[ Page 1757 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Highways estimates

On vote 98.

Mr. Fraser — 1757

Mr. McGeer — 1763

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1765

Mr. Phillips — 1768

Mrs. Jordan — 1769

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1774

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1779

Mr. Chabot — 1781

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 1974

The House met at 8 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(continued)

On vote 98: Minister's office, $110,176.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): That Member's already after me, Mr. Chairman. I wish you'd bring him to order.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I enjoyed the Second Member for Vancouver-Little Mountain's (Mr. Cummings') remarks before the supper recess, complaining about the great City of Vancouver, deprived of all the highways money. I was pleased to hear the Minister's answer on that. They get a bridge every year that costs the Province of British Columbia $40 million or $50 million. I think they're well looked after actually. In fact, they get too much. I agree with the Minister.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. FRASER: First of all, my remarks to the Minister. I would like to congratulate him on his appointment; it's the first time he has been on the hotseat as the Minister. He was appointed in late May or early June and he's done a lot of things around the province since that appointment: flying in helicopters and going over all the bumpy roads via helicopter and, oh, a few other things.

He has made a few speeches about tourism, if I recall. He was going to run all the tourists out of the province, and not only that, he wants our local citizens to stay at home in their backyards when they're on holidays because he hasn't got time to build their roads. I don't think the majority of the citizens of this province want that, and I was quite surprised to hear it. I understand this address was made when the Minister was fairly new and didn't realize the press was around. Well, he learned from that the hard way because, believe it or not, those fellows are always around when you are in public life — except when you want them. Take it from one who has had a couple of days' experience on that.

The Minister certainly did make provincial headlines on that, and I do think it did affect the tourist industry — I hope not permanently. In all fairness to the Minister, I don't think he meant what he said in that, and he did retract to a certain degree.

The Minister has also made some remarks. I wish he would write down a few of the questions I'll be asking when I talk here for a few minutes tonight. If I recall, he recommended that all our citizens buy Datsuns or some compact cars. I'd like to know what kind of a car he's driving now. I suggest he doesn't practise what he preaches; he isn't driving a Datsun. I don't think it's fair to advise our citizens to buy these import cars when he doesn't drive them himself.

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: I'd like to ask, before I leave the specific subject of the Minister, how many executive assistants he has got. I think he has three. I suggest he doesn't need any; that's not a big department of government. He'll say he's just carrying on as in the past. Well, he can't sell me that bill of goods because any prior Minister has never had more than one. I think they get $17,000-odd a year each, and I'd love to have that $50,000 to build a couple of bush roads out in the Chilcotin. We could build about 20 miles of road with that kind of money as we didn't have to build it by highway specifications.

But so much for the Minister. I will say to the Minister that we're sure happy he comes from the northwest part of the province. If he has to drive, he has to go through the Interior of the province to the centre city of Prince George and drive west as far as he has from Vancouver before he gets home. I suggest he make that trip about once a month by car, and he'll know what's going on. Right now he can't get to Prince George if he leaves from Victoria because the frost boils are so deep up in the Cariboo on Highway 97 that you practically need a tractor.

I was very surprised and rather amused to see the bulletin he put out the other day from his office: "Watch this new, fancy sign and slow down." Well, believe me, they won't have to look at a sign to slow down; the frost boils will slow them down. I just say to the Minister, rather than issuing that kind of a bulletin, fix the frost boils so they're safe for the driving public.

I refer to the Minister's remarks before the supper hour. I'm quite amazed at how he has given up so fast as the Minister of Highways; he's only been the Minister for nine months. I suggest the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board sure sold him a bill of goods because he's accepted far too small an amount in the budget for the Department of Highways. I think he has really been conned into this deal.

[ Page 1758 ]

I refer to the Highways budget last year, and I'm trying to relate the Highways budget in a priority position with the overall budget. Last year approximately 10 per cent or 10 cents of every dollar of public money — I'm using budget figures, not accurate figures because the year hasn't closed — went to the Department of Highways. This year, if you analyse the Highways budget before us, it will work out to about 8 per cent. It's obvious to me when you see this that Highways has less priority than it has ever had.

I'm going to have an argument about that; it will be refuted and so on. But the budget for the Department of Highways this year is $212 million, more or less. But one wrong thing has happened and I blame the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board for this. Our overall budget is $2.2 billion but, as we've discussed here for the last month or so, we know very well that's going to be in actual fact about $2.7 billion when we come to March 31, 1975. And that's how I relate the Highways' budget.

In my opinion, the Highways budget will be kept to what we have here. We have an escalation in the total revenues of the province, and so Highways goes down in priority. It certainly upsets me, and I know it's going to upset the motorists and the travelling public of this province as the months go by. No matter what we think about the Highways department, they can't do the job unless they have the funds. They have had a higher priority in past years. I resent the fact that this government has decided to play down the Department of Highways, a most vital department of government.

I realize that Education and Health certainly should have priority in the overall expenditure of public funds, but I don't think there should be such a disparity in those departments as related to the Highways department. I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that it will cause trouble. While I admit that Education and Health should have priority, I don't think anyone has ever thought of the fact that if we haven't got a decent transportation system through our highway system we won't have any education. It will affect education; and regarding health, the same thing applies. What is the good of having modern hospitals and an ambulance service and so on if you haven't got a transportation system to get the ambulances and the sick people to the centres where they have to go for this care? I think there are a lot of ramifications involved here, and I certainly don't like to see what I have observed so far in the short time I've had to analyse the Highways budget.

There is another thing that's happening, of course, with the lowering of the priority of the Highways department. Whether we like it or not, people are still moving into this province and practically everybody today has a vehicle of some sort. So here we have a cutback going on on the highways side of capital, particularly in capital which is for new construction and so on. And we have an ever-increasing demand on the existing highways system. Obviously there is going to be trouble ahead.

I would like to go into another area. I've come to be convinced that the Highways department, after all the laws and the new bills that we've had from the new government, are still the big dogs on the approval of subdivisions. I'm not convinced that this should be so, because I think the Highways department are biased in favour of the highway system. I'm not prepared tonight to say who should have the final say, but what I am saying is: they have the final say in our subdivisions. And I don't think they should have.

I know they consult at a regional level, with the local authorities and so on and so forth, but after all the red tape has gone on about subdivision approval, all it takes is the senior approving officer in Victoria to say no, and all the local expertise is down the tube, as we say.

That is what's happening, as you know, to the opposition. About every second day we're voted down the tube.

The Highways department has the hammer in the case of subdivision control after it has gone through the process of the local people. I don't think this is right.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I don't like to deal in personalities, and I don't intend to. But even after it goes through all the district level of Highways, the regional level, it comes down to the senior approving officer in Victoria. After this has gone through the regional district, the subdivision, the municipality and everything else, it comes down to this last final move — all he has to do is initial it, and that's it. But you know, Mr. Chairman, he never initials anything. That fellow should be renamed. His title now is senior approving officer, and he should be renamed the senior disapproving officer because he never approves anything.

The reason I'm stressing this, Mr. Chairman, is that I'm pretty sure the Minister of Highways thinks this is fine. Well, that's fine. He has to set the policy, and that's good. But I think that municipal affairs, regional districts and that, should be treated on an equal basis when we come to approving subdivisions. I realize the Highways problem in approving subdivisions: it puts a further stress and strain on the highway system.

But I don't think this is a solution. Really what the Department of Highways is saying here is that this is how they are going to solve the growth patterns in our province. I don't think we can solve it that way, by telling people who want to subdivide for people to live on, that they can't; that the final say is refused because it will put strain on a main road.

[ Page 1759 ]

Maybe, Mr. Chairman, what the Highways department should look at is giving out birth control pills. Maybe that's the answer. I don't think what they are doing is the answer because the people are coming in all the time. As far as I'm concerned, I hope they keep coming. But I don't think this is the right approach.

The right approach should be to approve subdivisions on an orderly basis by the Highways department where it affects their main highway system, and then upgrade the roads to accommodate the increased traffic. They're saying that they are at a standstill where you have a two-lane road. This applies in the Interior and all over; all we have are two-lane roads. They have no intention of expanding even to a third lane to accommodate local traffic.

We've reached the point now where, through Bill 42 and all this turn-down by the Highways department, there's no place left to build in the Interior of the province. This is absolutely ridiculous because there is lots of land available, if you can get the necessary approval.

I don't say approve every subdivision. Certainly not. But they are turning practically all of them down now, and it's of course having the effect of increasing land for the citizens who want to get established. I don't think it is right, to the degree that they've taken it.

I want to go into another area in the Highways department that hasn't been mentioned. I think it is a real can of worms. I want to deal with the settlement of acquisition of property by the Highways department. From experience that I've had an as MLA there must be settlements in there that haven't...non-settlements that have been in that department 10 years.

It seems that the policy, and I direct this to the Minister, is that the Highways department expropriates a man's land, they build the road, it exists for seven or eight years — and they have them in their file right now — and they don't do anything about trying to settle with the citizen until he complains. He complains once a year, "Why can't I get a settlement?" And he goes through the whole circus. He doesn't get an answer; they make an offer; he says, "I won't accept." The whole thing is stalemated. There's something wrong with the whole policy.

I don't think our citizens should be treated that way. Maybe, Mr. Chairman, I'm voicing opinions here that should be voiced at another level of government. I refer to expropriation. I think we should have enacted long ago the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. It was recommended to government in 1970 or 1971 that we pay a fair price for land acquired by all government agencies, not only Highways, but Hydro and so on. That is shelved in the cobwebs around here somewhere, but I have seen it.

Just to go back for a minute on access roads and approval of subdivisions. The Minister just recently announced, himself, that over $100 million of development was tied up by his department in some of the smaller areas of the province. I'll name you those smaller places. The point I'm trying to make here is that he didn't refer at all to any important places in British Columbia. He refers to: Nanaimo, Penticton, Courtenay, Salmon Arm, Abbotsford, Campbell River, Castlegar, Chilliwack, Coquitlam, Cranbrook, Duncan, Fort St. John, Kamloops, Langley, Port Coquitlam, Prince George, Revelstoke, Vernon and Whistler. Well, really, I guess they are important places. I know many more that the Minister didn't list, so I think he's probably got at least $200 million worth of projects tied up.

I would like to ask the Minister: what, and when, is anything going to be done, or is this all going to be brought to a halt? I don't think that is his intention, but that's the effect it is having at the present time.

I repeat, I haven't any answers to what we do to accommodate the new citizens. I welcome them here, but we have to accommodate them, and I think we've got troubles ahead over the standstill attitude of the Highways department.

Well, the trouble is actually upon us because of the impact of not getting further land for subdivisions approved. Of course, the price of the existing land that is already approved has doubled or tripled in the last 18 months, and I think that's an injustice, particularly to the individual homeowner trying to get going.

Mr. Chairman, there is another item in Highways that I hope the Minister looks at. And by the way, there is one item that I forgot. I'll go back to it.

I mentioned three executive assistants that the Minister has, but there's no vote in his department for a Deputy Minister. From what I can read, he hasn't got a Deputy Minister, and I'd like him to tell this House what his plans are. Does he intend to get one, and when? I think it is a vital position, and according to the estimate book here there is a blank for the vote. If he does appoint a Deputy Minister, I don't know where he's going to get the money to pay him.

At the management level of the Highways department, this province is now divided into four regional highway districts. Quite frankly, I think the time has come, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, that we have to take a review of that. I don't know when the province was regionalized, but we'll say that it was seven or eight or 10 years ago that this level was created, and I agree with this level. But I have two regional highway engineers that cover my riding of Cariboo, and they are really efficient people. I have no doubt that the other two regional engineers are, also.

The point I am making is that there are only four

[ Page 1760 ]

of them in this province. I particularly refer to the regional engineer in the central-north part of the province, called Region 4. That gentleman has a territory from 40 miles north of Williams Lake, which is not even central British Columbia, right through to the north B.C. boundary, over the Queen Charlotte Islands and back over to the Alberta boundary. I suggest to you that it is a physical impossibility, no matter who that person is, to properly look after an area of such a huge size. Geographically it is over half the Province of British Columbia. And a lot of roads in it.

What I'm really saying is it is just about as bad in Region 2, Kamloops. I think the time has come, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, to reconsider the whole regional structure. I would like to see the province divided into eight regions. I realize that's probably asking for a lot. But let's start this year and, say, make it six regions to take the load off these very responsible men who are carrying out these duties to the best of their ability. But one day there's a problem in the Queen Charlotte Islands, and the next day they have a problem in McBride. This man certainly has a terrific responsibility. It is far too much for any one person. I would like to see the province divided into six at the minimum, preferably eight, and start on that programme this year.

