[ Page 1845 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Highways estimates On vote 98. — 1845

Mr. Fraser — 1847

Mr. McGeer Hon. Mr. Lea — 1849

Mr. Cummings — 185I

Mr. Gardom — 185I

Mr. McGeer — 1852

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1853

Mr. Curtis — 1857

Mr. Chabot — 1857

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1859

Mr. Chabot — 1860

Hon. Mr. Lea — 186I

Mr. Chabot — 1862

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1862

Mr. Phillips — 1862

Hon. Mr. King — 1863

Mr. Phillips — 1864

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1865

Mr. Phillips — 1865

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1866

Mr. Phillips — 1867

Mrs. Jordan — 1867

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1872

Mrs. Jordan — 1872

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): I haven't too much to say to the Minister here, Mr. Chairman, but I have a few things. I refer back to last evening when I spoke. I think the Minister answered some of the questions but not all of the questions I asked him. I want to remind him again. I think he just overlooked them, I hope so.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, I asked about a Deputy Minister. There's no vote in here for a Deputy Minister. As I understand it, at the present time there isn't a Deputy Minister. My question is: when will there be a Deputy Minister? I believe there are two Associate Deputy Ministers, but what I'd really like to know is when the post of Deputy Minister is going to be filled.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want a shot at it?

MR. FRASER: No. No way!

I think it came out today. It wasn't answered yesterday when I brought it up last evening. But how long are decisions going to be held up on these developments which I said probably add up to $200 million in the province? I believe the Minister referred to that today, but nothing was specific. In other words, are we going to lose the whole building year of 1974 on these different complexes, whether subdivisions for shopping centres or residential or what? I'm not clear on just what is meant.

Another that is vexing people in the rural area, and I realize that the department is protecting the public purse on this. I refer to rural roads that are built to a standard of the Highways department by a subdivider. Then somebody comes along and subdivides again, and the department insists if the road is to a standard that they pave it, the existing public road.

I might say that this is causing a lot of hard feelings in the Interior because the department, in a lot of cases, is asking the subdivider to pave, and if he does pave, say, a couple of miles of road, you've got to drive on 20 miles of public roads which are gravel.

They can't see why they have to be brought up to a paving standard at their expense when the public roads leading to and from are not up to that standard. I believe it is policy that you get the subdivider to pave at their expense, and I'd just like to hear the Minister comment on that.

I mentioned last evening again about settlement. The Minister, I believe last evening or today, mentioned, if I'm correct, that there were around 500 outstanding settlements.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): I didn't say.

MR. FRASER: You didn't say that. I believe I asked last evening how many were outstanding and actually how old they were. I think some of them go back for years. I asked last night: has anybody any record and inventory of these outstanding claims of all types and whether they're compensation for expropriated land?

There is one case I want to bring to the attention of the department now. I don't like to deal in detail, but the delays cause hardship to people. I refer to a farmer. Through the negligence of the Department of Highways in the installation of a culvert — and they admit the negligence — engineers make mistakes too, you know, just like politicians — this farmer got flooded out and he couldn't put his hay crop up. This happened in 1972, and it recurred in 1973.

I don't want to get the Minister mixed up here.

The 1972 claim for loss of hay was settled for, but the flooding occurred again in 1973. I might say, corrective permanent action is just completed so it won't happen in 1974. But this farmer is arguing with the claims officer of the Department of Highways, and he had no hay crop again in 1973. Hay went to $90 a ton and that cattle ranch has gone out of business because he had to sell his stock.

I just wonder whether administrative people realize how these sort of things go on because of the delay and the hardship it causes people. This chap, as far as I know, has gone logging for a living. I don't think that anyone in the province wants to see this happen.

It was all established in 1972 and the same thing occurred in 1973 because the culvert wasn't adequate. I repeat, the culvert is fixed and it won't happen in 1974. But we haven't got any farmer left.

I hope there are not too many like that, but that's the sad story caused by correspondence going back and forth — the claims department wanting proof of this and proof of that. As far as I know, the claim hasn't been settled as of now. He was a victim not only, of course, of the culvert but also a victim of the high cost and shortage of hay. It's a very sad state of affairs.

Last night I asked the Minister's policy on rental

[ Page 1846 ]

of equipment. I'm talking about owner-operator equipment. I believe the department throughout the province tries to give the local people the work if equipment is up to specifications and so on. But, and I repeat, last night I don't think the Minister answered why they enter into a signed agreement, as I understand, on a four-week basis, and hire the man for eight days then lay him off.

The other thing that happens on rental of equipment in some cases, as has been brought to my attention, is that the local operator seems to get specked right out of the job so equipment can be brought from somewhere else. I think this is a bit of trickery. I don't think it's going on throughout the province, but I resent seeing equipment coming into the Interior, say, from the coast, when equipment of comparable specifications is available there, of course depending on that work.

The other thing that I mentioned earlier, which the Minister didn't answer, was the third outlet from the coast, and you certainly expanded on that today.

One thing, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, that could be better coordinated I think, is the snow removal policy of the department within municipal boundaries. The existing policy is that your department ploughs the snow and the municipality has to remove it. In other words, if it's brought to the centre of the arterial, which in the confined municipalities is pretty well what has to happen, the municipality has to haul it away.

I was wondering, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, would they consider taking the whole thing over, or turn it over to the municipalities and pay them because there's not too good a coordination. I don't say this critically, but the Highways department, of necessity, goes out and ploughs heavy snow on the arterial highways in all directions from the built-up community. Then the town or the city does their ploughing, but the main road to the municipality ends up in the worst condition of all. If you can get through the main highway through a town or city, you get onto good, free going after a 10- or 12-inch snowfall. But the coordination is poor and I think the trouble is to do with the overall policy.

Mr. Chairman, there are varying types of votes in the Department of Highways. I guess I should know by now, but I'd like a comment on where the day-labour vote money comes from in this budget before us. Then there's the district vote as well. You were good enough to give us the White Paper yesterday on the district vote, but I want to know what vote the day labour comes out of. I believe it comes out of capital, but I would like you to say that, either when we come to that vote or when I get a reply, hopefully.

I understand a few years ago — three or four — plans were laid on through the ferry system of the Department of Highways and a road link.... They were going to have a ferry, I forget where it originated, but it would come to Bella Coola. Then they'd make a decent road from Bella Coola to Williams Lake, and you'd have a circular tour. I would like to know if the department has thrown that plan out. Or are they still considering going ahead with it at some future time?

Traffic fatalities were mentioned and bicycling, and so on and so forth. I'll give you an example of what happens because of lack of funds. North and south of my home town, Quesnel, the highway was built in the late '50s and the early '60s just like a dike. They just pulled the dirt up from the bottom and we have a surface road of 30 to 40 feet, no shoulders whatsoever, and deep, deep ditches from 40 miles north and south of Quesnel. After a lot of urging by a lot of people, including the engineers, shouldering started on that project and ended after about five miles had been done last year. Believe me, shouldering is certainly the answer, but there are a lot of miles to do yet.

It's very dangerous. As an example, there have been 14 people killed in one spot six miles south of Quesnel. I realize you have all the reports and this driver failure and so on, but do you know that the shouldering stopped within a mile of this bad spot on the highway that all the local people are very upset about.

Will we get funds to continue this shouldering? I might say the shouldering that has taken place has not been surfaced. I think the final answer is to continue the shouldering and then cap the shoulder. I think you will see fatalities drop considerably. In that area, if you check your fatalities, you'll find that section of road 40 miles south and 40 miles north of Quesnel on Highway 97 has a high rate of fatalities for the traffic density. In my opinion, without shoulders the driver hasn't time to react. By the time they do, it's too late; there's no shoulder to work on.

You answered me last night on equipment purchases. You were quite correct; you were getting the specifications through the Purchasing Commission. This was your reply. You're ending up with the low bidder. I would go on record as supporting you if you wouldn't buy from the low bidder, and look for quality equipment. I don't think anybody in this province would say otherwise. Go back and check your records of the equipment you've got. You have all makes; you should have a record from your mechanical department which machines are giving you the good service and which aren't. You will find it isn't the equipment from the low bidder in a lot of cases.

I particularly want to emphasize the fact of power graders which are very important machines in the Interior of the province 12 months of the year — not just for grading of gravel roads in the summertime but for snowploughing in the winter as well. Your

[ Page 1847 ]

snowplough trucks do a good job until you get a good heavy fall of snow; then you have to get the power grader out to get the road open.

I certainly agree completely to get quality equipment. I don't think you are going to get that from the low bidder. It applies in everything from pickups right through to bulldozers. I think still a better study should be made.

School locations were brought up. I would like to give the Minister my opinion. You are quite correct that school locations have been built in the Interior right where the arterial highways are. We've had fatalities on the famous Barkerville Road; this winter we have had two or three school children killed. Part of the original trouble was the fact that somebody let the schools be constructed on the edge of a road like that.

I think that as the Minister, you could maybe take it up with the Minister of Education. I think the school boards of this province should be told that in future you are not going to allow these schools to be built near any main arteries. Furthermore, they should be a mile or so off them, and you should build the roads and keep them a mile or two miles back, or whatever it is.

We've had real troubles. We've got school buses in the wintertime in the Interior stopping on two-lane roads with five feet on the level, 10 feet in the wind-row — and it's a real dangerous situation. You people plough turnouts for them, but the children run out from behind or in front of the bus into oncoming traffic, usually logging trucks travelling at 75 miles an hour with 100,000 pounds. They can't stop on glare ice. Consequently, fatalities. I think the answer is to get these school buildings located a mile back from these main roads, at least while you are loading them and unloading them from home so they're off the main flow of traffic.

I haven't very much more, but I would like to hear some answers from the Minister now. Just one last question. You know the Barkerville Road; I think they started to rebuild it in 1959. I would like the Minister to tell me tonight that 1974 will see the Barkerville Road completely rebuilt and paved and finished in 1974. Thank you.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): My goodness me, it's been hard to get the floor. I would like to just ask one or two specific questions of the Minister.

I strongly support the statements of the Member from Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) last night about the disparity of highway expenditures for the City of Vancouver and the lower mainland area. The Member from Little Mountain is not noted for verbosity and I think when he gets up and makes a point in the House, Members should take account of it, particularly the Minister. In this case I think that Member was absolutely correct and I want to support him one hundred per cent on what he said.

I happen to come from one of those Vancouver constituencies, Vancouver–Point Grey. It's a constituency that's a bit of a socialist desert. I know the Member for Vancouver Centre was once the campaign manager out there and we enjoyed having him pay his last visit to that constituency.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, he certainly got a good Member, Mr. Chairman; I don't know how good a constituent he is. But I want to say that he should be up fighting like the Member from Vancouver–Little Mountain for roads in Point Grey as well as Vancouver Centre.

I stand to be corrected on this, but I believe Vancouver–Point Grey probably has the lowest expenditure on highways of any constituency in British Columbia that has roads exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. Perhaps the Minister could check with his Deputy and tell me if that is correct or if it's incorrect. What other constituency is more unfortunate than Point Grey? (Laughter.)

I took a particularly keen interest in this helicopter ride because it struck me that when the Minister mentioned the expense of that, I could see a whole budget for Vancouver-Point Grey disappearing in that one journey.

Members who have been in this House for some years, and I speak particularly of those in the Social Credit benches when they were formerly in government, will know that I have never been one to chevy the government about expenditures on highways. Indeed, I have spoken about more generous expenditures in virtually every riding in British Columbia. I think the greatest strength of the former government was its highway programme. If there was any sort of weakening of the government's strong position in its senile years, it was this lack of commitment to transportation development in British Columbia. I said all those things despite a continual denial of appropriate road development in Vancouver–Point Grey.

I charge, Mr. Chairman, discrimination against Vancouver–Point Grey because there has been an opposition Member representing that riding since almost the beginning of time. I think it's time that Vancouver–Point Grey got a fair deal in highways. (Laughter.) I want to tell you .

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Pardon me? No, what we want is a nice, paved highway out to the university. I don't think this is a laughing matter; I think it's a sign of discrimination against the electors of

[ Page 1848 ]

Vancouver–Point Grey when people start laughing at the Member who stands up, like every other Member does, to call for highways in his own constituency.

We've got in Vancouver–Point Grey a city of 20,000 people. The Second Member says 25,000 and I'm sure he's more accurate than the First Member. Those 25,000 people are cut off from every other access route and highway except those access routes that go through provincial government lands. Of course, I refer to the University of British Columbia where 25,000 people come out every morning and 25,000 people go home every evening through roads that are exclusively the jurisdiction of the provincial government.

