[ Page 8493 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Fraser)

On vote 76: minister's office (continued) –– 8493

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Lockstead

On the amendment to vote 76 –– 8497

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Division

On vote 77: administration and services department –– 8498

Mr. Lockstead

On the amendment to vote 77 –– 8498

Mr. King

Mr. Barrett

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Hon. Mr. McClelland

Mr. Lauk

Division

On vote 77: administration and services department –– 8503

Division

On vote 78: highway operations department –– 8503

Mr. Lockstead

On the amendment to vote 78 –– 8503

Mr. Cocke

Division

On vote 80: transportation policy department –– 8503

Mr. Lockstead

On the amendment to vote 80 –– 8504

Division

On vote 80: transportation policy department –– 8504

Division

On vote 82: motor vehicle department –– 8504

Mr. Lockstead

On the amendment to vote 82 –– 8504

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Mr. Lockstead

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. King

Mr. Lauk

Division

On vote 82: motor vehicle department –– 8505

Division

On vote 83: Carrier Commission and motor carrier branch 8505

Mr. Lockstead

On the amendment to vote 83 –– 8505

Division

On vote 83: Carrier Commission and motor carrier branch –– 8505

Division

TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 1982

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Davidson in the chair,

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)

On vote 76: minister's office, $228,769.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, yesterday my colleague from North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) raised an issue which he and I have been raising in this Legislature year after year with respect to the Island Highway, particularly the section between Courtenay and Campbell River, which is probably one of the most dangerous in the province today. I have a few questions.

Yesterday the minister indicated that the cost in 1980 dollars would be about $166 million, if I recall the figures he was relating. I wonder what that means. Is that just for the section between Courtenay and Campbell River, or is it for a larger section than that: up as far as Menzies Bay or down as far as Deep Bay? I would like to know what section he's thinking about there.

Another question I have relates to the southern part of the Island Highway in my constituency. I wonder whether or not the study determining the route for a bypass has been completed at this stage. Has that study been done? Has it been made public? I have not heard anything about it at this stage, although there was some indication out of the Ministry of Highways some weeks ago that the release of that report was imminent.

The other question I have relates to whether or not the ministry is considering construction of a bypass route in the southern part of Comox constituency, before they start the bypass between Courtenay and Campbell River. The ministry is probably more prepared to start that northern route; in other words, more studies have been done on impact, route selection and so on on the northern part of that route than on the southern part. It's very urgent. I know that the provincial government this year has cut back on programs everywhere. But the dangers are there, and studies that are being done indicate it. The RCMP call it one of the most dangerous death-traps in British Columbia. This Tonkin report, for instance, which was done on accidents as related to adolescents, points out that the northern part of Vancouver Island is one of the most dangerous. So the indications are all there. The government knows that the priority must be to get started on that bypass route. I wonder if the minister can give us any indication as to when they will be beginning construction. and whether it will be on the northern section or on the southern section of the bypass route.

On Lasqueti Island we have a group of people who are interested in maintaining the roads with horse-drawn equipment. A proposal has gone to the minister; they would like to do this on contract and are quite prepared to fit in with the current amounts of money available for highway maintenance on Lasqueti Island, They have the horses and they have the equipment, horse-drawn graders and everything else, but the minister has rejected this proposal.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Are you serious?

MS. SANFORD: I'm very serious about this. For the interest of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), most of the Lasqueti Islanders support this proposal. They are very conservation-minded. They are quite prepared to go out and make the effort in order to ensure that the highways are maintained by this horse-drawn equipment. I would like to see it tried as a pilot project.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: The House Leader finds this very amusing this morning, Mr. Chairman. He's never been to Lasqueti.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes. I have.

MS. SANFORD: You have? Is he aware that there is no hydro power on Lasqueti Island?

People are sneering at the concept of horse-drawn equipment to maintain highways on an island like Lasqueti. And they're saying: "Well, it was tried a long time ago and it didn't work, and we've now progressed to another stage." But I think that in the interests of conservation, in the interests of trying to meet the needs of the Lasqueti Islanders themselves, the minister should consider that proposal. I have had dozens of letters from the people on Lasqueti who would like to see the minister accept this proposal as advanced by one of the Lasqueti Islanders.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Certainly he does. He should. I don't think the minister heard that comment. My colleague suggested that the minister might be more favourably disposed to this proposal if he could race them after work, but he is just too tied up with his officials to take note of that comment.

Motor vehicle inspection was also raised yesterday. It seems to me that if the minister is not prepared at this stage to extend motor vehicle inspection to all areas — he indicated that it would be some time before this program that he's now working on is in effect — people in areas such as Bowser, Parksville and Qualicum. who have to travel so far in order to get their vehicles inspected, should, at this stage, either be exempted from that program — if everybody else in the province is not going to be covered, then they should be exempted because they are the ones who have to travel so far — or have the mobile-testing unit brought in so they don't have to travel that distance. It's very disturbing to people who are living particularly as far north as Bowser, who travel all the way to Nanaimo. Some minor problem occurs and they have to travel all the way back, have it repaired, and then go back again to Nanaimo to have the final test done. It's a waste of gas and energy. That highway is already too congested without having everybody driving down to Nanaimo in order to have that testing done. Either exempt them or put the mobile unit in to do the testing.

Within my constituency there is one particular problem that has occurred that the parents in the area are very disturbed about. It relates to a highway crossing where the

[ Page 8494 ]

children must cross over the Island Highway at Pym Street near Parksville. Because of the cutbacks in funding from the t Ministry of Education, the school boards find they're going to have to cut down on bus routes next year. I think we're going to find that parents all over this province are going to be calling for the installation of lights or overpasses or some other mechanism whereby their children can safely get across busy highways.

Pym Street is located in an area where there is very little visibility. The parents have met with the school board. The school board has indicated to them that there is no way they are going to be able to put in someone who would be able to act as a guard to get them across the road before and after school. They just don't have that money, with the cutbacks they have faced through the Ministry of Education. So the parents are now calling on the Minister of Highways to install light at Pym Street on the Island Highway or put in an overpass. I know that, according to Highways ministry officials, an overpass is about $110,000, as I understand it, and a traffic light would be about $30,000. My preference would be for an overpass, because of the congestion on the Island Highway that I referred to earlier. With these additional lights you create even more problems of traffic flow.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that because of the cutbacks the minister is going to be under great pressure from all over the province because more and more students are going to have to cross busy highways as school boards can no longer afford to run buses. I think that ministry officials will indicate to the minister that they are already beginning to get, additional requests because of these cutbacks. Already there are well over 40 kids that are crossing the Island Highway at Pym Street, and next year it will be double that amount because of the cuts in bus service.