Mr. Chairman, ever since I've been an MLA here, and that isn't that long, I've complained about the equipment that the Highways people have to work with. I want to congratulate the Minister and his department. In the estimates we are looking at, this year the vote has gone from $4.5 million to $8 million, and believe me, that's good news for the whole Province of British Columbia, as long as they are able to get the equipment. I doubt that they will be able to get it because of non-delivery by the suppliers. But certainly the money is there, and I hope an early attempt is made. By that, I mean tender calls to be called now, and maybe we can get some new bulldozers, new trucks, new graders, front-end loaders, and all the vital equipment that is needed before the end of the fiscal year.

On the subject of equipment I have some other observations to make. I'm now going to talk just for a minute about the operation of the equipment. I think the Highways department have got a real problem here. I really don't know the answer to it, but they aren't any different than any other employer. They are having a fair-sized turnover in staff because that's the way to go these days; you don't stay at any one job too long. I'm not critical of the fact, but it is a fact of life.

I would like to ask the Minister: is there any training programme for men you hire as bulldozer operators, grader operators, or even truck drivers? I know that you have a safety programme, training in that. But I don't think the training programme is for a man hired off the streets. You give him a $35,000 bulldozer and he doesn't know the front end from the back end. I'm not criticizing you for this, because this is what you have to do because of the shortage of these skilled people.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the Highways department is not getting the better type of operator if they have to hire them now, for the simple reason that industry is paying more money, particularly in the case of heavy equipment. I refer to the sawmill industry, the lumber industry. I know that you have raised their salaries, but I still feel that you somewhat are below the level of industry.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, while I'm on equipment, and this is so very important, not only whether you have a good operator on a bulldozer or a grader or a truck, but you have to have a quality piece of machinery. I'm not satisfied, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister. I talked about this for the last two years. It is my opinion that they are still buying junk, brand new equipment that's junk.

I know I can't say this outside of the House because I would have most of the manufacturers of the equipment handing me a lawsuit. But I feel very strongly about this. I'll never understand why this Purchasing Commission.... I brought this up, Mr. Chairman, through the Minister of Finance, and he asked me to bring it up in the individual departments. I'll never understand why certain departments — and I'll name one department, Forestry — can buy deluxe equipment or anything they want — four-wheel drives equipped with two-way radios, deluxe cabs, heavy-duty tires — the whole biscuit. The Highways departments have got the money, they've sent the requisition to the Purchasing Commission, and they say, "Oh, you don't need that kind of stuff. You buy a pickup that has no wheels or tires on it," and a three-speed transmission in the pickup instead of an automatic, a standard cab instead of a deluxe. I don't think the Highways department needs to take that kind of guff from the Purchasing Commission.

I would like to know why they are taking it. Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Highways, what is happening? I want to use a grader as an example, never mind the pickup. It happens from a pickup right through to the biggest bulldozer you can buy, but I'll use a grader as an example, which is a very vital piece of equipment in the Highways department....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would hope that the Hon. Member will save some of his remarks for the specific vote, vote 105.

MR. FRASER: I intend to repeat them when we get to the specific vote, you know.

We have a new Minister here, and I really believe when he's a new Minister that he is interested in getting efficiency out of the department, and this is

[ Page 1761 ]

part of the reason he can't: we are not getting the right equipment.

What they are buying, thanks to the Purchasing Commission.... The Highways department tells them they want a grader of 150 horsepower, so they call a tender for that grader, and then they add a whole bunch of junk onto the grader. It finally ends up that they buy the one with the price in the lowest column. The machine goes out, and they haven't bought a 150-horsepower grader at all. With all the attachments on it they are actually developing about 100 horsepower. Then you have failures, and the people are wondering why the snowplough didn't come, why the road wasn't graded in the summer months. And it's because they bought inferior equipment that has broken down, is in down time, and they have spent more time broken down than operating.

I'm not here to sell equipment, and I have no shares in equipment. But I did sell equipment for 15 years, and there are one or two makes of equipment that can be bought for more money — $4,000 or $5,000 a machine, in relation to graders. But it will go all the time, and it doesn't break down. I would like to ask the Minister: who is keeping track of the down time of the equipment in the Department of Highways? Whoever it is is a pretty poor bookkeeper, or they would have come up years ago and found out the economy they are losing by not keeping track of the down time of this equipment.

The other thing is that the citizens of this province are not getting the service on the roads when they are monkey-wrenching this inadequate and far less than adequate quality.... That's what's causing the whole problem. I understand they still won't let them buy it, but they'll let the Forest Service.... The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), he can get anything for the Forestry boys. But the Minister of Highways, he's got to play third fiddle, and I resent that.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): The Premier's afraid of him.

MR. FRASER: There's another thing; there's a discriminating policy in the Department of Highways. I don't think the Minister knows about this. I don't blame him for it, but it's an old policy I'd like him to look at. I might be wrong, but I don't think I am. Where you have a suburban area and a subdivision goes in — this is not, say, a mile or so off an arterial highway, but it is not within a municipality — the subdivider has to build the roads and bring them up to your standards, and then you take them over, forever, for maintenance.

In the lower mainland for quite a number of years, Mr. Chairman, the Highways department has insisted that these roads be paved. In the Interior this is not the case from Hope north. There is no requirement that the subdivision roads be paved. Now we're faced with a situation where thousands of people live outside the municipalities with gravel roads. They are of a standard; all they need is a capping. They were built to a standard of the Highways department by the subdivider. But we let them get away with not paving them. Now we have subdivisions with 2,000 or 3,000 people in them, and they want the roads paved. The Highways department — it's their road, and they won't do anything about it. They just say, "It's not our policy." So the citizen in this area continues to swallow dust and plough his own roads in the wintertime.

We can't get away with this much longer. The Highways department are doing the best they can, but the final solution to this is to cap those roads. As I say, they have a face, they're built to a face, and they certainly can be capped.

There are as many people in the Interior now living outside municipalities and their fringe areas as there are inside municipalities, which is a municipal responsibility. The Minister might say, "Well, they're not; they're paying a dollar a year taxes." You check your rolls and you'll find out that they're paying taxes about the same as the municipal person is, and they haven't got the services. You've got the responsibility, and I'd like you to look at it and see what you're going to do about it.

Another subject I'd like to bring up, Mr. Chairman, is cattle underpasses. I want to say, first of all, that cattle underpasses are a safety measure for all the motorists of this province. We've got a few cows and we've got a few cowboys in the Cariboo. We've got 270 miles of arterial highway, Highway 97. Over the years we've got that highway fenced pretty well now, but there are still a few cattle underpasses to put in.

I was quite upset the other day when I got a letter from the Minister that because this farmer's cows do not cross Highway 97 six times a year, he can't have a cattle underpass. They won't even accept his share, which he's ready to pay. A cattle underpass, for the information of the city Members, costs about $10,000, installed. The formula we have is that the farmer pays $1,000 and the Department of Highways pays $9,000. In order to get a cattle underpass the cows have got to cross six times.

You know, Mr. Chairman, what the Minister said on this cattle underpass? It's on Highway 97. He said: "Mr. Member, we're turning that down because his cows don't cross six times a year. They only cross three." And he says, "You tell your farmer to get a horse and chase his cows across and don't worry about the cattle underpass."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a lot of bull.

[ Page 1762 ]

MR. FRASER: Well, you try that some day with 500 head of beef stock that have just come off the range. Try crossing them on a busy highway like Highway 97, even in the Cariboo. You know, there'd be just a slaughter. I know you have to have guidelines, but I don't think the Highways department again are looking at the safety of the motorist. All they worry about is the cost of the underpass, and I don't think it's good enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: It makes the road pretty slippery.

MR. FRASER: At one place that this has been turned down, I personally have seen 25 bad accidents there in the last three years — dead cows and hurt children and hurt drivers, and so on. It's not a nice sight to see.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where at?

MR. FRASER: You wouldn't know if I told you, Mr. Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford).

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member again if he could leave some of the material that he's got for the separate votes, because it would seem more appropriate for some of the material, at least, to be included under specific votes.

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I don't know why you're accusing me of carrying on. That Minister over there, of Recreation: you never called him to order. He's got nothing to do with Highways at all. It takes me time to get rid of him.

Another item I think should be looked into, Mr. Chairman, is the rental of private equipment by the Department of Highways. I resent what some of your district managers are doing on the rental of equipment from good operators. They have a large investment. They're independent businessmen. They have graders; they have bulldozers; they have trucks. They go into some of your offices, and they say, "Here's our equipment." They'll work by your rental rate. So they sign them up — just recently for four weeks snow ploughing...one grader. That operator took that machine off a sawmill job for ploughing roads, put it to work for the Department of Highways, was signed on for four weeks work, and he was laid off in eight days.

I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that nobody should do business that way. That's not fair. That's something that needs to be.... I think that's administrative, but I think that should be looked into. This owner of equipment has his life's savings tied up in that. That equipment has to work. He could have got the job with the lumber company. But because the Department of Highways was in a bind, he set his grader ploughing there; and then eight days later he's laid off. He goes back to the lumber company — and certainly they've got another grader, and he hasn't got that job. That's not playing cricket.

I'm very unhappy, Mr. Chairman, about the money in the budget. I'm more particularly unhappy about the Minister's remarks before 6 o'clock, where he seems to accept it as a fait accompli. In the budget here we haven't got enough money under capital to look after inflation, and we're going to go backwards in 1974 on capital projects.

I believe the figure's from $100 million to $110 million. Inflation is going to more than use that up, Mr. Chairman. I think that you have got to learn to be a better salesman when you're talking to the Minister of Finance, because you got slickered on that deal.

On the maintenance vote, I believe it's up from $49 million to $69 million, and that's a good deal. Again, inflation is going to eat into that quite considerably, but at least it's a slight increase.

I'm not quite finished for a while here, Mr. Chairman. There's been an air around this place for a month that "We're in a hurry...and get out of here and go to Japan and play rugby." Well, I'm not going to Japan to play rugby, and I'm not in any hurry to leave here. I want to do the public's business, so don't try and stampede me into anything.

Another thing, Mr. Minister, through the Chairman, dealing with arterial routes in this province: I heard your remarks earlier, and I completely agree that the city slicker is using our freeways for streets. I've seen the mess there and definitely those cities should smarten up and find a better way to move the traffic than plugging our freeways, which are our main routes through this province. It's disgraceful, and it should be Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster looking after that. I agree, and I'll support you completely.

I think we've got a good carrier system as far as Hope. But from Hope to the Interior we're in trouble, in real trouble, whether you go to Hope-Princeton or Trans-Canada and the Fraser Canyon. I'd like to get the remarks of the Minister on that.

The Fraser Canyon is absolutely plugged solid about nine months of the year. It's completely inadequate. Hope-Princeton is worn out. We've done some work on it, but it's a tough grade. There has to be, in my opinion, a third route found from Hope into the Interior. I believe some engineering has been done on this. I'd like to hear from the Minister if there have been any decisions made at his level to find this third route and get on with the construction of it. If we do, it will take 10 years to build it. So we're already 10 years late.

[ Page 1763 ]

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): We're 21 years late.

MR. FRASER: No, no, no. The only figure you fellows can use is 20 years. There were some good things happening in that 20 years, Mr. Minister of Public Works. It just happens that I'm recommending a third route that goes right through your riding, and I haven't heard you say a thing about it. Your riding has just as much trouble as mine. So go back and put some more marble on the walls.

But, Mr. Chairman, we are in serious trouble. I think the engineering division have a pretty good idea what they want to do. I further — heard some bad stories about the Fraser Canyon. If any part of those rumours are correct, we're in far more trouble than I've related here tonight.

Regarding an access from the coast, I don't know whether it should go from Hope to Merritt. Whether it should go from Pemberton to Lillooet, I don't know. But it should go somewhere, and somebody should be making some decisions and start moving the rocks.

An item or two on surplus land property. Does anybody know in the Department of Highways how much surplus land they've got? I don't think they do. I'd like to know if they've got an inventory of the surplus property. If they have, what's their policy on disposal of it? Will they sell it by auction? Will they lease it by action? Will they give it away? What will they do? You have lots of surplus property in this province and, if it is surplus, declare it so and put it on the market so the citizens can buy it and it can generate some taxes.

We've seen for the first time this year in a long, long time a deliberate government policy to make the Highways department a profit department of government by the taxes derived from the vehicles which use the highways. For the first time this year there will be more revenue from gas tax, fuel tax, motor-fuel tax, motor-vehicle licences taken into the general revenue than will be spent on the whole Highways department. I don't think that is fair or just. You should tell the Minister of Finance that, Mr. Minister. At least you should get what those roads generate or are in the process of generating through these taxes. As I say, it's the first time because of the increased revenues from fuel taxes and so on that you'll see the Highways department actually being a net profit to the general revenue pot. It is really a service department and was never meant to be a profit department of government.

