigations have shown and what kinds of inspection you think should take place either at our weighscales or at some suitable point on our highways in British Columbia. If you look at a map of British Columbia, it seems to me that if we could set up five points in British Columbia in which we would supervise some 90 percent of all the commercial traffic, we'd be able to check 90 percent of all the commercial traffic that would be on the highways and byways of British Columbia.

I don't know what the cost is of a program such as that. That is one of the difficulties of this kind of research — trying to work out the cost. However, I do think that we should be very leery of putting too much weight on the kind of a cost — looking at cost problems in terms of safety and lives. I call upon the minister to continue with more vigour and, frankly, more public.... I don't want to use the word ''openness," because that would suggest that the minister isn't an open person and I believe he is, but to certainly continue with a pragmatic development of this kind of plan and research. Because I think there's been a myth for some years about the safety of commercial vehicles and commercial drivers. I hope I'm not offending any of my teamster colleagues or anybody else by saying that that is a myth. Anybody who has driven as many miles as, I'm sure, the minister has would agree with me that it's a myth. I trust that he would take my advice for what it's worth by making this one of his strongest personal points — to make sure that those things are done.

I want to carry on by telling him I've also done a lot of research into traffic and highway fatalities in urban areas — a very unpleasant subject, a terrible subject, and one which I'm forced to do because I happen to represent Surrey, an area which has got one of the worst records in the country, one which seems to be cursed by this kind of traffic problem, along with its adjoining neighbours in the western part of Langley and north Delta and, to a certain extent, the approaches from Burnaby–New Westminster.

Mr. Minister, there is not a weekend that goes past — and I think the Chairman would join me in saying this — without us hearing of some young people in our area being killed in Surrey and Delta, through misadventure and sometimes stupidity. One is very hesitant to use words in a pejorative sense like that, but one can only use those words, because often it's speed in the wrong place; sometimes, of course, alcohol is involved; but more frequently it's just what I can only consider to be incredibly bad driving behaviour, discourteous behaviour, stupid behaviour. And at the time of night when you would wonder...sometimes, as the years pass and we all get a little older, you wonder why on earth three or four cars are out speeding through those areas of Delta and Surrey.

I don't have any magic solutions. You know, Mr. Minister, because you have made your home not that many miles away from Prince George, they had some success with the program in Prince George. I'm told that that program is transportable; I'm told it's being resisted by some areas, and I don't know why. I would like to see you, along with your colleague who is the minister for ICBC, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), have another look at that program and try to involve both the motor vehicle branch and ICBC in a revival of that program.

I have a suggestion to make. I believe that the vehicle pounds, the places where vehicles which are involved in accidents are taken — either the ICBC compounds or the municipal compounds which accept these wrecked cars — should be the subject of tours by students, by people involved in accidents, by people who get 10 or 15 points. I think it's a very salutary experience to be taken around and shown the last five cars that had five fatalities involved in an accident at the junction of No. 10 Road and 136th Street, and a fire and four deaths on a Saturday night — that's happened twice in Surrey in the last 15 months. Maybe that's what we should do.

Maybe we should look at some of our highway engineering. I, for the life of me — and I can't blame the Minister of Highways — don't know why we have a 40-mile-an-hour speed zone at four-way intersections, uncontrolled intersections. I just don't understand it. That's not your fault; that's municipal. I know I'm making the right speech in the wrong place. but I'm not too sure how you can carry on with those kinds of complications.

But I do know that if we start somewhere with a kind of safety program or preventive maintenance program.... On the commercial side of it, we can get hauled off, because of our licences, the Motor Carrier Commission, because of our inspection facilities, and all the rest of it. It may slowly trickle down. If we can get some of that Carnage program, or whatever it's called — I forget the exact names; the minister will remember; I think one of our members made a speech about it not too long ago.... Have a look at that and get that revived. Do some work, as I say, by looking at some of these vehicle pounds and some of those disincentives perhaps; that may be a way of looking at it.

[ Page 3204 ]

I'm very concerned over the fact that we seem to be accepting the death toll on our highways with equanimity. If somebody dies of a disease, we get very upset; but if we hear of somebody who dies in a road accident, we accept it as almost inevitable and we accept it with calmness. "Oh, a road accident," you say, "oh, well," and then you carry on working. Mr. Minister, as I said in a speech earlier this year, if we'd had the number of fatalities and the number of serious accidents on a mile of airstrip that we've had on the mile that contains within it the Pattullo Bridge, we'd have had headlines three inches high in our daily newspapers. We accept the fatalities and the road accidents on the Pattullo Bridge with.... It doesn't even faze us; we listen and all we do is go a different way home. I implore you to make this your number one.... This is what you should be remembered for — not for another speedway through Creston, not as another blacktop minister; we've had one of those already, Mr. Minister, and he'll be remembered for that, the minister from Kamloops, 1952 to 1972, the blacktop minister. I would prefer to remember this minister as the minister who made our highways safe, I really would — and I mean that as seriously and sincerely as I can.

Let me now move to some local issues. They're local in the sense that they're the kinds of things you have to deal with in terms of correspondence. May I ask you distinctly and particularly, regarding the King George Highway — for the excellent attention to which I thank you, as all members do. When you started work in April 1979, I immediately put my signs up, saying: "Look at all the work; there must be an election coming." My four-by-eight plywood signs went up almost as fast as your first men were working. I think that's why we got fifty-fifty results: one member over there and one member over here. Be that as it may, you proceeded with the King George Highway with remarkable speed. I want to congratulate the contractor. He must have made a fortune out of it because he had such a good run at it; he never had a day's stoppage. It was probably the best contract he ever signed. May I ask you now what the final funding arrangements have been regarding (a) landscaping and (b) street lighting? That's question number one. My municipality is still curious.

My second question, Mr. Chairman — to the minister and then to his staff — is about the crosswalks at the intersection of 96th Avenue and 176th Street. We're having a lot of trouble with the parent-teacher association and the school, trying to get a safe situation for school children. What is the latest situation at 96th Avenue and 176th Street?

My next question: what is your latest information on safe loads as distinct from safe trucks?

My last question: what are the basic highway engineering standards the engineers are using for exit and entrance lanes? It seems to me that on all the cloverleafs, exit ramps and entrance ramps on our older highways we have not allowed enough room to decelerate and accelerate. In some areas you seem to be extending those lanes. I can think of one, where the King George Highway comes onto Highway 499. What is the basic policy? Are you improving them all, or are you picking them out one by one? What is happening? I think that is where a lot of the trouble lies with Highway 401 and with the Deas Island throughway north of the tunnel.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the Minister of Highways regarding his position as director of the Urban Transit Authority. There is a golden opportunity to prove the efficacy of rail transit in this province by making use of the Canadian Pacific Railway system that traverses the constituency of Dewdney, particularly, as I mentioned, from Mission to Vancouver. There has been great debate on whether or not the rail system is more efficient than the bus system. By all reports, the weight of evidence is that rail will carry more people and will get more automobiles off the road than the bus system could ever do. Apparently the bus system's maximum input is about 40 percent of the traffic involved.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to read from a report referred to as the "Northeast Sector Commuter Rail Feasibility Study." Without going into great detail in this report, I would like to bring to your attention, and for the minister's consideration, item 4(2) on page 11: "For the conventional bus option, it is assumed that transit's share of the market will remain at a projected level of 40 percent."

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, a member has questioned the quorum.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a quorum. At this time, hon. member, I count ten members in the chamber.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The report goes on to state: "The commuter rail option would provide greatly improved reliability and comfort compared to conventional buses, in which case the model shift from auto to transit may occur." That's an important point; it's what we're all after: to get the travelling public moving on transit systems. That's something buses cannot do, because each time a bus fills up with 40 passengers, we require another bus. I would like to bring to the minister's attention that this is the problem with buses. Today on the Barnet highway, which is one of the corridors, buses are already creating congestion, which defeats the purpose of transit. This must be considered as an ultimate factor in the testing of rail efficiency.

I will go further and refer to what the report refers to on page 29 as economic efficiency. It says this: "In parallel with energy consumption, the rail option becomes more efficient with increasing ridership, as the marginal cost for adding capacity is comprised mainly of the cost of extra passengers. The bus option, on the other hand, requires an extra driver for each bus added. Thus the marginal cost of capacity expansion remains near constant in real terms."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Now it will always be an unending argument: which is the best system? To me it seems obvious that the rail system is the best. But how do you prove this point? Mr. Chairman, this is how you prove it. The rails are there. Instead of spending many millions of dollars in creating a new railway corridor on the south side of the river into Vancouver, we already have a rail corridor to Vancouver in the Dewdney area. We have a growing municipality, in Mission, Maple Ridge, Coquitlam and in the Barnet area, and there the test can be made at very little cost. What we require then are merely the vehicles — the transit cars. Budd cars, or whatever they call them, could be used. This would be a factual test. Instead of talking of spending millions of dollars on rail,

[ Page 3205 ]

monorail, all these various kinds of rail, rights-of-way and tunnels, here is a railway that is there. The CPR have already indicated their consideration of such a.... And the report says that CPR has accepted the probability of a test.

Here we have an area where 50 percent of the workers move to the city every day, whereas on the south side of the river the number is 40 percent. I suggest to the minister that here is an excellent opportunity that should not be missed and that could be done now, and could establish the efficacy of transit systems by rail. Everything is there.

Now consideration has been given to the system running from Coquitlam to Vancouver alone. This would defeat the purpose of the test. The test must run the entire 40 miles to discover what the acceptance would be. I predict that it would be tremendously accepted, and I suggest to the minister that we have no delay in getting it started and having test runs made.

Such a little cost to prove so much! Tunnels are talked about, monorails, new rails, new rights-of-way — all these millions of dollars of expense beyond consideration, beyond the ability of this province to sustain today, because you do not know what effect it will take, but here's a railway that can be established and prove its efficacy. It's so simple, and at such little cost. I recommend sincerely that this be tried immediately.