The other thing I'm concerned about, Mr. Chairman, is maintenance. I'm getting so many complaints this year already on low levels of maintenance of roads that need to be oiled and graded, those that have not yet been paved. I don't know what's happened this year. Is that cutback already showing to the extent that we're getting all of these complaints about highway maintenance, or is there some particular problem related to the constituency of Comox? I don't know what the problem is there, Mr. Chairman, but I can assure you that I will continue to press the regional officials in order to have those roads properly maintained, even though they've had to cut back on the money that's available to them this year. I'd appreciate the minister's comments.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Comox, the maintenance level in Highways, funding-wise and every-other-wise is the same as it has always been. There haven't been any cutbacks, but what is happening in the rural parts of the province because of our beautiful weather is that roads are drying out, and we have some dust flying. If the weather had been a little more liquid, this wouldn't have happened. However, we're on top of that and trying to get caught up all over the province, and I imagine it applies in the Comox riding as well. There have been no cutbacks whatsoever in funds voted for maintenance. There is an increase in this year's budget, as a matter of fact, to look after inflation.

The Parksville crossing at Pym Street. I'm not aware of that, but I understand we've put in a crosswalk for school children. We're checking to see if a light is warranted, but I think we're jumping at a conclusion here. I don't think you'll see a cutback in bus transportation, from what I understand from government. Again, we're worrying about something that I'm sure is not going to happen. In any case, regarding that, we're checking to see if it justifies a light. A crosswalk has been put in.

I think you were referring to motor vehicle inspections at Nanaimo. As I've said earlier, we'd like to expand motor vehicle inspections, but use the private sector for it. But that's a ways off. The comments you made about the road north of Nanaimo and Parksville, and so on up to Courtenay, I don't think are justified now. We've just completed four-laning all he way to Parksville, so that should be a big improvement for part of the journey that they have to make.

Lasqueti Island maintenance interested me greatly, and we've had correspondence on it. What the government is worried about there is that we don't want to get any horses on the payroll. That's a famous item that goes back years in Canadian history. We have rejected the citizens' request to take over the maintenance on the island because we have our own crews there. We certainly looked at it, but we aren't prepared to change at this time.

Then you went into the larger problems such as the Qualicum bypass. I'll just report where we are with the Qualicum North bypass at the present time. Two routes have been critically examined, and there has been a multi-disciplinary study by an engineering consulting firm for a bypass from Qualicum to Mud Bay. One route parallels the present highway and railroad; the other follows the B.C. Hydro transmission right-of-way. Each route impacts on the fisheries resources — Big and Little Qualicum, Chef and Nile Creeks — agricultural land and the recreational potential of the area. Bridge structures and stream-crossing sites are a particular engineering concern. The study report outlines the optimum route and offers mitigating strategies to alleviate any adverse impacts. The distance of the bypass is 27 kilometres, and the cost of the project is estimated at $72 million, based on 1982 dollars. The cost of the study was $41,000. Copies of the report have been sent to the municipalities, the regional district and the local libraries.

The last one you mentioned is the big one — $166 million; I think you referred to it as the north one — the Courtenay–Campbell River bypass. One of your questions was: "Where does that go?" It goes from Mud Bay to Menzies Bay. I would just make the observation that we have a heavy density of traffic there, and while we tried last year to alleviate some of that partly by doing a fair amount of work on the road from Courtenay to Campbell River, I would say that the north would be a priority over the south. As a matter of fact, there are not nearly the problems with the north that there are with the south environmental-wise and so on. I think it would be the first to get clearance from the government, because I don't think the south one is anywhere near ready to have a decision made; but I think we're very close on the north. The traffic justification is probably higher in the north one than it is in the south one, as far as density of traffic is concerned.

I want to answer some of the questions of the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). The first note I have here is on the Kuper Island ferry. The MLA's concern is that the Indian children from Kuper Island attending elementary school in Chemainus are required to wait for an hour before returning home after school. She asked that that service be rescheduled. However, this is not feasible for the following reasons. If we institute an earlier sailing to satisfy the MLA's concern, it would disrupt for the balance of the day the

[ Page 8495 ]

schedule that has been established in the best interests of the workers, commuters and other travelers. It would be difficult to change the arrival and departure time because of the interlocking schedule involving both Thetis and Kuper Islands. It would involve a major change in the crew's hours of work at substantial additional cost. The problem could be readily resolved by a change in classroom hours at both the elementary and secondary schools. That's an observation that our ministry has on the Kuper Island ferry.

The Koksilah pedestrian overpass located at the south end of Duncan was designed to provide a safe crossing across the Trans-Canada Highway and E&N Railway for school children attending the elementary school. The estimated cost, by the way, is $400,000. The structure is eligible for a $124,000 federal government grant under the UTAP assistance program. The structure crosses the highway, railway and frontage road. There's no point in building it until the highway is widened, because children would find the route access too long until the highway widening is completed. Highway widening cannot proceed without the CTC order for the railway overpass. This is in abeyance until the rail line abandonment issue is resolved. In the interim the existing school crossing signal is being used to cross the two lanes of the highway.

The Crofton access was mentioned by the member. A study was commissioned to examine and compare the land use and social impact of the two alignments to replace the existing Crofton-Chemainus roads. One route crosses the Halalt Indian reserve; the other longer alternative avoids the reserve but impacts subdivided land and farms on the existing Westholme Road. The final report is now completed and has been given to the Indian band.

Whippletree Junction. This project is on the Trans-Canada Highway south of Duncan. It includes reconstruction of the section, with the Whippletree frontage road and Phipps Road, including a left-turn lane on the highway. The design is complete and the estimated cost is $210,000. The project is not included in this year's program and, Mr. Chairman, the engineers tell me we cannot do a temporary job without abolishing the shoulder, and they do not recommend doing that. I think that pretty well covers what you brought up last evening.

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to ask the Minister of Transportation and Highways for a progress report on a number of items. Last year I was told — and I suppose it came out in other ways as well — that the corridor route for a bypass for Nanaimo had been established and that work was proceeding to identify the route more precisely within the corridor. I'd like an update on that. Discussion has been going on for some years about arterial routes through Nanaimo, and whether or not there would be one-way streets, couplets and that sort of thing. I hear from the city that they're discussing this with the ministry and waiting for responses from the ministry. Presumably the ministry is waiting for responses from the city. I invite the minister to bring me up to date from the point of view of the ministry itself so that I can then go back to the city and say: "Well, this is the position as far as the minister is concerned."

I received a copy of a letter addressed to the minister from a Mr. Bruce, and it leads into a whole discussion of the Northfield Road–Boundary Road highway intersection and the E&N railroad at that same spot. Northfield Road actually meets the highway. Boundary Avenue comes in within a few feet of the highway and the E&N railroad track. The minister replied on February 5 about the reconstruction of Northfield Road at Highway 19 and the issue of Montrose Avenue. These are all matters of continuing discussion. There's a quotation from the letter: "You're aware that option l(g) of the consultant report was the arrangements which appeared to provide the best solution. However, now that more detailed technical information is available, there are some problems with this solution. My staff will be reviewing options again in the near future with city staff before a final decision is made." This was February, and I'm wondering about these discussions.