I think I've said enough, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to close and say that I'm quite worried about the position the new Minister is in with his very low priority in the overall government policy spelled out in this budget. It disturbs me greatly. I only hope that if he needs more money, he can go back with his tin cup later in the year like all the school boards have to do and so on as the Premier has told them. I hope you go back with a bucket, Mr. Minister, and you can get it filled.

The Cariboo gold rush started in 1863. All the people in those days went in by saddle horse and horse and buggy, and we're going to be right back to horse and buggy if you don't get some corrective action. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just point out that we do allow a certain latitude on the Minister's vote, but there are other votes which cover most of the topics.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd like to ask the Minister a few questions regarding his views of the general highway situation in British Columbia and the people who use those highways.

Last summer in Prince George the Minister made a speech in which he made some pretty frank and candid statements to the chamber of commerce there. He was reported, as he should have been, for those statements. Essentially the message he had was that U.S. campers ought to be banned from British Columbia roads. The next day, in the Vancouver Province, on August 1, 1974, there's a report which says.... August 1, 1973. I'm getting as mixed up as the Minister. I'm in trouble. It is headlined: "Did I say that?"

The Minister of Highways said the next day at a press conference that he offered some personal viewpoints, that he felt campers should be banned only "if we run out of places to camp." But the president of the chamber of commerce, John Rahier, said the Minister's comments were of little thought and understanding, despite denials by the Minister. He further said that the Minister was quoted exactly correctly in his speech to the Prince George Chamber of Commerce and that the revision of his story at a press conference the next day came only after he'd been chided by the Provincial Secretary and tourism Minister (Hon. Mr. Hall) for making statements about tourism.

The Provincial Secretary, mind you, himself had said the previous October that he believed tourists in campers didn't spend enough money during their vacations.

There seems to be kind of a pattern here of a Minister of the Crown saying one thing one day and denying that he said it the next. We even have it spilling into the backbench a little bit. There's a story that same day in the Vancouver Province saying,

"Colin Gabelmann and Jim Lorimer had words at the recent NDP convention because all the Burnaby-Seymour delegates were from Seymour and none from Burnaby. Gabelmann, when approached later for comment, said that he would deny anything that appeared in print."

[ Page 1764 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Just like the Premier, he denies anything he is going to say.

MR. McGEER: I just don't know, Mr. Chairman; these stories that appear in print are very difficult for the cabinet to cope with. I would hate to think that the backbench was....

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Let me go on with this quotation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member....

MR. McGEER: The Minister of Labour clearly asked a question and, if it's the House's wish, I'll answer it. (Laughter.) "He said that anything that happened was internal NDP politics."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the estimates of the Minister of Highways?

MR. McGEER: Yes, I'm doing that, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: I don't know what the Minister of Highways' game really is in this matter of tourism in British Columbia. I have here a news release from that Minister dated March 11, 1974. This is some months after he has had his knuckles rapped by the Provincial Secretary, but here it is under the Department of Highways' green and orange logo, saying,

"Let me explain right away that I am in no way contradicting the objectives or views of my colleague, the Minister of Travel Industry, when I call for this re-evaluation. However, the question is not whether or not we will allow tourists to come to British Columbia. Of course, we will continue to welcome those who come to visit us. The problems which have created this need for re-evaluation arise from the question: how will tourism be integrated in the new way of life we are attempting to develop in this province?"

I'd like to ask the Minister what this new way of life is that makes us want to kick out tourists from British Columbia. He asks a question but he doesn't say what this new way of life we're to have is going to be that requires we kick out the tourists.

"The days of old, uninhibited exploitation of resources are over. By the same token, I would venture the opinion that the old days of uninhibited tourism are over."

I ask the Minister, what kind of uninhibited tourism did we have in this province?

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Streakers! (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: Were they streakers? Were they bootleggers? What sort of uninhibited tourists did we have?

"The time has come for all British Columbians to ask some penetrating questions about tourism. You and I, as workers this close to the industry, should take the lead in asking such questions. Are working people, particularly people in the travel industry, getting their fair share of the dollars spent by tourists?"

AN HON. MEMBER: Hire only taxis.

MR. McGEER: Yes, and the services of taxi drivers.

Are we using too much of our scarce valley lands, putting in roads mostly designed to service vacationers?

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) says yes. The Minister of Highways merely asked a question, and the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Hall) looks glum. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Smile, Ernie.

MR. McGEER: What does the dependence on such a fickle human need as travelling do to an economy that needs stability? Are the tourists fickle? Mr. Chairman, is this new way of life to end the fickleness of travel and vacations in British Columbia?

"What are the inflationary aspects of tourism? Should our own people be forced to bear high costs created by a seasonal boom caused by tourists? Does it want them here, using the motels?"

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Don't you ever leave Point Grey?

MR. McGEER: I leave Point Grey a lot. I like our highways, Mr. Chairman, and I like the fact that we have tourists coming here, bringing tourist dollars. It's the cleanest industry of all, the industry most valuable to those who offer services in British Columbia, and the service industry make up by far the largest employment in the province. I like tourists. I think they are our greatest friends. I think

[ Page 1765 ]

the tourists have added a great deal to our economy. I think they have made our life better, not worse, and I think we have a great future in British Columbia by encouraging tourism, not only of our own citizens, but citizens from all over the world.

"What are the indirect effects of the sudden arrival of hundreds of thousands of tourists on our community services, such as our streets and roads, and on our resources, such as our petroleum?" He doesn't want them buying gas, even.

"Are our own people being squeezed out of hospitality facilities and recreational areas by our tourists? We are like a family with a beautiful home. We are proud to have guests, and want our guests to enjoy themselves. But there is a point when a party becomes too big. The crush of people becomes too much. Neither guests nor hosts are enjoying it any more."

The Minister of Highways has asked some questions, but the very nature of the questions he asks gives an indication of the answers he has in mind. He is a Minister of the Crown, and presumably he has a considerable influence on the adequacy of our highways in British Columbia. It seems to me the suggestion is that we shouldn't build more highways in British Columbia. Instead we should kick the tourists off the roads.

Up in Prince George he stated what his policy was. He got justifiably chewed out by the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mr. Hall) and he called a press conference to revise his story the next day. He doesn't seem to have revised his attitudes. He has just got a little cleverer way of putting his point across. He asked the questions. There has been some reaction besides that of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall). Three days later we have got a story in The Province on March 14: "Keep Nose Out of Tourism, Highways Minister Lea Told." The advice came from Bert Dann, public relations director of the B.C. Motels, Resorts and Trailer Parks Association.

" 'He doesn't know what he is talking about. He should clean up his own highways first. I don't think he should be interfering or making statements concerning another department.' Dann also disputed Lea's analogy of the province as a beautiful home that begins to show the strain when the crush of people becomes too great. 'The home he refers to is owned by 65 per cent of the people of B.C. — 60 to 65 per cent are B.C. tourists, who are already paying 15 cents a gallon in provincial gasoline taxes year-round. The rest come from other parts of Canada and the U.S. Our border doors, Alberta and Washington state, swing both ways. We don't want them to bar our tourists.' "

I think that is a fair statement by Mr. Dann. People from British Columbia like to visit California, Washington and Oregon. What would the world be like if we said we don't want anybody else coming into British Columbia than the people who live here, and all the other places said: "We don't want anybody from British Columbia coming into our back yard"?

Do you see how parochial it is possible to become when you start getting small minds into office? You know, just this past year the United States tourists to British Columbia actually decreased in percentage. I think it is something that should concern us, not warm our hearts. Last year it was down to 20 per cent from the previous year's 22 per cent. Those are figures from the Canadian Tourist Office.

Mr. Chairman, I sense a little bigotry over there. It's not by any means shared by all the people in the cabinet, because I think the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mr. Hall) is doing a fantastic job. He has promoted all kinds of excellent things. He has given us a tartan. I know when we pass that Act he is going to be out there with the first British Columbia tartan that is manufactured.

Sincerely, Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister is to be commended. He truly has done a first-class job in promoting British Columbia around the world.

MR. PHILLIPS: How many yards?

MR. McGEER: I can tell you know how many threads. I think his position is being undermined by some members of the cabinet who don't have as broad an approach. (Laughter.) I don't refer to the Minister of Highways.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister of Highways tonight.... He does have an interest in this, because the state of highways is important to tourism. He is a member of the cabinet, and cabinet sets overall policy. I think the Minister of Highways tonight had better stop asking questions and lay his attitudes right on the line, so that the people of British Columbia can know exactly where he stands on this important subject.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Chairman, that is one of the better speeches that I have heard in this House, the one that was read by the Hon. Member.

I was asked a great many questions by the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). Is he by a monitor somewhere? Maybe he is not, so we will just deal, Mr. Chairman, with the question of tourism and my views on it. I do think that it comes under some aspects of my jurisdiction. I am talking about when we get an influx of vehicles into the province, where it causes congestion on our highways, where we are going to spend money to build new highways, or improve the

[ Page 1766 ]

ones we have, to facilitate an influx of tourists. I think I do have a stake in my jurisdiction on tourism.

It's interesting to hear Mr. Dann being quoted because I heard him on CBC radio on the morning programme, and he had some very interesting views himself. He believes that in the wintertime the Minister of Recreation and Conservation should close up all the parks because it's an infringement on the private sector. All the parks should be closed so that parks that are paid for and camping grounds that are paid for by the people of British Columbia cannot be used by the people of British Columbia. They should be shut down so people are forced to go to the private sector in the winter months when they're having a hard time.

That's free enterprise for you. If that's the kind of free enterprise the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) subscribes to, then, I'm telling you, it's the kind I don't subscribe to.

I'd like to make myself clear on my views on tourism. I believe there is no way we can have an equitable situation in a country of 20 million people when we live next to a highly-mobile country of over 200 million. It seems to me we're going to come out on the short end of the stick somewhere, especially if that other country is going to have to put on gas rationing and we don't do it in this country. I think the influx of big vehicles into this country would be a mess; I don't think it's the kind of influx we would find desirable.

The Liberal Party may find it desirable, but if you're driving home to the Cariboo, Mr. Member and you get behind 20 campers and can't get by — the road is congested — then I think you may change your mind.

I didn't say we didn't want tourists; I said we should re-evaluate and see what kind of tourists we want. I don't want tourists coming in plugging up the highways when they're not bringing that many dollars in. I'd like to see an evaluation of that done and I think the Minister of Travel Industry said the same thing, not what was said he said tonight in this House.

It seems to me that the chambers of commerce in this province would welcome what I have said. If we bring tourists in in another manner, they're going to stay in our hotels, they're going to eat in our restaurants, sleep in our motels, and they're going to spend some money in this province. If they're going to come, let's get some money out of it for the people of British Columbia.

Even when they come in their campers, they bring gasoline with them, they bring food with them. Even if they buy gasoline here, who owns the companies? Where do those dollars go? Back to the United States.

MR. PHILLIPS: Tell us more. The more you talk, the deeper you dig yourself in.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, you should see the letters coming in, Mr. Member.

I see the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) is back, so I'd like to deal with some of the questions raised by the Member. He mentioned the amount of dollars in highways this year to spend. He mentioned that the ratio isn't the same as it has been in past years; that it's down. I'd like to remind the Member that it's up 18 per cent over last year. The ratio towards the total budget, I quite readily admit, is down. But I think we should judge spending in the Highways department on the absolute need for spending and not be bound by ratio. The ratios don't mean that much to me.

The Hon. Member also asked about subdivisions and whether the Highways department should be in the business of looking over and supervising subdivisions. In most of the cases along highways, the Highways department does have a great stake in it. In other parts of unorganized territories, I'd like to see a review, along with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to see whether possibly that isn't where it should go. Believe me, I don't enjoy dealing with those areas that don't concern highways; it's not under my jurisdiction.

There is a phenomenon going on and has been going on in this province for a great many years when we talk about subdivisions outside of communities, outside the boundaries of municipal communities.

MR. FRASER: That's what I was talking about.

HON. MR. LEA: People move out there, in my opinion, in many cases, to get away from paying their fair share within the municipal boundaries.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: No, I'm not. What happens many times is that those people move out there, form a community off the road, but sooner or later are using that arterial highway between that bedroom community and the municipality where they work, where they go in to be entertained in the evening, as a municipal street. All of a sudden you have an arterial highway that's so congested the traffic which would like to go from one region to another can't get through. There's a bottleneck, and traffic can only flow as fast as that bottleneck. If they want to build a municipal road from that bedroom community into the municipality, then who cares, from my point of view, dealing with it in terms of highways?