MR. LEA: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 26

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. GABELMANN: In continuing the discussion on the estimates of the Minister of Highways, I would just like to say that one of the things that's important to members of the opposition at the time they're discussing estimates, and discussing problems in their own constituencies and throughout the province, is to have the attention of the government. We have had the attention of the Minister of Transportation and Highways; he's been very faithful in attending during his estimates. But we know, and he knows, that for many of the proposals we make to receive serious consideration and approval it requires cabinet decision-making. We therefore wish and hope that members of the cabinet would stay in the House during the estimates.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'm not that concerned about backbenchers on the government side: if they choose to work in their offices I'm not that concerned. But during the estimates of this ministry and others I would hope that cabinet members would see it as their duty to be here in this House. I have a lot of confidence in the Minister of Transportation and Highways and his ability to persuade his colleagues in cabinet, but I would like them also to hear us when we present the problems that we have in our areas. so that they know when you go to cabinet with presentations that they come from some serious comments made by members of the Legislative Assembly and that they are important, that it's not just the member for Cariboo who's making the presentation, but in fact many other members as well. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I find it pretty disgraceful that cabinet minister after cabinet minister leaves this chamber. We had them all in here a few minutes ago: now we're down to a handful again.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I call all hon. members to order, and I will remind the member for North Island that we are discussing the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Debate must be relevant and pertain to that ministry.

MR. GABELMANN: There are a number of concerns that I want to express to the minister and his cabinet colleagues this afternoon. First of all I want to thank the minister for the way in which he relates to personal requests for meetings about emergency problems in constituencies. Frankly, his record on that matter is much better than most of his colleagues. I want to say that I hope in the next few days we will be able to solve the problem that I raised on Thursday last concerning the roads in Tahsis. I won't say anything more about that this afternoon.

I think that during these estimates the important thing for us to do is to lay out to the government and to the minister concerned what the problem is and needed solutions are in the particular constituencies. When the cabinet is considering next year's budget and its budget in years after that, they need to have some indication of what the concerns are around the province. I would like to use this opportunity to give the House my assessment of the highways and transportation priorities in the northern part of Vancouver Island for the next few years. Aside from the Tahsis situation I would say there is one particular matter that requires immediate and urgent attention. There are a whole variety of other matters that require attention over the next few years.

One that requires immediate and urgent attention was mentioned a few days ago in the House by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). The minister knows I'm talking about the bypass from south of Nanaimo through to north of Campbell River. I drive that road every week and even allowing for the extra traffic in the summer the road is absolutely disgrace-

[ Page 3206 ]

ful. The urgent need for an immediate start on that bypass is long overdue. Some of us now who learn how to drive the Island Highway in fact are finding our own little bypasses here, there and everywhere. I found one just north of Qualicum that takes me down to the Port Alberni bypass, rejoining the Island Highway at the intersection south of Parksville, using back roads.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gee, I'm glad I stayed in the House to hear that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Boy, that's heavy stuff! For $29,000 a day, that's real heavy stuff.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will all hon. members please come to order. The member for North Island has the floor.

MR. GABELMANN: The first member for Surrey criticizes me for raising what he considers to be not serious stuff. I am talking about a problem that causes deaths in this province. People are dying on this island because the road isn't good enough and the member says it's not serious stuff. It's a typical response from that government, showing their lack of concern for serious issues in this province, the fact that they don't care. He should be the second member for Surrey. They don't care about serious issues; they don't care about highway fatalities; they don't care about people's lives.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Rubbish!

MR. GABELMANN: All you care about is your million-dollar fortunes.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You haven't done a positive thing in your life. Negative socialist!

MR. GABELMANN: It makes me pretty tired. I hope, Mr. Chairman, you'll shut that member up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will all hon. members please come to order. The member for North Island.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm talking about, as the member for Surrey would say, a trail through the bush. I am just simply pointing out that many of us try to avoid driving the Island Highway because it is so bad. The need for a bypass is probably more urgent in this case than in any other part of the province. I, like the minister and member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), have driven most of the roads of this province and I would suggest that that is the most urgent need. It applies not just in Nanaimo and Courtenay but also between Courtenay and Campbell River.

I won't say anything more about that now. I would hope the minister would be able to answer the question of the member for Comox about some date. I appreciate you've got a study. I appreciate the concern that that demonstrates, but we must speed up the process. Enough about the bypass.

In considering Highways ministry programs over the next few years, I hope the ministry staff will have a look at the problem we have between Gold River and Tahsis, 42 miles of logging road which is maintained, as the minister noted the other day, by money from the Highways ministry. There is a simple 18-mile route out to the main highway via Woss Lake — not as high, not the same kind of snow problems, not as many bridges. When the day comes to paving the road from Gold River to Tahsis, as the Tahsis Company wants you to do, you are talking about paving 42 miles of bad logging road with many bridges which need to be upgraded. It would be much more sensible to build a new road, much of which is already constructed, from the community of Tahsis out to Woss via Woss Lake. That is a much shorter route and much cheaper in the long run and one the ministry should consider. I'm not suggesting you consider it for next year's estimates or anything like that, but as part of long-term planning I think that is an important consideration.

The member for Mackenzie raised earlier questions relating to airports. One of the problems, apart from airports themselves, is access to airports. There is a continuing problem in Campbell River about the responsibility for the road from the Island Highway to the airport. Who looks after it? Does the province look after it, does the municipality look after it or does the federal government? I know that the Air Transport Assistance Program is available from the federal government but I would urge that the ministry take some immediate action to get together with that branch of the federal government and with the people in the municipal government in Campbell River and do something about the terrible state of that several-mile road up to the airport in Campbell River. It is causing a great deal of distress, particularly to people who have to drive it every day. Their automobiles just cannot stand the pounding that occurs on that particular section.

Just to go through a list of concerns that have been raised in my constituency, I know there is some work progressing on the problem with the bridge over the Campbell River. It is a two-lane bridge that is absolutely insufficient to handle the traffic, particularly during shift changes at the Elk Falls pulp mill. I appreciate that some realignment is going on, but that won't solve the immediate problem of there not being enough lanes across the river. I would urge that in consideration of the bypass, if the ministry is able to determine at which point on the river that bypass will eventually cross — and I think you are fairly close to determining that — perhaps that section of the road could be started earlier than other sections. Rather than trying to funnel more of that traffic into downtown Campbell River and building another bridge parallel to the one that now exists, it might make more sense to move it up to the eventual bypass route and put the bridge in up there. I urge that some consideration be given to such a method of solving that particular problem.

On another issue, I want to thank the minister for putting in the extra Highways ferry over to Quadra Island. That has been very well received by residents of Quadra Island. One of the inevitable problems — we have discussed this in other contexts — with adding either more lanes or more ferries is that you generate more traffic just because you add the service. There is no question that has happened to Quadra Island. People are taking their cars on the ferry when they might ordinarily have walked. I acknowledge that as a problem. Nevertheless, the problem was so bad with one ferry and it is so much better with two.

The ministry has said they are going to build a new ship and have one vessel on that particular route. I would urge you not to do that. I would urge you to spend that money somewhere else. The solution proposed by the ministry would have the result of dumping too much traffic into downtown Campbell River all at once in a very bad location. It would

[ Page 3207 ]

cause a number of other problems. First of all, the frequency of service is reduced by one-half. The fact that we now, in most parts of the day, can travel every half hour is very much appreciated. I would urge you not to give up on that particular part of the service.

There are a variety of other reasons why the two ships work out. There was some fear of crossing in that narrow channel. I think the skippers will tell you that is not a problem. I would urge you to keep the present solution.

I wouldn't suggest that you run the two ships all winter. I don't think that is necessary. One is enough in the winter. Your suggested close-down date of, I think, September 7 for the second vessel is too early. The tourist season on Quadra lasts well into October. Thanksgiving is probably a more reasonable close-down date for that second vessel. I would urge that that be given as serious consideration as possible. Perhaps we can talk later about that suggested date.

I want to say a couple of other things. I will leave the safety question to last and deal with one other matter first. In my constituency — and I guess it is true of a lot of coastal constituencies — a lot of people work Monday to Friday out in logging camps. In fact, I would say in my riding there are 4,000 or 5,000 such people, when the logging industry is working at full bore, working in various logging camps. When they come out they come out on weekends. Quite a number of them have drivers' licences which expire while they are in camp. When they come out on weekends they can't renew their drivers' licences. I have had a series of complaints about that, because the offices aren't open on weekends.

I appreciate that it is not just the Ministry of Transportation and Highways — it is also the Provincial Secretary inasmuch as the public service is involved — but I wonder if some consideration couldn't be given to having the offices open on Saturdays in the larger communities where they now exist, rather than necessarily opening up more offices for driver testing and licensing in all these communities. I think that would be a very useful innovation. Certainly it is very difficult for people who have been in the bush whose licences expire. When they come out they can't drive and they can't renew their licences, because on a weekend they can't go and get their photographs taken and all that goes with that. I have had quite a number of people write to me on that matter.

I want to conclude by talking about safety. The second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) stole a bit of my thunder, but I want to re-emphasize it. Let me start by quoting a few figures to the House. In the years 1977, 1978 and 1979 there have been between 640 and 738 highway fatalities per year. We are talking roughly about 700 highway fatalities per year. In the same period there were, on average, 60 aircraft fatalities each year from airplane crashes in B.C. So we are talking about more than 11 times as many people being killed in car crashes than in plane crashes. I appreciate that probably more miles are driven by car than flown by plane. Nevertheless, what we find in this society is that all of us get concerned whenever a plane goes down. There are major inquiries each time a plane crashes. I'm not sure that the way those inquiries work leads to the best results sometimes, but there are inquiries, there is serious public concern and there is always shock. But when 10 or 11 times more people die on our highways, there is no similar outrage or shock or inquiries.

Maybe we should develop a system somewhat similar, but improved, to the aircraft investigations when planes go down. What's the difference if a plane crashes and four people are killed, or if a car crashes and four people are killed? Shouldn't we treat it just as seriously? I think we should, and I would urge that that be an idea that's considered. If only we would find out more precisely why the accidents occur, we would also focus more public attention on the fact that these people are dying.

If you pick up a Monday paper after a holiday weekend and read about the number of people who have died in car accidents over that weekend. you'll see lists sometimes of six, eight or ten people who have been killed. If they had been in one plane it would have been on the front page and the papers would have sent out a photographer to take a picture of the plane that had gone down too. So I think we must put extra emphasis on that.

Another matter I don't understand on safety is why I can go in every five years and renew my licence just by posing for a photograph. What does posing for that photograph and paying my $10 or whatever it is I pay demonstrate about my ability to drive a car? I appreciate it's going to cost a lot of money to test everybody every five years or even every ten years, but wouldn't it be cheaper in the long run if we got some of these jokers off the road who are on now? I made a speech last year in this House about driving behaviour and I made some comments earlier this session about it.