The question of Montrose Avenue as an element of the major city street network is a decision for the city, but the minister goes on to say that he has directed his staff to review this matter with the city. The rest of it is simply that he has instructed his staff to review.... I wonder how those reviews are coming along. There was the story in the Nanaimo press recently on June 24 where the city officials were being put on the spot at a public meeting about this same intersection, and the public works director denied that the city was holding it up. He stated: "We" — that is the city officials — have asked the Ministry of Highways every two weeks, and the answer they're always given is that progress is being made." I invite the minister to bring me up to date on the discussions of these various items.

HON. MR. FRASER: To the member for Nanaimo: a multi-disciplinary study examined a four-lane route for a bypass west of Nanaimo. The principal concern centred around the alienation of agricultural land in the reserve, subdivision developments and commercial facilities. The study indicated potential problems and suggested ways of alleviating these. In addition, the route was examined in the context of projected traffic growth and the connections to local roads in accordance with regional district plans. The final report recommended a number of route options. The optimum, Route 11, Nanaimo Lakes Road west, has been selected for further examination. Mapping has been ordered to prepare for laying out the line. The cost estimate is $70 million for a distance of 25.6 kilometres, and the cost of the study is $120,000. Copies of the report were sent to the City of Nanaimo, the regional district, local libraries and government agencies. I'm afraid we're a long way from doing any work there. We knew we would all have quite a problem in Nanaimo.

MR. STUPICH: Nothing has happened since the report.

HON. MR. FRASER: No. Regarding Northfield Road, route 19 intersection, I believe this issue was first identified in 1978. In 1979 the City of Nanaimo and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways jointly undertook the hiring of a consultant. In November 1979 the study by the consultant, DelCan, was completed. In 1980-81 the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the City of Nanaimo reviewed the consultant's recommendations. In May 1982 there was a presentation to the Highways board and the board endorsed the following improvement strategy.

Phase 1 is left-turn slots for turnoff of highway. Phase 2 is acquisition of land for new T-intersections for Boundary Avenue and Northfield Road, development of the intersections. Phase 3, connection of Boundary Avenue and Northfield Road through to Highland Boulevard; frontage road if

[ Page 8496 ]

required. The present position is for the Nanaimo staff to present a proposal to council in June 1982. In other words, these are staff discussions. The last comment is: "Nanaimo staff to present proposals to council early in June."

MR. STUPICH: Thank you for those responses. What's the status of discussions on the arterial routes through Nanaimo and the one-way couplet?

HON. MR. FRASER: I might be wrong but I don't think anything is settled on those at all. It's a concern because of the congestion, but we're trying to work with the city, the regional district and so on.

MR. STUPICH: Are you waiting for the city, or is the city waiting for you?

HON. MR. FRASER: It seems to be a two-way process.

(Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. MITCHELL: I want to carry on from where I left off, having reviewed the Blues and the minister's comments. Getting back to the Millstream extension, last year I brought to the minister's attention, and to the attention of many people in his ministry, that originally the Millstream extension was through vacant land, but somewhere along the line the ministry changed their policy. The particular issue that has caused the most concern in the community is the permitting of a subdivision directly in front of the proposed Millstream extension. In their plans, the Millstream extension ran from Goldstream Avenue right through to Latoria Road. There are three subdivisions south of Sooke Road: Triangle, put in by Harvey St. Hilaire; Genstar; and the property owned by the B.C. Housing Corporation. On each of these, the subdividers had to dedicate property for the Millstream extension. But because of some political interference — it can be nothing else but political interference — theSun ridge subdivision was granted approval last November to go in directly in front of the proposed road alignment, which made the property bought by the Highways department from Harvey Aikman of no value.

The end result is that they traded a Highland piece of property for some swamp. I brought to the minister's attention the frustration felt in the community, and asked for a public meeting so that the public would know where the road is going, and how to preserve the creek and the ALR land. But for some unknown reason, the minister refused to have that public meeting, refused to bring it out in the open; then out of nowhere he allows a subdivision directly in front of the land, which will make the road like a piece of wet spaghetti by the time it's finished. There was no need for this. It's been six years in preparation, and it's ended in disaster.

The ministry must have a policy; if one subdivision has to dedicate the right-of-way, you can't allow another one in in front of it without dedicating that right-of-way. This is what causes the problem. That subdivision has since gone broke and it really hasn't benefited anybody. The frustration, the time lag, the waffling back and forth has been a disaster for that whole area. We still haven't got that road in. The ministry has to come down with an open policy that will be acceptable to the community, to all the elected people, and do it above-board, not play petty local politics by trying to appease everybody. This has caused more problems.

As the minister said, it caused the defeat of two regional directors. I'm not giving any particular reason, but this is what they focused on. They were voting against the Highways policy of not being open or above-board and not receiving or accepting public input. This has caused more problems out there. I feel that the minister had the leadership and he missed it. As I said last year, somewhere down the line he is the super mayor. They goofed somewhere. I don't know who to blame, but I have to blame the minister because, as they say, the buck stops there. The community is more concerned about this question: there was no openness to the public after the original community plan was put in operation.

HON. MR. FRASER: To the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), I wasn't involved in the details. I accept the blame if there is any blame to accept, but I think I should tell the committee what happened.

The regional district of the time — I believe it was 1981 — approved the change of the line with Highways. Then an election took place in the regional district and it became a local election issue. Some directors were defeated. As I understand it, the people elected in 1981 now want to change the line. As far as Highways is concerned, we entered into an arrangement with the locally elected people, and we want to stay with that decision. I think this is one of the problems. Somewhere along the line we have to make decisions and stick with them; and that's what's happened here.

The Capital Regional District agreed with Highways about what took place here. We had a change of individuals. I guess they were elected on this issue. I didn't follow the local campaign. It was on this issue. Now they're trying to change back. While all this is going on, it sure must be costing somebody a lot of money, because nothing is happening. As I said when I started, I accept that blame. But we want to stick with some decisions somewhere and get something done.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: As we wind down the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, I want to say that the minister, with his usual clarity and his staff, has answered questions at length and in great depth and detail. I think we now know about every pothole in every road in British Columbia. We're well aware of this type of debate. Every member in the House has transportation and highway problems in his riding, and everybody likes to say a few words.

In closing this debate for the opposition, I'd like briefly to mention one or two things to the minister.