Because that city is a separate entity and serves only two functions, that of teaching and that of research, it doesn't have any income-producing industry. What's happened, Mr. Chairman, and I mean this very seriously, is that funds that have been allotted by this provincial Legislature for the purposes of education have had to be spent on roads because the Department of Highways has denied the constituency of Vancouver–Point Grey its just share of highway expenditures.

The three presidents of the universities were over here the other day to have an interview with the Premier and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly). I'll bet they didn't tell the Premier and the Minister of Education that some of the money they were asking for was money for roads. Can you believe, Mr. Chairman, that the budget of the University of British Columbia, which everyone here, I'll wager, before thought was for the purposes of education, has to be spent partly for highways because the Department of Highways has refused to put money into the constituency of Vancouver-Point Grey?

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) has 3,000-plus miles of roads in his constituency. I've got up and I've spoken again and again for the need for better and more highways in the constituency of the Cariboo. Do you know how many miles of provincial roads there are in Vancouver-Point Grey? There are about 14.

Now, Mr. Chairman, you would think that in all these years the government would have seen its responsibility to that constituency. It's as large as any other in the province, and to hear the Member for Vancouver East talk about it, everybody has at least two gasoline-guzzling cars. So they're paying their share when it comes to the taxes for building roads. But when it comes to the provincial government delivering a fair proportion of that Highways budget to complete the access road to the University of British Columbia, it's not there.

I don't know where the money goes. Some of it apparently went on helicopter rides, but I think the constituency of Vancouver–Point Grey deserves an even break. I'd like to ask the Minister of Highways whether this year we're going to have completion of the access roads — and I mean a proper four-lane highway, from Marine Drive. They built it half way and they quit. I don't know why they quit at 29th Avenue.

But there should be a four-lane highway going all the way to the University of British Columbia from the south side of Vancouver, there should be a proper four-lane highway from 16th Avenue going out there and there should be a proper four-lane highway on Chancellor Boulevard.

Now that's only three access roads. One of them, in fact two of them, are only about two miles long. The other one has about two or three miles that's required to complete it. But failure to do the job, Mr. Chairman, has meant that every year the University of British Columbia has had to take desperately needed educational money and put it into blacktop.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that other educational institutions have not had to waste their educational money in such ventures.

Now I'd like to mention one or two other areas to the Minister. I think the government did a great thing and got a tremendous amount of credit when they took down the B.C. 1 signs and put up Trans-Canada Highway. It put us right back in the nation again. It ended a shameful part of parochialism that was brought on the people of British Columbia by the former government.

But by the same token I thought it was every bit as childish, perhaps more childish, for the government to have removed the signs saying 'Gaglardi Way' which went up to Simon Fraser University. There were many people who disagreed with that former Minister of Highways; I was one of them. I don't think anybody said more critical words of that former Minister than I did.

But he played a role in British Columbia; he was the Minister of Highways during the greatest period of highway building in British Columbia. That former government was responsible for the building of Simon Fraser University and the commitment of funds that went into the access routes to that university. It was cheap politics that should have been beneath the provincial government to pull that sign down and rename that road.

Before the NDP government relinquishes office there may be names of buildings, names of highways, recognizing personalities in the NDP government and the contribution that they made.

Those of us on the opposition will never agree with the things that the government does. But I hope, whatever the future government is, it will never be small enough to take those highways or buildings or geographical points, whatever they may be, and tear down the names and replace them with ones that are more to their liking.

[ Page 1849 ]

I think the Social Credit government was wrong to tear down Trans-Canada Highway and make it B.C. 1. But I think that the NDP government was guilty of something much smaller when they pulled down the sign saying 'Gaglardi Way' and renamed it...I don't know what the name was. I hope that kind of smallness and meanness will not become a characteristic of future governments.

AN HON. MEMBER: They put it back.

MR. McGEER: Well, I'm glad they put it back. And if they have, I hope that it will be properly recognized by the media.

Now, finally, I'd like to say a word or two about the expropriation that is contemplated for North Vancouver because I believe....

Just a moment, Mr. Chairman. I can see you starting to wake up and sit forward in your chair. I think this is an opportunity for the Minister of Highways to pile into an important aspect of his portfolio. The Minister of Highways hasn't hesitated to trundle all over the jurisdiction of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall). He's been right into tourism and travel industry.

But that really hasn't been an important part of his responsibility. The linking, however, of the Upper Levels Highway with the Deas Island throughway, with the system that goes up to the Fraser Valley and which eventually, I hope, will go to Iona Island and across to Vancouver Island, is an important part of his responsibility. Those linkages at the present time are the Second Narrows Bridge and the First Narrows Bridge.

But a third linkage must come. I say, Mr. Chairman, that there have been too many crazy people in this Legislature and in the City of Vancouver who have denied the necessity of another bridge spanning Burrard Inlet. The best plan I ever saw for creating this new bridge was one put up by the Phillips-Barratt Engineering firm, which proposed a span going across the middle of Vancouver harbour. Such a span would need to be no longer than the span proposed for that bridge that was to parallel the First Narrows. You could put exactly the same span in the middle of Vancouver harbour — believe it or not. And on the approaches to that new span, you could build two enormous piers, one on the north side, which would tie in with the B.C. Railway and the CNR, and one on the south side, which would tie in with the CPR.

What you would get out of such a transit system would be a new highway, a rapid-transit line, two new piers, one on the north side to fit in with the BCR and the CNR, and one on the south side to fit in with the CPR. Mr. Chairman, all of this discussion here that we've had in the Legislature about rapid transit, street cars, ferry systems and so on, takes us back to the 1930s. The only way we're going to project into the future of the 1970s and the 1980s is to recognize that road transit is two-dimensional, not one-dimensional.

It is the way of the future, despite what everybody says, in an area like the City of Vancouver. That third crossing is going to come no matter how narrow, bigoted and backward we are. It's only a question of where that third crossing will come, and when.

My own view is that the third crossing should be in the centre of Burrard Inlet, equally dispersed between the First and Second Narrows, and that it should come as soon as possible. It may be that it can be delayed by political decisions. It could be delayed 10 years; it might be delayed 15 years. It could be that it's closer to the First Narrows Bridge rather than exactly in the middle.

But come it will, and there's no point in us as a Legislative Assembly being dragged kicking and screaming into the future. We should recognize what is required and begin to move towards the best solutions now.

I believe the expropriation on the part of the provincial government, if it's going to be in the north end and south end for a ferry system now, will be the ideal thing because it will provide for us the base in the future upon which that mid-inlet span could be built. So I'm in favour of the expropriation, but perhaps for a different reason than the Municipal Affairs Minister (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) has.

I think the Highways Minister, however, has a great opportunity to make his name, to show that he's a beacon for the future, by announcing his intention to get in there and build a bridge between those two areas.

HON. MR. LEA: I have to admit that I'm touched by that impassioned idea from that Member for 14 miles of road within his riding. He was talking about the kind of money he and his running partner are going to get. There are NDP ridings with double Members who get less. That's the way we play politics; we don't do it by who's a Member and who isn't. Why, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) get considerably less than those two Members. We're not going to play politics with people's money, Mr. Chairman.

Why, Mr. Member, you and your partner are going to have $25,000 to split between you for 14 miles of road. Ask the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) if that isn't a great ratio of money, if you are going to break it down into mileage. (Laughter.)

Now, I don't want to hear any more of that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): We'll be here

[ Page 1850 ]

all night.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, I hope we're not here all night, Mr. Member, and it won't be my choice.

Earlier today we were talking about what executive assistants do for their money. Continually through this debate I've listened to misinformation and bad research coming from the other side. I ask them, what do their researchers do for their money?

We look at Gaglardi Way. He said the provincial government took down the sign. Mr. Chairman, we didn't take down the sign and we didn't put it up, because it is not within our jurisdiction to do that. It was the community of Burnaby that took it down and the community of Burnaby who put it back up.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Who muscled them?

HON. MR. LEA: Nobody muscled them to do anything. I want that road to stand there with Mr. Gaglardi's name forever to remind this province of one of the greatest cabinet Ministers we ever had. Every time they go up there I want them to see the name Gaglardi, especially young students on their way to bigger and better education. I want them to see this. And so never would I use my influence in any way to have that name taken down, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, Madam Member, here you are, standing in the Legislature asking me to spend money in your riding, asking me to do this, asking me to do that. You say the riding has been neglected. For all those years as a cabinet Minister you couldn't get your own colleague to spend any money in your own riding. Now you're after me.

Well, I'll tell you. If the need is there, we'll spend it, because we don't play politics, Madam Member.

The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) asked about a Deputy Minister: Do I have one? Are the facilities there to have one? If he had followed his orders-in-council he would have seen there has been an order-in-council passed allowing for a Deputy Minister position within the department.

Someone else said, where would the money come from? It would come from vote 70, salary contingencies from the Minister of Finance. That's the proper way to do it. He asked when. I said as soon as possible.

Arbitration. We have no outstanding cases particularly, except those of the Libby Pondage which somehow or other managed to find their way into the Highways department to get that land for B.C. Hydro. I don't know why that happened; you'll have to ask some of the people in your own caucus, Mr. Member. But here we are in the Highways department taking land for a Hydro project as the Department of Highways. Those are the outstanding ones and we're dealing with those.

I don't think that anything really has been brought up that hasn't been brought up before and that I've answered. The Hon. Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) said he wasn't really satisfied with some of the answers I gave him. Well, I don't particularly think my answers should have to satisfy him, but that I should answer.

Finally, I would just like to comment on one or two things the Hon. Liberal leader said. I don't really believe he believed the things he was saying. He knows very well, when he's talking about the Minister's vote, that he's not really telling what he really believes, I don't think. I hate to think he couldn't follow the book and make it out.

He talked about $8,000 in 1972-73 fiscal year for the Minister's office in the Department of Highways. He knows very well that the Minister at that time held the double portfolio. The Minister's wages came from the Provincial Secretary's vote; the executive assistant's wages came from the Provincial Secretary's vote. He also knows that the travelling came out of the Provincial Secretary's vote, and he also knows that the secretary came out of the Provincial Secretary's vote. He knows that some of the other expenses were shared between the two offices. So I don't think you can really compare apples with oranges.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: That was in the year 1972-73. Don't get angry, Mr. Member, it's your leader.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Obviously there are some people in this House who believe they don't need their leaders, but in this party we really do.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: I hope there are no school children in the audience tonight. Please, I want to have a little decorum in the House. Are there any school children, please? Let's try and put on a good show, gentlemen.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: There's nothing wrong with school children, Mr. Member. (Laughter.)

Obviously the vote had to come up when we changed and we said okay. It was something the opposition asked for too. They said, "Please don't have any more double portfolios if you can help it."

[ Page 1851 ]

We said, "Right, we don't believe in that either."

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: No, I don't think you're going to help it by voting, that's for sure.

What we've done is perfectly obvious. Anybody who has access to the estimates can tell what's happened. I moved the senior information officer position from administration into my office. I think that only makes sense. I have to work with the senior information officer quite closely and I did it so that it shows up where it should show up — in my office. We're trying to be open and honest with you, and you only criticize.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: We are. You're trying to understand. (Laughter.)

Now, I have another executive assistant. That's true, you know that; I haven't denied it. I said two. I mean, that makes sense.

We have some money now for a temporary assistant. You know why? It was there before but now we are trying to be honest and are putting it where it belongs — in the proper vote. And you know that. The hon. leader of the Liberal Party knows that and the people in the press know that. The people in the province know that. I think for once they're very, very glad to see estimates that have some relativity to the kind of money we are spending. For the first time. You can criticize all you want, but the people out there know exactly what's going on for the first time, and you don't like it that much.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): I feel slightly shaken because I have been supported by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). I have to be very, very careful about my arguments.

I really would like to apologize for the 500,000 people who are in the lower mainland and all the gas tax they had to pay and the roads they use. It is very unfortunate, but there were several red herrings mentioned.

For example, the right-of-way didn't cost you a nickel in Vancouver. Knight Road, which was a nice commuter street, was turned into an arterial street. It went to four lanes from two lanes. This was a very, very quiet neighbourhood and it was utterly destroyed by a new super-highway. I think it is adding insult to injury, Mr. Minister, when you destroy a nice bedroom community and then have enough nerve to make them pay for it.

There were several other red herrings, for example, Annacis Island. That happens to be in New Westminster and Burnaby.