I'm absolutely persuaded that there is a significant percentage of drivers driving who shouldn't be on the road, for a variety of reasons. And there are people driving our freeway systems, in greater Vancouver in particular, who took their testing before freeways existed and they don't know how to get onto a freeway. They stop on the on ramp instead of getting up to speed, and on and on and on. I could go on for half an hour about all the incredibly bad driving practices that exist, many of which lead to accidents.

I wish that instead of getting a ticket for driving 70 kilometres per hour in a 60-kilometre zone, somebody would get a ticket for driving 70 kilometres per hour in an 80-kilometre zone. I don't see very many policemen stopping slow drivers, but they cause.... I shouldn't say they cause more accidents than fast drivers, because I can't prove that, but I have a hunch that the frustration level on the highway that is created by slow drivers is a major contributory factor toward highway accidents. The slow driver is probably not even involved in them, because they're left behind and the accident is caused somewhere down the road because somebody has lost his cool.

There's a whole other topic there about why we act the way we do when we're behind a wheel of a car. Maybe we should have investigation into that too, and some driver education about the need to treat that vehicle and the road itself with some respect.

I could go on and on. I like the Highways ministry ads on long weekends, and your voice, Mr. Minister, is on the tail end of those clips. They're good, but I think you should expand the advertising program and spend a significant amount of money on advertising, talking about how to drive and safe-driving practices. Maybe an advertising campaign that's geared to teaching people about driving at speed, access to freeways, that you're supposed to signal before you turn and not as you turn, and on and on and on. You know what I'm talking about, Mr. Minister. The problems are mass.

HON. MR. FRASER: I do it myself.

[ Page 3208 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Well, we all do on occasion, I guess, but sometimes it's pretty frustrating, and it's bad, because you wind up needing more roads because of the traffic jams that are caused by the kind of bad behaviour in driving too. So I would urge a major campaign on better driving and safety, and I would to urge you to consider seriously testing those of us who keep renewing our licences without ever having to prove that we can handle the vehicle. Some people learned to drive in a very, very different era, and even if their abilities haven't been impaired over the years, conditions have changed so much that they may not be able to handle the current situation.

I think I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. I'd appreciate listening to the minister's answers.

HON. MR. FRASER: I have a lot of good queries here to reply to and I'll go through them as fast as I can. I need help, first of all, from the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) on pronouncing that word Koksilah pedestrian overpass. I just want to say to the member for Cowichan-Malahat that I agree with her remarks that I don't think we should wait while they fuss around. We will follow up on that overpass. It could be two to three years before they settle that, and I don't think we should wait that long.

I have some engineer's report on how we arrive at the speed limits; that is 90 km/h or 80 km/h. We have about equivalent mileage posted in the province at 90 and at 80. They are upgraded from 80 to 90 strictly on the basis that the road has probably had an improvement to it; in other words, it is capable of the higher speed. We are not doing it on a temporary basis. Where they have been posted at 90 they are on a permanent basis because of an improvement to the road. I think I could safely use one road that I have in mind: the new North Island Highway. I think it started right off at 90, if I recall, because it was built to a better standard than one built 15 or 20 years ago. There are definitely engineering changes as the years go by, and better quality comes out of it, hopefully.

Here are the notes from the engineers. The 90 km/h were not experimental. On the trunk highway system, the speeds are as follows: on 5,234 kilometres of the highway system there is 80 km/h and 4,463 kilometres are posted at 90 km/h. We have a little more 80 than 90, but they are getting closer, because they are upgraded to a standard which will accommodate 90 km/h zones. The two zones mentioned, I believe by the member for Cowichan-Malahat, Highway 1 from Mill Bay to south of Duncan and Highway 19 to Henry Road — I don't know just what that note means, but you probably do.

Now on the $4.50 that appeared in the accounting, the next time our accountants put an item like that in a financial statement, or before they do, I am going to give them the $4.50 so they don't have to put it in. I have an explanation here. The amount of $4.50 shown under "Surveys — Island Highway section" is not an allocation as suggested but is an actual expenditure of the year 1978-79. It is an expense item for G.R. Forgaard, probably a meal cost or miscellaneous expense, a portion of several projects worked on on that particular day.

The other item you mentioned a couple of times, the amount of $1 under rights-of-way, in this case Phipps Road, is also an expenditure. It is the legal consideration necessary to bind a contract and allow for property taken. That is the reason for that from the accountants.

Now I would just like to deal for a short time with the operational side of government air services, which comes under the responsibility of this ministry. You were questioning the hours. It works out this way; I am talking about the hours for 1978-79. There were 971 hours flown on air ambulance, 739 hours on photography and 3,893 hours of passenger service. That would be for staff and for ministers and so on. That makes a total of 5,603 flying hours. There was a total shown of 5,879 hours, but the ministry has a simulator and it is included in those hours. The number of hours used on the simulator were 276, so you subtract that from the 5,879 and it will balance out with the 5,603 that I've mentioned as flying hours for the various aircraft in 1979-80.

You might be interested to know that the flying hours for ambulance service in the following year of 1979-80 increased substantially by 527 flying hours to 1,498 over 1978-79.

MRS. WALLACE: What were the passenger hours?

HON. MR. FRASER: The flying hours in 1978-1979 they have listed here as 2,880, and quite a drop in flying hours in 1979-1980 to 2,360. For aerial photography in 1978-1979 there were 739 hours, and in 1979-1980 there were 1,006 hours. So that's a rough idea of what has gone on for 1979-1980.

The overall picture on flying hours for the air services in 1978-1979 was 5,879, as I mentioned before. The flying hours for 1979-1980 were 6,407.

I'd like to comment on one other thing that the member for Cowichan-Malahat brought up regarding bridges and the completion of them. I might say, quite frankly, that I'm not very happy about that, and we are trying to tie things together better. I think what happened in her riding was a bad scene. Our senior engineers did the best they could, but where we could get our act together, then the municipality was involved, but I think we have to have better coordination. We're certainly working on that for the benefit of everyone.

The second member for Surrey asked first of all regarding the naming of the Queen of Surrey. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your concern regarding that, but the board of directors of the Ferry Corporation decided to rename the Queen of Surrey the Queen of the North because of the area it was going to serve, and I guess as a broad-brush line that's the way the other vessels were named. As for how we can do this, well, much to my amazement I found out that there is no problem at all: as long as you notify people you can change the names of the boats. I believe there is some registry in Ottawa, but I'm not sure of that. That was the ship put on that run, as you know, and because it was running north they renamed it Queen of the North.

Mr. Chairman, the second member for Surrey has the same concern as I have about commercial vehicles. I suspicioned a lot of things last fall, and asked the ministry to do some checks. While I think all governments have zeroed in on the drivers over the years, and rightly so, I don't think that all the fatalities on our roads are necessarily due to the driver. I think the vehicle has something to do with it, and specifically the mechanical condition.

Following that we set up mechanical inspections — on the lower mainland mostly — in the late fall of last year, and an absolute horror story came out of that, as you mentioned. I'll just review that again. Between December 10, 1979, and March 21, 1980, some 3,619 commercial vehicles were

[ Page 3209 ]

inspected and the following was the result. The number of unsafe vehicles taken out of service immediately was 193; vehicles with major defects were 2,252; the number of vehicles with other deficiencies was 751; for a total of 3,196. There were 67.6 percent that had serious defects, and overall a total of 88.3 percent that had something wrong with them. That is an absolutely disgraceful situation, as far as I am concerned. If you are interested in a few of the things found in the actual inspections, the number of commercial vehicles requiring brake repair or adjustment was 2,000. Of course, that's a serious item when you are talking about B-trains with air brakes, and so on. That type of deficiency couldn't be more serious.

We also checked the operators of these vehicles at the same time. This was done by mechanical inspectors, I might say, of the transport division of this ministry; but while they were doing it, the driver's licences were checked. We found that it was not as bad as we expected, but 29 were holding the wrong class of licence for the equipment operated. We also found 141 drivers lacked the knowledge to adjust air brakes. This means that these drivers will be required now to requalify themselves for their air brake endorsement. That was in March. Since then we've had a check in the Rogers Pass section of the highway, and the percentage of mechanical defects is holding the same. So it's a really big item that we are pursuing.

It isn't that big an item, Mr. Chairman, the way we intend to pursue it. I believe we now have approval from Treasury Board to hire more mechanical inspectors. We're going to put more mechanical inspectors out. We don't look to the building of big edifices such as the motor-vehicle branches that we have for the passenger vehicle. Instead, we intend to increase the mechanical inspectors. What I'm saying is that they will be on a mobile basis. We're going to expand it further, starting right away, into the central interior and the north — these mobile inspectors. It's a serious item.

Another item I would like to see — and I think it will be done.... Just a small corps of these mechanical inspectors has existed in this ministry; their job was school bus inspections. So we have to augment their ability to get the job done. I would also like to see, and, as I say, I think it will happen.... I don't think we're doing a great deal of mechanical inspection of vehicles hauling passengers. They will also get involved in that to a greater degree than they ever have before. What I'm really saying is that the mechanical inspections we've had have been more or less concentrated on.... All they could do were the school bus inspections. We're going to expand it to the commercial vehicles and to the licensed public-carrier passenger vehicles. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that we've discussed this with the larger operators as well as with the unions, and we have their full cooperation to go about this. I'm happy to report that. We're going to step up the mechanical inspections in every way we can.

To report to the House, I would just say that the government, under the auspices of the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Williams') ministry, has had a task force on driving and so on and has been talking about changes to the Motor Vehicle Act. I understand that this task force will shortly be ready to report to government. As I said, it's headed by the Attorney-General's ministry. We have our senior people on that task force. I'm not going to say what they're going to report. But there are certainly concerns showing up there. I think we are going to know shortly what they'll recommend.

I'd just like to mention another thing. The reason this subject is close to my heart is because I owned and drove a long-distance freight truck for a living. That's why I'm able to observe what's going on. I think that another big item is the security of load. We've had accidents — which, in my opinion, shouldn't have happened — because the load was not properly secured. I might say that that's against the law in the Motor Vehicle Act. Again, those things are now being checked at our weighscales, where, I'd suggest, I don't think they were being looked at too sincerely before.

On the King George Highway, I thank you for your remarks on the improvements there. That was a job that we've had several favourable comments on — we very rarely get them. That one was an excellent job, everything went right. We appreciate that.

I haven't yet got a reply from the engineers on the standards of exits and entries, but that will probably come.