The matter of STOL — short take-off and landing aircraft — has arisen, primarily through the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). Nonetheless, this is the Minister of Transportation and he will have a great deal of input into that situation. I understand that a large amount of public money has been set aside for a study. I would hope the minister would look seriously at this question of spending public funds for this purpose in these particular areas at this time. The opposition is in favour of and certainly agrees with the concept of a short take-off and landing aircraft, particularly in the rural areas that many of us represent. Using shorter strips, there's no question that this is the aircraft of the future for many parts of British Columbia. However, when you are considering building airfields in downtown areas at a time when we're trying to move some of these facilities from congested areas, I think the government should look at this very carefully.

[ Page 8497 ]

The second matter I have, which was not discussed under these estimates at this time — and I'll just touch on it very briefly — is that once again the Minister of Transportation and Highways should, in my view, have some input at least thinking of forming a merchant marine or assisting and working with the federal government in this regard. It has long been a policy of our party — federally and provincially — in this province and was in fact a goal of our government between 1972 and 1975. Negotiations, as I understand it, were in fact taking place to ensure that some of the resources sent and shipped from British Columbia would be sent on Canadian bottoms and ships manned by Canadian crews. It's a long-term, admirable goal, but I think it can be accomplished, and I would hope that the minister would work with the federal government, hopefully with a view to having at least some of our products shipped on Canadian vessels. You might be interested to know, Mr. Chairman, that by the conclusion of the Second World War, Canada had the third-largest merchant navy in the world, and now it is virtually non-existent.

I know the minister will make some remarks in closing, and if he has responded to this question, I've missed it. Very briefly, on May 12 of this year the minister forwarded to me a copy of correspondence that he had received from the federal Minister of Transport, Mr. Pepin; in fact, this correspondence was dated February 17. I know the minister is familiar with it, but could he once again — if he hasn't already done so — tell me where we are in terms of the federal subsidy to the provincial government for water transportation. If he replied to this before — he may have — I've missed the answer. Could he briefly tell me how much he expects that subsidy to be this year. I think last year that subsidy amounted to approximately $10.4 million, and I wonder if we can expect to receive the same amount this year based on the same formula.

With that, I do have a motion to move, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps the minister wants a minute or two to respond.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'll reply to the member for Mackenzie's observations. First, the STOL study that has been announced by my colleague the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications is authorized by the government, and it will cost us $10,000. We've had a STOL study, as I think the member realizes, but this changes locations. I will want to have a look at it, and there will be no decision made beyond that except by consultation with all members of the government after the study is brought back in.

The merchant marine. I know the member and his party support that and it sounds good, but our government certainly doesn't support getting into the merchant marine. We now have the largest ferry fleet in the world, and we have our hands full with that operation. I guess that's where the NDP and our party separate; we don't plan on taking any steps to institute a merchant marine.

Regarding the subsidy from the government of Canada to the government of British Columbia — which is what it is — the first-ever agreement made in 1977 by our government with the government of Canada to subsidize water transportation on the Pacific coast.... I just forget what it started at, but I believe it was $8 million. It has a cost-of-living escalator clause in there, based on the Vancouver consumer price index. The member is correct. In the last fiscal year we received $10.4 million from the government of Canada, and we anticipate receiving a little more than that this year, because the consumer index is going up. I did send the member the correspondence we've had with the Minister of Transport for Canada. As he lays out in that correspondence, he doesn't want to look at a review of that until a transportation study is completed for the marine services on the Pacific Coast, and that should conclude sometime this year.

My personal thoughts are that maybe we should make sure it will last for four or five years, and that way the subsidy would continue without review. If that happened, it would increase each year because of the consumer price index. My observation on that is that the government of Canada seem to be highly cooperative and we don't anticipate any real problem with this subsidy in the foreseeable future. We're always critical of other governments, but the Minister of Transport for Canada has been very cooperative with our government on this issue, and I don't see any reason for that to change in the immediate future. When it does, we'll do all we can to retain it. But it certainly helps to keep a fine service operating, which is the B.C. ferry fleet on the Pacific coast of our province.

In conclusion, I'd like to thank all members of the Legislature for their cooperation during these estimates. It is much appreciated. I have learned a lot and I'm sure other members have as well.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I thank the minister for his remarks.

We now come to the time, as is the practice of the official opposition, to reduce some of the votes where we think there has been excessive budgeting allowed to the various ministers for office expenses, travel and these kinds of things. I'm going to move that vote 76 be reduced by $2,500, a very modest sum when you look at some of the other figures. However, we don't necessarily want to deny the minister funds so that he can travel around a bit, which he must do as Minister of Highways. The point we're trying to make is that this modest sum on this particular vote is a $2,500 increase over the same amount granted to the minister last year. We feel that all ministers should be reducing their travel, their office expenses, their publications, their advertising and all of these things at a time when we're cutting back on educational programs, hospital beds and all of these health services. I therefore move that vote 76 be reduced by the grand total of $2,500.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to comment on this motion that I withdraw the remarks I made earlier.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

[ Page 8498 ]

NAYS — 27

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

Vote 76 approved.

On vote 77: administration and services department, $19,242,394.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We move that vote 77 be reduced by $2,280,000.10. The reason for this is that in this particular vote we have an increase of 19.8 percent over last year in travel; an increase of $230,325 for professional services, up 31 percent over last year; and a $196,000 increase, up 15.9 percent over last year, for office expenses. Can you believe it? That will buy a lot of pencils.

I therefore move that vote 77 be reduced by $2,280,000.10.

On the amendment.

MR. KING: Speaking to the motion, Mr. Chairman, we have the very ironic situation of the Premier of this province being down in Ottawa advocating cuts in public spending at one and the same time that we see these profligate increases and this lavish self-indulgence by ministers of this provincial government. The opposition is not prepared to tolerate this. That minister doesn't need to exceed his last year's budget by over 30 percent while calling on the people of British Columbia to show restraint. Now is the time for this government to show some moral leadership. They should vote for this motion.

MR. BARRETT: I expect the Minister of Highways to stand up and tell us how he's going to explain this unnecessary increase for his luxury and comfort in office to his constituents when the country is talking about restraint.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ahh!

MR. BARRETT: The man who wears $50 cravats doesn't know how to worry about people who have to meet mortgage payments. That's their response to the ordinary people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, it's $8.50.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, for one inch. I hope the taxpayers aren't paying for your cravats.