Also, the Hon. Member for Cariboo mentioned the fact that I had said I was very concerned about the number of shopping centres being built in communities throughout British Columbia. He suggested that possibly the senior approving officer with the Department of Highways never makes a

[ Page 1767 ]

good decision. I'd like to say I have the greatest faith in the senior approving officer within the Department of Highways; I think he's doing a terrific job. He's been doing the job against insurmountable odds. Every municipal body practically in the province has been after him to approve what they feel they should have; every developer in the province is bringing pressure onto the municipality to bring pressure onto the senior approving officer; pressure is being brought on the senior approving office directly from developers.

In some ways I don't blame the municipality; they're looking for a tax base, so they want that new shopping centre within their community. But very seldom do they take into consideration the kind of stress and strain that puts on the transportation corridors of the province, especially in terms of free flow from one region to another.

I believe there is a role for the central body to govern what kind of development and where it goes along highways. Sooner or later we're congested. Then what happens? The municipal body comes and says, "Will you build a bypass?" So you spend millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money; you build a bypass; you allow commercial development. Then they come back and say, "Will you build a bypass?" You allow the commercial development — and it goes on and on and on.

We can't even afford that luxury because of geography and topography in British Columbia. Sooner or later there's no place to move over. We have to take a firm stand, in my opinion, right now to curb that kind of development. I read in an old newspaper not too long ago where Robert Bonner made that speech in 1953. He told his colleagues that if they didn't take note of what was going on, we would have the kind of problem we have today. Obviously, the people responsible for highways in this province over the years have not paid note to Mr. Bonner and we have a situation we can't live with for very much longer.

The Member for Cariboo mentioned the expropriation of property, and I agree. I agree that we need a revision, and that revision is being done now by the Attorney-General's department. I'm not happy with it. To me it works against the workers the way it is now. If you go through property that's of a lower socio-economic situation and you pay that man the market value, he can't locate anywhere else with the kind of money you pay him, even though you do pay him a fair market value for his property.

If you go through West Vancouver, pay the owner $70,000 for his property, he can locate almost anywhere in the city. Those people from whom you expropriate property through arbitration and through negotiation in the lower socio-economic parts of town just cannot relocate for that kind of money. I believe we should be looking at a relocation value as opposed to the market value. I hope the Attorney-General does take that into consideration. I'll be having a talk with him about that because I do run into that problem.

The Hon. Member mentioned the number of regions and districts in the province in the Highways department. I agree; again it's under review. We are going to be going to six regions soon, and we're also looking at the districts. The northern region is far too big; no man, as you said, can possibly look after it. We are looking at that.

You mentioned the equipment and the Purchasing Commission to me in a private conversation and again here in the House thinking that they do dictate to the Highways department. That's not true. The Purchasing Commission is given specifications that they order from, and they take tile lowest bidder. Possibly we should look at not taking the lowest bidder. I've asked my department to look into that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now you're talking.

HON. MR. LEA: There are training programmes for operators and for mechanics. We have an extensive programme at BCIT as far as operators go. We do have on-job training for mechanics and the other trades relating around the repair and maintenance of equipment. I know the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour are taking an active interest in speeding up and facilitating training of more tradesmen in the province. They're taking consideration also of the kinds of people needed within the Department of Highways. So I would hope that improves.

Wages have been raised, but they're still not comparable to industry, and I think they should be. I think that after the negotiations with the unions they may be. I don't think because you work for government you should get any less or any more than you get in private industry. You should get as much. In many cases it's a more important job.

Rental rates haven't been reviewed since the spring of 1972. Obviously the rates for rental equipment must be reviewed and the conditions of the contract must also be looked at.

Surplus land that the Highways department acquires through right-of-way purchases, negotiations and expropriations. If that land is at all appropriate for farming, I get in touch with the Land Commission and ask them if they would be interested. If it looks like it might be good housing land or, indeed, if there is housing on the land, then I get in touch with the Department of Housing. My policy is that we do not sell Crown land; we will lease it on bid, but we do not sell Crown land. I don't believe that's the direction we should be going.

The Member mentioned the taxes derived from gas tax. They have had a very sad experience in the

[ Page 1768 ]

United States of earmarking dollars for roads. You have a tendency that way to spend all the money coming in. In the States there have been huge amounts of money, and they've actually spent money, in my opinion, unwisely all over the United States where they have that in effect. I don't think it's a wise policy for the government to earmark tax dollars for one particular department or one particular area of concern. You have a tendency, as I said, to spend that money no matter what. Even if you don't need to spend it, you spend it. I don't think that's the way it should be. You should have to say here's the kind of dollars I need to do it, and make the case. If you have all the dollars coming in, I don't think it's the right way to go.

You talk about the frost boils. I know it's bad; it happens with a combination of the kind of winter you have: the moisture and the frost intensity. Some years you have it in a more pronounced way than other years. Believe me, the department is aware of it and working to solve the frost boil problem.

I think I've covered all the points you made, Mr. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's been very interesting sitting here listening to the Minister because what I was afraid of, unfortunately, he has assured me is true. This Minister has absolutely no vision as to what should be done in the Department of Highways; he has no ability to recognize what an important portfolio he has in this province. Certainly, the Department of Highways is now strictly a holding operation.

I sometimes think, after listening to some of the conversation since his departmental estimates have come up, the Premier must have said to the Minister, "Look, you're pretty lucky to be in the cabinet; don't come up here wanting any more money, or you won't be there at all." It's for sure he doesn't believe in his department, and it's for sure that he's not going to fight for his department. It's a no-priority issue this year.

Maybe they're still living with the fact that they used to call us, when we were government, the blacktop government. There was vision; the province was opened up with courage, engineering novelties, new ideas. Certainly that day is long past under this Minister. I doubt if he'll even do a good holding operation.

I can understand the Minister of Highways saying that he doesn't want too many people to use the highways, particularly the American tourists who come in and leave their dollars, don't pollute the area or take anything out of the country, and leave nothing but money.

The Minister was up in the north last summer, and he didn't use the highways. No, not at all. The Minister came up to do a survey of certain aspects of the highways, but he didn't use the highways. He's got a new method of checking the highways. No, not a canoe...

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...not a boat....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, the Minister used a helicopter — complete with executives, complete with the engineers in the department. They set down here and they set down there where the road is good. They take a look. Reminds me of some other Ministers I used to know who came out from Ottawa to check the Alaska Highway. They had men out there with rakes making sure every rock was in place before he went over it in his air-conditioned bus. But this Minister used a helicopter. How in heaven's name can the Minister of Highways justify...?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know what the cost was. It wasn't a small helicopter either; it was a large helicopter complete with crew.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's nice to have a crew along.

MR. PHILLIPS: So he came up in the great north country from Prince Rupert over to the Peace River area, hopped around, sat down wherever he thought things would look all right to check into the highway situation. Maybe that's where a lot of his budget is going; maybe we're going to have a hell-of-a-copter department.

I want to talk about a couple of items which are of particular interest before I get into some of the major issues in my own riding.

A year ago or two years ago in December of 1972, I had a call from the departmental engineer.

He said to me, "Would you be against our ceasing and desisting the ploughing of farmers' driveways in the area?"

I said I certainly would. I would be against it, and I would fight you every inch of the way if you stop this very important service which you provide to the rural community in the Peace River area.

He said, "Well, we're thinking about it. It causes a lot of problems." I can see it caused some problems for the engineers, but some of these farmers have lengthy roads from the highway into their farm buildings. Equipment wasn't available, and they do it in their spare time after the main roads are ploughed.

So what happened this year, Mr. Chairman? I'm down in Victoria from September 8 until

[ Page 1769 ]

approximately the middle of November. Then I go travelling with the agriculture committee and I don't get back into my riding until about December 8. What happened while I was gone? Without any consultation this year whatsoever, in what I consider is a dirty, rotten, low-down, sneaky trick by the Department of Highways, that service was ceased. No consultation with the Member from the area this year. No, I was away; I was working on the people's business this fall. so the service was stopped. Sure, the service was stopped. They said there are private people in the area who could provide this service — at $15 an hour.

What has happened in one of the worst snow winters we've had in the area? In two instances I know of there were near deaths of children because they couldn't get their roads ploughed out. Maybe this is the way this Minister wants to operate. Well, if he does, I'm very disappointed indeed. As I've said in this Legislature before, this government provides few enough services to the people in the north country who put up with severe climatic conditions in that area — both summer and winter — to make it easy for the rest of the people in this province to live off the fat of the land. We talk about a need to increase agricultural production, and what do you do at every turn of the wheel? You give the farmer your backhand. That's exactly what you do.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Never you mind, Mr. Woody Woodpecker, your time's coming. It'll be around in about two weeks when your estimates come up.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): That soon?

MR. PHILLIPS: This is a government for the small people; this is a government of the people. When the Member who represents the people is out of town working for the people, what do you do?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's your leader?

MR. PHILLIPS: Where's your leader? My leader will be here a lot longer than your leader will be here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Will the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the Minister's vote?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I am talking about the area you represent, as well as the area I represent; I am talking about the north country. I want to tell you, I won't forget that for some time. Neither will the people of my constituency or other northern constituencies.

I want to talk for just a few moments about a road I have discussed in this Legislature before, going to an area which is being developed, an area where there is one of the greatest coal deposits probably in the world — a world, I might add, which is short of energy — going to an area which at the present time has one of the greatest natural gas fields under development anywhere in North America, an area in which this gas came into being in the spring of 1972, an area which is generating hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of wealth and wages and equipment and supplies every month.

What is happening to this wealth being generated? It is being siphoned off to the Province of Alberta because of the lack of vision on the part of this Minister and this government to see that there is a highway into that area so that those benefits can flow to the Province of British Columbia and to the Peace River area.

The Minister came up in his helicopter; he flew over the area; he settled down there. Then he settled down in Dawson Creek and went on a fishing trip. Yes, he went on a fishing trip on that lake they call Williston Lake that is supposed to be so polluted no boat is safe on it. But he went on there with the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk), and they got some fish.

Where is the vision necessary in this Department of Highways? I am not going to tell the Minister of Highways through what area this road should be constructed. There are three of four possible routes. Maybe that is why he can't make a decision. I wonder how long it is going to take this Minister to realize where his responsibility lies? How long is it going to take him to grasp the responsibility he has in this province? Maybe he never will, and it will strictly be a holding operation.

I have several other items I am going to bring up under this particular vote, but I would be very interested right now in hearing the Minister's remarks on the two items I have brought to him this evening.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Is the Minister going to answer the Hon. Member?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Minister is obviously not on his feet. I would ask the Hon. Member to continue.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't like to indulge in personal attacks and innuendoes, but I have no recourse but to suggest that that Minister of Highways has a big mouth and his foot is always in it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: He wears a beard no doubt to hide that big mouth. Mr. Minister, when you opened your big mouth you gobbled up half the tourist

[ Page 1770 ]

industry in British Columbia who are involved in the tourist industry, and that means three-quarters of the people in British Columbia are angry with you, and their pocketbooks have been hurt.

We are not all that enamoured with the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mr. Hall), but compared to you he is like a saint. (Laughter.) Well, it's hard to get good saints these days.

I would like to suggest in all fairness to you but more specifically to years and years and years of dedication and service by British Columbians utilized to build up a responsible, attractive travel industry in British Columbia was shot down the tube when you opened that big mouth.

To begin with, Mr. Minister, I suggest you should do your homework before you go shooting from the lip and the hip in all these areas just to get a little press. But if you don't know the fact, the travel industry is a very sensitive industry; it deals with a very simple clientele, and it has to examine very carefully where its fundamental bread and butter comes from. That fundamental bread and butter comes from the steady family tourist. The cream off the top comes from the jet set, like the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and condominiums and granny workers and slavery, who jet here and there. (Laughter.)

Skiers are divided into three groups: the jet set, the family skiers and the local skiers. The jet set, Mr. Minister, moves from area to area. Then there is the family group who like to have their one-year fling this year in going to Switzerland or down to Aspen or somewhere else. But basically they revolve around the family ski area and are your steady bread and butter in the skiing area, in the camping area, in the motel area and in all sectors of the tourist industry.

You can't attract them overnight. As I mentioned, it has taken many years in cooperation with the industry and the department itself to build up for British Columbia a good reputation. British Columbia is not in the main path of the tourist area; our potential tourist market is very limited: the Pacific Northwest dwindling down to California, Alberta, moving slower and lower to Manitoba and somewhat to the east, but still very sporadic from that area.

The offshore tourist market is very, very small for British Columbia. Again, that which is here has been wooed carefully by those in the industry and those in government and in the travel department. The Japanese market only just now is being tapped; it only represents about 2 per cent of the tourists in British Columbia. You just don't go around telling people like the Japanese who are very traditional and very sensitive, that they have bad breath and you don't want them. That will destroy all these years of effort. I would suggest that some of these offshore tourist markets will be some of the most lucrative for our industry in British Columbia.