The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) brought up rail transit on the basis that I am a member of the Urban Transit Authority. That is correct, I am one of the government members on it. I agree with his observations that somebody somehow — and I'm not so sure who the catalyst is here — should use the rails which are in place — that's really what he is saying — for rail transit. I couldn't think of a better place than from Vancouver to Mission, over the CPR. I don't know just how that gets going. The facility is there, except for the cars. I hope that something can be arrived at shortly.

When we're talking about transit generally, I get quite a charge out of the press reports on the different meetings, in which they suggest that we put rapid transit down a certain street in the great city of Vancouver. They get the same reaction we get when we say we're going to expand a highway in the city. Everybody comes and says: "Don't bring that transit line near us. We don't want that bunkum around here, the noise and so on that goes with it." That's a problem ahead of us. I see that at one meeting the city of Vancouver said: "Well, if you don't want it on the surface, we'll put it underground." I don't know whether anybody advised the city people who gave that as an answer what that will cost; there's a terrific difference from having it on the surface.

We now have on the surface this Vancouver-to-Mission line. We have a lot of commuters there; I know as the Minister of Transportation and Highways what a lot of congestion we have. Hopefully something will happen in that regard, and I'll certainly pass your message along, Mr. Member, to the cabinet committee when we meet.

To the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), regarding the Island Highway. Well, we all know the problem there. I'd like to zero in more on, I believe, north of Nanaimo somewhere through to Campbell River. I know we have problems, but we should have a four-lane road in right from north of the Malahat to Parksville, and we're looking at a bypass there from Parksville to Qualicum. I think then we're in a bit of a grey area from Qualicum up.

But the real bad piece of road — terribly congested — is the one from Courtenay to Campbell River. As the member knows, we're looking at that in a study situation. but it's my information.... Whether or not it's going on, it should be. We're trying to improve the existing old road to some degree, and that work should be going on at the present time. That's only a stopgap measure and we're looking at a new Courtenay–Campbell River road. It can't come fast enough as far as I'm concerned. For the information of the committee

[ Page 3210 ]

of the Legislature — I've said it before — it's a fact of life that the traffic density on the road from Courtenay to Campbell River is equivalent to the traffic density on the Trans-Canada Highway at Kamloops. I think everybody that lives in Campbell River works in Courtenay and everybody that lives in Courtenay works in Campbell River, because boy, it's a busy piece of road — that's apart from the tourists.

Regarding the road from Gold River to Tahsis, that's correct. The Gold River–Tahsis road is a forest access road and our ministry give them the money for maintenance. The engineers are listening, and I hadn't heard that before that it might be a better way to go via Woss Lake. We'll certainly took at that, but we haven't any immediate plans, even on the forest access road.

The two ferries at Quadra Island. Again we will certainly take that into consideration. We've just put a second ferry on there and relieved the heavy congestion. I've had several observations saying that's the way they want it. They don't want one big ferry, which the ministry engineers are recommending. The local citizens don't want that. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that ship has not been ordered yet; as a matter of fact we haven't even got Treasury Board approval for it.

The availability of driver's licences on Saturdays. I agree with that member on that because I come from the same type of area. The people in the riding of Cariboo are movers and shakers. They work Monday through Friday, and they can't get them then either. I would do business with the government — that is, when the government decides that offices should be open. But it is not a matter within my jurisdiction; it comes under the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). But it is — to people who leave home at 3 or 4 o'clock on Monday morning and come back on Friday night — a problem in a lot of areas of our province, specifically where they're involved with the forest industry.

Saying that there doesn't seem to be the concern regarding fatalities is correct, I guess. There's no shock from a highway death. While you're entitled to your individual opinion, we're very concerned about it. I would report to the committee that it's my information that every fatal accident on our highway system is examined in detail by the RCMP and the Ministry of Highways to investigate it and see what the cause of it was.

Your observation about slow drivers. I feel the same; I've made public statements about it. I'm not very happy with the enforcement. It again is in the act and our enforcers are not enforcing it. I've asked the inspector of the RCMP why not, and his reason was that it's too difficult for the police car to get up and get them pulled over. My reply to that was: "Well, you never had any difficulty pulling me over when you caught me speeding." But I'm telling you their side of it. It is somewhat difficult, I guess, but I'd like to see more enforcement of that. It causes lineups and frustrated drivers and, of course, they start crossing double lines and so on, and then the trouble starts.

Regarding driver education, just in closing, we have started a campaign to step up on driver education, safety and so on, and I think you'll see it doubled in the next six months from the level it's at now.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, very briefly I'd like to raise two issues. Regarding the Gabriola ferry that I talked about to some extent yesterday, it has been the practice or policy for the latest sailing to await traffic from the Queen of Vancouver, which arrives at 10:45 p.m. I'm told that recently this had not been the practice, and I wonder whether the policy has changed or whether something could be done if it has changed, whether it could be changed back so that it would await that traffic. There was a petition from the island asking for a later sailing — specifically for a midnight sailing — in May 1980, and I'm wondering what response the minister gave to that request.

With regard to the widening of the highway at the Ivy Green Park, I understood that originally the plans showed that the fountain presently there would no longer be available. It's a very important source of water for hundreds of people who live in that area who depend on wells, and I would like confirmation that when the highway is widened, the fountain will continue to be available as a source of water.

MR. COCKE: Would the minister care to reply?

HON. MR. FRASER: I have to get the answers.

MR. COCKE: Okay.

Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of issues that I'd like to discuss. While the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) is still here, I wondered why he hasn't been up on the estimates of the Minister of Highways. I've waited patiently for three or four days for a reply to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who was trying to make beer parlours out of our ferry fleet. I would suggest that that was one of the most irresponsible statements I've heard in this House. The member for Omineca was reported in the press as having said that instead of a food service on our ferries, we should have a beer service, and that would be the practical way to take care of the passengers. Mr. Chairman, we have enough trouble now with people drinking on those ferries and driving away from those ferries. To compound that problem, as the member for Omineca has suggested to the Minister of Highways, would be, in my view, an irresponsible act. If the Minister of Health wants to get up now and apologize for not having brought this up before — the Minister of Health, who is the champion of health care in our province, who would hardly want to increase the hospital statistics when he hasn't got an emergency-care system right now that can keep up....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we must....

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this is directly involved with the minister's estimate. The minister is in charge of the ferry fleet in terms of governmental responsibility.

Now there has been a suggestion to that minister that beer be put on the ferries as a substitute for food. I'm saying to the Minister of Highways, "Certainly don't take that kind of advice," and I'm suggesting to the Minister of Health that I would have thought that he would have been up long before now saying his piece in terms of what he thinks about beer on the ferries. I'll be through in a minute or two and I'm sure that he'll want to stand up and tell us what he thinks about the proposition: beer as a substitute for food on our ferry system. Maybe the Minister of Health will suggest some pretzels along with the beer.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister a question with respect to parking at the ferry system. I've always been confounded by the fact that in Swartz Bay it's half the price that it is in Tsawwassen. If I park my car at the Swartz Bay terminal, it costs me 50 cents a day; if I park my car in the

[ Page 3211 ]

Tsawwassen terminal, it costs $1 a day. Now I would wonder how those two parking facilities that are operated, I'm sure, by the B.C. Ferry Corporation and/or Highways — I believe it's either Highways or the Ferry Corporation who operates the parking — I wonder why the disparity.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we see in today's Victoria Times — and the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) is pointing it out to those government members — that a Seattle ferry cutback looms.

HON. MR. MAIR: Order! You can't read the paper in here.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Health, the greatest defender in this House....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask all hon. members to come to order, please. The member for Prince Rupert knows full well that it really is against our rules to read newspapers in the House.

MR. LEA: I am not reading it, because it is upside down when you look at it this way. I've just got it like this so that the government can read what they are doing to this province and this city in tourism and the ferries. I wasn't reading it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if, during committee, you wish to speak to the Minister of Transportation and Highways you have every right to do so. The Chair will recognize you.

MR. COCKE: Today there is a report in the Victoria Times that things are worse on the Victoria Princess run to Seattle than we had heretofore thought. Mr. Wright. who is the Victoria representative of the B.C. Steamship Company, which operates the ferry, said: "The decision will be made at a board meeting early next week." It would seem to me that Mr. Wright expects a decision to cut the service. Why would they cut the service? He said that there have only been 15,000 passengers coming up from Seattle on the Victoria  Princess  compared with 35,000 on the Marguerite the previous June.

The member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) has been critical of the government for their decision to take the Marguerite off the run. Members opposite have been talking in terms of trying to defend their position around putting the smaller vessel on, but it is clear now that they made a terrible, desperate mistake. Mr. Wright makes a statement here that tourism is down in the state of Washington. I'm not sure if Mr. Wright has all his facts correct. Mount St. Helens has actually attracted people, according to a news report that I saw the other night on American television. They say that the state of Washington is half-full of cars all the way from Florida and Texas. Incidentally, I imagine people are coming up to Washington from Texas at the present time, in any event, to get clear of the hot weather. In any event, things are not bad in Washington. As the member for Victoria pointed out, all the other border crossings are up in British Columbia except this one border crossing, and that's the border crossing that takes one from Seattle to Victoria directly on either the Flying Princess or the Victoria Princess.

They made a mistake. I suggest to the minister that he goes to his colleagues and says to them: "Let's get the Marguerite back before it rusts out and get it on that run." The member for Peace River can snort and walk out. The member for Peace River isn't affected. The people who are affected are the people that are in the Victoria area — those serving the tourists — and the people who wish to come here on a very novel mode of transportation — a first-class vessel. So we see headlines like this and it's very sad.

Just one more word about the beer. I would hope that the member for Omineca will get up in this House and tell us why he wants to make a beer parlour out of the ferry system.

MR. HOWARD: Curtis is short of money.

MR. COCKE: I know that the government makes money on beer but, Mr. Chairman, confound it, there is no place for beer on those ferries. It's an hour and 40 minute at the longest....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The working man might want a beer.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Forests says that the working men want beer on the ferries. So it's becoming government policy. I suggest it was very dangerous talk indeed.

HON. MR. MAIR: I rise with some reluctance to speak in my colleague's estimates, because I'm eminently satisfied with the job he's doing, particularly in my constituency. I particularly appreciate the assistance that the minister has given me with respect to some very difficult problems concerning the Kamloops Indian band and the erection of a bridge which would land on their land. I remember very well my colleague's assistance during the time that we placed their band lands, which were stolen from them and put in the city, back into their own possession a couple of years ago as a result of a campaign pledge. So I'm very pleased with what he's done.