This government makes sure that the ministers wallow in luxury at the same time as they're asking for restraint in other areas. This government is spending....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: This government is going to great lengths to keep vouchers of their own expenditures secret; then they ask us to vote on this.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, you're familiar with the rules of this chamber. I ask all hon. members to bear in mind that when we are in committee we are strictly relevant to the section under discussion.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your ruling, but this is a motion in committee to cut expenditures. The only accountability of expenditures related to this motion or any other motion are vouchers that verify whether or not the budget was kept. I'm talking about an expenditure that will show up in the vouchers that we're making a specific motion on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. BARRETT: You can say "order" all you want, but you're nothing but a government trying to hide extravagant waste and expenditures and keep these things secret right across the board. Mr. Chairman, this is a fat-cat government that's living high off the taxpayer like pigs at a trough, and every time we ask to see vouchers we come to this kind of "order" nonsense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, there is a place for the discussion that the member is currently engaged on. Unfortunately it is not here at this time. We have before us an amendment to reduce vote 77 by $2.28 million. I would ask that the member relate his discussions to that particular motion.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, these are public funds. We're in committee dealing with the estimates of public funds. There is a specific motion for a cut in expenditures, and it clearly relates to the method of controlling expenditures. That's why the motion has been presented in order by the opposition. Speaking to the motion, the reason we want a cut in public funds being wasted by this government is that there is a threat to the accountability system by the heavy-handed cabinet ministers on the public accounts committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair has advised the member on two different occasions now that the direction of the member's argument, while it may have an appropriate place somewhere, is not appropriate here, and I'm sure the member, with his many years of experience and parliamentary knowledge, particularly of the rules of this House, doesn't have to be informed of that by the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we're dealing with an expenditure of money and we're dealing with a reduction motion. One of the reasons the motion is put forward is the legitimate argument that if we cannot have a proper accounting procedure on those expenditures, members of this House

[ Page 8499 ]

cannot be responsibly asked to support waste, extravagance and fat in government without a debate on a motion to cut that waste, extravagance and fat. A 30 percent increase in one vote while the Premier is in Ottawa talking about restraint is totally unacceptable to the official opposition. The taxpayers of this province are fed up with the secrecy, the coverup and the method used by this government to avoid their own accountability.

A 30 percent increase in one vote is simply not justifiable in terms of the kind of restraint that the taxpayers want. There is a tax revolt going on in this province, Mr. Chairman, and it directly relates to this kind of motion that cuts expenditures. The minister has not got up in this House and justified the extravagant increases. The minister is one of the nicest, kindest, weakest members of the cabinet when it comes to cutting expenditures. That minister, whose own accounts have yet to be examined inPublic Accounts, is being placed in the position of justifying a 30 percent increase when the Premier is talking about restraint.

You ask us to blindly vote for these dramatic increases in public expenditures when the federal government is predicting a 10 percent decrease in revenues. We do not have an indication, although there was an interview given by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), of how much our revenues are down. Do we know whether or not this 30 percent increase in this vote will lead to deficit financing this year? Has the minister said clearly that we're avoiding the same 10 percent decrease as there is in the federal budget? How do we know, when we ask for these kinds of increases, whether or not you might be driving the province into operating deficit? [Laughter.] Mr. Chairman, they can laugh all they want, but we've seen a deliberate attempt by this government to hide the facts of the fiscal situation in this province from the people of British Columbia in the last few weeks.

Professional and special services in this vote is up by 31 percent in one year. Now you tell us, Mr. Chairman, why we should support it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Sit down. He will.

MR. BARRETT: All of the aggressive, childish intimidation by that turncoat Liberal who's responsible for part of this mess will not get me down.

Mr. Chairman, this is a government that is full of hypocrisy. A 31 percent increase in one year in professional services! You tell us, Mr. Minister of Finance, whether revenues are down. You tell us where this money is coming from if it isn't from the small businessmen and the taxpayers of this province, whom now you even refuse to show accountability to.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Order!

MR. BARRETT: You're the Minister of Finance. You're calling "order" because you know you can't justify a 31 percent increase in this one vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's speaking in favour of restraint.

MR. BARRETT: In favour of restraint! I want to tell you that the taxpayers of this province would feel a lot better if they sat on a wicker chair instead of on custom-built furniture worth thousands of dollars, when they're talking about restraint.

The furniture we bought ten years ago was still good enough to sit your rear ends in. We don't need new furniture today. Every home in this province is asked to cut their budget; people are cutting their purchases; people can't buy new furniture or luxuries for their homes and can't put food on the table; and you ask us to give you a 30 percent increase for your derrieres to be comfortable. I say no way, while the taxpayers of this province have to pay this.

I can't be responsible for the physical comforts of cabinet ministers, but I tell you that a 30 percent increase in special services is just too much. Giggle and laugh and chatter over there while people are losing their homes and businesses. And you lap up in luxury. I'm not going to talk about the wine or the expensive meals. I'm just talking about the comfortable furniture that these people have a mad passion to surround themselves with. What justification is there for it? Interest rates are at 18.5 percent and 19.5 percent; people can’t pay the mortgage rates and are losing their homes; they're losing their cars. Those smart, rich cabinet ministers spend public money in a manner that is unprecedented, in a time of restraint. There's a 31 percent increase in the budget in this section alone. And you've got the nerve to go around telling people to preach restraint.

When you look at this section, you'll find that advertising is up 28 percent. Part of the advertising they're going to buy is to tell people how to show restraint in spending their money. There's a 28 percent increase in advertising to tell people to show prudence and frugality, while they blow money and attempt to cover it up inPublic Accounts.

Last night we were delivered of a federal budget that is calling on this whole nation to show restraint. We've been going through a whole session with this Premier saying: "Everybody show restraint." Now we've got a 31 percent increase in this section, including a 28 percent increase in advertising. How do we know the Highways ministry won't take out another ad to wave a towel around for the Canucks?

If you're going to have an increase of this much, then put this money into hospitals and schools in this province, not into furniture for that government.

You tell the people out there who you have been advocating restraint for. They've had their business taxes go up; they're losing their jobs and their homes. You can't even provide a homemaker for 80- or 90-year-old pioneers who have built this province, but you want more money for advertising and more money for services for yourselves. Who do you think you are? In a time of restraint, who do you think you are to make sure that your comforts are taken care of, while those poor taxpayers are pouring money into this government to take care of them? Show some leadership. Show an example. Sit on a hard chair once in a while. Remember where you came from. Once you got near the trough, you people abandoned any sense of personal responsibility when it came to protecting taxpayers' money,

Office sundries are up by 40 percent in this section. I suppose cream for the coffee has gone up from 60 cents to 80 cents now, and you can't afford to take it out of your pocket. Milk's up at the blind store, so they need a 40 percent increase in subsidies for their offices.

There is not one whit of responsibility in these dramatic increases. You've got the leader of your group down in Ottawa talking about restraint. Homemaker services, hospitals and schools are cut, but there's a 40 percent increase in

[ Page 8500 ]

sundries for your office. Maybe we'll buy him a new pinwheel to discover which way the wind is blowing.

The municipalities can't improve their budget situations; small businesses can't improve theirs. But you've got the gall to come in here with a 28 percent increase in advertising, a 40 percent increase in office sundries, a 31 percent increase in special services, but not a peep out of any one of you asking for a cutback.