You should have just read, before you opened this flappable mouth of yours, the report of your own colleague with whom you were fishing on Williston Lake. Why he didn't tell you about it while you were bobbing around there with the trout I don't know. It just came out: "Investment Potential in the British Columbia Travel Industry. Government of the Province of British Columbia." Isn't that amazing? Have you heard of them, Mr. Chairman? "Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, British Columbia. Hon. Gary V. Lauk, Minister, L.C. Hempsall, Associate Deputy Minister." A most interesting document. There is even a brief summary in the front the Minister could have read.

I would like to quote, Mr. Chairman, in case the Minister doubts my own words, some very interesting sections of the summary and projections of this report:

"During the past decade British Columbia's travel industry has experienced a remarkable expansion, with total travel expenditures in the province growing from approximately $145 million in 1962 to nearly $550 million in 1972.

"This growth has elevated this industry to the third-largest revenue-producing industry in the Province of British Columbia, next to forests and mines and petroleum."

Mr. Minister, the worst the tourists do is take a quick bath in our pure water and use our public facilities for short periods of time. They don't make any demands on our schools; they don't make any demands on our libraries and the fundamental services that are provided by our communities for our own citizens.

They essentially use what God gave us, and the responsibility lies not with you to damn them, but with what that Minister — the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) who's sitting in the wrong seat — to protect those God-given tourist assets for the utilization of the people in B.C., as well as the tourist.

The tourist industry is one of the cleanest industries there is. It's a secondary industry. It doesn't build any unsightly smokestacks or mills or industrial sites. It stimulates the construction of attractive motels that benefit our citizens. It stimulates the construction of attractive and well-planned hotels which benefit our own citizens. I'd like to carry on with the report:

"The backbone of British Columbia's travel industry is travel within the Province of British Columbia by British Columbian residents."

Maybe I should repeat that, Mr. Chairman, because the Minister's talking. Mr. Minister, could I repeat that?

"The backbone of British Columbia's travel industry is travel within the Province of British

[ Page 1771 ]

Columbia by British Columbian residents."

You know, you were hamming and damning the use of our campsites by the tourists, this fetish you have, this anti-Americanism about the ugly Americans, as you seem to refer to them, using our campsites. I didn't bring my figures, and I stand to be corrected by the Minister of Recreation, but I believe I've got them right. In 1973, Mr. Minister, the use of provincial government campgrounds by the American tourist was down to 21 per cent. The next largest number of users of the British Columbia campgrounds wasn't the ugly Americans or the terrible Germans or whoever else you're against; it was the rest of Canada — 23 per cent.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well then, how do you get...? Okay, 18 per cent by Canadians. The balance of 58 per cent use in our provincial campsites, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, was by British Columbians. Now, whose neck are you going to cut off? Are you after British Columbians? Do you want to soak them again as they go around the Province of British Columbia? It was 21 per cent of our campgrounds used by not just Americans but outside visitors combined.

Mr. Minister, again, unfortunately I didn't bring the breakdown of my own figures, so I stand to be corrected. The largest campground and the campground used by non-British Columbians most heavily in the lower mainland is Goldstream. Then as you watch, it goes to the northern part of the province. The heaviest concentration tends to be in the Cariboo and up in the Peace River area. If you wish to know the details, Mr. Minister, I'll bring them tomorrow because I have them all broken down by every campsite.

There's not heavy pressure. Even the pressure in the Okanagan is more heavy by Canadians and British Columbians than it is by off-shore or non-Canadian tourists. So, Mr. Minister, how about a little back-track on those figures?

The figures in the hotel industry are not available at the moment. They estimate that approximately 80 per cent of motel business in British Columbia comes from. non-British Columbian residents. Are you going to cut that off, Mr. Minister?

I'll carry on with some of the quotes from this. I repeat again, in case my message is not getting through, in case the ears aren't as big as the mouth:

"The backbone of British Columbia's travel industry is travel within the Province of British Columbia by residents, as indicated by the fact that travel accounted for approximately one half of the industry's receipts during 1972.

"Visitors from the United States contributed almost one-third of British Columbia's total travel receipts, and represents 98 per cent of total foreign visitors to the province. The growth of this important sector of the travel industry has been impressive over the past decade, total American visitors more than doubling from 1.6 million to 3.7 million between 1961 and 1971.

"If British Columbia can continue to provide such visitors with sufficient high-quality facilities, while maintaining the scenic beauty which is the province's prime attraction, then total visitors from the United States can be expected to be near the 6 million mark by 1980."

And they might add "a hospitable environment." When you think that approximately 80 per cent of the business they're referring to here — receipts to little motels, big motels, little hotels, big hotels, in Vancouver, Victoria, Campbell River, Fort St. John, Burns Lake — come from these tourists, then, Mr. Minister, you should backtrack and apologize again. It goes on to say:

"A rapidly expanding sector of the travel industry is the overseas market. Visitors from overseas countries, while representing only 2 per cent of foreign visitors to the province, account for almost 10 per cent of all expenditures by foreign tourists."

Mr. Minister, it's an interlocking programme. The further away that they come from, the greater is their deposit of cash in our province and in our industry.

"Although the Japanese presently represent a very small portion of visitors to the province, their numbers have increased by approximately 25 per cent annually in recent years and are expected to increase by at least four times during the next five years.

"In recent years, the potential of the Canadian travel market has become increasingly evident in British Columbia."

That's the Canadian travel market, Mr. Minister, not the foreign travel market. Unless we're going to separate from the rest of Canada, I think we should have the same standards here in British Columbia for British Columbians as well as Canadians, including fishing free if you're under 16.

"Although the province's distance from the major population centres in eastern Canada will necessitate imaginative packaging of British Columbia as a travel destination, the value of attracting visitors from other provinces...."

lnterjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Would you like me to sit down in a minute and you can make your speech?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

[ Page 1772 ]

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I think, Mr. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), that this is one of the problems with this lower mainland thinking, as you think in terms of isolated packages.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Member for North Okanagan address the Chair, please?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The tourist industry can't be looked at as an insular package. This is what happened with the Minister of Highways. He took one look at his rocky, burnpy, frost-heaved roads that he hasn't been looking after and said: "Oh, my goodness, I'll blame it on the tourists. Nobody will know." It's an interlocking thing. Highways, Health, Provincial Secretary, Recreation and Conservation, Education — these are all part of the tourist package. And certainly the Minister of Labour. You can't look at it in an isolated area.

Anyway, I would like to say again, Mr. Chairman:

"Although the province's distance from the major population centres in eastern Canada will necessitate informative, imaginative packaging of British Columbia as a travel destination...."

In other words, Mr. Minister, to keep a stable travel industry in British Columbia, we're going to have to continue to work at it in terms of our facilities, in terms of our recreational areas, in terms of our promotion, and certainly in terms of our attitude. Nothing browns the visitor off more than a cold shoulder at an information booth, a rip-off in a restaurant or a cold attitude on the part of a Minister that's not factual. All these things contribute.

We've all travelled. I'm sure you've got out of Prince Rupert before this, Mr. Minister, and you can remember places where you got a sloppy beer or an unkind word and you wouldn't go back again. Just one of these thoughtless actions or comments can destroy thousands of dollars of effort and just an inestimable amount of work by people in the industry.

I would just mention that following that it says:

"The value of attracting visitors from other provinces is indicated by their estimated expenditures of $90 million in British Columbia in 1972."

$90 million — that's not a bad intake.

"Alberta is by far British Columbia's most important source of such travelers."

Are we going to set up one standard for British Columbians, one for Albertans, and then one for the rest of Canada, one for the ugly Americans, and one for the Japanese?

It goes on to say, Mr. Minister, when you're talking about over-use of your highways:

"During 1972, approximately 356,000 cars travelled westward through the Rogers Pass."

You know, Mr. Minister, I don't know a great deal about highways and highway construction and highway loads, but I would think 356,000 cars in a year over Rogers Pass is not very great. I myself was through there five times between the last session and now, and there was many a time when I went around 8 or 9 o'clock in the evening, and frankly, I'd have been glad to see a car. So I would suggest there's ample room for these tourists.

Then they go on to say in your colleague's report:

"A prime requisite for a thriving travel industry is the progressive accommodation sector, able to maintain high standards while adapting to the ever-changing demands of the travel public."

And this is what I mean about a fickle travel public, Mr. Minister. How on earth does the Minister feel we are going to be able to support, in our industry, quality accommodation in areas outside the Vancouver area if we put a penalty on tourists or we take discouraging action which will keep them from flowing around our province?

You should be doing the opposite, Mr. Minister. You should be standing up and championing British Columbia as a tourist area. Talk about how marvelous the north is in December — you should be encouraging your constituents to put on snowmobile parties and Christmas parties, and encourage package deals for people from Japan. The snowmobile is going to be one of the most valuable areas of tourist attraction from areas further away, because you don't have to have a lot of talent and a lot of sophisticated equipment to use a snowmobile.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You are running down the wrong Minister.

MRS. JORDAN: We hope to annihilate this Minister before he annihilates the tourist industry in British Columbia. He's worthy of this type of attention, in view of the comments he's made.

Mr. Minister, there are such things as shoulder months in the tourist industry, which are essentially spring months and fall months, and there are dead months, the winter months. What you should be doing, if you are thinking about your responsibilities as Minister of Highways, is thinking about how to spread the traffic load around the year so that poor old MLAs are not going across the Rogers Pass at 8 o'clock at night and there's no traffic. You should be up encouraging your colleagues and making your statements attract people to British Columbia in these shoulder months.

Talk about the bird watching, or the other factors — photography of our wild animals. Talk about the

[ Page 1773 ]

recreation and the sports festival that would attract people here in these shoulder months. Talk about the winter carnival, Mr. Minister, which has been the saving grace, in the area that I represent, in the winter months for our accommodation industry, and a lot of our stores. We used to run at a 30 to 40 per cent occupancy rate, Now, because we've concentrated on winter attractions for the tourist industry — many of whom do come from British Columbia, I'll admit — we run at a 75 to 80 per cent occupancy rate. We can afford at last to have quality hotels. We have; and we've got quality motels.

Many of those motels, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, are family-operated. They are not chain motels belonging to some far-flung empire; they belong to British Columbians. I would suggest that in our area, and in the Okanagan, 95, 96 per cent of the tourist accommodation is owned by individual families within the Okanagan Valley. I would suggest when you go north, that you'd find the percentage rises even higher than that.

Mr. Minister, these British Columbians can't afford to provide the type of accommodation, change their accommodation rapidly enough to meet the needs of the tourists and their fancies, unless they have an assured basic industry, and every effort on the part of all of us to extend their season to a year-round basis.

Then the Minister said that the money wasn't really going to the province. This article was printed in 1963, and unfortunately there isn't a later one, but I'm advised by those who know the industry well that these percentages apply. They suggest that 20 per cent of a tourist's expenditure goes for lodging; 24 per cent goes to their travel around the province, and that's in terms of tires, repairs in the garages, gasoline. The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) gave you the figures as far as the tax is concerned. Shopping. You know, all those little stores along the way — little stores in places like Winfield and Pouce Coupe where people stop, 17 per cent of their expenditure goes there. Food, 29 per cent.

That's not a bad breakdown for dispersal of money in the province. Then, because I realize the Minister is a little thick to get through to, here's a publication....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: Well, you may say, "oh, oh...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Hon. Member to use somewhat more suitable parliamentary terms. I think we must treat Hon. Members with a certain amount of courtesy....

MRS. JORDAN: I wouldn't suggest that he's thick-headed at all. But if he just would have looked in his own department.

This was reprinted, and it was started in '69, Mr. Chairman. This one was published in 1972, and it gives you a complete breakdown, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, of exactly where the tourist dollar goes in British Columbia. I won't read them all, but I'll give you a few examples.

This was 1972: "Total income from the tourist industry in lodging in British Columbia..." and this includes hotels, motels, inns, resorts, trailer parks, campsites, apartments, fishing and hunting camps. I would just interject here, Mr. Minister, that in private campsites in British Columbia over 60 per cent of their clients are non-British Columbia residents. So, if you do away with the tourists you are going to do away with a lot of small, private campsites.

But in 1972, $96,324,000 came into the lodging industry. Then it goes on to show where this goes. The disbursal is really fantastic, because if you take the lodging industry as a whole, the people who benefit from that are the sign people, screws — screws that are used to screw on the handles and the doorknobs — these from little hardware stores, Mr. Minister. Not everybody builds these in Vancouver. In Vernon we have a little hardware store, and they sell all kinds of screws to the tourist industry. Roofers, plumbers, painters, nurseries — you know, the agricultural industry, Mr. Chairman. Nails, publishers, logging machinery....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would request the Hon. member to try a little bit to make her remarks more relevant to the Minister of Highways' responsibilities.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. I'm trying to prove to him, as factually as I can, his need to change his attitude on highway construction in British Columbia as it relates to the tourist industry. Or to understand the tourist industry as it relates to the use of highways in British Columbia.