I might say l'm also very delighted to notice that not long after we took office, we started to see signs on the highways indicating passing lanes two kilometres away, which I think has done a great deal to cut down on the impatience that seems to be so attendant upon highway driving these days and, I think, is such a cause of accidents.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has raised in this House for the first time, as far as I know, the question of beer or alcohol on the ferries. I want to tell the members opposite that I think it would be a pretty, sad opposition where each person always agreed with the other and it would be a sad government bench if everybody here always agreed with their colleagues on each and every issue. On this particular issue the member for New Westminster seems to feel that I should make a statement in this House, although I've made them outside the House, where I understand my colleague for Omineca made his statements. He seems to feel I should make a statement in this House in order to set the record straight and I am pleased to do so. It is a reasonable request, and as far as I'm concerned I am very much against the sale of any alcoholic beverages on any of the government ferries in the province of British Columbia.

If he wishes further clarification of that — I think I've answered it forthrightly — I would be very pleased to clarify it. I am against it and to that extent I disagree with my colleague for Omineca if he is in favour of that. There is nothing wrong with that. I am sure we are going to disagree on lots of things in the future; we have in the past but we'll

[ Page 3212 ]

still remain very good colleagues, good friends and both members of the best government this province has ever seen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point I might remind all hon. members that we are in debate on vote 193, the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways. That really is all the committee is empowered to comment on. A conversation regarding comments made outside the House would not be relevant to committee.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Transportation and Highways, as the government representative in the Ferry Corporation, has the responsibility to the people of B.C. as to what happens to those ferries. Incidentally, I am very happy with the answer from the Minister of Health.

MR. KING: I have quite a number of local matters to raise with the minister. Perhaps before I go into those local issues which I'm sure the minister and his staff will listen to very attentively, I do want to thank the minister for releasing the long-promised grant of $30,000 to the village of Chase, as a government contribution to construction of a bridge in that local municipality.

As much as I appreciate the minister's complying with the promise that was made during the course of the provincial election campaign a year ago last May, I do want to make a few observations about it. It was a strange way to do business. During the heat of the election campaign the minister had an order-in-council put through cabinet agreeing to share in this local municipality's construction of a bridge. Lo and behold, he and the Social Credit candidate in that particular riding, Mr. Len Bawtree, who I think used to me a member of this Legislature at one time, announced jointly by press release that the order-in-council had been issued and the village of Chase was going to be awarded $30,000 as a grant from this benevolent government. I thought that was wonderful. I thought that was an act of cooperation from the minister and the Social Credit government. I knew it had nothing to do with the provincial election campaign, Mr. Chairman. I knew it was just an act of responsibility by the government. But I did become a bit perplexed after the election was over when I found that the $30,000 grant which had not only been promised, but had been legally authorized by order-in-Council, was now withheld. Indeed, there were strings attached then to this grant, despite the fact that the order-in-Council approving the grant had contained no such strings or conditions. For a long year and a half, I have had correspondence with the minister and his staff trying to have that promised $30,000 grant released to the village of Chase.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Another election! Well, far be it from me to suggest that the minister and the government were disappointed with the results of the election, and that that had anything to do with dispensing the grant. I know that wasn't a consideration at all.

But in any event, the grant was finally released, after much haggling back and forth. All of a sudden the structure wasn't really as safe as it might be, and the minister and his staff were concerned that perhaps it hadn't been engineered well enough; it might collapse, and they didn't want to be a party to paying for an unsafe structure. Well, the village council of Chase conducted a comparison of the structure in question with a similar Highways ministry structure known as the Squilax Bridge just a couple of miles out of town. The minister said: "Oh, they look alike, but they're not really the same."

For the minister's edification, I just want to give him the stats on those two bridges, which apparently escaped him and his staff. He said the timbers are not quite heavy enough and it may fall down. The span of the Highways bridge is 60 feet; the span of the Chase Creek bridge is 53 feet. The width of the Highways ministry bridge is 17 feet 9 inches; the width of the Chase one is 24 feet. The number of beams in the Highways bridge is four; the number of beams in the local community bridge is five. The beam spacing is 61 inches in the Highways bridge; it is 69 in the Chase bridge. The cross-ties on the Highways bridge are six-by-eights on 16-inch centres; on the local bridge that he is scared might collapse, they are six-by-eights with 14-inch centres. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I don't think one has to be a structural engineer to note that the underpinning of the bridge he was so concerned about was of a higher strength and standard than his own Highways bridge.

MR. LEA: But the wood in one was made out of Bawtree.

MR. KING: Yes, somebody felled the Bawtree.

In any event, the final irony of this little aside was a letter I received from the minister — I think it was dated May 20 — finally releasing the funds, one whole year after that famous order-in-council during the heat of an election campaign by that government that is non-partisan, stands back and would never politicize any issue. A little over one year later, the minister released the $30,000. He sent this letter to me, which I appreciated very much.

"Dear Mr. King:

"I have reviewed the matter raised in your letter of March 18, 1980. Attached for your information is a copy of the executive director of engineering's letter of January 9, 1980, to the village.

"You refer in your letter to similarity between the Coburn Street bridge and the Squilax Bridge. Spacing of the beams on the Chase Creek bridge is greater than on the Squilax Bridge"

That's not true. Mr. Minister. I've just revealed the data to you: I don't know who your engineer was.

"This creates timber stresses in the Chase Creek bridge considerably greater than in the Squilax Bridge.

"I think you will recognize that my ministry does not wish to create any hardship for the village. I am also sure you would not advocate application of provincial funds to a structure which might fall." Heaven forbid! "You were correct that the order-in-Council does not stipulate design standards. This has not been found necessary in the past, as municipalities have in their own interests ensured that bridges are being built properly engineered.

"In an attempt to resolve this matter, my staff has written to the village advising release of the funds approved by the order-in-council, with the village responsible for imposing a load limit until such time as the composite concrete deck is constructed."

Isn't that something? The minister is saying the beams aren't heavy enough, despite the fact that they're heavier and

[ Page 3213 ]

on narrower centres than his own Highways department bridge. But he says: "It might collapse so you've got to put up load restrictions until such time as we put a composite concrete deck on the bridge."

Mr. Minister, I would assume that a concrete deck would place a heavier load on those timbers that you were concerned about and would increase and exacerbate the very problem that concerned you. The conclusion you drew that the bridge may fall would only be heightened if you placed a heavy concrete deck on the bridge. But you claim that once that is done, fair enough, the load restrictions come off and everybody is happy.

I just raise this to chide the minister a little bit. I am happy the funds came through. I suppose it was an attempt to save face for the department and the minister's office, but really it is a bit of a ridiculous charade. All it did was expose the minister to some embarrassment, I suggest, in a totally unnecessary fashion. The bridge is safe, well designed, and well constructed. There were no justifications whatsoever for playing those silly little games. The money should have been spent. It was unfortunate that Mr. Bawtree never won the election but, after all, a promise is a promise.

AN HON. MEMBER: We miss him.

MR. KING: Yes, I miss Len too. He is a nice chap, but that is the way it goes. You win some and you lose some. I've been there myself before. One thing about it is that I have no nightmares whatsoever about those eventualities. My life and my security don't really depend on it. In any event, once one is elected, one is elected to represent the people in their area and see that they get fair play. That kind of exercise wasn't really fair play, Mr. Minister. It was an exercise in politics and, really, stupidity.

I want to raise a number of other matters and I'll try to be fairly brief. I don't want to be too long at this thing. I thought it was hilarious that the minister said the bridge is unsafe because the underpinning is too light. So we're going to solve all that by putting a heavy concrete deck on the bridge and then you can take the load restrictions off. That's really some reasoning, isn't it?

Mr. Chairman, there's another bridge that I'm concerned about and it's at the community of Mara, which is on the south end of Mara Lake. In that particular case the Highways ministry is planning a change in the old service road to that little farming community. They intend to link up Coel-Jones Road to the Old Sicamous Road and tie in with the Grindrod Westside Road. The problem is that there's a bit of a community on both sides of the river there and there's an existing bridge that allows access to and from their community hall and so on. The new proposal, in effect, would bypass it on the opposite side of the river. As I understand it now, the proposition is to remove that old bridge and not replace it, bypassing with the new road connection.

The citizens of the community have petitioned me to retain their old bridge. It's not a terribly costly proposition. It does need repairs and upgrading, but it's not required to carry any heavy loads. It's an important link in preserving access to local community facilities. It has existed there, I think, since the early 1900s and I suggest that any move to eliminate that bridge just to accommodate the new bypass road would be retrograde in terms of the interests of that community. So I appeal to the minister to have a look at that one with his staff. I'd be very pleased to consult with him and his ministry staff on it — as I know the local people would — before a decision is made with respect to that bridge. They very much want to preserve it, and I think they have a reasonable case.

The second point I wanted to raise with the minister is the road to Mabel Lake from Enderby. It too has been the source of furious activity at certain times of the year, and particularly every two or three years. Those things happen. There are quite a number of people living in that area. Indeed, the former member for Shuswap lives up there. I want to represent Len Bawtree well down here. I want to ensure that he has a first-class road to his farm, and that he doesn't have to eat dust unnecessarily and unduly. I'm very interested in looking after all of my constituents. I'm very sincere about that. The other thing. of course, is that there is a heavy tourist flow into Mabel Lake. It's a very popular recreation area for the summer. Many people have summer homes on it. The fishing traffic to the lake is very heavy.

What we have now is both ends of the road in pretty good shape, black topped, but in the centre there's about a 2½- to 3-mile stretch which is pretty dusty. It's quite a surprise for one entering that stretch of road. There's this beautiful black topped highway and then you hit this little stretch in the middle. Really it conjures up visions of the distant past when you encounter that dusty section in the middle. It's not a high-value proposition, Mr. Minister. I think you have been proceeding on a day-labour basis, inch by inch, year by year. It's been inch by inch except in election years, and then we've got into yards. I think if the minister really sets his chin firmly, screws up his resolve, puts the pressure on the member for Saanich and the Islands, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), the necessary allocation can be found to complete the Mabel Lake Road this year. It is an important link in terms of the priorities in the area; it's important from the point of view of the tourist trade. I strongly and very sincerely appeal to the minister to try to finish that off this year. It's much too small a stretch now to fool around with a partial day-labour contract on it. For God's sake, let the whole contract and finish the thing.