What are the special services that you need? Have you got a foot-rubber in your office? Have you got an electric massager? Have you got a great big couch in there to sit on? When you talk about sacrifice and restraint, it goes for everybody except yourselves. Broadway shows, bottles of wine; lapping it up at the taxpayers' expense; and now this kind of stuff on top of it. No wonder people get fed up with governments. No wonder people get fed up with fat politicians living off the taxpayers with no sense of responsibility at a time when you're asking for restraint. The only member over there who knows what I'm talking about when it comes to politics is the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). He used to be a mayor. He's telling municipalities to cut back. I would like to see him, on this particular vote, stand up and justify any 40 percent increase in office sundries at a municipal level.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. At this time I must caution the member that while a certain amount of latitude is always in order, to reflect on an entire economic speech covering many ministries or many incidents is certainly not in order, particularly under a particular section of an amendment. I would ask the member to return to the debate in question.

MR. BARRETT: This is vote 77. Is this not right? It is administration and services department, and I'll read to you what the code breakdown is on this vote so we'll know exactly what we're talking about. Travel expenses, $335,000 a year ago, now up to $402,000; a 19 percent increase. Does that show restraint? The answer is no. Professional services, $739,000 up to $969,000 — a $230,000 or 31 percent increase. Does that show restraint? That's all in this vote, Mr. Chairman. Office expense, up $196,000 in one year, a 15.9 percent increase. Does that show restraint? The answer is no. Office furniture just stays the same. We're going to use last year's furniture. That is this government's and this department's one sacrifice to restraint. The soft couch they sat in last year they're going to use again this year, only buy some more at the same price. Why do you need $74,000 worth of furniture if you just bought $74,000 worth of furniture? Have you doubled your staff in there? Advertising is up $45,000 in this department alone, a 28 percent increase. Building occupancy is up 27 percent, and they pay it to themselves. Materials and supplies go from $2,288,000 worth of pencils up to $3,215,000 worth of pencils for those pencil-pushers, an increase of 40 percent.

That's the point I was making. If there was one mayor's office that operated the way a cabinet minister's office operates, the Minister of Municipal Affairs would publicly attack him, as he attacked the mayor of Kelowna. I find it most interesting that when we discover a 40 percent increase in materials and supplies for one cabinet minister alone, there's not a peep out of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who finds victims in the mayor's office, but when the same sort of lack of responsibility is shown by the minister he doesn't say a word about it. Hypocrisy, Mr. Chairman. A 40 percent increase in materials and supplies. A 37 percent in data processing — well that one is legitimate. You need a 37 percent increase in data processing just to handle the more expenditures that they're blowing out of that minister's office.

Restraint, my eye! Pigs at the trough! There's never been a worse government in the history of the province of British Columbia when it comes to spending money.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm going to stick strictly to this amendment, except to answer the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. I was here when the Leader of the Opposition was Premier. I was here when the first thing he did was to double his own salary and become the highest-paid politician in Canada. I was here when the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) ran up a $187 million deficit at ICBC. I was here when the former member for Vancouver South, until they defeated him, ran up a $100 million clerical error in his ministry. I was here when the greatest waste, carelessness and profligacy ever to occur in government in British Columbia took place by the pious and hypocritical members from across the way.

I've been here listening to the trivia in their debate and their fascination with the smallness of all the items. The smaller the item, the more they understand it; the larger the issue, the more confused they become. We don't need any lectures from the Leader of the Opposition about hypocrisy or waste. He's the master of both. I'm sick and tired of all the nonsense that has come up in this session and session after session.

I'll make a challenge to the Leader of the Opposition right now. If he wants to see sacrifices, let him name how much he'll cut his salary, and I'll cut mine half as much again. Let's set an example for the people of British Columbia. Say how much you'll turn back from your salary, and I'll do that much and half as much again. You worry about cuts in hospitals and schools around this province. The budget for all of them is up. The people who are lucky in British Columbia today are the ones who are working.

We'll set the examples right here in the House and you go out there and tell the union leaders, Mr. Leader of the Opposition — the people who are in bed with you — to take the cuts that you take and I take. Then there will he enough money for the schools, the hospitals and perhaps for some of the unemployed in British Columbia. Prove you're not hypocritical. Name the cut in your salary. I'll do half as much again as my example, and we'll take it to the union leaders and people who are working in this province. We'll have enough taxes to go around to and serve the people and look after those who are unemployed. You start, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, this morning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Prior to recognizing the Leader of the Opposition, I think it might be appropriate if we read the amendment which is presently before us. The amendment is that vote 77 be reduced by $2,280,000.10. That is on vote 77, the Ministry of Highways. We have allowed some latitude, and I think we can at least agree that we have strayed somewhat from the intent of vote 77. Latitude has been taken by both the Leader of the Opposition and by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. That latitude has now come to an end. We will now be strictly relevant to the amendment to vote 77.

[ Page 8501 ]

MR. BARRETT: Vote 77, administration and services department, includes such things as travel expenses, professional and special services and office expenses. Under travel expenses, I have never been accused of double-dipping — having meals bought by one cabinet minister and then putting money in for the same meal on the same day. I have never been accused of using double methods for getting money for a meal that another cabinet minister bought for me, and that comes under travel expenses. I have never been accused of hiding vouchers so we can avoid a debate on the double-dipping by certain cabinet ministers when it comes to meals, Mr. Chairman. There are people in this province who can't buy one meal, let alone double-dipping under travel expenses. If that minister will stop double-dipping, then we'll get around to talking about that kind of responsibility under vote 77, the travel expense section.

I hope that that Minister of Highways doesn't double-dip under the travel section of vote 77. I hope under this vote in his travel expenses there are no vouchers that show that he's been treated to a meal by a cabinet minister and then put in for a voucher to have the same meal paid for by the taxpayers — one meal paid for twice. I want the Minister of Highways to assure me that he's not operating that way under vote 77, travel expense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: Do you know what double-dipping is under this section, Mr. Chairman? It means being hosted at a meal by one cabinet minister, and then putting in a voucher to get paid for the same meal, the same day, from the taxpayers. That's what's going on in here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: When we hear that pious claptrap from that university professor who used to be a Liberal....

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am not going to advise one more time that we will be strictly relevant to the section under debate. The discussion at this point is not only bordering on unparliamentary terminology but it is straying far from the particular section under debate. If the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to debate the section before us, then he is welcome to take his place and allow someone who is willing to debate the section take his place and debate in order. I would hope the discussion on the particular matters the member is straying into at this time will come to an end and that we will return to the strictly relevant section before us.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, vote 77, administration and services department, which this motion proposes to cut, includes expenditures for data-processing, materials and supplies, building occupancy, advertising, office furniture, office expenses, professional and special services and travel expenses. In advocating a cut through this motion, I am arguing that I hope the Minister of Highways does not participate in a 19 percent increase, under the code of travel expenses, for double-dipping in meals. That is legitimate discussion under this particular motion.