I wouldn't go through all this detail, really, if it hadn't become so evident that this Minster had no understanding at all of this sphere of his responsibilities. Mr. Chairman, you know and I know that a lot of people don't like to fly. There are a lot of places in British Columbia where you can't go by train; you have to go by car. Most of us don't have four-wheel drive, and most of the tourists don't. They have to have roads to go there, Mr. Member, and they don't want just to have patched-up roads, they want good roads. They are used to having good roads in Europe; they are used to having good roads in the United States; and they are used to having good roads in other parts of Canada, although I will admit that British Columbia has higher quality roads than any other province that I've been in, and more extensive

[ Page 1774 ]

high-quality roads.

But, Mr. Minister, on the lodging, I can go on through, but I won't. Carpeting, domestic help, draperies — these are all dollars that radiate through the small communities. In travel alone, which is service stations, auto dealers, shops, airlines, buses, ferries, B.C. Ferries, taxis, U-drives, steamships — $115,000,588. Then they list again, and I won't go through them all — taxis, advertising, stewardesses. It helps keep the stewardesses working, and they are having their problems right now in trying to gain equality in their interests. If you cut down their income by all your bad advertising, they are going to have problems. Snowmobiles, auto towing, credit cards, photographic supplies — they're included in that, Mr. Chairman. Shopping in 1972: $81,875,000, and this is souvenir shops, specialty shops...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: ...sporting goods, drugstores....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would draw the attention of the Hon. Member that you are clearly violating standing order 43. You are tending to become repetitious. I would ask you to raise a new point in regard to the Minister's office.

MRS. JORDAN: I only have one more figure to introduce. But, Mr. Chairman, the Minister said in this statement that the tourist dollar did not filter down to the people. He implied that there were a lot of rip-off artists making all this money, if there was any money to be made. It is really important that he understand that it does filter down. It filters down more than any other dollar in the province, any other industry, to the most people. Even to babysitters, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure in your area that you'll find many 12- and 14-year old boys and girls who have babysitting jobs in the summertime in conjunction with hotels and tourist camps. And it's hard for these young people to get jobs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I find it very difficult to believe that the Hon. Member is really debating the Minister's estimates. I would ask her to give more serious attention to the vote before us, rather than to belabour this point.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, fine, Mr. Chairman. I won't speak on behalf of your area because you don't seem to care.

I want to point out to this Minister that we in the Okanagan want good highways; we want properly planned highways. We have done our environmental studies so that we can enjoy a well-planned and controlled tourist industry. We know that in boat rentals and laundromats, and barbeques alone $19 million is there for the having, for the people of British Columbia.

The people who use the Okanagan, who have their little businesses there, who rely on your roads to help bring the tourists there, want their share. We have a small theatre, and I'm sure you have a small theatre, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member either to change to another part of the Minister's responsibilities or else to discontinue her speech. You're clearly violating standing order 43.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I'd like to speak about Highway 97 North, which runs from Vernon to Armstrong, Mr. Chairman. That road has been heaving this winter. We have always had problems with frost heaves in this province, but they are particularly bad this year, and the complaint is that the roads have never been worse since this Minister took over. In Armstrong, Mr. Minister, there are a lot of activities in conjunction with Vernon; people need that road for health services, they have an exhibition, they have a number of agricultural shows, and they rely on that $28,897,000 that comes into B.C. per year from the tourist industry in the area of entertainment.

Mr. Chairman, I won't try you any longer. I appreciate your patience in this, and ordinarily I wouldn't extend it as far as I have, but I would ask the Minister to stand up now in this House and admit that he spoke off the cuff; he didn't understand what he was saying.

Everybody will support all efforts to plan our tourist industry and our roads in cooperation and conjunction. But for goodness' sakes, in trying to do one job well, don't destroy the efforts of many that have been applied through the years and don't destroy in one fell swoop and thoughtless words, the reputation that British Columbia has built up over the years.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to talk about another aspect of the Department of Highways, Minister's office, vote 98 expenditure, and that is its dramatic increase in the last little while.

We have here in the red book, this year's estimate book, a jump under vote 98 (about seven or eight lines down) $55,092 last year for four people, six people this year $100,176.

A very, very substantial jump. Getting on for double. I don't think it's been properly explained. Now, if you compare that with last year, the blue book, last year's estimates, we have 000 for expenditures under salaries and we have a total of $8,000 for the expenditures of the office.

Last year the total office expenditure, salaries and

[ Page 1775 ]

other things, went from $8,000 to $55,000, this year to $100,000. From $8,000 to over $100,000, which is an enormous jump.

Now, that's not all, because previously we had a Department of Highways and we had no Department of Transportation and Communication. If you look in the blue book you won't find anything at all for that department. It's a 000 figure. But if you look in this year's red book you find that it's jumped from $9,500 to $100,716.

You add them together and you get a simply phenomenal jump. There was $8,000 two years ago and for next year we're asking for something over $210,000, and that's only in the Ministerial office. For those two departments, Mr. Chairman, it's gone from $8,000 to $210,000 plus. That's a phenomenal jump.

I think the Minister should explain it, and explain it pretty carefully because I said before, and I genuinely believe, there's an enormous increase in the fat of government operations. I think that there's a dramatic increase in his department in particular — and I refer only to the other department because the functions of this department, the role of the Transportation and Communication used to come under Highways, or basically under Highways. It was spread out more, but it was essentially under Highways, and we've had a simply phenomenal jump. Even if we restrict it only to the Department of Highways in its reduced position now, as opposed to previously, you get an increase of about 11 times what it was but two years ago — a request for 11 times as much money as to what it was a short time ago. I think that's well worthy of some careful explanation by the Minister of Highways.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to point out that last year we had about a three per cent increase in personnel in the Department of Highways under the other votes that follow vote 89. That was a three per cent increase in personnel in the Department of Highways under the other votes that follow vote 89. That was a three per cent increase in the blue book, between the two years in the blue book, the fiscal year ending March, 1973 and fiscal year ending in 1974.

This year we only increase the number of people in the Department of Highways, other than in the Minister's office, by one, I believe — one person. One-fifth of one per cent in percentage terms of increase, and yet the Minister's staff goes up not 0.20 per cent, it goes up 20 per cent and the increase in the Minister's office alone is double the increase of the more than 500 employees elsewhere in the Department of Highways.

So what you're getting is an enormous increase in the non-productive end of the Department of Highways — an enormous increase in the Minister's office — and this does not include anything that might be attributable to public works by way of putting in new offices or decorating new offices, but it's just a substantial increase in the amount of money going into the non-service part of the Minister's department.

It's not going down the line and winding up in more roads, more blacktop, better curbing or anything of that nature. It's a straight non-productive expenditure in terms of the end product and the product to the public of British Columbia.

So I hope the Minister will explain that. Why have the staff increases been so dramatic in his own office, and why have the increases in expenditure for himself and his direct assistants in his own office been equally dramatic? Because I feel, Mr. Chairman, if you look at these figures for this year under 98 and 99 and so on down to 105 you find almost no increase in services to the people by way of more highway construction. No more people are going to be working in that department — I shouldn't say no more; there is one more, I believe; it goes from 301 in vote 99 to 302, an increase of one person over the 300 there. Absolutely no increase in vote 100 (205 to 205), absolutely no increase in vote 103 (3 to 3).

The only area you find increases of any substantial nature are in the Minister's office, and that deserves an explanation because we are simply not getting an increase in services to the people of the province in the budget as put forward for the Department of Highways.

There are, perhaps, increases as mentioned by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) in the purchase of equipment, but in terms of the number of people working for the department and in terms of the work being done, we're simply not finding an increase in the department.

It doesn't even equal the increase in population in the province. Undoubtedly, in real terms, we will not be having an increase in services to the people of B.C. In the Highways department.

I think that's something that should be explained. We have a very big increase in money but no real increase in services provided. Money goes up, you have money going up in vote 99, for example, from $3,770,000 to $4,493,000, and yet that increase of over $700,000 is for one person increase in staff. Now, of course there are increases in salaries for other people (and many of these will be well deserved), but it's not clear from the Minister's statement that so little, in fact almost infinitesimal, increases are taking place in the actual services that his department will be providing the people of British Columbia.

Now, another point, Mr. Chairman, that I'd like to speak on at this time is safety. I don't know whether the Minister of Communication and Transportation takes the major responsibility for highway safety. If that is the case, perhaps the Minister of Highways would indicate to me and I can question that Minister

[ Page 1776 ]

under his estimates, but I believe that safety is a major factor.

I would like to know what's being done by his department in this area. We have the experience in the United States where, because of a fuel shortage, they enforced a lower speed limit. They insisted upon more careful use of vehicles, and at the same time they cut down on the number of drivers by the happy expedient of having the gas stations only open maybe two hours a day.

The result has been a 40 per cent decline in the number of people killed on the highways. It's just a dramatic change in the picture of highway safety. I don't know what it's like in B.C. I tried to find out in British Columbia. The report of the Motor Vehicle Branch, which is not this Minister's responsibility, I understand, is not in for '73, at least I haven't been able to find it.

I notice in B.C. the accident rates are pretty appalling. The number of people killed is going up constantly, the number injured is going up, and I'd like to know what is being done in safety.

I'd like to know — in view of a letter I received from a man in Prince George, by the name of Ditmars, who came out with a proposal which he thought would reduce accidents on highways.

He had a little company which he set up with another fellow who he'd worked with, another man who was in the mill with him. They developed a system of having what you might call an automatic policeman; if you go past a certain spot on the highway too fast, a light will flash up saying, "Too fast — slow down!"

It sounds a very simple thing to you and me, Mr. Chairman, but it was something which had a real effect.

If I can find it, I will shortly read you a few words from a policeman who saw this in operation, checked it out and approved it very heartily. It was called the "Delta Speed-Warning System," and it was on trial in Prince George in a 30-mile-an-hour zone. It was successful.

What happened there was that the device was put in the road-bed; the light was set up on a lamp standard — or, at least, a traffic-light type of structure. And the system would flash a light saying "too fast" when a car went by too quickly.

It was not done with a view to penalizing people with points against their licence. It was done automatically. It changed the amount of speeding substantially because, apparently, many people went by and did not realize they were speeding. When they were reminded by the light, they slowed down. And the speeding rate dropped to less than half of what it was previously.

They did a check on this. The RCMP in Prince George were involved; the city engineer was involved. They found that it reduced speeding by half. When you think of reducing speeding by half, and you think of what is happening in the States where they've cut down on speeding and they've cut down on mortality on the roads by a really substantial percentage, you realize that there is real virtue to this. But what was the experience of our friend who developed this system in B.C.? He got the run-around, Mr. Chairman. He had his system set up, and it goes on to say in The Vancouver Sun, March 20, 1974 — not so long ago:

"His roadblock to success has been the provincial Department of Highways, whose officials in Victoria have never seen it in operation."

And yet they've not approved it.

"If the resistance continues, Mr. Corrigan said, he will move his wife and children to Alberta or to the U.S. because he cannot stand the financial and mental strain much longer.

" 'We've already lost our house and had our furniture repossessed. All of my personal assets have gone into this thing.' "

He had to quit his job as an instrument technician at Northwood Pulp, and then he worked on his own system.

"The invention for which Corrigan has fought for three years for acceptance consists of a screen suspended over the road that flashes eight times per second when the speeding motorist passes electrical loops buried in the road.

"When it was tested by city RCMP on a highway entrance to Prince George last year, it was found to reduce speeding by 44 per cent."

I said more than 50 per cent; I was wrong.

"Corrigan said, 'The rapid flashing and the penetrating power of the Xenon gas light source have a subliminal effect upon the minds of drivers, causing them to slow down. In addition, they can be seen in fog or snow when normal traffic signals are obscured, and will provide a cheap and faultlessly accurate means of traffic counts.'

"RCMP corporal Sandy Fraser, officer in charge of the city's traffic department said: 'At first I was very skeptical, but it has slowed down traffic immensely. We could use this to prosecute speedsters, but we would much rather make them aware of the limit and that they are exceeding it.' "

Now that's the comment from Corporal Fraser. It sounds like a pretty reasonable remark. He's not out to bring people in for speeding; he's out to slow them down, which I think is the right approach.

"The system was endorsed by 20 district school principals, and the school board asked for a Highways department test, anticipating its eventual installation outside Blackburn School

[ Page 1777 ]

on Highway 16, east of the city.