I am quite willing to suggest that you'll have better arguments with your cabinet colleagues than you did with me, but actually I heard another little red herring — $25,000 to the University Endowment Lands for 14 miles. How about all of Marine Drive, which is an arterial highway to that university?

I think that per capita grants should be given back to the larger cities because there are more cities reaching that magic 33,000 population every day. Kamloops is going to be on the wall next. Kelowna's going to be next. How's Prince George? Is it going to come soon? It's not right that if you're called a district you still get the vote, but if you're called a city at a certain population, you don't. I still would like to press, in spite of the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey's support.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): It was very interesting to hear the remarks that the Hon. Minister made in response to my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). The Minister said to this House that $25,000 is being allocated for the purposes of the First Member and the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. That's not the case at all, as he well knows. The money that has been allocated, as picayune as it is, is certainly not for us, but for the citizens of this very great constituency, including about 25,000 people that commute daily.

This is the greatest instant town in Canada, west of Toronto, and you're just not properly taking care of it. To go ahead and talk about providing $25,000 out of this budget to furnish some reasonable degree of mobility to these people, who are not Point Grey residents.... They come from the totality of British Columbia, as the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) well knows. I can remember his speeches in the House on this very point when he talked about assistance for students. This is what we're requesting here — assistance for these people and to be able to properly get to this particular area.

When the Hon. Highways Minister says that this is an allocation for the benefit of myself and the benefit of the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), I absolutely reject that as just the most shameful kind of politics that he's probably ever announced in this House. Yet he goes ahead and he spends two-thirds of that sum — $18,000 — flitting around in a whirlybird. For what end? I don't know. He sort of looked like a swallow trying to find Capistrano. I've not yet received any kind of a logical answer from the Minister apropos the questions put by some of the Social Credit Members as to the need for that particular trip of his. But the First Member for Point-Grey made a very very valid point. He said that by virtue of this extremely....

Interjection.

[ Page 1852 ]

MR. GARDOM: Have I ever seen a bearded swallow? I don't suppose I have, but maybe tonight we have.

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: There's a lot of wit in this side of the House, Mr. Minister, but it may be escaping you somewhat.

When the Hon. Minister is prepared to spend, for just a personal little trip, two-thirds of that sum on his own interest, it certainly seems to me to be a pretty poor allocation of priority, with the net result that the university has been forced to use funds which should properly go to education for perhaps highway purposes, and that's exceptionally wrong.

There were a few misunderstandings this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, between ourselves and I would like, if at all possible, to overcome some of them. I'd like to assume first of all that one of the responsibilities of any Minister of Highways in the Province of British Columbia would be safety on our highways. Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to assume that any purposeful Minister of Highways would be in favour of safety on our highways. Perhaps the third assumption would be that the vehicle one would most usually find on the highway would be a car, and except under the most very unusual situations the car is driven by a human being. Well, to extend this slightly, since an individual is in by far the majority of cases the party most responsible for the cause of accidents over mechanical problems, I think we have four basic assumptions there. Accepting those, can I not ask...

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. GARDOM: ...and expect an answer from the Minister who is responsible for an area which has proven to be the greatest slaughterhouse that we have in B.C. — or in any other area in the North American continent, for that matter, or in any part of the world where cars are driven? And that's a highway. Can I not expect an answer from the Hon. Minister to this question? Is he or is he not prepared to agree that no person under the age of 18 years should be able to drive a motor vehicle until he or she is properly certified under a driver-training programme approved by the superintendent of motor vehicles?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I've already ruled the Hon. Member out of order on the same point and I would request that he not bring the subject up again and move to another subject.

MR. GARDOM: I think you were ruling me out of order though, Mr. Chairman, on really a different approach to it. If you'd like me to go through those assumptions again.... I didn't find you quarrelling with the assumptions, so assuming that the assumptions are correct which you obviously agreed to, I think that's a fair question to the Minister and the question has now been put, so perhaps he could give an answer. You don't need now to rule me out of order.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I would ask as to whether or not this Minister, who is concerned about safety in highways, is prepared to agree that driver education must be programmed into our high schools on September 1, 1974.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member is clearly breaking the rules of the House. I would ask him not to raise the subject of driver-training courses under the estimates of the Minister of Highways. I ruled you out of order this afternoon and you've brought the subject up again.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, yes, of course.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask you to desist from the violation of the rules of the House.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention whatsoever of transgressing any of the rules of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Member may not have the intention but he's continuing to do it.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, no, no, no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would order you not to bring this up.

MR. GARDOM: I could not be doing it unintentionally, and I have no intention of doing it — so there we've got a stalemate. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member move on to another subject?

MR. GARDOM: Yes, I certainly will. Now, since I posed both of those questions to the Minister, and I expect to have answers from him, thirdly I would ask him as to whether or not he is prepared to agree that province-wide, compulsory motor-vehicle testing must become a fact and reality in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member take his seat?

MR. McGEER: I was absolutely shocked to learn that there were constituencies in this province receiving less money for highways than

[ Page 1853 ]

Vancouver–Point Grey. Mind you, those constituencies didn't have a single foot of road that was exclusively under provincial control, whereas Vancouver–Point Grey has, to my knowledge, 14 miles and perhaps more. I would hate to think that there was any constituency, whether there were provincial highways in that constituency or not, that would receive less money for highways than one joyride on a whirlybird.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

MR. McGEER: I would like to think that the Minister would do a quick re-evaluation of the expenditures in Vancouver-Point Grey and give us at least two whirlybird trips worth of highways. It's vital. There's a city there of 20,000 people that is filled up with automobiles paying gasoline tax every every morning and it's emptied by automobiles paying gasoline tax every evening. I think the people who are driving in and out want that money spent on roads and not on whirlybird trips. If these roads could be built — I'm talking about completion of Marine Drive to the University of British Columbia, completion of 16th Avenue to the University of British Columbia, completion of proper access roads on the University of British Columbia campus itself — then it would no longer be necessary to take educational money and put it into blacktop.

Now surely that's not an unreasonable request after all these years and years of patience on the part of opposition Members from Vancouver–Point Grey. We've not asked for excessive amounts of money. We've never even asked for a bridge. All we've asked for is to have a few miles of road cut through the bush so that the people wouldn't be tied up in a traffic jam every day going back and forth to the city that is the campus of the University of British Columbia.

Why, the Minister of Mines knows that every year I've spoken up about the necessity to fix those highways in the east Kootenays so that Black Angus cattle wouldn't wander on the highways. We haven't had the Black Angus cattle speech this year. I'm going to be disappointed if that Minister doesn't get up and speak in favour of keeping Black Angus cattle off the highways in the east Kootenays. Are they all fenced now? Every Black Angus cattle is now on the range, not on the highways.

Nevertheless, the southern trans-provincial highway still remains a priority necessity for the provincial government. The Champion Lakes cut-off has never been completed. The Hope-Princeton highway should follow the Ashnola River, and there should be that Princeton cut-off. That would save two hours going between here and that beautiful area in the east Kootenays.

I agree with what the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) says. We have got to build a new access route to the Interior. In my view, it should go up that road from Pemberton to Lillooet. We should cut new roads through an unraveled part of British Columbia. That's what Mr. Gaglardi did when he chose the Rogers Pass. When he made that decision he asked the people of the southern part of British Columbia, the developed areas, to be patient, but I don't think he expected them to have to wait into the hereafter. The government now, with a Member from the east Kootenays, a Member from the west Kootenays, a Member from Rossland-Trail, and so many NDP Members along there you can't even count them any more, couldn't get that highway completed.

Mr. Chairman, I am not asking that the government slow down on that trans-provincial highway. I am not asking that they slow down on that new access route to the Interior. All I am asking is that they cut down on the whirlybird flights so that we can get this little bit of pavement completed in the region of Vancouver–Point Grey, Mr. Chairman, if that were done — I wouldn't have to stand up in this Legislature and plead for equal treatment. We'd be able to say: "The job's been done in Vancouver–Point Grey. Congratulations, provincial government — now get on with the areas that haven't received attention.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to plead for a tunnel from Terrace to Vancouver. Not yet. I am not even going to plead for the tunnel that the former Minister of Highways (Mr. Gaglardi) requested between Vancouver Island and the mainland. I think that's not only futuristic, but it is something which is from another planet.

The present budget, concentrating as it does on maintenance rather than building, is really a denial of future needs. I recognize all of the limitations that the provincial government has, but there are important jobs to be done — these little things that we can clean up. The highways in Vancouver-Point Grey are a prime example.

Mr. Chairman, there are areas where we can save. We can save on helicopter trips; we can save on executive assistants; we can save on these political frills and get on with the job of building, building, building.

All I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, is for a modest amount of reconsideration on the part of the Minister and his staff, and just a little building in the constituency of Vancouver-Point Grey.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister again congratulated himself for having answered questions, which I don't believe he did answer — I believe he must have overlooked them. I appreciate his comments regarding the Provincial Secretary's department. I went to check the figures out, and I found there is a decrease of $2,428 in the period in question between the previous amount and

[ Page 1854 ]

the present amount. In other words, that took care of thy travelling, the executive assistants and what not.

Still unexplained is the over $200,000 increase in the other two Ministers' offices. I appreciate the fact that he made an attempt to look into this, and has checked and found that there was indeed another Minister who was able to take care of this, and I would like him now to check the two Ministers in question about which I asked him. It is the one area in his department which is increasing in staff, substantially — 50 per cent over last year, while the rest of the department is at 0.2 per cent.

He shakes his head. I'm afraid I still have a little faith in the figures provided in the estimate book, but perhaps your department is as bad as that of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), and all those figures are wrong. I am judging by the book. If you have other information, let us know, because there is a $200,000 increase for a saving of $2,428, which equals out to be an enormous increase. There is no question that it has not been explained why all this is necessary.

The next question that I raised was the Delta speed warning system. The problem in the Minister's reply has been this. The Minister's reply indicated that it "only slowed people down for 50 feet." He then went on to say that the department itself was considering a similar proposal, which presumably would only slow them down for 50 feet. Now, I don't quite know how that can be squared with the treatment that the developers of the Delta speed warning system received from his department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Second Member for Victoria that this is now the third time, to my recollection, that this subject has been discussed. He is tending to become tedious and repetitious in this regard. If he has some new points then he may re-introduce them; otherwise I shall rule him out of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I was cut off, you see, when I was last speaking on this, so it is not exactly repetition so much as a continuation.

It may well be tedious to the Minister. The Minister may feel it tedious, but again I am not going to have to read the Bible to you, Mr. Chairman, about the need of the good Lord to tell stories in different ways to persuade those people who are a little dense.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I'm not quite as large around the waist as you are, Mr. Minister, who is leaving at the present time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would request that Hon. Members not make personal allusions. I would ask the Hon. Members to show the proper courtesy towards one another.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the Minister in question left the chamber, Mr. Chairman. I am disappointed.

Nevertheless, the question of the Delta warning system is still, I think, something which needs some sort of comment. The police in question have approved it. The municipal engineer felt it was a worthwhile project, worthy of consideration. I have his letter, which I was just looking at when we adjourned at 6 o'clock. I won't even start on it. I will simply say that the municipal engineer in question also agreed that it was worthwhile. Twenty school principals agreed it was worthwhile.

The excuses given both in letters from the Minister's department and by the Minister himself have been weak and unconvincing. I trust that he will look at this again — he doesn't have to make any comments on it tonight — in a more reasonable frame of mind, after he has had a rest, and see whether he can't come up with a little more hope for these people and a little better evaluation of the proposals they had.

Mr. Chairman, I asked him yesterday about Westside, an area in Kamloops. Not to be tedious or repetitious, but to refresh your minds, Westside was an area where the Highways department made a number of errors in their planning. They approved a subdivision, and the result was substantial flooding. I am not exactly sure of the full extent of the Highways department's responsibility — whether it was actual non-feasance or misfeasance on their part — but the Minister's staff is well aware of this, as I told him yesterday when they were here. I am sure they have had an opportunity now to pick up some information.

The fact is this. The area in question was affected by a decision of the Department of Highways. Then the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) who is in his seat — and I thank him for staying in this evening to listen to this — ordered amalgamation without consulting the local inhabitants. So suddenly the City of Kamloops was burdened with the expense of repairing the damage due to the flooding, and rectifying the problem that led to the flooding. They find this expense a little tough to bear, and they would like some assistance in this regard. I would like to know whether the Minister of Highways, whose department was a fault, apparently, according to the reports, in the initial decisions as to how this subdivision should be set up, is going to assist them. They might well assist them by way of equipment or men, or actually doing the job. It doesn't have to be by way of money. It could easily be assistance in kind to rectify their mistakes. I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment upon Westside in

[ Page 1855 ]

Kamloops.