The other one I wanted to raise with the minister is the Enderby bridge. That is a bit more problematic. I have all kinds of difficult circumstances in that riding I inherited. They've been there quite a while; I've only been there a year. I want to have them all resolved by the end of this year, Mr. Minister. I understand that the ministry has made a decision to proceed with the construction of a new bridge at Enderby; that's what I'm advised.

There is a problem with the local native Indian band, who claim that the bridge is currently located on their property. It's not really up to me to act as an adjudicator in terms of that kind of dispute: it's a legalistic one. I do want to appeal to the minister to consult not only with the local municipal council at Enderby, but also with the Indian band too. The chief of the Indian band in Enderby, Wayne Christian, is an extremely bright and articulate young man; he is energetic; he's a pretty forceful individual. I can understand his concern. I think that over the years the native people have perhaps suffered because they have not been as forceful as other elements in society, that historically they've been snowed under on a whole variety of land deals. I think one can understand, and be sensitive to, the very aggressive posture that people like Chief Christian take today when it comes to protecting their land interests.

However, I have consulted with him and his band council; I've consulted with local people. Quite frankly, I

[ Page 3214 ]

don't think there is a wide area at issue here. I find the chief to be a reasonable person. As vigorous as he is in asserting the native Indian rights in the matter, he is a reasonable person. He does, in fact, wish to see improvement of the transportation system in that area. I tried to organize a meeting with the Ministry of Highways and the local people involved. The ministry pulled out of that meeting at the time — perhaps with justification; perhaps they needed more information.

I want to stress to the minister and appeal to him to give a commitment that there is broad consultation before any arbitrary decision is made on this thing, which may create more problems than it solves. There is no question about the need for the bridge. There is another added problem in that the municipality's water line is presently hung on the bridge too, but I don't think that's a major obstacle. There are legal implications, but I think those would only become a problem if there is a failure to sit down and consult and negotiate in good faith and find a solution which respects everyone's interest in the matter.

Mr. Minister, if I can be of any assistance in that process, despite the fact that we sit across the floor from each other.... I hope that is not an impediment to including me in the process; it's not a political issue per se; it's a community issue. On those kinds of issues I think the local member can frequently be of assistance. I can guarantee to you that I have no desire whatsoever to make this a political issue; it's a community issue where, obviously, it's in everyone's interest to have the thing completed and put out of the way. So if I can be of any assistance in that process, I certainly make that offer to the minister.

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) and I wrote the minister a month or so ago regarding Selkirk van lines, which operates from Vernon and Mica Creek to Nelson through the Slocan Valley, all the way down that line. It's the only transportation system down there. The riding of the member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), I think, enjoys the service of this....

HON. MRS. JORDAN: You mean that piece I inherited that you hadn't done any work on?

MR. KING: Oh, we can discuss that later, Madam Minister. I have some correspondence you may not like to hear.

The problem was that the minister is anticipating and planning major construction in the Cape Horn Bluff area, which is a major construction undertaking. It is a difficult one, and I congratulate the minister for setting that as a priority and improving that road. It is also an important tourist link between the southern trans-provincial and the Trans-Canada Highway.

The problem is that when the construction is undertaken it may obstruct that road and require a detour around from New Denver to Kaslo and thence to Nelson. If that is the case, then this charter bus line, which has a mandate to service the Slocan Valley, would be deterred from doing so, and obviously it would be uneconomic for them to make that loop and then come all the way back up to the obstruction point on the highway which is about the village of Slocan. It is a difficult question. I don't know what the minister might do — whether he can maintain the highway open for limited traffic, whether there is some other solution to it or not, whether or not a ferry arrangement on the Slocan Lake around the construction point is a possibility. That was done previously when other construction was undertaken in the same vicinity.

I do strongly appeal to the minister to have regard for the very narrow economic margin on which Selkirk van lines operates and to be sensitive to the fact that it is the only public transportation system in that area. It is not only individual citizens who rely on them for transportation, but they are very important to the business community in Nakusp, New Denver and right down the Slocan Valley. I think they also handle the mail. So their guaranteed continuity of access to their chartered route is an absolute must in any plans that the minister has for that major construction undertaking. I've written to the minister on it, along with the member for Nelson-Creston, and I hope he will take very seriously the representations we have made.

The Grindrod railway crossing is another area that is under planning for an alternate route. There is a right-angle turn just off that railway crossing. It is a danger point and it is a very inconvenient one for traffic flow. There is a division of opinion, quite frankly, among local residents as to what should happen there. There are those who say: "Leave the right-angled turn there." That slows traffic down to manageable speeds within their community. Then, of course, there's another body of opinion that holds that that road should be straightened out, mainly in the interest of safety as well as convenience of the travelling public. I don't really presume to advise the minister which step to take there, except to say that he should have his local area departmental officials consult with the local people as an important element of coming to the decision. I know land acquisition is another.... I know they.... Gee, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, it's rather noisy in here. Order, please. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has the floor.

MR. KING: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'm finding it hard to hear myself.

I just ask that the minister....

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, it could be worse. It could be the Premier on his feet, Mr. Chairman, and I find that rather difficult on the nerve endings too, but so be it.

Mr. Chairman, I just ask that the minister take that into consideration, and above all, consult with the local people on some reasonable solution that finds the broadest consensus possible on the matter before a final decision is made.

I've received a wide number of requests for the opening of an existing road between the village of Chase and the Tod Mountain ski resort in the Kamloops area. It's a short distance through there and there is access now for part of the year. I think there's a logging licensee in there who maintains the road and plows it part of the way. The village of Chase Chamber of Commerce and the Kamloops Chamber of Commerce have all made submissions recommending this as an additional access to Tod Mountain. It is quite a significant cut-off from the Trans-Canada Highway. In other words, rather than having to continue to Kamloops and west of there, and then taking the approach to Tod Mountain, you could cut off at the village of Chase and have access in a matter of 20 or 30 miles, I think something like that. It's a good proposition, and with the existing road there, I don't think it's a costly undertaking to open that access up to stimulate the ski resort, even though it's not in my riding, Mr. Chairman. It's good

[ Page 3215 ]

for the province of British Columbia: it's good for the users of that facility. I think it's something the minister should look very seriously at.

As I say, there is an existing road, albeit a fairly rough one. The upgrading to the kind of standard required for a ski access would not, in my view, be a major undertaking and could be done reasonably cheaply. I would appreciate it if the minister would have a serious took at that proposition.

The Revelstoke western access. I understand the minister has advised the city council of Revelstoke that work will be undertaken on that western access. The problem has been there for a number of years.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Divisions ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move that the House at its rising stand adjourned until 2 o'clock tomorrow afternoon.

MR. LAUK: The motion is that this House adjourn until 2 p.m. tomorrow. It seems that we've gone several weeks, Mr. Speaker, without a night sitting. The government is not prepared to proceed with legislation. It is even stalling on its own estimates — like today, for example. It delays controversial estimates. It adjourns to have meetings for ministers and other conferences, but it can't sit at night. People all over the province are asking: "What is the Legislature doing? What is the government doing?" We all get paid to do a job here, and these people just aren't available to debate public affairs at night sittings. We sit at 2 and we adjourn at 6 — that's four hours a day. I don't know of anybody in this province that has that kind of hours. They didn't proceed with night sittings, and we felt that the government, if not proceeding with night sittings, would....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Members are advised that the first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: How much time have you been away?

MR. LAUK: You know, that minister — the one that's being the loudest, Mr. Speaker — is probably the most inept Minister of Industry in the history of the province of British Columbia. Since 1976 he hasn't created one job for the province of British Columbia. Not one! But he has sure closed a number. He sure created a lot of unemployment in this province. He's a big mouth, but when it comes to working nights....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members. we are currently debating a motion to adjourn. The discussion the member has now embarked upon is clearly out of order....

MR. LAUK: But I'm saying that the minister, when it comes to working nights, boy, he's out of these buildings like a flash. And I'll tell you. It's not on government business either. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he's down at the old golf course, Mr. Speaker. He hasn't got time for the people's business. Four hours a day tuckers him out, the poor old fellow.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it's about time the government accepted its responsibility, in all seriousness, and held night sittings so that we can get on with the business of this House in an orderly fashion. I demand that the government call for night sittings in this Legislature.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker. I could hardly wait to get into this debate about the hour of adjournment and when we should come back to continue to discuss the people's business. I wouldn't have entered the debate had perhaps the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) or the member for Surrey got up to talk about this, because they're not bad attenders in this House. But to have that member talk about the time for adjournment and use terms like "when it comes to working nights" — from a member who's not prepared to work days — then I have a feeling that somebody should set the record right. That member uses this House at his own convenience and moonlights during the time that he's not in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. minister. The first member for Vancouver Centre rises on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has shown total disrespect before for other members of this House and for the truth. The minister does not speak the truth and I ask him to withdraw the implication that I am moonlighting. As far as my attendance record is concerned, hour for hour, debate for debate, and day for day in this House, it is vastly superior to that minister's or anybody else's in this House. I ask him to make that statement in the corridor and face a writ for libel, because he's a cheap-mouthed minister.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I have two withdrawals to ask for, hon. members. Firstly, I would ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to withdraw any improper motive that may have been brought to the member's attention.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm not so sure. I indicated that the member's attendance....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, tradition has dictated in this House that when an hon. member asks another hon. member to withdraw, it is in the best parliamentary tradition for the member just to make a simple withdrawal, and there the matter ends. At that time I will entertain the second point that I have to raise. Would the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources so withdraw.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Votes and Proceedings will show the record in this House, and I withdraw on that basis.

[ Page 3216 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Now I must ask the first member for Vancouver Centre to withdraw the statement that the minister was not telling the truth. I must ask for a withdrawal on that as well, in the same tradition.

MR. LAUK: The minister probably wasn't advertently.... No, I'm not going to.... If he says that I was more absent than he was in this House, that's not the truth and I'm not going to withdraw that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: It is true!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The first member for Vancouver Centre, in the best interests and example of parliamentary tradition, has been asked to withdraw a statement which the Chair has found to be in question. I would ask the member if he would assist the proceedings and the traditions of this House....

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw any imputation that the minister has deliberately told an untruth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. That solves that question.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make a couple of other points and certainly respond to the member for Vancouver Centre. Any statements I ever make in this House, I'm extremely happy to make outside. I have no fears whatsoever about making the statements that I make in this House outside of the House. I don't need the protection of the House for the truth, Mr. Speaker, and so I'll always take that position.