"The only skeptics are Highway department officials."

I would like, at this stage, having indicated what the Delta Speed-Warning System is, to go on to indicate what troubles this man has had.

He's had trouble because the civil service officials have decided that this particular product would not be desirable for a number of reasons. I have a letter here to Mr. Carpenter, Secretary-Treasurer of School District 57 in Prince George. It's from the senior traffic engineer.

"Dear Sir;

"Re: Speed-Warning System, Northern Traffic and Signal Systems Ltd.

"I've been asked to reply to your letter of April 18, 1973" — this by the way, is on July 18 — "addressed to the Minister of Highways in which you requested an appraisal of the above speed-warning system.

"We have completed our evaluation of the system, and I would make the following comments:

"The system was only in operation for a short time, and its effectiveness in causing less speeding over an area of considerable length has not been studied or proven."

Yet the corporal in charge of the RCMP in the area said he was skeptical at first and said it had — let's see if I can find that quote again — "slowed down traffic immensely." Yet the Highways department in Victoria believe that it has not been proven. The people up there think it has been. Point 2 of this letter:

"It is apparently a patented device, and there would be no commercial competition supplying it. This is an undesirable situation for the department."

Well, Mr. Chairman, if it is a good device and it saves lives and it cuts down on the number of kids killed and maimed on our highways, surely whether or not it's a patented device should not inhibit us from giving it a proper study and, perhaps, if we think it's worth it, buy the patents from this man. It's an absurd proposal to say that because he's got a patent on it, the government can't proceed with buying it. That is a really nutty statement.

Point 3.

"It would become quite popular due to the emotion with which the public views prevailing speeds. As a result we would be pressed for a large number of installations. At about $10,000 per installation, this could become a serious problem."

Well, heaven's above, if it's good and people want it because it cuts down on death on the highway, it cuts down on that fantastic $8 million that ICBC's already spent on claims. If it cuts down on that, what is $10,000 to throw? It's a pretty small amount. I just find that statement, again, to be really absurd. It doesn't make sense. If this is a good product and people do want it, even if they have to buy a lot of them, then because there are fewer deaths on the highway, fewer cars in accidents, and it works — that's why people want it. To say that it'll probably be successful and therefore we'll be behind the eight ball providing them, is back-to-front logic, and I just cannot accept that at all.

Point 4 in this letter:

"Such an installation would tend to weaken observance of those slower speed zones where the device was not installed. The presence of this device would imply 'Obey the law here but don't bother at places where there is no flashing sign.' "

Mr. Chairman, this is the type of argument which you could apply to the RCMP: if you know they're not on the highway, obviously you're going to speed. It would apply to speed signs on the highway saying 30 miles, 45 miles, 60 miles, whatever it might be. It would apply to anything you put up to reduce the speed. To single this particular device out, again, doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

Indeed, if you carry this to a logical extreme, you should take the speedometers out of your vehicles because drivers would then observe the same speed and you wouldn't have to have this mechanical device to indicate what it might be. That type of logic, you know, really doesn't make any sense at all. I hope the Minister agrees with me on this point.

Point 5 of the letter:

"We should not encourage drivers to rely on mechanical devices to check their performance, as this causes them to use their own judgment less and less."

Well, back to my argument about speedometers. Are they going to be taken out of the cars in British Columbia because we're relying upon a mechanical device to check speed? It doesn't make any sense.

"In critical driving situations, motorists must be able to depend on their own judgment."

Well, bully for them. Let's take the RCMP highway patrols off the road because we want motorists to use their good judgment and not be inhibited by the thought that there might be a policeman behind the next billboard, or anything like that. We want them to use their own judgment. This letter is great.

Point 6:

"It is desirable that traffic control devices proposed for use in British Columbia be approved by the council on uniform traffic control devices for Canada, which operates under the Roads and Transportation Association of Canada with headquarters in Ottawa. There is no indication that such an approval has been obtained."

[ Page 1778 ]

Well, Mr. Chairman, we're again back-to-front. We have a provincial Department of Highways; we have the local police in Prince George thinking this is a red-hot idea, a first-class little invention, best idea since stoplights; you have the Department of Highways saying because it hasn't been approved by a committee in Ottawa, which hasn't had the opportunity of evaluating it because the Department of Highways in British Columbia has not taken it to the committee to approve it or evaluate it, therefore we cannot consider it. Now that, again, is horse-before-the-cart logic. It just cannot be accepted.

"The use of this device should also be approved by the British Columbia headquarters...."

AN HON. MEMBER: Cart before the horse.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, is that it? Sorry. It's late at night. I stand corrected by that expert on horses, and which end of them comes first.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right. The expert on horsepower. Anyway, whatever it is, he knows what I mean.

Point 7:

"Use of this device should also be approved by the British Columbia headquarters of the RCMP, as they would be quite concerned with certain aspects of its operation."

Well, gee whiz, why don't they just ask the RCMP to check with Corporal Fraser? The RCMP may be a para-military structure, but it's not totally monolithic, and they have some respect for the intelligence of the officers they put in the field.

I am quite sure that is not the absolute bar the Department of Highways seems to think it is. The final paragraph is:

"In view of these things, I feel the department should not endorse the use of this particular device at this time."

I was sent other letters by the people involved, who don't feel they got much support from their MLA.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

I raise this because safety is an important issue. We have here a situation where some British Columbian ingenuity of two fellows who were working in the mill came out with a bright idea. They mortgaged their houses; they did their best to do the experimental work necessary. They put it in in Prince George and apparently got the approval of 20 school principals who must have had some idea what was involved. They got the approval of the RCMP constable for the area in charge of the city's traffic department. I can't quite see it here, but I believe the city engineering department also gave its approval. All systems were go; it was a good idea.

What happened when they tried to take it any further? They hit the lethargy of the Department of Highways, apparently, who had not given it the evaluation the people of Prince George had. The whole thing ground to a halt for this Canadian inventor, this British Columbian inventor, this ingenious fellow. I sure wish the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) was here because this might be something we could sell around the world if it works (and he's not here, of course.) It's unfortunate because this guy has staked everything on developing this thing and it may be the type of thing that puts British Columbia secondary industry at world class.

He's going to move out to another part of Canada or to the States. Why? Not because the thing hasn't proved out, not because the Department of Highways has evaluated it as he thinks they should, but because they've simply refused to give it the evaluation he thinks they should.

I, of course, have to rely on what he has told me. Perhaps the Minister will come forward with some different information, and I'd be delighted to hear it. I realize that inventors and civil servants are probably somewhat apart in terms of thinking, but I do feel the whole question of safety on our roads is something that deserves a great deal of thought. I would certainly like to hear that the proposal of Mr. Ditmars, who is a director of this company, Northern Traffic and Signal Systems Ltd., and that the work of inventor Brian Corrigan, has at least been given a fair shake by officialdom here in Victoria when it comes to evaluation. What's the point putting up the phony reasons I read out in that letter when they just don't make any sense at all?

I have a couple of other things I'd like to mention. I'd like to ask the Minister what the status is of the Town & Country shopping centre tunnel which is up in the northern end of our town here in Victoria. I must say I find the proposals to put in the tunnel not very bright, but that's my personal view. Perhaps he can enlighten me on why they have to put in this wildly expensive tunnel instead of simply extending the highway system as proposed previously to carry on and meet with the Pat Bay Highway further out.

The Blanshard Street extension has gone on forever in Victoria, and I'm sure the Minister of Highways has a fair amount of information on that, which perhaps he could bring me up to date on. It's a ridiculous problem created by ridiculous bureaucratic decisions at the city level mostly. I trust the Department of Highways will be able to help us get around the problems created there.

I'd also like to mention a subdivision at Westside in Kamloops. The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) talked earlier about the Highways department being

[ Page 1779 ]

the planning authority for many of the unorganized areas of the province. Here was a subdivision approved by the Highways department. Later on, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) put in compulsory amalgamation without a vote in the area, just a short time after his party had campaigned on the basis of neighbourhood government. Westside, included in the City of Kamloops, has a serious flooding problem, allegedly because of bad original design on the part of the Highways department.

The city feels — and I believe they have a very good case — that if they're to be saddled with compulsory amalgamation they should not be saddled with the mistakes of the Highways department. If they're forced to take over this area they should be given some financial compensation for the extra costs involved due to what is in their mind, bad Highways department planning. I trust the Minister will comment on this because it is a fairly serious problem for the area.

The city feels it cannot afford the work that has to be done; they know they wouldn't have to foot the bill for it if the government had not forced amalgamation on them. They feel they are getting a raw deal in both directions.

I questioned the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) on this, and he has been good enough to say this is still under consideration for decision. But as it was the Highways department which originally made the errors, as it was the Highways department that essentially set the system up so the city would have to spend a large amount of money correcting it, perhaps the Minister would like to comment on that Westside problem.

I wonder whether the Minister would also like to say a few words about the widening of the road at Goldstream. I believe the Member for Okanagan indicated this was in the lower mainland but I'd like to inform you, Mr. Minister — as perhaps you are fully aware — that it's on Vancouver Island. I think he made a very sensible suggestion....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I think you made an excellent suggestion when you put it to some of the residents and the local people involved and asked what they wanted: "Do you want it widened, or do you want to leave it the way it is, even though it will create some bottlenecks?" I don't know what the result of all that has been, but I believe it is going to remain as it is. My personal view is that's the way it should be. Perhaps we'll have to go a little slower in that area; perhaps on wet nights and in cold weather there will have to be some extra lighting or some more warning facilities or something of that nature. It is a dangerous corner. I think they'll reject the idea of widening it at that point. I'm open to persuasion by the Minister if he's made his decision some other way on the basis of good information.

Goldstream is a particularly attractive area. The new highway that went in there when the Trans-Canada was built did a lot of damage to the aesthetics of the area. I still remember with some fondness the old highway, and I trust we're not going to continue the destruction of Goldstream for highway purposes. I think it's a very good example of what the Minister was talking about when he said in his initial comments that we can't keep using up the valleys. We don't have enough room to build highways in some areas. Goldstream is a pretty good case, I think, of an area which cannot take a massive expansion for transportation because of the fact that it's so limited. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that. The Highways department had a four-lane plan, Mr. Minister. You put it up to the people, and I think it has not been widened. But, again, you can let me know on that particular point.

I would like to ask again a question I asked him in the House about contracts for snowploughing and the effects of the Public Works Fair Employment Act. The Minister quite properly replied that the Act itself did not apply to owner-operators of snow-removing equipment. The question I asked in the question period was not so much whether the Act applies as whether the Act itself was being applied, legally or otherwise, to these owner-operators. Are they being forced to obey the Act?

I have had disquieting reports from that area that there's an approved list of contractors which has been drawn up by the machine operators' union meeting. I would like to have the Minister check into this. The implication certainly was that those who did not make the union-approved list didn't have a hope of getting Highways contracts in terms of snow removal. As you know, there's a fair bit of government work for contracting out in that area. Perhaps he'd like to add a few words on that. It may be something he'll have to take on notice and reply to me later. But it seems unfair that an Act which specifically exempted the owner-operator is being applied through the back door by way of an approved list of the local union officials. Perhaps he could comment on that as well.

That's my collection of questions. I wonder whether the Minister would like to say something on them?

HON. MR. LEA: The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) spoke some time ago and asked a number of questions.

One question he asked was about snowploughing of driveways in his constituency. He said he was quite angry that he was out of town when an order came through to stop the snowploughing of driveways. It really isn't that simple, Mr. Chairman.

Number 1, it was the only highways district where that

[ Page 1780 ]

was going on. I don't think we can allow, no matter what partisan view the Member is, whether he's Social Credit, Liberal, Conservative or NDP, the local MLA to make special deals with the local district highways manager. There has to be a uniform, consistent plan for the whole of the province. It wouldn't be fair in any other way.

What I've asked my maintenance staff to do is to review the situation to see whether it's possible, how much money it would cost, whether the equipment and the manpower would be available to snowplough everyone's driveway in the Province of British Columbia that needs it, not just in one highways department. I do not have as yet, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, the figures back to see whether it would be feasible, but I do know that there is dissatisfaction in that constituency because it has been stopped to a certain extent. You can't blame the people; they thought that everyone was getting it, but that just wasn't the case.

He asked about a new road, a new routing down through the southern part of the Monkman Pass area. I suppose that he was talking about the circular route from Dawson Creek down and back to Chetwynd.