It is something which is important to the local people. Their municipality is facing difficulties, thanks to other budgetary restraints that we have talked upon, and some that we are going to talk upon when the Minister of Municipal Affairs' estimates are up. They feel that in the light of their financial difficulties the added burden of picking up the mistakes of the Highways department is a bit too much.

The next subject upon which I would like to comment is one which is a tricky subject for this House. It is the question of safety. Now, I am not going to talk about the driver training, which you have indicated, Mr. Chairman, belongs under another Minister. I was going to comment upon the report of the Motor Vehicle Branch dealing with accidents, but I guess I can't do that either.

But I will comment upon the statistical data produced by the British Columbia Department of Highways, for 1973-74, which came out under the name of the Hon. Graham R. Lea, Minister of Highways. Is that acceptable, do you think, Mr. Chairman? Thank you very much.

Now on B.C. highways we had 635 lives lost; that's on provincial highways in that year. There were 828 fatalities in total. So in other words, as we have been discussing the estimate of the Minister's office there have probably been somewhere between six and eight people killed in British Columbia through traffic accidents. The magnitude of the problem...I give you this to indicate it is really something which is tremendous.

We've had interesting information which came out of his report. Apparently deaths are in no way related to traffic flow, and most occur in the evening. Why this would be I don't know. Perhaps the Minister has some comment why that is, and whether street lighting or highway lighting on corners and areas where there may be difficulty would be of assistance. What are they doing in that regard? Perhaps a lower speed limit at night might help.

I know that he rejected the concept of a lower speed limit when dealing with fuel conservation, but the results in the United States are just dramatic — a 40 per cent cut in highway fatalities, not all attributable to a cut in the speed limit, but a good number attributable to that. I wonder whether the Minister would like to make some comments about speed limits in terms of fatal deaths.

The interesting thing, or one of the interesting things, in this report was that most of the accidents occurred on the straight highway, not on curves — not in areas where the highway was in bad condition. But 60 per cent of the fatal accidents took place in relatively straight sections of the roadway. Another 38 per cent occurred when the vehicle went out of control on a horizontal curve. We have a problem also here of the number — one every second day almost — as a result of bad conditions in terms of ice or snow. I shouldn't say the result of, but they do occur during those periods — a substantial number.

I wonder if there are any possibilities in terms of improved road service, the use of a different compound — use of broken glass, for example. Crushed glass, I understand, has some potential for improving this type of surface of roads during bad weather, particularly rainy weather. Perhaps the Minister might comment upon that.

I was intrigued to see that so few of the fatal accidents were the result of defective automobiles. I think that a vote of thanks should go by all Members of the House to the people who man the testing stations because they're clearly rejecting a large number of cars — 40 per cent, my colleague mentioned. I believe it's slightly less than that. Nevertheless, they're keeping the wrecks off the road and fatal accidents attributable to bad cars are well down.

The real question, Mr. Chairman — and here we may need your advice pretty soon — is drug and alcohol involvement. We had 47 per cent of our fatalities alcohol related, or at least alcohol was involved. I wonder whether the Minister of Highways, with the staff that he has and the expertise that he has in his department, could indicate to us in his replies whether or not there is need for change in this area.

The British and Scandinavian countries have a much more severe system than we do. Stockholm Airport was built by large numbers of people serving sentence for alcohol and driving offences. Indeed, when I was in Sweden, Mr. Chairman, you never could tell whether a Swede's post card was really from the south of France or from Switzerland or if he was on holiday, because they used to send their wives off with a stack of post cards to send back when they went to jail because of drunken driving offences. It was a rather amusing thing. They used to cover up the fact that they were in the clink — or, at least, building the airport. It might be something we could try here. The Minister may well have some useful comments on that.

We heard a great deal about drugs earlier. I think it's interesting that the Department of Highways believes that only two fatal accidents were because of possible impairment due to drug use. I think that perhaps the problem of drugs in relation to the problem of alcohol has been overstated, grossly overstated — not to minimize the problem of drugs, but simply perhaps to indicate that the problem of alcohol is our major problem. And these statistics of 47 per cent of the fatal accidents with some alcohol involvement are pretty staggering.

Excessive speed — and here we come to the speed limit — was the contributing factor in 20 per cent of

[ Page 1856 ]

all fatalities. The speed limits, I think, should be re-examined from that point of view, and thus my layman's enthusiasms for devices which tend to indicate to people that they have exceeded the speed limit. Speed is an important thing.

But accidents will occur despite efforts made to cut them down. Another area that we should look at — and I trust the Minister will comment upon this — is seat belts. Mr. Chairman, I looked in today's paper and I saw a note from Associated Press from Miami, Florida.

" 'Of 600 persons killed in auto accidents in Florida's Dade County in the last three years, only nine out of 600 were wearing seat belts,' the University of Miami researchers say. 'None of the 600 were wearing both belt and shoulder harness,' the university said in a study. 'There's no doubt that these figures are significant,' said Dr. William Fogarty, a civil engineer on the university's accident analysis team. 'Our findings are corroborated by the Australian experience,' Fogarty said."

I apologize, Mr. Chairman, but I don't have statistics on Australia. But it's interesting that apparently this is something which is a world-wide phenomenon. "Their law requiring drivers to use belts has been followed by a big drop in accidental deaths and injuries." And they don't even have full compliance with the law.

Now here we have a situation where seat belts were an important factor in saving lives. Obviously those figures could be expanded. You could get other statistics. I won't go into that. But seat belts do save lives. I wonder whether the Minister of Highways, on whose roads some 650 British Columbians wipe themselves out every year, almost two a day, would be willing to indicate his views on compulsory seat belts, which I personally approve of — compulsory wearing of seat belts.

He indicates in British Columbia that 67 per cent of the fatalities in B.C. were not using the seat belts available to them at the time of impact, and 40 — or 9 per cent — died with seat belts on. That's B.C. But look at the number that had the seat belts in the car and weren't using them. Now surely we need something further than the....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) asked how many died with their boots on. Probably a good number. Some might have been wearing high heels, who knows.

But still, the fact is that compulsory use of seat belts might well have improved the accident record on British Columbia highways. As I believe driving is not a right but a privilege, I believe the small inconvenience and loss of personal liberty that is involved in a compulsory scheme would prove worthwhile.

Now those are my comments on accidents except to point out the accident rate for the young people 16 to 25: the death rate is still climbing. It's 40 per cent of the total. That indicates that we're going to have to do a lot of thinking, both with respect to ICBC insurance rates and to highways, and with respect to health and, as well, to education. Obviously all these departments are involved.

Young people are wiping themselves out at an ever-increasing rate. I think there's a possibility that insurance rate adjustments, that will substantially increase the number of young people owning cars and driving cars for which they are solely responsible, will probably almost inevitably increase the number of young people getting killed on our highways.

From the look of the statistics provided by the Minister of Highways' department, I cannot see that there is any other conclusion that can be drawn. This is something which needs study. It's great to put in a scheme which lowers automobile insurance to young people below the level of accident rates — in other words, a subsidized scheme for younger people. But if it increases irresponsible driving, or if it increases the number of cars on the road by people who have this very high accident rate, the government equally has a responsibility to do everything it can to cut down on the slaughter of people under 25 which takes place on our highways of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I appreciate the comments of the Hon. Member on the report by the Minister of Highways, but I would ask him not to stray into the jurisdiction of other Ministers such as the Minister of Transport and Communications.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, well, this is a difficulty, Mr. Chairman. I'm in no way criticizing or commenting upon the ICBC plan except to point out that it has an effect. And this effect, namely the larger number of young people driving, probably the larger number of young people not only owning more cars but driving more frequently.... That's the result of the new proposals.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point is, the Hon. Member has a good point. But it should be discussed at the time the Minister of Transport and Communication's estimates are being discussed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that may well be. You know these people kill themselves on the Minister of Highways' roads, but somehow they're another Minister's responsibility. If I'm out of line on that, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to stand down and accept your decision.

Finally, may I congratulate the Minister on the

[ Page 1857 ]

Goldstream decision? He indicated that Goldstream will not have a four-lane highway. He indicated there was never such a proposal. I have a Victoria Times clipping of October 18 quoting a spokesman in his department saying that there was such a proposal. But clearly the department's managed to lose it by the time these estimates came up. I appreciate the Minister's genuine concern for making sure that the Goldstream area is protected and we do not simply pour more concrete and lay more parchment in an area which simply isn't big enough for an expansion of the highway system. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, just a couple of points to pick up. I know we've gone into a great many this morning and this afternoon. I would like to hear from the Minister with respect to interim improvements which may be under consideration by his department on the Trans-Canada Highway in the Fraser Canyon-Thompson section and also on the Highway in the Fraser Canyon-Thompson section and also on the Hope-Princeton Highway. Now the Minister has made it very clear that a third major route to the Interior has to be considered.

I'm not identifying that point at all; that has been very thoroughly reviewed. But as I drive the Trans-Canada through the canyons it seems to me that there are areas, Mr. Chairman, where four-laning could be introduced to a greater extent to permit the clearing of traffic tie-ups which occur really at any time of year, not necessarily when all those nasty American campers are clogging our highways.

But there are some open spaces, relatively speaking, in the canyon portion of the Trans-Canada and I wonder to what extent the Minister and/or his senior staff are examining the installation of more four-lane sections for whatever distance is considered necessary. As a layman, I have no idea, but a mile, a half-mile, whatever it might be, would permit the clearing of these jams, which really are very, very dangerous and most distressing and most time-consuming.

Then, on the Hope-Princeton, an earlier speaker last evening referred it to as "worn out." The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) earlier today talked about the specific hazards in the area of the great slide and at one or two cliff points.

As the Minister will recall, we discussed this privately some months ago, soon after he was given this portfolio. I wonder if there is any long-term, year-by-year improvement of the eastern portion of the Hope-Princeton highway which could be undertaken in order to avoid those long and dangerous and tedious hauls down one side of a mountain to a point where there is a very short bridge on a bend and then the similarly tedious climb up the other side of the mountain, to be repeated just a few miles later, and repeated a few miles after that.

Now I recognize that the installation of a very high level bridge right across the two edges of the two mountains concerned is impractical and would be, if not impractical, extremely expensive. But is there not some way in which the many turns, the many loops, particularly again on the eastern section of the Hope-Princeton, could not be done away with on a long-term basis?

This is not a problem that would be solved in one or two budgetary years. But I have the feeling that nibbling away at it, as it were, one a year, one or two a year, might really introduce some marked improvements on that highway. After all, Mr. Chairman, I would expect that the Hope-Princeton is going to be with us for a long time. It's surely not going to be closed down as and when a third route to the Interior is opened. I would be interested in the Minister's comments on that.

Then I have to associate myself with the comments made by others who speak in favour of reduced speed limits. May I ask a direct question, through you, Mr. Chairman? Has the Minister or any of his senior people visited any of the United States where the reduced speed limit has been in effect this winter? If not, I would suggest that such a group should be sent forthwith to find out — by helicopter if necessary — although surely they would get into an automobile at some point on the route, to experience first-hand the very beneficial effects that this reduction has had.

It was brought about through an energy crisis. But I agree with those who have observed previously that the benefits in saving lives and reducing property damage and serious injuries, which will affect individuals over many, many years, really have to be measured in the total equation. Fifty-five is the number that was selected in the United States. That's a number worth discussing.

But again, Mr. Chairman, has the Minister, as the Minister responsible for the highway system in British Columbia, examined first-hand, or has someone for him examined the reduced speed limits in the United States and the beneficial effects accruing from them?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, the Minister appears to have a very short memory, because I posed a series of questions a little earlier today and he failed to answer any of them. Now I'm going to repeat those questions for the benefit of the Minister because he apparently hasn't taken note of what I asked.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out that the Member may ask the Minister a question, but....

MR. CHABOT: I have the right to ask him again,

[ Page 1858 ]

too, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: I am going to ask him again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've not ruled you out of order. I've simply told you that he has no obligation to answer the question. However, I will permit them, providing you keep them brief, because they have been asked already and there would be a tendency to become tedious and repetitious.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will abide by whatever you say. But I do want to ask the Minister a question relative to the helicopter which he rented in northern British Columbia at $2,250, a day of taxpayers' money, when he has within his estimates an allowance for travelling expenses of $7,000 for one year, and the helicopter for a period of eight days cost him $18,000. I want to know if this money, which he spent on a joy-trip across the north, using $18,000 of the taxpayers' money, will appear as an item against the allocation he has within the Minister's salary in his estimates.