I think I've made my point, and now I will go on to professional services. Professional services have gone up by 31 percent. Office expenses have gone up by 15.9 percent. Advertising has gone up by 28 percent. Building occupancy is up by 27 percent. Materials and supplies is up by 40 percent — a 40 percent increase in one year, and you talk about restraint. If we can't see the vouchers we can talk about it in here. You've got enough time — five minutes to lunch to do some more double-dipping.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the member to withdraw that remark.

MR. BARRETT: Is "double-dipping" not a parliamentary word?

MR. CHAIRMAN: When a motive that is clearly improper is imputed by one member to another member it is, as the member is fully aware, unparliamentary, and I would ask the member to withdraw the remark.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw any inference of a motive. I'm just stating a matter of fact.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member, I ask the member for a withdrawal of the term.

MR. KING: On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition has said that he was imputing no motive. It is a fact, and it is a matter of public record, that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) billed for a meal which his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) had....

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not relevant to the debate before us, hon. member.

MR. KING: Well, it's a fact supported by the vouchers, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As hon. members are aware, there are guidelines. Let me just quote section 155 of Beauchesne's fourth edition: "It will be useful to give examples here of expressions which are unparliamentary and call for prompt interference. These may be classified as follows: (1) the imputation of false or unavowed motives...." Hon. member, in the opinion of the Chair, such an expression is unparliamentary, and I would advise members that when asked to do so....

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, With the greatest conceivable respect, Mr. Chairman, you are perfectly entitled within the standing orders of this committee to call any member to order for irrelevance, but you can't make him withdraw an irrelevant remark. The Leader of the Opposition has withdrawn any improper inference with respect to Mr. Science, the minister of floating airports and longest exhaust pipes in history. But the fact remains that he charged twice for the same meal. That's not unparliamentary; that's just something that is a fact. It may be irrelevant to this discussion, but it's certainly not unparliamentary. If you stifle that kind of debate, then you stifle freedom of speech anywhere, and I'm sure that's not what the Chairman intended.

[ Page 8502 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sure that hon. members would agree that this discussion would not even arise were we strictly relevant to what is before us under debate. The Minister of Highways is the minister currently before us for discussion. I would ask again that we return to the relevance of the amendment motion before us.

MR. BARRETT: The conclusion of this particular debate on this motion is at hand. I intend to vote in support of this motion. I cannot support extravagant increases, particularly in office expenses, building occupancy charges, and advertising. I cannot support the waste, extravagance and dramatic increases in costs that obviously could be cut to the benefit of the taxpayers. That's the whole purpose of this exercise. There is no restraint being shown whatsoever by cabinet ministers when it comes to running their administration — $82 million last year and about $85 million this year could be saved for the taxpayers of British Columbia. If they'd just sharpen the pencil a little bit more, make use of last year's eraser, use both sides of a piece of paper, show some common sense, and only bill for a meal once, then we would save a lot of money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

MR. BARRETT: Broadway Bob! Give us the pictures.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Energy has the floor.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition obviously doesn't believe in debate. He believes in one-way harangues, but when the opportunity comes for others to make some comment on a very important amendment, he doesn't wish to have that done.

I just want to make a couple of points, and I'll be strictly relevant to the area of office expenditure, particularly furniture and travel, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask the Minister of Highways, in respect of this amendment to the motion, if he will assure the Legislature that he'll be prudent in the purchase of furniture for his own office, because I have to confess, Mr. Chairman, that I have a great big couch that I sit on in my office, and I have a great big desk. I want the Minister of Highways to assure us that he'll be reasonably prudent in investment. I have some nice chairs in my office too. I hope that we can keep those great big couches and those great big desks in our offices for a long time, because they cost an awful lot of money, and they were bought by a government which was mesmerized by new-found power in 1972 and 1973, government that was no less than lavish and extravagant.

Yes, I have a big desk in my office; yes, I have a big couch in my office; yes, I have a very nice office. I hope we can keep that furniture for at least 20 years, because it will take 20 years to get the taxpayers' money back from the expenditures by that government for the office furniture which I still use and will use for a long, long time. It'll take 20 years to pay back the extravagance and waste that that government was so fond of.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak for a second about travel, I want to ask the Minister of Highways, who is one of the most able public administrators in this province, if he will follow his own good example, rather than the example of the Leader of the Opposition. I want to tell you that the example of that Leader of the Opposition will lead you down terrible, dangerous paths. I give you an example from 1974, when Mr. Barrett was the Premier. He took 16 people on a Japanese trip — 16 people, including his administrative assistants, his press secretary, his secretary, her husband, his Deputy Finance Minister, the Deputy Industrial Development Minister, Mr. Lauk's executive assistant, consultants, and a number of other people. The wives paid their own way. Sixteen people were taken to Japan. To do what? Well, it says that there would be some details of some financial meetings that might be set up.

On that trip, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Minister of Highways.... The only news announcement was that he would play in two games with his Old Stylers rugby team at the beginning of the tour. Mr. Chairman, I don't want that Highways minister to be travelling at public expense to play rugby. Not only did the people of B.C. pay for the Premier's rugby trip, but they also paid for his cheerleader squad as well.

I want to I make sure that the Minister of Highways follows his own good example and not that of the Leader of the Opposition, who also went to China. What did he do in China? He went there with Attorney-General Alex Macdonald and Health minister Cocke, Emery Barnes and Quon Wong, father of the Attorney's-General executive assistant. There were ten members on that case. Mr. Cocke, the Health minister, went to study acupuncture in China. Mr. Macdonald was chosen because of his long association with the Chinese community in Vancouver. Why did the Premier go? I want to give advice to the Minister of Highways, Mr. Chairman, not to follow the former Premier's example. He went because he hoped to be able to set up talks. He never had any talks. He went over there because he hoped to be able to set up talks, and he asked the people of British Columbia to pay for it. I don't want the Minister of Highways to follow that former Premier's example. Mr. Highways Minister, we trust you far more than we trust that side of the House.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I'm grateful to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources because he has raised a perfect example. The Premier of the day took 16 people to Japan at a cost of a little more than $4,700. A few years ago the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) took four people to Japan at a cost of $35,000. Why don't you compare the figures before you get up with your big mouth, Mr. Minister of Energy? Most of the people travelling with us paid their own way. That's $35,000 from the Minister of Industry to go and lose coal sales. Do you remember that trip?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're on vote 77.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I wonder if I could ask if the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) would table the documents relating to the $4,700.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Not in committee, hon. member. Before us is a vote that vote 77 be reduced by $2,280,000.10.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page 8503 ]

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 25

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

On vote 77.