But, Mr. Speaker, for that opposition to be talking about whether or not the government should be working or the Legislature should be working.... When the day comes that that opposition is in this House, doing the business of the House every day when it should be here, and not out holidaying or vacationing or whatever it is they do when they're not here.... The attendance record on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, is atrocious. They're not in this House. There are only 16 or 17 of them here today. Mr. Speaker, we'd be extremely happy to see the members of that opposition attend this House during the day to get the work done for the people of British Columbia and to stop their negative, harping obstructionism from that holdup gang on the other side.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to recognizing the member for Skeena I must again remind all members that we are debating the hour of adjournment and that we are beginning to stray somewhat from the principle of that debate.

MR. HOWARD: Without appearing to be and not wanting to be critical of the operation from the Chair, it's very interesting to note, when a legitimate question is raised, as it was earlier, we find the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources so defensive, so sensitive....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Am I not allowed to debate?

MR. HOWARD: You're allowed to debate. Not only is he allowed to debate, Mr. Speaker, he's also allowed to listen. One of the things you should learn in life, Mr. Minister, is that one of the reasons you have two ears and one mouth is so that you can listen twice as much as you talk. I sat and listened to his debate — uninterrupted — and all I'm trying to point to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House is, when earnestly and honestly a very legitimate question was raised by the member for Vancouver Centre, what happens? The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources embarks upon a personal attack, with accusations of attendance and all that sort of thing which have nothing whatever to do with the motion before the House. All that indicates is that the minister is so sensitive about his own laziness that he's got to attack other people on an individual basis. That is what we are talking about — laziness on the part of the government and the cabinet, unable to come back in the evening and do the job they are paid to do.

MR. KEMPF: How was your record in Ottawa?

MR. HOWARD: There is that beer salesman from Omineca, who wants to get everybody on the ferries drunk.

MR. KEMPF: You're bad enough sober.

MR. HOWARD: My hon. friend from Omineca wouldn't recognize if a person was drunk or sober, except maybe the member sitting next to him. Let me proceed without the interruptions, please.

What are the complaints that are levelled by this Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett), by his Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and by others over there? Their complaint is that the Legislature is not making progress; it is slow; things are not being dealt with.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're touchy, aren't you?

MR. HOWARD: I'm not touchy. We are the ones who have raised in this House the necessity of sitting nights. You're the one that's denied it.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: If the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development will stop bleating, perhaps I can continue, because he and the Premier are two of those continuing to complain about lack of progress. If there is any lack of progress it is because that lazy crowd over there won't sit nights, won't work. That is what it is. Three months of no night sittings, three months goofing off to do whatever they want to in the evenings. We've raised that on more than one occasion and we get shot down every day. Every time it's raised, what happens? The government says: "Oh, no, we don't want to sit nights; we want to cash our paycheque but we don't want to do the business of the House." That's what they're saying. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim on the one hand that business isn't proceeding and then refuse to do anything about speeding it up.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is most difficult

[ Page 3217 ]

to carry on the business of the House if more than one person is speaking at a time, and that is why we recognize only one member at a time.

MR. HOWARD: I've learned from experience that the best thing I can do is ignore the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) whenever he says anything, especially when he says it from his seat. I'm very much afraid he'll blow his cork. He is wild, irresponsible, volcanic, prepared to libel and slander anybody but not prepared to take it when it's his turn.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: He sits in his seat and catcalls and argues.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Very clearly we are straying from the debate presently before us, The debate is on the time of adjournment. We are now crossing that line and entering into personal attacks, which cannot be tolerated in the House, particularly when we are debating an issue as crystal clear as the one before us.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. MAIR: On a point of order, as one who has never been afraid to say outside the House what I say inside the House, I take great exception to being accused of libel and slander.

MR. LAUK: Well then, stop doing it.

HON. MR. MAIR: The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who has never had the guts to say outside of this House what he says inside the House, like your friend from Vancouver East.... You'd be in jail for criminal libel if you ever said outside the House what you say inside the House. I've been accused of libel and slander, and I ask the member to withdraw.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we can only entertain one point of order at a time. I am entertaining at this time the point of order by the Minister of Health. Then I will entertain the point of order by the first member for Vancouver Centre.

On the point of order raised by the Minister of Health, the minister has asked for withdrawal of a term which he finds offensive. He has asked that of the member for Skeena and, subsequently, of the first member for Vancouver Centre.

First, would the member for Skeena withdraw any improper imputation?

MR. HOWARD: No question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Now, hon. member, before I continue, I would ask the first member for....

MR. HOWARD: I'm now about to say what it is I am withdrawing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member has given a withdrawal. I will recognize the member at the conclusion of the.... To the first member for Vancouver Centre, I must now ask for the same withdrawal. If the member would do so, I will then entertain his point of order.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Health stated — which is in Hansard — that I would be in jail for criminal libel. I rise on a question of privilege. I ask the Speaker at this point to deal with the question of privilege; it's in the face of the House. If the member cannot prove his charge, he must resign his seat.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I'm deadly serious, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister of Health can prove his charge, I will resign mine. I demand an immediate ruling on that question of privilege in the face of the House.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I am going to call for order one more time, and then this matter is going to be resolved in a manner very unfavourable to whichever member is out of order.

First, to the first member for Vancouver Centre, prior to entertaining the point of privilege you raised, I must first deal with the withdrawal asked by the Chair for the Minister of Health. I must at this time ask the first member for Vancouver Centre, as I did the member for Skeena, to withdraw. Quite honestly, hon. member, I forgot what it was I was asking you to withdraw.

MR. LAUK: Whatever it was, I withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Whatever it was, he withdraws. You have saved the Chair a great deal of trouble.

On the matter that the first member for Vancouver Centre raises — that is, that the charge of criminal libel issued by the Minister of Health is absolutely unparliamentary and unacceptable — I must insist upon a withdrawal of that term by the Minister of Health in reference to the first member for Vancouver Centre.

HON. MR. MAIR: I withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, let me say one thing clearly. In the course of the debate that has just gone on, I think it should be drawn to Your Honour's attention that the most persistent interrupters from their seats were the Minister of Health and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. They are permitted to continue — I don't say that critically of the Chair, because the furor of debate goes on that way — and in speaking from their seats they do make accusations that oftentimes are not heard by the Chair, but are heard by members on this side. I say they do that deliberately, in order to get their kicks in without having been called to task by the Chair. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if in future the rule of interruptions by those hon. gentlemen opposite, which impedes the orderly debate in this House, was dealt with much more severely than it has

[ Page 3218 ]

been in the past, perhaps we would have a little bit more sensible debate in the Legislature.

I am talking particularly about the Minister of Health, who is not averse to going outside and saying things. I was out there once when he said some things.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Get to the point.

MR. HOWARD: I just want to make that point, Mr. Speaker. The aggravation that goes on here is caused by that bunch of lazy clods over there who don't want to do the job they're paid for.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must caution all hon. members about their terminology. While we seem to enter into a certain heat of debate, the word is temperate. I would ask that the member for Skeena withdraw the last remark, which is offensive.

MR. HOWARD: I thought it was a rather commendable remark, Mr. Speaker, but if you find it offensive, I will gladly withdraw it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am advising the member that the Chair finds the word offensive.

MR. HOWARD: All right. If it's an offensive word, I won't use it; I never do. I will substitute: that lazy group of honourable ladies and gentlemen who constitute this cabinet so poorly picked.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, just for the record I would like to make note of a few things. When the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) began the debate I took a count of the opposition members in the House. I find that 14 of them have gone home to their constituency homes in Victoria. They have gone home; they are sipping wine; they really had no intention of coming back. As a matter of fact, I am sure that if we looked back in the records of when we used to sit nights, we would find that many of them didn't come back at night, and those that did had perhaps been sipping wine at their homes in Victoria.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask that the hon. minister withdraw the last statement regarding the point that he made. Will the member withdraw the remark.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I don't imply there's anything wrong with sipping wine. I'll withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just for the benefit of all members, any reference to sobriety in any stage, state or other, of any member is absolutely not acceptable to the Chair, to the members of this House, or to the traditions of this House. I would caution members, as we stray constantly from the debate before us, to remember that the debate is on the adjournment. On that note, I thank the member for his withdrawal.

On a point of order, the member for Revelstoke-Shuswap.

MR. KING: I just wanted to observe, as one to whom the remark was directed, that I took no offence. I would rather have my sobriety questioned than my sanity, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Speaker, I could support continuing, perhaps; but on the other hand, I think if we were to continue at nights, we should consider continuing on Friday or weekends. The NDP members from Victoria are of course applauding the weekend approach, because they're all living here. But when I take a count on a Friday at about noon — and I've done so for the last five or six weeks — I find that seldom are there more than about a dozen NDP socialist members in the House. They simply do not attend. They wander in; in the mornings I see them coming across the grounds into the buildings at about 11 a.m., when all the cabinet members have already put in three or four hours. I see them leave at night when all the cabinet members, and the back-bench members, are still working in their offices and doing what is required for their constituencies.

So I think it's a matter of give and take on both sides. There is plenty we can do for our constituents. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned, as I'm sure every taxpayer in British Columbia must be. I was accused a while ago by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) of having gone about various places saying that the NDP opposition was frustrating progress in the House and that nothing was happening in British Columbia. That is true; I have said that. I do not ask him to withdraw. That is the truth.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, an uncomplicated one, maybe too complicated for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I didn't make that suggestion about him.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I thought I heard it from the member for Skeena, but it may have been.... I have said that, and I estimate it is costing about $25,000 per day to keep the House going. That is fine, that is democracy, no one argues that. But if you look at what was debated in the House today, when you look at the level of debate and the questions asked by the opposition members of our good Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), then the taxpayers must wonder if it's all worth $25,000 a day. I am all for working, and certainly those on this side have a reputation for wanting to get things done. That is why we are the government; that is why we will continue to be the government. But certainly, to hear from the first member for Vancouver Centre that I am a lazy person, when he is hardly ever here, when I hardly ever see him on a Friday — he has a long weekend practically every weekend — is a little upsetting.

MR. LEA: It is very, very interesting, Mr. Speaker. We pay a minister in this province about $50,000 a year to sit by the window to see whether the NDP are coming in at 11. This guy spends more time looking out the window to see where we are than he does doing the people's business.