Now if it's going to appear there, Mr. Minister, then you have over-expended your budget very seriously indeed. You've suggested to me just a few moments ago that you are a very open government, that you believe in honesty, truth and straightforwardness. Now I'll ask you in all sincerity; will this $18,000 joy-trip across the north appear against vote 98, travelling expenses, for which there is an allocation of $7,000?

If it won't appear there, I want to know, Mr. Minister, when we examine the vouchers in the year 1975, just where this will be buried. Under what vote and under what voucher will we find the full extent of the joy-trip across the north of this province?

I think that it's a very reasonable question I'm asking at this time. If you believe in honesty and sincerity in government, you will stand in your place, Mr. Minister, and tell the people of British Columbia that you're not trying to hide the expenses of your joy-trip across the north of this province.

Now one other question which I put to you dealt with the matter of the expectations, the submissions, made to you by the various highway regional districts in the province. They submitted to you last fall a list on a priority basis of what they, within their regions, expect is required to properly maintain the highways, but to stockpile gravel, do day labour, construct new highways.

I want to know, Mr. Chairman, whether the Minister accepted the suggestions put to him by the regional highway districts. If he didn't; if there was a cutback — and there is a cutback, if one looks at the percentage of the allocation of the budget of the Government of British Columbia. There's a serious cutback on a percentage basis.

Now did you personally cut back the expectations and the submissions submitted to you by the various regions of this province? If you didn't make these cutbacks, were these cutbacks made in the cabinet chamber by little Treasury, and if this cutback was made by little Treasury, did you in turn stand in your place before Treasury Board and ask for consideration so that your regional districts in the province could fulfill what they feel is necessary to maintain the highways within the various regions?

Now if you believe in honesty and sincerity in government, why don't you tell the facts as they are regarding this question?

I mentioned as well, because it has been brought to my attention, the concern of the people on the northern part of this island. They suggested that I raise the matter on the floor of this House of the highway from Sayward to Beaver Cove. The reason they asked that I bring the matter on the floor of the House is because they knew full well that their Member (Ms. Sanford) would not stand in her place. You've led me to believe that your priority is to highway maintenance. But does that, in fact, mean that you no longer will build new highways in this province?

The people in this part of the island — Sayward to Beaver Cove — have been waiting a long time. There have been a great number of surveys of this route. I hope the last survey is over, that there will be some action and that there will be some consideration, even though the Member from Comox (Ms. Sanford) is not overly concerned about this issue.

I want to know, Mr. Minister, whether you are concerned about the plight of those people who are so isolated in that part of Vancouver Island.

I also ask whether you are giving any consideration to the improvement of the road from Lillooet to Cache Creek. This matter has been brought to my attention as well. I'm sure that you will agree with me that there is a desperate need for improvement of this highway between Lillooet and Cache Creek. What do you intend doing to improve the situation in this particular part of the province?

I don't know whether you have the notes on my request for Highway 95. I'm not going to repeat those requests to you now, with the hope that you have made notes, and will give me some answers.

I do want to raise one question in which there was a fair amount of controversy at the time, and that's on the Pat Bay Highway and the divider that goes down the middle. There were a lot of people, at the time that it was installed, who suggested that it was a deathtrap — not that there would be head-on collisions, because this stops this type of accident. But I wonder if the Minister can tell the House whether it has proven to be a safety factor in the

[ Page 1859 ]

travel on this highway or whether there have been accidents caused by people hitting this divider abutment. How many accidents have been caused, not necessarily by the divider, but by the divider being there?

One other point that I'm concerned about is the highway from Williams Lake to Bella Coola. Here is a marvelous opportunity for you, Mr. Minister, to open it up to the motoring public. I know you're against the tourists, especially those tourists coming from the United States. But there are many British Columbians that would love to have the opportunity to travel that scenic route through the Chilcotin to Bella Coola. Here's an opportunity for you, Mr. Minister, to make a name for yourself. Do something constructive; build this highway to the Pacific — a new route to the Pacific Ocean. Not only will it be of tremendous importance to that $660 million industry you have in this province, but it will help those people from Bella Coola and small communities between Bella Coola and Williams Lake in having a reasonable access. These people have pioneered this isolated part of British Columbia, and the least they can expect from government is an access into the hinterland of British Columbia. I'm wondering, if you have this matter on your agenda, whether there is going to be some improvement this year on this highway route. If so, to what extent are you going to improve this highway length of 300 miles?

One other point, Mr. Chairman, is that we haven't heard the Minister state the programme which has been enunciated by his predecessor, and that is that great ferry route between Powell River and Bella Coola.

I know, Mr. Chairman, that you're going to your mike with the anticipation that ferries does not come under this Minister. But this particular ferry, Mr. Chairman, comes under the purview of the Minister of Highways.

I wonder whether the Minister is going to tell us whether the highway ferry between Powell River and Bella Coola county will be instituted this year. These people, again, have been waiting a long time for this kind of transportation link.

What is the status and what do you intend to do on Highway 40I? Do you propose any further improvements on 40I? From Rosedale on to Hope, this is a highway that needs improvement. I realize it is complicated and costly to expand and widen this highway route, but I wonder what programme you have under the dollars that have been allocated to your department.

You haven't indicated, to any degree at all, what you intend doing, specifically, with the...

AN HON. MEMBER: Just a moment, I'll get my estimates.

MR. CHABOT: ...$194 million within the estimates of the Department of Highways. I think you have a responsibility before you're given your salary here, Mr. Minister, to tell us some specifics as to where you intend spending this tremendous allocation of taxpayers' dollars.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, I rise with a good deal of reluctance. My reluctance is to discuss another Minister's portfolio just for a second, because of the accusations that are thrown across the floor at that Minister for having done a good job.

He's a Minister with a $200 million vote and a $200 million obligation, with an expenditure — a minor expenditure by comparison — to get around the province like I did last year. I had 18 months to do it and he had 10. It was an expenditure that took him and his officials, and his MLAs, and even the Socred MLAs, as unappreciative as they are, into their areas to have a look at the highways so that he can come prepared into this House to answer questions. He is asked impossible questions by the opposition, questions that they don't want him to answer.

Mr. Chairman, he answered the questions. I've sat here for the last six sittings listening to this Minister answering questions. He answered them reasonably well, Mr. Chairman.

That former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot), who never answered a question in his life, gets up, pompous as he is, and always has been, Mr. Chairman. I just can't understand it.

Mr. Chairman, you get answers and you don't like the answers; you get honesty and you don't like the honesty.

He could have made you wait until 1975 to find out how much his worthwhile trip cost. Instead of that, he stands up in the House and answers that kind of question. Then what happens? Rail and rant. Is there no pleasing this opposition? There will never be pleasing this opposition....

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): It's a waste of the taxpayers' money!

HON. MR. COCKE: You have wasted the taxpayers' money like nobody else in this House. Never before has so much been said and never before in history has there been so little content in this House.

Mr. Chairman, the bitterness of the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot) and his vindictiveness. It is so evident....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Minister of Health not to make personal accusations.

[ Page 1860 ]

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, I'll refrain from it in future. But I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it has been the honesty of this Minister in declaring instantly the price of moving around from place to place, taking his officials and some MLAs into their constituencies to have a look at what's going on. I have every confidence in this Minister of Highways, because he knows what's going on, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, that was a pretty weak defence from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) on behalf of his colleague, the Minister of Highways.

lnterjection.

MR. CHABOT: It's pathetic! Why don't you go up and have a coffee and stop wasting the time of this House? I asked simple questions of that Minister of Highways, and he hasn't answered one question yet.

I'm sorry. I apologize. He did answer one. He told me how many taxpayers' dollars he wasted on that joyride across the north. He did answer that. But he didn't answer any of the other questions I put to him relative to the administrative responsibilities that he has in his department. I asked him some specific questions that the former Minister of Highways had no hesitation in answering. Why do you hesitate? What have you got to hide?

I have a responsibility to stand here, Mr. Chairman, and ask specific questions of that Minister as to what he intends doing with $194 million that has been allocated in his department. On behalf of the people I represent, I've asked him specific questions in which last year, under a former Minister, I got some answers. And from this Minister all I get is silence.

Mr. Minister, do you have something to hide? Why don't you answer some reasonable, simple questions that are put to you?

I asked what he proposed to do about the Sayward to Beaver Cove highway or the projected highway. Does he intend doing something about that highway this year? If not, when? Isn't that a simple question, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer)? It's so simple even you can understand it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon. Member that specific questions can be put under the other votes.

MR. CHABOT: They can be put under this vote, too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has tolerated a certain amount of latitude in the Minister's vote, but strictly speaking some of these questions should be asked under the specific votes. I'm sure if the Hon.Member waited until these votes were called, he might get answers to these questions.

MR. CHABOT: This is an overview of the general responsibilities of the Minister and the administration of his department, and I think it's only fair. I'll speak in broad, general terms, Mr. Chairman, if you object to me speaking specifically.

I want to know what the Minister proposes to do on the question of highways within my constituency. I asked him the question before, and there were simple questions. I asked whether there was any programme this coming year for the improvement of Highway 95 South from Golden for a distance of 15 miles. The highway is breaking up very badly. It was a highway that was put in under the former government, about six years ago. As a pulvi-mix asphalt on the highway, there's a need at this time for the Minister to give some consideration to putting a hot-mix asphalt on the highway. I'm wondering whether this is part of his programme, whether this is part of the submission sent to him by the regional engineer from Nelson, whether he put this as a priority — priority A, B or C — and whether the Minister has crossed it off, because it happens to be within my constituency.

Are you opposed to my constituency? Is that what you have, Mr. Minister? Is that the reason why you are not willing to answer questions dealing with highways in my area? I'm not asking for very much, Mr. Minister. I suggested to you in the last report that I have for '72-'73 that on the Westside road you've spent $1133. All I ask is that you spend the equivalent on the Westside road as you spent on your helicopter trip through the north of British Columbia — $18,000 — and then you would probably never hear from me again about the Westside road, because it would do the job that is required. Is that being unreasonable, Mr. Minister, when you have a budget of $194 million? I'm appealing to you for a small allocation of $18,000. Do you consider that unreasonable? I certainly don't.

I suggested to you that on the southern part of Highway 95 between Skookumchuck and Wasathere is a serious bottleneck. Within a distance of half a mile there are two level railway crossings plus one single-lane bridge on an arterial highway, Highway 95. I suggested that some action should be taken by your department to reroute, and I understand the surveys are all finished to reroute the highway by the construction of a new bridge because the bridge that is there now is not worth repairing and the bypass would eliminate these two dangerous level railway crossings. It is not that costly an undertaking. It won't take a substantial portion of your budget. It's a reasonable request.

We've been waiting in the Kootenays, Mr. Chairman — we've been waiting a long time. No

[ Page 1861 ]

wonder there is alienation in that part of this province against this government. And it was there against the former government as well. However, I think that because of certain actions of this government it is far more pronounced today than it ever was before. These people feel isolated from British Columbia because of the lack of consideration they've been given.

These people don't ask for much. They want a few, simple things. They want a few parks, they want a few roads. They don't always insist that the roads be paved. They want a few gravel roads as well. They want gravel on the dust on some of the trails. Is that unreasonable for those people to ask for? I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that this is not unreasonable. I suggest that you give some consideration to the people in the Kootenays, not only within my constituency, but in my neighbouring constituency of Kootenay.

The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) agrees that there is a time that you must stand up and fight for the Kootenays, because they have been neglected for too long. We are asking you, Mr. Minister, tonight to stand in your place and tell us what you intend doing for the people of the Kootenays, who feel more alienated tonight than they ever have in the history of this province. They want some consideration. They want some of the — I was going to say the finer things of life, but that is not true — they want the government to take them into consideration in the overall programme.

What I'm appealing to you to do, Mr. Minister, is to answer some questions. Tell us what your programme is for the Kootenays, so that I can tell the people that this government cares.