HON. MR. FRASER: I think it's about time I cleared the air here over the discussion that has been going on. One observation made was that advertising is up 28 percent. That's quite correct. That's for advertising of safety to try to stop the carnage on our highways. I have to assume, from the observations of the opposition, that they're opposed to that. How we ever got onto ministers I will never know, because the travel section has nothing to do with ministers at all. It's for the travel of the very good staff we have in the ministry. An overall observation I have is that this budget has not got even a 5 percent increase, in view of the fact that inflation is 11 percent, so I don't know why the opposition is all excited about it.

Vote 77 approved unanimously on a division.

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

On vote 78: highway operations department. $521,132,477.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, once again, I'm calling a division on this particular vote for the same reasons as before: travel expenses, up 10.6 percent, office furniture, up 29.6 percent; advertising, up 4.1 percent: occupancy, data processing, all increased significantly. I therefore move that vote 78 be reduced by $6,449,000.34.

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE: I would like to make one brief point on this motion, as I would on any other motion. We're not voting against the total vote; we're voting against....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: We're saying that you're spending too much, but we realize that you have to have the basic vote. All we're asking is that it be kept to last year's amount, clearly and simply. We will vote for this motion, and if we are defeated.... And we will be, because of that massive government over there and its profligacy; but we will vote also for the basic vote, because we realize that without it the government would grind to a halt. We would just ask them to look at their excessive spending.

HON. MR. FRASER: I don't quite understand the strategy over there. They're moving to reduce the expenditures of one of the essential services of government, which is the maintenance of the highway system. The total vote is increased by only about 5 percent. As a matter of fact, there is not enough of an increase to look after inflation. Are you saying we shouldn't snowplough the roads and we shouldn't use dust control and so on? That's what you're saying here with this motion, and you won't have us voting for it; I'll tell you that.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 27

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

Vote 78 approved unanimously on a division.

Vote 79: Hydro development — highways, $10 — approved.

On vote 80: transportation policy department, $5,658,433.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I want to re-emphasize to the House that as we are moving these amendments — and I will be moving a motion to reduce this particular vote as well — what we are voting against is the excessive increase this year over last year in spending for items like office furniture and travel. We feel that the government has adequate moneys in last year's travel and office furniture budget. On vote 80, which I'll be moving to be reduced by $290,175, there's one item

[ Page 8504 ]

that really stands out. There's an 825 percent increase in spending for office furniture this year over last year, and it is shocking. So I move the reduction, Mr. Chairman.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 27

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

Vote 80 approved unanimously on a division.

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

Vote 81: Crown corporation assistance, $54,822,700 — approved.

On vote 82: motor vehicle department, $30,543,264.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I move that vote 82 be reduced by $1,999,000.09.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Why?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Because the increase, under this vote, in office furniture over last year is 97.6 percent. We're only moving for a reduction of this year's increase over last year on travel.... Actually travel is not too bad; this year it increased 9.9 percent over last year. Office expenses, building occupancy.... Gee whiz, you're moving up to a 27.6 percent increase. I mention this because the hon. member asked me why. If he hadn't asked me why, I wouldn't go through this in every vote.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. FRASER: I have a quick observation on this reduction. It's quite amazing: again the opposition show their dislike for safety. This is the motor-vehicle department, the big safety branch of the ministry. Picking out individual items, quite frankly, the total for this section of the budget is up less than 10 percent from last year; it doesn't even accommodate inflation. I can't understand their attitude against safety.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I just want to clarify a point for the hon. minister. We are not voting against any reduction in safety advertising — any of these. We've attempted to make that point quite clear. Speaker after speaker on this side of the House has attempted to explain it in a very logical manner. We are moving for reductions in the increases for ministerial travel and office furniture in a year of restraint. They're asking working people to take 6 and 7 percent wage increases when inflation is running rampant at 11 and 12 percent. It would appear to me that those ministers and those people could get by without these horrendous increases, without going first class, without drinking $37.50 wine. It would seem to me that those people over there could sacrifice a little in this year of restraint.

We're not against highway safety. We will promote highway safety. When we move to that side of the House next year, we will continue to practise highway safety in every way possible. But I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, we're moving this reduction. I now call for the vote.

HON. MR. MeGEER: Attempted closure! Disgraceful, Mr. Chairman!

How is it possible to reduce a vote this size by nearly $2 million without cutting safety? Obviously it's been carefully thought through by the opposition, because they had the reduction down right to the penny. I can understand that the opposition is against safety, but I can't understand why they're against the furniture industry.

MR. KING: The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications failed to make any point that's worth answering. However, I was amazed at the Minister of Transportation and Highways, who justified this massive increase over last year's estimates on the basis that inflation is running at 11 and 12 percent. This is the government that has allowed 6.4 percent, is it, for the hospital budget increase this year, with the result that thousands of beds have been cut?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: I just make that point, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no, no, no, no!

MR. KING: All right, Mr. Chairman, you've made your point.

If the Minister of Transportation and Highways demands for himself an increase that more than accommodates by far the inflation rate, how do we expect to get the inflation rate down? That's feeding inflation, and that's why the opposition is moving to cut this vote to the same level as last year. That's real restraint; that's tightening the belt — all of the things that the government is calling on the taxpayers to do. They have an opportunity now to show some moral leadership, to lead by example. That's what we're calling for: simply to hold the line to last year's expenditures.

HON. MR. FRASER: I just want to straighten out the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke in that this vote is way less than the inflation rate. This government is trying to get increases below the present inflation rate of 11 percent and the increase we're talking about here is between 6 and 7 percent.

[ Page 8505 ]

MR. LAUK: The second member for Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) suggests that we're against the furniture industry. I'm not going to answer that outrageous charge, but I will say that I've never seen any person on this side of the House wear a dark, three-piece, pin-stripe suit with a pair of sneakers.

Amendment negatived on the following division.

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 27

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

Vote 82 approved unanimously on a division.

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

On vote 83: Motor Carrier Commission and motor carrier branch, $2,542,953.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I move that vote 83 be reduced by $182,502 for all of the reasons already outlined on numerous occasions in this Legislature over the last two days.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

NAYS — 26

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 83 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Division is called on vote 83.

Hon. members, it would appear that all who can be here are here. Is it agreed that we proceed with the division?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. NICOLSON: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is: shall vote 83...?

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, I said no, Mr. Chairman. I very distinctly said no, and did so for a reason. Standing order 16(2) on page 4, says: "Upon a division being called the division bell should be rung forthwith. Not sooner than two nor longer than five minutes thereafter Mr. Speaker shall again state the question and amendment (if any)." Mr. Chairman has been seeking leave of the House, which must be unanimous. On previous occasions I have heard noes uttered, but I thought Mr. Chairman had just simply not heard them. In this particular instance I very distinctly said no very loudly and engaged the eye of the Chair while doing so. I would suggest that as leave must be unanimous, we must wait at least two minutes. By my watch that means that we now have ten seconds to go.

Vote 83 approved unanimously on a division.

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

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.