What it really boils down to is that this motion suggests that we should adjourn at 6 o'clock instead of coming back for the traditional night sitting. We are opposed to this motion because we feel that we could much more enhance the business of this House by putting in the traditional hours of working at least two nights a week.

We don't even know, on this side of the House, from day to day, minute to minute, what the business of this House is going to be. The government keeps even that information to

[ Page 3219 ]

themselves and won't let us know from one day to the next, one hour to the next, one minute to the next, exactly what we are going to be doing. We have asked through our Whip time after time what the business of the House is going to be. He doesn't know because the House Leader won't tell him. The government won't tell him. We ask: "What legislation is coming into the House? We would like to know so that we can plan exactly what it is we would like to do in terms of that legislation." They won't even tell us what legislation is coming in. As a matter of fact, they don't even have the legislation prepared, as I understand it, that they are planning to bring in. It is catch as catch can.

But the whole thing, I believe, boils down to the leadership of this province — the reason that this adjournment is called for. It's the guy with his back to me over there, the guy who was born with a silver foot in his mouth, the guy who never had to go out and hammer out a living in this province, the guy who has been able to be lazy all his life for the simple reason that he happened to be born into it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, again we are straying from the motion before us, and we are now entering what is clearly a personal discussion. I must ask the member, and indeed all members, to come back to the motion and refrain from the personalities of the issue.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it's nothing personal. I'm not talking about him; I'm talking about the Premier. I'm talking about the office and I'm talking about the government. I'm saying that this government, for the most part, is starting to fall into the trap of the leader — of not understanding what it is to do a hard day's work for a hard dollar. Where was the leader of this province before he became Premier? Was he speaking out on issues in this province? No, he took no interest in this province. The only time he took an interest in this province is when he could see himself becoming the Premier. For those reasons, what we have is a government that does everything wrong in terms of trying to get the business of this House done.

The traditional sittings at night were cancelled because we have a leader and a government who are not accustomed to hard work. They like to talk about it. They've got the rhetoric down pat, but when it comes to putting the work where their mouths are, they fall sadly lacking. Has the government ever said to this side of the House, to the press or to anybody else why the traditional night sittings have been cancelled? Why doesn't the Premier take his place in this debate and explain to us why it is those valuable hours that this House has traditionally worked at night are no longer being worked? No reason has ever been given.

Because no reason has been given, we can only use conjecture to try to figure out exactly what it is that is stopping the Premier and his government from doing an honest day's work for an honest dollar. What is stopping them? We can only use conjecture. Is it because of the ratio of breakdown between the NDP and the Social Credit in this House, that all of a sudden the government of British Columbia decides that night sittings are no longer needed? Oh, is that it? I remember, Mr. Speaker, not too long ago when we were having night sittings in this House, the leader of Social Credit was very seldom here then. As a matter of fact, he was away so much from this House that he had to forfeit some money out of his own pocket because he was never here. Where was he? He was out around this province, I suggest, doing a political job. a partisan job on behalf of the Social Credit caucus. There's no problem with that, but now that his majority has been cut down so far because of the bungling of that first parliament that he was leader of, bungling time after time down to 31 seats. because there are 31 seats there and 26 here we have this motion to adjourn and to come back at 2 o'clock tomorrow instead of the traditional 8 p.m. or 8:30 p.m. that's been carried on for years in this House.

I don't know whether the Premier knows it or not but when he keeps his back to us we're never quite sure. There's no more hair on the back than there is the front; the only thing missing are the eves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ah, isn't that cute!

MR. LEA: Yes, it is cute. And I'll tell you, a Premier that time after time turns his back on the opposition during debate in this House isn't worth the breath.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Again, I must call to the attention of the member that we are currently debating a motion to adjourn. The position of a member, or any other matters that have been referred to by various members, is hardly relevant to that particular point. I would ask the member to carry on with the debate.

MR. LEA: I'm opposed to this adjournment motion on the grounds that it is the traditional night of the province that we do the people's business. This is the night — Tuesdays and Thursdays traditionally, and we even worked more when it was called for. We sat in the mornings often and we sat Wednesday nights, and we did a lot of work in this House.

But since this government has had its majority cut down at the polls, they have decided that they're going to take the lazy, easy way out rather than come in here and face a strong opposition, because the people at the polls sent us here in numbers of 26. They don't have the intestinal fortitude nor the will and they're lazy. They are afraid to come in here on night sittings and face this opposition. That's what they're afraid of. The more hours that they can get away from us, the better they feel. They can't stand the heat, but they're afraid to get out of the kitchen.

Mr. Speaker, we oppose this motion for one basic reason: we are here to work. How in the world can their charge that we are negative and obstructionist hold when they won't even come into this building to work? They won't even come in here to work, Mr. Speaker, and we oppose this motion for adjournment until they start doing what they're supposed to do: earning their money in this Legislature on behalf of the people of this province. They're not doing it, not because they don't think it shouldn't be done, but because they are afraid to do it or they're lazy. If it isn't for one of those two reasons, then let the Premier get to his feet and tell us why there are no night sittings. He's never done it. Get up and tell us why there are not night sittings.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to support this motion and make a suggestion to my good friends opposite. That suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is that they do spend the evening working — as the cabinet will be this evening — but in a different exercise. That exercise, Mr. Speaker, would be preparing their speeches and the content of the material, so that the Legislature would be worth attending, both by the members of the House who are elected, and by

[ Page 3220 ]

the members of the Fourth Estate, both of whom have been notable in their absence during all of this session — myself included — because of the pathetic calibre of the opposition material that has been presented to this House.

I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a single speech worth noting, a single idea worth presentation, a single sentence worth recording in the volumes of Hansard since this House commenced its sitting some four months ago.

I can well recall, as a young MLA some 18 years ago, members thought very carefully before they would leave the House for five to ten minutes to have a cup of coffee or to wash their hands. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, it would have been unthinkable for the leader of the NDP — in those days — to absent himself for a period of two weeks during the session to undertake any other kind of exercise than to attend to the people's business right here in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that in the days when there was an opposition that was worth listening to in this Legislature and in this province, it was a place where ideas, constructive or otherwise — every shade of opinion — found their way onto the floor of the House and when the public, the media and the members felt the ideas were worth paying some attention to. But, Mr. Speaker, I can promise that if day after day and week after week goes by without a useful idea, without a constructive suggestion, and merely endless mouthing of words to no purpose or intent, then you are going to find members deserting the House; the press, for good reason, paying no attention to the speeches; and the public not being aware that the House even sits. I would be surprised, Mr. Speaker, if one British Columbian in ten knew whether the Legislature was sitting or not. Why? Because nothing of value to them is presented on the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the work of cabinet and the work of administration of government goes on whether or not the Legislature sits. The value of the Legislature is as a place for ideas, for careful preparation of speeches, and for skill in presentation of thoughts and programs that might be worthwhile to the legislators who send the members to this House. It's quite apart from the administration of government. And when you go by week after week, month after month and year after year, with nothing of value or worth being presented on the floor of the House, then for what good purpose have the people elected you? In heaven's name, Mr. Speaker, may I plead with the opposition not to ask for the House to sit this evening, but to go back to your offices and prepare some material for the people you represent.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I take great exception to that member's inference that this caucus does not do its research and document its material. I can tell you that never in the history of this province has an opposition done its research so well and in such great depth and to such an extent. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, this government does not talk to the opposition. We don't know what legislation they're going to bring in. They don't talk to the opposition; I don't know why. Are they afraid? What are they afraid of? Worse than that, those members sitting on the treasury benches have taken their lead from the Premier. They talk about time being wasted. We sat in this Legislature for 54 hours on the Premier's estimates. Did he answer one question reasonably? He did not. The rest of his members and the people in his cabinet have taken their lead from that lazy Premier of the government. I'll tell you, we're going to be here until Christmas if they continue to carry on in their abysmal way.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I cannot allow the statement made by the member for New Westminster to stand without being corrected. It was totally untruthful when he said that the government does not give the opposition information.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the confused member for Dewdney named the member for New Westminster, who has not participated in the debate, as being an author of some statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for New Westminster rises to correct.... He asks for a withdrawal of the word "untruthful." Would the member so withdraw?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I refer to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who stated that the government does not give information.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member withdraw as well the word "untruthful"?

MR. MUSSALLEM: I will withdraw the word "untruthful," but I will add that it was a careless statement and not in any way associated with fact. The government informs their Whip every single day, without exception, what is going to happen on the floor of this House — through either myself or the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman). Whatever you want to call that statement, it is completely foreign to the truth. We do tell them every single day, without exception.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, may I observe that once again the opposition is maintaining its batting average. It's now two for two. On the last two occasions when this motion has been debated and the charge has been levelled that the cabinet is lazy, the motion has come forward on days when, moments after the normal adjournment time, cabinet has the opportunity to walk down the hall and carry on working as cabinet. The record is that on both occasions when this debate has been joined by the opposition, the cabinet of this province had scheduled for the evening in question — as they do tonight — cabinet sessions. To suggest in the face of those facts that this is a lazy cabinet is surely a preposterous suggestion.

I rise just to set this record straight. There have been suggestions that this government is lazy and that this cabinet is not working. The factual record, standing before this province and this public, of the business of this Legislature for the balance of this week is as follows: tonight, cabinet; tomorrow morning, committee on public accounts; tomorrow afternoon, the House; tomorrow night, dinner meeting, Committee on Crown Corporations; Thursday morning, committee meeting on Crown corporations; Thursday afternoon, the House; Thursday night, the Alberta cabinet arrives. Any suggestion that members of this government are not putting in a full day of work and a full day of attention to their duties, in the face of that agenda of activity, is surely preposterous,

I think the truth of the matter is that a week today — July 15 — is a fateful day of filing for all members of this assembly. On July 16 there are going to be, one would

[ Page 3221 ]

expect, some commentaries on those filings. I don't think the fourth estate or the public, a week ahead of that fateful day of filing, are going to be fooled by some transparent ploy suggesting that the hard work is being done on only one side of this House.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 15

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion passes for adjournment until tomorrow. Prior to that, hon. members, today the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) sought to move adjournment of the House pursuant to standing order 35 in order to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the state of health care services in the province. It has been ruled on a number of previous occasions that the statement of the matter must not contain debate nor import argument. I note also that the estimates of the Ministry of Health have yet to be dealt with in Committee of Supply. As a normal legislative opportunity to discuss the matter will thus arise, the motion would also be out of order on this ground.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved the adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:57 p.m.