You made a great deal of the fact that you suggested that your government is open, Mr. Minister. Prove to me and prove to the people of the Kootenays that this is an open government. The only way you can do that, Mr. Chairman, is by telling us what your programme is for highways in the Kootenay, and tell us what you intend doing in the Kootenays in the current fiscal year.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Chairman, you know I'll be the first to admit that I'm not infallible. I had an argument with my colleagues prior to coming in to my estimates. I differed with them. I told them I thought we had been handling the estimates all wrong. I said if I'm open, if I'm honest, if I give them information with which to ask questions they'll respond in a reasonable way. And I must admit that now I feel that I was wrong. That's why I've been sitting listening for some time this evening without getting up because I realize that no matter what I say in this House it is not going to satisfy the opposition, because they are not looking for information.

As a matter of fact, I have some suspicion that there is an effort being made so that maybe the Housing vote won't be on Friday but will be on Monday, because there will be no Liberals here on Friday to discuss the Housing, and they want to be here. Well, so be it.

Some of the specific questions you asked, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman — first of all I would like to deal with some of the areas that aren't within your constituency but you still raised.

You raised the Sayward to Woss Camp — northern Island Highway. I think it is public knowledge what is going on. There are two contracts being let in that area. It is a new highway, it is virgin area. We are building highways in there. But we aren't going to build them, or at least I made up my mind I wasn't going to build them until I put an environmental study in there and found out the best way to go through there without causing damage to a very delicate area of this province.

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

I've had the word come back to me from that environmental group that there is a safe way to go through; that is the route I am following. In some cases I will have to put in a highway that won't be as high speed as maybe some people would like, but at least it is the way to go, in my opinion, where we won't cause environmental damage. For the first time the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) and myself have put together a working team of our staff people, so that there is coordination and consultation between the two groups in looking for new routes. That wasn't done before. It is being done now.

We also bring in outside people so we can have another opinion, so that we don't make a mistake. Because as I said earlier, once a highway is in, it is a very permanent feature. I have also made recommendations to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) that when we put that highway through we are going to be very careful on access, because that is the big thing, going through there in that delicate area. The highway, we have found a way to get it through there without what we feel would do damage to the environment. At the same time we have to be very careful of the kind of activity we allow in that very delicate ecological area once that highway is through.

The Hon. Member also said that he was sure the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) wouldn't stand up in this House and ask about it. I guess she wouldn't; she knows all about it. She has been a great fighter for this for a long while — she has been pressuring me. Everyone in her area knows about it. It is surprising

[ Page 1862 ]

to me that anyone from up there had to write and ask you what is going on. In my opinion everyone up there knows.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: There is no use putting it off with frivolity. The fact of the matter is that people there do know.

You asked about the Cache Creek to Lillooet highway, in someone else's riding. Also the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) whose riding that's within knows exactly what's going on, and so do the people.

Now, getting to your area — you asked about Westside Road. You said you had $1,000 there last year. This year there is $50,000 allocated for that road.

You know, the disappointing part that I have found in these estimates of Highways which we have been discussing, is the very fact that taking senior staff people and MLAs, no matter what party they belong to, the regional highway engineers, district highway managers — wherever we went, talking with local groups.... We advertised the fact in the newspapers before we arrived that we would be there, where to write, how to talk with us. Every place we went we met with every interested group. We met with people who didn't belong to groups, the ordinary citizen who had problems with highways could come and see us, and talk not only with me as the Minister, but with my senior people and the regional engineers. It was the first time that the Minister, senior staff people from Victoria, senior staff people from the regions, and the senior staff people from the district were there all at once, along with the local representative who had been elected by them, so that they could have a discussion of that kind with everyone concerned.

I don't feel it was $18,000 wasted, and neither do the people we talked to. I believe that it was money well spent. I am going to be going into other areas of this province in the same manner to talk to people in all areas so that I can become better acquainted and give those people a good chance to air their problems with all of us at once. We're going to them for a change, asking them about their problems, allowing them to give us some suggestions.

It is the first time it has happened. I am not ashamed of it. I don't think the people in British Columbia are ashamed of it, and only time will tell. I believe at the next election they will say, "Yes, that is the way we want to do things these days. We want to talk with people, have a discussion, not orders coming down from Victoria."

I suppose there is only one phrase that I can use to describe what I feel the discussion has been here for the last few days by the opposition. Not all Members — the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) — but the rest I would describe as Members who have delusions of adequacy. Delusions of adequacy, Mr. Member. That, to me, is what it is all about.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I want to say how much I appreciate the Minister answering three of my questions. There were a couple of other brief ones that I put to him which he didn't comment on. That was the section of Highway 95 just south of Golden, the 15-mile section, as well as that situation near Skookumchuck. Maybe I am asking too much to expect consideration of paving shoulders on the extension of Highway 95. On those two particular points, the 15 miles south of Golden and the Skookumchuck-Wasa situation — the two level crossings and the single-lane bridge — I am wondering if the Minister has the information to convey to me. If he doesn't have it right now, and wants to check with his senior staff, maybe they'll come up with some favourable consideration. Maybe the Minister will answer me after someone else speaks.

HON. MR. LEA: I would just like to say that the suggestions and the information about Expo at Spokane, and the possible added use of that highway, I found a worthwhile comment. I will say that we know the shoulders there are becoming something that we have to look at. The highway itself we also realize is an area we have to look at.

The other matters that you raised: there has been no decision on the Wasa situation because there is not consensus within that area as to what should be done. I would welcome your coming to see me later and we will talk about. I would welcome that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks I would like to make if I can keep the tears back long enough. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, if the Minister can't run his own department and be responsible for what he does, he should resign, forthwith. He had better learn that in this Legislature the opposition fights for the rights of the taxpayers, regardless of how long it takes. If the Minister can't stand that, then, as I say, he had better resign. If the Minister makes mistakes, or doesn't answer, he doesn't do the things that the opposition feels he should do, it is our responsibility to advise the Minister accordingly.

When the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) stands on the floor of this Legislature and comes to the defence of the Minister, and tells us how honest he is and what a great guy he is, it is a pretty weak defence, in my estimation — particularly when he tells this Hon. Member that he wasted the time of this House during discussion on Bill 42.

[ Page 1863 ]

I know what he was talking about, Mr. Chairman. Telling me that I wasted the time of this House! I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, some of the predictions I made during Bill 42, when I said that communist regime over there was going to do certain things, will go down in history as the greatest predictions ever made in this Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: When I said they were going to confiscate land, when I said they were going to tax you off your land, that is coming into being.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Could you keep your remarks to the Minister's vote, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure, Mr. Chairman. It's all right for a Minister of the Crown to get up and talk about anything under the sun, but as soon as a Member of the opposition does it, well, that old iron heel comes down, the mallet comes down. Closure! If you are going to be fair, Mr. Chairman, be fair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member, on a point of order.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the Member withdraw the accusation that this is a communist administration.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll withdraw that, Mr. Chairman. Time will prove that I am right, and that's all that is necessary.

The Minister of Highways is very, very touchy about this $18,000 helicopter trek. And well he should be because he made a mistake hiring a 12-seat helicopter to go visit the highways in the north.

How in heaven's name is he going to ride on the highways to see what they are like when he is joy riding over them in a great big 12-seat Sikorsky helicopter? You made a mistake, Mr. Minister. Why don't you stand up and admit it? — instead of flowering it off and saying this is 1974.

And he says he is going to take some helicopter trips. Where is it in your estimates then? Where are you going to go with a $7,000 travel allowance? How many days are you going to spend in a helicopter at $2,000 a day, Mr. Minister? Are you meaning to tell me in this Legislature this evening that he is going to take more helicopter trips? If he is going to do it again, why doesn't he put it in his estimates?

No wonder it is taking so long to get this estimate through. If this is the kind of hogwash we are having, we might as well not even have estimates.

We in the opposition are after the truth; we want to know where you are going to spend your money and we want a true estimate. I'll tell you that the Minister has proved to me here tonight that this estimate for his travel allowance isn't worth the paper it's written on if he tells me he's going to take more helicopter trips next year at $2,000 a day.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I want to tell you, I'm not jealous at all. All we want is the truth. Here's a Minister who last year spent $18,000 of the taxpayers' money on one single trip.

Do you realize that's only $2,000 less than the entire estimates for the Premier's travel in a year, and he plans on going to Japan. The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) is going to Japan and his travel estimate is $7,000. Yet the Minister of Highways who is going to helicopter around the province has travel estimates of only $7,000. How do you expect me to swallow all that, Mr. Chairman? Do I look that gullible? I want to know where in these estimates the Minister put the money that he's going to take these future helicopter trips with.

I think it's ironic, as I said in the very beginning, that the Minister of Highways uses a helicopter to go look at roads. There are airplanes; he could have flown into the area of the Peace River country and got a bus. They have 8 and 12 passenger vehicles you can rent to drive over the highways. Did he need a 12-place helicopter at $2,000 a day? Of course not.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) says the Minister of Highways is being honest. Oh, he's being so honest it hurts! He's not going to be honest. I want the Minister of Highways to tell me where in his estimates is the money for those future helicopter trips.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 98 pass?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Chairman, vote 98 shall not pass until I get an answer to this very, very important question.

HON. MR. KING: I rise tonight with a bit of unusual feeling. I have to give some support and some comfort to the...

MR. PHILLIPS: You're the second Minister to defend him.

HON. MR. KING: ...Social Credit opposition on that side of the House because I can really understand their feeling and have some sympathy for it.

They seem highly suspicious; they seem unwilling to accept statements put forward by the Minister of Highways. In fact, that's symptomatic of their whole approach throughout this session. I think we have to be somewhat understanding why they take that

[ Page 1864 ]

position.

I can remember some outstanding names over the years. I can remember in the 1950s when controversies developed over highway contracts. I can remember searching the court record, as a matter of fact, in my own hometown of Revelstoke and reading the testimony of such people as Lymburner, Thornton and Mr. Thompson.

I can recall a highly unusual situation where the Minister of Highways of that day did not even deal with the contractors who were employed to do the work on the highway. Rather, there was a middle man whom he met and discussed these contracts with in church. Under those circumstances, perhaps it's understandable that that opposition is very suspicious and unwilling to trust the word of a cabinet Minister in this administration. It would seem that the record of the Highways Minister under the former Social Credit government was certainly highly suspect.

I think it's a bit shabby that we have this kind of harangue day in and day out, night in and night out on questions that are not a valid issue of highway construction policy in this province.

MR. CHABOT: Smear.

HON. MR. KING: Not smear, Mr. Member for Columbia River, but a matter of court record. Not innuendo, a matter of court record that can be produced. That is the record. It's not a matter of innuendo and refusal to accept statements of Members in this House, which has been the characteristic of that opposition all through this session. I think it's pretty shocking.

The people of this province deserve a good, critical opposition, by all means, and a fair analysis of the estimates of each department. But surely it should be based on something that is a worthwhile public consideration, not silly and frivolous questions of whether or not the Minister justified the expenses of travelling around to inspect highways in a helicopter. I can't remember too much time spent discussing whether or not trips home on the government jet for church functions were justifiable or not, but surely tours of inspection for valid matters within one's department are unquestionably proper with any Minister's responsibilities.

If the opposition wants to deal in that way, perhaps we should analyse why they feel that way and feel some sympathy for them. It's the sins of the father being visited upon the son and we can understand their emotions.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there was a second Minister's defence, Mr. Chairman — and what did he say? Absolutely nothing. He tried to dig down in the past to justify the present. I want to tell you, I wasn't here in 1952. I'm here and it's 1974. The Minister of Highways spent $18,000 on a helicopter trip last summer and he tells me he is going to take more helicopter trips. If there's anything that you can't understand about that, Mr. Minister of Labour, you need a pair of glasses. That helicopter trip cost $18,000 and the Minister has clearly stated twice — not once but twice — in this Legislature that he's clearly going to take more helicopter trips this year.

I am asking a very simple question: where in the Department of Highways estimates for the fiscal year 1974-75 is the money allocated for these helicopter trips? Is there anything underhanded or unique or shadowy or cloudy about a straightforward, simple question like that? Even your backbench understands it. Where is it in the estimates?

The only thing I see in the estimates for travelling by the Minister is a sum of $7,000. As I have pointed out before, the entire travel budget of the Premier is $20,000. The entire travel budget of the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) is $7,000. Both of these gentlemen are not just going to the Peace River area, not just within the province; the Premier will probably go to Ottawa three or four times and also to Japan. The entire travel estimate expenditures is $20,000. The Minister of Highways spent $18,000 on one eight-day trip and he has clearly stated — and I'll say it again — twice that he's going to take more trips this year.