Mr. Chairman, from now on, in this province, when we are looking at new roads and the routing of new roads, we are not going to do it in isolation of other disciplines. My colleague, the Minister of Trade and Industry (Hon. Mr. Lauk), said that he was going to study where the resources are, how best the resources could be exploited, and the transportation system. When we go in to put a road in now, we like to take all the disciplines. We like to take in the tourist industry, the Recreation and Conservation people for sure, we like to deal with all the resource industries, we like to deal with local people — regional districts and municipalities — to find out if we are putting the road in the correct place, because once you've put the road in and it's in the wrong place, you live with it for a long, long while. I don't want to make those decisions without having all possible information. I should say that as of now, I haven't had the report yet come to my department. But we sure will study that report when it comes in to get any information we can from it.

He mentioned my helicopter trip through the northern part of British Columbia. I might add that it's the first such trip that I know of within the department, and I'm rather proud of it because for the first time I've managed to take my senior staff; whichever riding I went into, I took the local MLA, whether he was Social Credit or whether he was NDP. along with me to talk with people; we advertised in the papers prior to going, saying we would be there and that they should get in touch with their MLA and write us directly with their complaints and suggestions. We felt that it was quite a successful trip in terms of having people informed and having them inform us.

Then again, I can well imagine that it wasn't researched quite that well by the Member, Mr. Chairman, because we were not on a fishing trip on Williston Lake. I've never been on Williston Lake, as a matter of fact. I'm sure you can check that with the Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith) who was with me in the helicopter on that trip. I'm sure he doesn't recall being on a fishing trip. We were there doing the people's business, and he was with us.

The Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) — I really admire her style when she speaks. She always says, "I'm not going to be personal," then proceeds to be. But I'm not going to be personal.

MRS. JORDAN: Do you think I've got a big mouth?

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to be personal, I'll just make one comment, and say that if I can buy that Member's ego for what it's worth, and sell it for what she thinks it's worth, I'd make a fortune.

MRS. JORDAN: Hear, hear! We believe in work and initiative.

HON. MR. LEA: I think that is all I have to say in answer to the Member from North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: No, I want to know what you are going to do....

HON. MR. LEA: Dealing with the Hon. Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) and the questions that he asked, I thought there were some good questions asked by the Liberal leader. He asked about a problem which, if it is not in his constituency, would overrun into it, and that's the Blanshard Street extension. Possibly, Mr. Member, it isn't the best decision that has been made, but I think that it is the best decision that I could have made at this point in time. There hadn't been a decision made for a number of years; it was a decision that had been put off by one Minister after another.

The community of Saanich, which couldn't get a straight answer from previous Ministers, went ahead and allowed a library to be built on one of the proposed routes, so it wasn't possible to go through that way. Another option we had was to go and cut a great deal of the property off the city hall in front of the fire hall. We were worried about not only safety, but cutting up the property — they have a nice lawn up there. Also, on that same route, there had been a great deal of social dislocation — moving a lot of people in their homes out. This other way, we are not dealing with homes to any great extent but with some buildings that are not homes, some commercial

[ Page 1781 ]

property. It's going to cost a little more, but I feel that it's the best decision that I could have made at this point, and I guess that only time will tell.

Dealing with highway safety, Mr. Chairman, I can share the Member's concern. I am definitely not satisfied because there hasn't really been a programme of highway safety within the department. I don't think that we can put too much blame on the past because many areas of Canada, including the four western provinces, have not an extensive highway safety programme. Saskatchewan is probably the most advanced of the western provinces.

At this point, there is being posted in the latter part of this week a job called the "highway safety engineer." It will be at the branch level, and we are going to go into highway safety in a big way. For instance, if there have been a number of accidents at a certain corner, let's keep that kind of data which hasn't been kept and compiled in the past. If there have been a number of accidents, surely we're going to have a fatality sooner or later. Let's check it and see what it is — is it the lighting, is it the geometric design, or what? Then we can try to correct the situation.

We are working right now with the federal government and cooperating with their MOT people. Safety is going to take a bigger portion of the budget and a bigger portion of my time....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: How much of a budget is it?

HON. MR. LEA: Right now? Nothing. It's a sad situation, but we're going to go into it.

Now, also you asked about some persons in Prince George who had invented a safety device — a light that says you're going too fast. We did have observers there for two weeks when that light was in operation. Our observance was that where the light was it did slow traffic down for a period of about 50 feet. And then it speeded up again on both sides.

It's not a new idea; it's been around for a while. We're experimenting with one that's almost similar now in Prince George. It's been put on Blackburn Road and being experimented with now. We'll experiment with all of them. Then if we do decide that it's the kind of device we want to see at $10,000 or whatever it is a throw, then we'll put it out to tender. If it's only going to slow people down for 50 feet, as the Hon. Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) said, which signs and radar do, then we may as well put in a $10 sign as a $10,000 device. But we're working on it.

We're not being harsh with those people in Prince George. I think we've bent over backwards to deal with them and to correspond with them. They're not going to be cut out in any way.

You asked about Goldstream. There has never been a four-lane planned for Goldstream.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: No, the one here. Just outside of Victoria.

I can tell you, Mr. Member, we will not do anything in Goldstream Park in terms of widening the road before we have all the environmental impact studies done. Even then, because of the aesthetic values we may not go ahead. I don't believe it's out of place to slow down a little while going through a park and enjoy it. I don't think we are in that much of a hurry in our life, or at least we shouldn't be.

You asked if we are applying the Public Works Fair Employment Act illegally. The answer is no, not to my knowledge. My staff says no, and I have no personal knowledge. No one has written in complaining that it is, to my knowledge, so the answer is no.

I think I've answered all the questions that you asked me.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, just a few brief questions. The hour is late; it's about 12 minutes to 11 at night and....

MR. PHILLIPS: Bankers hours.

MR. CHABOT: I do want to ask a few questions of the Minister. Needless to say, we have a new Minister of Highways now. We have to give him an opportunity to feel his way in the direction that he will lead the department which he has been given responsibility to administer.

But I do want to ask, as I said before, a few very brief questions, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: If the Minister has the power to psychoanalyze people, I wish he'd go up to Cranbrook and fill the needs of the people of the east Kootenays. They need somebody up there with those kind of qualifications, Mr. Minister of Health.

The questions I want to ask of the Minister of Highways — and I'm going to be brief — are three questions dealing with this news release on the question of tourism. One is where he makes the statement: "What are the inflationary aspects of tourism? Should our own people be forced to bear high costs created by seasonal boom caused by tourists?"

Now I wonder what he means by that kind of a statement. Basically most of the tourists who take part in the utilization of the facilities we have in the province are of B.C. origin. So I can't see where tourists from the United States have to any

[ Page 1782 ]

substantial degree caused an inflationary spiral in the province.

I want to suggest to you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that in the last year, or since September 15, 1972, there is no single industry or no single group that has created more inflation in this province than that socialist government over there. Almost every single action you've taken has been inflationary. Look at the budget; it's inflationary.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Twenty-eight per cent.

HON. MR. LEA: Everybody's been asking for more!

MR. CHABOT: For municipalities, 6.2 per cent.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: You people create inflation, yet you don't allow those municipalities in the province to share in the kind of inflationary spiral you have created.

Now I just want to ask the Minister just what he means by his interpretation of tourism creating inflation in the province.

One other question: the Minister says, "What are the indirect effects of the sudden arrival of hundreds of thousands of tourists on our community services such as our streets and roads and on our resources such as our petroleum?" Yet the Department of Travel Industry is looking forward, with great anticipation, to tourists from the United States coming to British Columbia because of the rationing in that country. Yet the Minister is concerned about this particular situation.

What do you propose to do about your concerns, Mr. Minister? Are you going to ration gasoline to the Americans who come up here? Is that your intention?

The Minister also says: "Are our own people being squeezed out of hospitality facilities and recreational areas by tourists?" I wonder what evidence he has that this is taking place when the majority of tourists using facilities within British Columbia are of B.C. origin.

One other statement he makes which leaves me completely aghast and completely confused is: "How will tourism be integrated into the new way of life we are attempting to develop?" What is this gobbledygook, Mr. Minister? What kind of new life are you attempting to create? I listened to you just before dinner and what you said was, "We're moving away from the hardware society."

Now, I don't know what you mean by "hardware society," but when I look at your estimates, Mr. Minister, I see that you've increased your vote for equipment from $4.5 million to $8 million.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: I'm not suggesting that there's not a need for this kind of money. (Laughter.) But that Minister over there says that he's moving, or his government or its philosophy is, against the hardware society. If equipment is not hardware, what is it, Mr. Minister? You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind where your priorities are: either to buy more equipment or to get away from the hardware society, which you are so opposed to.

Now, you've also said tonight that there is going to be a re-evaluation of tourism in British Columbia. I don't know what you mean by re-evaluation. Do you mean that the evaluation will take place at the border — that when a camper or trailer approaches the border, there will be a few questions put to the people who come over with campers and trailers?

The questions might be: "Do you have gasoline on board? How many dollars do you have? — because you must have so many dollars before you can enter British Columbia with a camper or trailer. Do you have a sleeping bag in the back of your vehicle or are you going to utilize the motels and hotels of British Columbia?"

Are you suggesting that it will be necessary for an individual who comes up here with a road vehicle, for the purpose of sleeping and eating, to use the hotels for so many nights while they are in British Columbia?

Is that the objective of the new police commission Act which we have on the floor of the House at this time, Mr. Chairman? Is that for the purpose of creating a new police force (Laughter) to fulfill the objectives enunciated by the Minister regarding a re-evaluation of tourism in British Columbia, to ensure that guidelines that he might establish in due course will be adhered to by his police force at the U.S. border? Is that what you're suggesting should take place, Mr. Minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: Gaglardi's commandos.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lea's police force.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: No, I just want to know what the Minister is suggesting take place regarding re-evaluation of tourism. Where does this re-evaluation take place, at the U.S. border?

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chicago.

[ Page 1783 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Alberta-B.C. border.

MR. CHABOT: Now we see the Minister attacking the tourist industry.

Mr. Minister, we have a Minister over here, the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mr. Hall), who promotes tourism. And you in turn attempt to destroy this very important industry which contributed last year to the well-being of this province something in the neighbourhood of $660 million. It's a very important industry. We see the direction your government is taking towards some of the other important industries in this province.

We've seen the kind of directives, the kind of legislation — the type of punitive legislation, I should say — and action you've taken against the housing industry...the type of punitive action you're taking against the mining industry.

It seems for some unknown reason, Mr. Chairman, that it's always very late at night when I'm talking. When I happen to mention the mining industry, I always look across to see whether the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) is here. I should know better, because it's too late at night; he's tired. He always goes to bed at 10 p.m. He's old. He's a retired employee of Cominco. He's tired; he has to go to bed at 10 o'clock at night.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You're dealing with vote 98, Department of Highways.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Well, no, old people have to go to bed early. I'm suggesting he's an old man who's gone to bed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: I think the Minister should stand in his place and apologize to the tourist industry in British Columbia. Apologize to those people who put their dollars on the line to provide facilities for tourists in this province and who risk their capital, which is more than you've ever done, Mr. Minister. If you'd ever had any experience in investment, you'd think twice before you opened your mouth.

The only investments ever made by any of those cabinet Ministers was the poor investment made by the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) when he was ripped off on the purchase of the Glenshiel Hotel. The taxpayers of British Columbia...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: ...were abused when he bought the Glenshiel Hotel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Do you have a point of order?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): I demand that the Member withdraw the statement that I allowed the taxpayers of this province to be ripped off on the deal of the Glenshiel Hotel. Now I demand that he withdraw.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask the Member, if he imputed any improper motive, to withdraw.

MR. CHABOT: There was no improper motive, Mr. Chairman, but if the words "rip-off" bother the Minister, I'll withdraw them.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

AN HON. MEMBER: You're sure touchy about that hotel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I think the statement has been withdrawn and the discussion should be on vote 98.

MR. CHABOT: That's right. There is a clear evidence that you spent more money on it than what it was worth.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Minister, regarding his estimates....

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. CHABOT: Could the Minister tell me, regarding the allocation of dollars for day labour, how much work he anticipates will be done on day labour? How much roadwork and how much paving will be undertaken in the current fiscal year? How much will be made available in this allocation to small contractors in the province? How much will be allocated for the purpose of creating jobs for young people?

I wonder if the Minister could also reply further regarding his statement on the helicopter costs. That helicopter was used for a period of eight days in northern British Columbia; it was a massive helicopter, so I'm told. On July 28 the helicopter was at Fort St. John; on July 29 it was in Dawson Creek; on July 30 it made its way to Prince George; on July 31 it was in Vanderhoof; on August 1 it was in Burns Lake; on August 2 it was in Smithers; on August 3 it was in Terrace; and on August 4 it was in Prince Rupert.

What I would like to know regarding the use of

[ Page 1784 ]

this helicopter....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Does the Member on his feet have a point of order?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Yes, Mr. Chairman. I draw your attention to the clock.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, my attention has been drawn to the clock. The committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:04 p.m.