Please, Mr. Minister, just tell me where — I don't think I am blind — in your departmental estimates is the money for these helicopter trips. A straight, simple question. All I ask, Mr. Chairman, is a straight, simple answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 98 pass?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I couldn't ask a more simple question. All I want is a simple answer from the Minister, and I think I am entitled to it without the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) getting up, and without the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) getting up and giving a big harangue about the Minister being honest. No, I am not going out in the hallway; I'm going to stay right in here until I get an answer.

MR. FRASER: It's not safe in the hallway around here.

MR. PHILLIPS: Where is it? Could I ask a simpler question? We are discussing the Minister's office, and his expenditure of $110,000, of which $7,000 is allocated for travel. No, I couldn't put it any more concisely. Where is the money for the helicopter trips?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Say it once more.

[ Page 1865 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll say it once more, Mr. Attorney-General. You shouldn't be frivolous about it, not at all. There's the Attorney-General.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't care who went on the trip. I wasn't on the trip and I don't think it was necessary.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what I said.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not mad at all. I'm not mad. It's your Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) and your Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) who seem to be mad. All I am asking is a simple, straightforward question of the Attorney-General. What is in his estimates this year for travel? Seven thousand dollars. You'll probably be off to Ottawa and all over the country. Okay, we're going to get an answer.

HON. MR. LEA: I shouldn't have to do this, but I will. Before I say that, I'd like to say that there was a Member of the opposition and that's good. I should also point out that I had my office phone the home of the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)...

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't care if you had the whole government....

HON. MR. LEA: ...and I have a letter back...

MR. PHILLIPS: I want an answer.

HON. MR. LEA: ...from that Member saying how sorry he was that he wouldn't be there to come along. He'd be in New Brunswick visiting his folks. He said he was sorry that he couldn't be along and wished me the best.

Well, there's nothing wrong with that, and there's nothing wrong with the Minister of Highways and his senior staff and the MLAs travelling throughout this province to talk with people, to listen, and to try and better the road system throughout this province.

Now, where are the charges? That, of course, doesn't come under the personal vote of the Minister. It comes where it should come under the maintenance vote under vote 100. That's where it comes, and it's the proper place for it. When public accounts come along you will be able to check it all out.

I'm surprised that these estimates from the very beginning, not only mine but for the whole government, have not been treated as estimates. What does "estimate" mean? It means we are going to make an estimation of how much money we are going to spend. How much money we have spent should be under the perusal of a committee which you chair, Mr. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser): public accounts. And so it does. That's the way it's done under the British parliamentary system wherever the British parliamentary system works. It's done that way here.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

HON. MR. COCKE: Except when they were here.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, yes. As the Minister of Health says, except when they were here; it wasn't done then. That's where it is going to be. You have your answer, Mr. Member for South Peace River. You know that was the proper answer and you knew that before you asked.

MR. PHILLIPS: I fail to see it under vote 100, which is "Roads, Bridges, Ferries, Wharves and Tunnels — Maintenance and Operation, Repairs, Snow and Ice Removal." Under that we have, and I'll read it: "Salaries, maintenance staff: $2,152,074. Expenses (including seasonal, steady, daily rate, and casual staff): $67,800,000.

What kind of a snow job am I getting here? It's all salaries; every bit of it — the entire $69,952,074 — is for salaries. How can he justify taking out of that maybe $20,000 or $30,000 for a helicopter trip? Maybe they've changed things over there. I thought that travel was for travel. What is the $7,000 under the Minister's vote?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon. Member for South Peace River that the estimates we are considering are for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, and this helicopter trip took place in the current fiscal year. Therefore, these estimates would not obviously contain any item....

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, you've just come in. Had you been listening you would have understood what I was talking about. I'm talking about the proposed helicopter trips the Minister has been telling me he is going to take in the next fiscal year. All I've asked is where in his estimates is the money for the proposed helicopter trips.

HON. MR. LEA: And I told you.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think the Minister is trying to give me a snow job. As a matter of fact, I know he's trying to give me a snow job. He told me he's going to take out of salaries — and that's exactly what it is — for day labour.... Oh, the Minister doesn't want to answer.

[ Page 1866 ]

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you know, Mr. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), that answer was not entirely truthful. It was not and you know it. What do you think I am? Stupid or something?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I hope you had a lot of fun with that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Members to refrain from making personal imputations against one another. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. COCKE: I withdraw that remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would also ask the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) to withdraw any imputation that the statements made by the Hon. Minister of Highways were untruthful.

MR. PHILLIPS: I really don't know what else to think because no one is going to tell me that helicopter trips which are going to be taken next year are going to come out of a salary vote. Now, listen; let's be reasonable. If the Minister has made a mistake in saying that he is going to take more helicopter trips and forgot to put it in his estimates, I'll accept that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: But I don't think it's fair that the Minister of Highways should stand on his feet in this Legislature and try and give me a snow job like that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The choice of words you made is a more appropriate choice in that respect and I would ask the Hon. Member to continue.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I would like the Minister to stand in this Legislature and tell me where the money is going to come from. Don't try and stand up and give me a snow job that he's going to take it out of a salary vote.

Listen. We are all supposed to be honourable Members in this Legislature. That's right. Don't tell me, Mr. Minister of Health, that you back up that statement the Minister of Highways just tried to give me. Do you back it up? Oh, you do. One lies and the other backs it. No, I withdraw that, Mr. Chairman.

I want the truth. I want the truth, the simple truth and nothing but the truth. If the Minister of Highways made a mistake, let him stand up and tell me he made a mistake. But I won't buy a snow job like that; I can't buy a snow job like that.

How much in this complete vote of $69,952,000, which is the day labour vote for "Roads, Bridges, Ferries, Wharves, Tunnels — Maintenance and Operation Repairs, Snow and Ice Removal," is for helicopter trips?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We are on vote 98. I would ask the Hon. Member to ask questions relevant to vote 98.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, if I could see into travel expenditures the expected expenditures for helicopter trips. The Minister has said it's under this vote. I can't leave vote 98 until I am assured how much money is in this other vote for these helicopter trips. I think it's in the wrong vote, Mr. Chairman. And I'll merely ask a simple question for the Minister to tell me: Of that $69,952,074, how much of it is for helicopter trips?

HON. MR. LEA: I think this is really getting silly. I was not the only person on that trip; I had senior staff....

MR. PHILLIPS: That has nothing to do with it. I asked you a simple question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. LEA: I had MLAs with me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. LEA: I had staff from the region with me. If you will look at vote 100, you will see it says: "Maintenance and Operation." If you don't call that part of the operation.... If you will look there, Mr. Member, you won't find toilet paper either, and I can assure you right now we are going to be buying some. Are you going to be saying that that's not right? We are going to be buying a number of things out of this vote and then public accounts will come along. You are able as legislators to take us to account for what we have spent under that vote. It's simple; it's parliamentary. It'd done wherever the British parliamentary system works and it's done here.

For a man who belonged to the same party as the previous government — they had their aircraft in that vote. They didn't have the British parliamentary sense to put a vote like that separately where it should have been.

You know that vote is the proper vote in my opinion. It's the proper vote according to one of my senior staff members who has been with this government for a great many years and has been in this House in estimates for 17 years. Are you doubting my word that that's where it's supposed to go when I have the advice of people who have been around and know what this is all about and tell me

[ Page 1867 ]

that that's the right vote? I don't think you are going to do that. It is the correct place for it. That's where it was and that's it.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...previous helicopter trips by the Minister of the Department of Highways, to my knowledge. All right, I'll....

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll show you in public accounts....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, you can buy a lot of toilet paper for $18,000. Why then, Mr. Chairman, does the Minister have a travel expense allowance under his salary if he's going to do his travelling under vote 100? Simple question. Tell me. Why do you have it in there at all? Is that strictly for travel out of town? Are you going to mislead the province, the people of this province...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, just let me finish. Are you going to mislead the people of this province? Any normal citizen would assume that that $69,952,074 is for road maintenance, bridges, wharves and tunnels, maintenance and operation repairs, snow and ice removal. No ordinary citizen who reads the public accounts of British Columbia would think that the Minister...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: ...would take $20,000, $30,000 out of repairs to bridges to go helicoptering around the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated if he is not going to obey the Chair ?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, certainly I'll obey the Chair. What do you want me to do?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member whether he is making the accusation against the Minister of Highways that he is misleading the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not making any accusations, Mr. Chairman. I'm merely asking him a simple question. I feel, unless he can prove to me otherwise — if this is a misleading vote, if there are such things as helicopter trips in it — when it clearly states that it's for maintenance of roads, bridges, ferries, wharves and tunnels, maintenance and operation repairs, snow and ice removal.... It doesn't say anything about travelling around the province in a helicopter. Not one word of it.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I can see that if some of the senior staff have to go around the province in an ordinary automobile, which they are provided with — and that should be covered under "motor vehicles purchase of equipment...."

HON. MR. LEA: No, it's not. Same vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...vehicle damage claims." Same vote.

HON. MR. LEA: That's right.

MR. PHILLIPS: But it doesn't mean that the Minister of Highways is going to go helicoptering around the province.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, it does.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it doesn't.

Well, I'll have to tell the people of this province that if they don't get repairs to their bridges, to their roads, to their ferries, to their wharves, to their tunnels, the money has probably gone for a joyride for the Minister of Highways to go helicoptering around the province.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll stay away from the Freudian conversation that the Minister introduced for obvious reasons. I'll refer for a moment to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) who got up in quiet indignation and said that...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: ...he has great faith in the Minister of Highways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member for North Okanagan to treat the Hon. Minister of Highways as an Hon. Member of the House and not to make....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Minister of Highways on a point of order.

HON. MR. LEA: You know, I'm just a country boy. I don't know what Freudian means; would the Member explain that to me?

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm just a little country girl making my way in this...

[ Page 1868 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. JORDAN: ...cold, cruel, political world. And all I can say is, you just come out to the little farmyard with me and I'll tell you what the Freudian slip was.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, now I know what it means, Mr. Chairman, I am insulted. (Laughter.)

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I don't know what you do on your farm, Mr. Minister, but...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: ...we put in fence posts; we build...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon...?

MRS. JORDAN: ...ditches; we harvest the crop.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member return to the Minister's vote, please?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I'd be glad to, Mr. Chairman, because there are a lot of questions that we feel must be answered. I would like to refer to the comments by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), because they were brought into this vote by him and they asked: "Why, why, why, why do we not accept the fact that the Minister says the trip was all okay? Why are we asking questions?"

I just suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there are a number of reasons. It was expressed very clearly by the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) yesterday when, after three days of debate under the Minister of Health's (Mr. Cocke's) vote and only one Member of the government had spoken and questioned the health care in this province, the Member for Shuswap stood up and said: "We have complete and blind faith in our Minister."

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, while that other country boy down there may have complete and blind faith in his Ministers, the people in British Columbia don't. They have elected a government, much to the dismay of some of them, who are handling a great deal of money in this province, hard-earned taxpayers' money, and we have been charged, through our election as opposition, to see that this government accounts for this money. That's what we intend to do.

We don't accept the blind faith, and frankly, Mr. Chairman, when we see these Ministers get up with their halos so shiny and their innocence sparkling out of them...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon...?

MRS. JORDAN: ...one almost feels...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order!

MRS. JORDAN: ...the second coming has come.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member please ask some questions or make some comments relative...

MRS. JORDAN: I'm making comments, Mr. Chairman...

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...to vote 98?

MRS. JORDAN: ...and I'm referring to debate that you allowed under this vote. All I ask is that you be fair. Those two Ministers introduced it.

Mr. Minister, you have asked, through you, Mr. Chairman, why we can't accept your word that somehow you have $18,000 that you used to do a 15,000 ft. peep of the highways in the northern part of this province. I'll tell you why: because in just 18 short months of government, Mr. Minister, one of your own Ministers has had an unexplained and unceremonious dismissal from the cabinet. We had another...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: ...stand up here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order!

MRS. JORDAN: This is relevant to the vote, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is not relevant.

MRS. JORDAN: This Minister is using the same term...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order!

MRS. JORDAN: ...as the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), which is forgiven by....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will the Hon. Member be seated?

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, yes, Mr. Chairman, if you'd like me to.

[ Page 1869 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: And remain seated until I've made my comments.

I would just ask the Hon. Member.... I've asked her repeatedly to ask questions or make comments relative to the administrative responsibilities of the Minister under vote 98. You keep digressing onto other matters and introducing other things which are irrelevant to this particular vote. I would ask you to confine your remarks to vote 98.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your comments, but these are relevant comments because this Minister asked why. He's got up and he's waxed philosophical under his vote, and we've accepted this degree of latitude.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're not interested in general comments of this nature, Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't really care whether you're interested. I am concerned with the workings of this House. This Minister, who has pleaded and feigned innocence and refuses to answer questions, asks us, as an opposition, why we persist. I'm answering his question: because we've had one Minister in this House stand up and say "forgive us our sins" and he's holding...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order!

MRS. JORDAN: ...$200 cocktail parties for friends. We've got examples of the Premier of this province swearing in this House...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: ...and abusing people in the halls. That's why, Mr. Chairman, we have to ask these questions, and we will.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: I have some questions I'd like to ask. Are you going to speak, Mr. Chairman?

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: I had a good tutor, Mr. Member.

Are you going to speak, Mr. Chairman, or may I carry on?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for North Okanagan, I have given instructions that you must keep your remarks strictly relevant to this vote. Now, I'll allow you again an opportunity to speak, but if you fail to follow the directions of the Chair, I'll have no recourse but to ask you to not speak anymore.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, Mr. Chairman, are you going to throw me out of the House for asking questions?

Mr. Minister, you hired a helicopter for nine days at $2,000 a day and you went to Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vanderhoof, Burns Lake, Smithers, Terrace and Prince Rupert. You have made a great thing about inviting the Member from the Peace River to accompany you, and you waxed a lot of your defence around it. Out of those nine days, Mr. Minister — and I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, you will be interested to know — that Member was with you for a total period of two hours.

Now I want to know, in light of your letter that you are bringing the people with you and that you are advertising for people to meet with you — and you've said you spent a good deal of time with people, public groups, committees, regional districts, municipal councils — why on earth you had to be paying a helicopter $2,000 to sit on the ground while you were having all these meetings you've been telling us about. At Fort St. John, according to you, they have a regional district; they have a municipal council. I would assume, from the way you talk, that the people from Hudson Hope came down to see you and that among all these people you saw would be the chamber of commerce. And then there would be the environmentalists, and then there's likely to be the Fish and Wildlife.

I would suggest, on the basis of what the Minister has told us, Mr. Chairman, that he spent approximately six hours of his day meeting the public. Knowing what a fine politician he is, I'm sure he spent a little time down the street, and I would assume he ate during that time.

Mr. Minister, why did you have to have a helicopter if all these meetings that you talk about took place sitting on the ground at $2,000 a day? You can fly into most of these communities on a commercial flight — Prince George, Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Terrace and Prince Rupert.

This government, Mr. Chairman, has purchased a number of planes for government use. There are planes on lease to the Forestry department and to the Fish and Wildlife Branch. Why were not some of these planes used? Why was there not a government plane used to dump you down in Fort St. John and the Dawson Creek area, and then why didn't you drive out on these roads?

If the Minister had hired a helicopter up there for a specific trip, this would be understandable but there is a real conflict here in the Minister's statements, and it's backed up by his letter. All these people that he said he saw.... We love this Minister, but we know

[ Page 1870 ]

that he's a little bit wordy, so I don't imagine those conversations took place too quickly.

I would like to ask you, Mr. Minister, where you picked off this helicopter and at what point. Over and above the $18,000, that it cost you, how much in the way of expenses did you incur other than that, that don't show in that $18,000? I assume that you lived while you were there. I would like to know who paid the expenses of Mr. Ed Bodner, and I would assume that the other civil servants who went were paid through the usual channels.

I'd like to know your itinerary, Mr. Minister, tonight. I'm sure, in view of the fact that you knew this was a subject, and it has been a subject for several hours now, that you, being a very conscientious Minister, would have this itinerary with you, among the files of your officials.

I would ask, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister will file his daily guide, his hourly log for this trip, with the House tonight. Let us examine tonight who all the group were that he met with, and what time of day....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I did point out to the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) that we are considering estimates for the coming year. While it is quite within order to question Ministers on their past actions, it is much more appropriate to relate it to the estimates which we are considering for the coming year.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your comments, and I want to be appropriate, but it has been traditional in this House that where conduct of Ministers in the past year relating to their votes is a matter of public concern, the Members have been traditionally able to talk to them. I'm relating it to this year. The Minister has a lot of money under his jurisdiction, and as my colleague has pointed out, over and over again, we would like to know where the money is coming from for these other trips that the Minister has mentioned that he is going to take. I assume that he is coming to the Okanagan.

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, he's not much good to us in the Okanagan in a helicopter. We want him down, rutting through the potholes where the people are. That's our problem. We don't have any problem flying around in helicopters; the people there are too busy earning a living to be able to afford to fly helicopters — they have to drive their trucks over the potholes. But I will get into those specific areas under the rest of your vote, Mr. Minister. I studiously stayed away from this, in deference to you, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister says that his next year's trips will be coming under maintenance. I mentioned before that we have had wine and cheese parties in the Premier's office and cocktail parties in the Human Resources office and an $85,000 desk in the Minister of Industrial Development's (Hon. Mr. Lauk's) office....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: What all does "maintenance" mean under this Minister's vote? I can't really see that nine days at $2,000 a day, while he is sitting in the meeting room or the coffee house or wherever he was having all these meetings, is wise use of public money and is going to help the maintenance of highways in British Columbia.

There are some other matters that I would like to discuss with the Minister. It is really rather interesting that none of the NDP Members spoke during this debate. The paid time is up and they are in an awful hurry to get home and they don't seem to really care about what happens.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member confine her remarks to the vote before us?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, there is a most interesting rumour, through you, Mr. Chairman, emanating from your department. I would like to ask you about this, and what your plans are, and that is that you, in your wisdom, are planning to link a number of Gulf Islands by highways. (Laughter.) You know, it's a shame that senility has set in so early in that part of the House. This is 1974, and Mr. Minister, we want to know, because the people want to know, if you plan to try and bridge islands with the mainland and if you plan to link the Gulf Islands by a road. If so, when do you propose to commence this?

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I really wish that some of those little tweetybirds in the back that don't have the courage to stand up and fight for their constituents would stop twittering and stand up.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, we would like specific answers on that as to what your plans are — you're the Minister now. What studies have you done?

The next question that I would like to ask is: what is the Minister and his staff doing about evolving a policy for road construction and maintenance into recreational areas in British Columbia? There is a great need, especially in light of the increasing inflation that we have experienced in B.C. — a good deal of it attributable to this government's

[ Page 1871 ]

administration. We have a lot of non-profit societies in British Columbia, operating small ski areas. There are some commercial ones operating on a commercial basis which are essentially designed to serve the needs of the people in the area. But mostly I am concerned about the non-profit societies. It is getting so that these ski hills and recreational hills.... I don't want to refer to them specifically as ski hills, because it is my personal opinion that these areas must become very broad in their recreational content, not just for skiing. There should be bobsledding, skating, sleighriding and other activities, so that in the wintertime and in the summertime they can be used. I give you as an example Forbidden Plateau.

What are you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, doing to regularize a programme in British Columbia where the provincial government is contributing in the maintenance and the cost-sharing of these areas? There is a report, Mr. Minister, and I can't tell you where it is, but I did it myself, and it was based on contacting every single ski area in the Province of British Columbia. There was a great deal of work put in on their part and a great deal of information came forward. From that, it was very, very easy to conclude that there was a need for a province-wide programme for government assistance in road building and maintenance into ski areas.

Further to that, Mr. Minister, I would like to know your policy in relation to road development in these ski areas. Many of them are not in parks; many of them are in forest lands and many of them have roads that basically come under your jurisdiction, because you have to decide as Minister what your policy is going to be. Are you going to do for endless blacktop in the form of parking areas into ski areas or is the government going to embark on a project to utilize busing to recreational areas? This is something that I personally feel, and I feel certain that many of the rest of the Members of this House feel, is an essential decision, and a decision which must be reached now between you and the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford).

Mr. Chairman, there are many of us who feel that we should move toward keeping transportation of any major nature away from ski areas and recreational areas. If you look up at Mt. Seymour, if you look at what is going to happen at Cypress Bowl, and look at the area I represent, all around the province, as these areas become more popular, there is an ever greater push for more parking lots and more parking lots and more parking lots. These scar the countryside; they tend to expand to the point where everybody is dashing in to the single first parking lot. In fact, we have looked to a future, unless something is done, where half of our mountain areas will be covered with parking lots.

I would like the Minister's comments on this: That the government undertake some pilot projects in suitable areas in British Columbia, and undertake to help support it to introduce bus services as a means of major transportation into some of these recreational areas.

You only need a major turnaround area. It does mean that the ski resort or the ski facility has to put in more lickers so that people who use it regularly can leave their skis up there. But I don't think this is a insurmountable problem.

Again, as we talk in terms of transportation changes and the changing of habits of transportation in the metropolitan areas, I believe we have to think in terms of a change in attitude in transportation into recreational areas.

It's incumbent on this imaginative but unanswering Minister to fulfill some of the promises that he's made to us tonight, which haven't been very concrete. Basically they have sailed around the fact that he's full of vim, vigour, vitality and imagination.

This is something you can sink your teeth into, Mr. Minister. Take the bull by the horns, take your Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) by the hand and sit down and pinpoint some areas. You can start with Forbidden Plateau which is a non-profit society, and undertake a bus service into the ski area.

I believe that there are many ski areas where there will be snowmobile junctions in co-ordination with them, otherwise we're going to have mazes of ski chalets and mazes of snowmobile chalets. I think we all recognize the concern there is on the part of skiers not to have snowmobiles too close to them, and this is a legitimate concern. The snowmobilers don't want to be close to the skiers either. But we also cannot have our mountains dotted with every type of chalet catering to every group. We're going to have to combine the facilities for some of these interests. You can build housing, with a fenced snowmobile area, within a reasonable distance of the bus route. Then people who might come for a week of snowmobiling in that area will take their snowmobile up, rent a space in the housing area, which is locked up, and then use the bus as a form of transportation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: This all comes under the Minister's vote, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: You can answer, Mr. Minister. I hope when you do answer you will give me some of the other answers I've asked, and file your itinerary with the House tonight.

In listening to his answer, I would also like to know if the Minister, in fact, will undertake some pilot projects for busing into recreational areas in

[ Page 1872 ]

British Columbia. And if he will, in fact, undertake some pilot projects for busing into recreational areas in British Columbia. And if he will, in fact, undertake a province-wide equal programme of financial assistance to ski areas and recreational areas where it isn't practical to use the bus system at this time.

I have a number of other things that I want to ask the Minister in relation to his vote. Maybe you would like me to go on to this now, Mr. Chairman, or is the Minister prepared to answer?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member for North Okanagan to try to make her comments more relevant to the Minister's vote. I believe the matters that she was discussing are more properly considered under other departments. I would ask her to relate her remarks to his estimates.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I'm interested to hear the Minister's answers on the itinerary, the hours, the groups that he met with, and how you justified this $2,000 a day expense when he is meeting with all these groups.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I probably only have time to answer one of the questions now.

I'd like to take my hat off to that Member who has been a searcher of truth, who has ferreted things out that I've tried to keep hidden, and which the previous Minister has tried to keep hidden. Yes, Mr. Chairman there are plans within the department to build a bridge across the Gulf Islands to the mainland. I quite admit we've tried to keep it hidden.

Those plans were ordered by P.A. Gaglardi when he was the Minister. They are the only plans I know of within the Department of Highways. And any time, Madam Member, that you want to come over and take a look at those plans, not only can you look at them, you can take them with you. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Nice shot!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order!

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see after an average attendance of 11 Members of the NDP party in this House during this debate that they are all back in. I am also glad to see that for once today they're awake.

I also am most pleased that the Minister answered the question. Mr. Minister, I know those plans are there, but we want to know what you're going to do. This government is completely incapable of realizing that it's 1974 and they are government. That facetious and very humorous remark by the Minister.... I enjoy his humour; I enjoy humour all the time. But I would assure you, Mr. Chairman, that sort of nonsense in terms of the millions of dollars he is spending is the reason that this opposition is determined to find out the truth from this Minister.

We are determined to find out where he is going to spend the money. We are determined that this House and the public know where that money is spent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good night, Pat.

MRS. JORDAN: The Premier of this province goes to the great Ottawa conference, and what is he doing? He's politicking in Nova Scotia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Say good night now.

MRS. JORDAN: This government needs to come under scrutiny more than any other government that we've had in the history of British Columbia. Eighteen short months and your record is almost as long as Al Capone's.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, 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 p.m.