[ Page 1873 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Drug Addiction Rehabilitation Act, 1974 (Bill 99). Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 1873

Hospital Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 79). Hon. Mr. Cocke.

Introduction and first reading — 1873

Committee of Supply: Department of Highways estimates.

On vote 98.

Mr. McClelland — 1873

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1879

Mr. Smith — 1880

Mr. McClelland — 1880

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1881

Mr. McClelland — 1881

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1882

Mr. McClelland — 1883

Mr. Gardom — 1883

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1883

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1884

Mr. Gardom — 1884

Mr. Fraser — 1885

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1887

Mr. Fraser — 1888

Mr. McClelland — 1888

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1889

Mrs. Jordan — 1891

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1897

Mr. Lewis — 1898

Mr. McClelland — 1899

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1899

Mr. Phillips — 1899

Mr. Schroeder — 1899

Mr. Morrison — 1900

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1900

Mr. Morrison — 1901

FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 1974

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

DRUG ADDICTION
REHABILITATION ACT, 1974

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 99, Drug Addiction Rehabilitation Act, 1974, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HOSPITAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Cocke presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Hospital Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 79 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

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. R. H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I rise on this vote for the first time, not having had the opportunity to speak on the Highways estimates before. I want to take this opportunity to mention a few things. And I can't resist the impulse, Mr. Chairman, to respond to some of the comments made in the House last night under this estimate — and particularly those comments made by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) who wondered in the House last evening why some of the Members on this side of the House wouldn't accept the statements of the Minister.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it's pretty obvious why we won't accept some of the statements of the Ministers of this government when you consider the record of the Ministers of this government — when you consider, Mr. Chairman...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order!

MR. McCLELLAND: ...that the Minister of Agriculture has been accused of lying by the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis)....

Interjections.

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

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: When the Chair wishes to make a point, it's requested that the Hon. Member...Order! Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) withdraw the imputation that the Hon. Member for Langley lied?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Attorney-General stand in his place and withdraw the remark?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now the point to the Hon. Member for Langley is that when the Chair is seeking to make a point, it is necessary that the Hon. Member be silent.

I would ask the Hon. Member for Langley, when he is discussing these estimates, to keep his remarks strictly relevant to this Minister and not bring in the actions or the other comments about other Ministers of this House, but rather stay strictly to this Minister. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I seek only to respond to comments that were made in these estimates last evening by other Members of this House, You allowed them complete latitude in speaking about things far beyond the estimates of the Highways Minister.

I just suggest that there are very good reasons why we won't accept baldly the statements made by the Minister of Highways. Those reasons are based on the record of some of the other Ministers of this government and some of the other Members of this government.

We can't accept those statements without some kind of back-up proof with them. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) last evening talked at length about things that the former government had done, and used those examples to attempt to destroy the credibility of the opposition.

[ Page 1874 ]

I just wish to read briefly, Mr. Chairman, from a Supreme Court case in which Justice Anderson said,

"The sad part of this case is that the true facts were not printed for the purpose of showing, for example, that Dowding was willing to unfairly attack others by means of innuendo and insinuation, and that Williams was simply not telling the truth."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: Now, Mr. Chairman, that's why we can't accept those statements of those Ministers on that side of the House. That's why.

AN HON. MEMBER: A supreme court judge.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is deliberately flouting the rules of the House.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order. I called him to order previously.... Order, please! I called the Hon. Member for Langley to order on the very point which he then raised. That was that he was not to read into the record or to make comments on the conduct of other Ministers when he's considering the estimates of the Minister of Highways. Direct your comments to this Minister's estimates under vote 98.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will accept your ruling, and I would expect that you'll make the same ruling for other Members of this House from now on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member is allowed to rise on a point of order at any time if he feels that the rules are not being followed.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I just made that comment that I hope you will treat everyone in this House the same.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak for a moment about subdivision approvals. The Minister of Highways has suggested at other points in this debate that subdivision approvals are just a sort of an adjunct to his department, that they aren't very important.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that they take up far too much time in his department. His department at times becomes a zoning department, and some of the members of his department are almost zoning tsars in British Columbia.

I notice in the report from the Highways department that in 1973 the Highways approving office dealt with almost 19,000 subdivision questions. It's hardly an insignificant part of the duties of the Highways department. I would suggest, too, that on many occasions the Minister of Highways is getting bad advice about these subdivision approvals from someone.

I would suggest as well, Mr. Chairman, that he must begin to get more local input into these subdivision approvals, because it's obvious that no one takes into consideration what is actually happening at the local level when they're considering the subdivision approvals.

I can recall a couple of occasions in the city of Langley for instance where a building on the Fraser Highway was substantially complete and the tenants were about to move in when they got an order from the Highways department that that rezoning couldn't take place because it didn't meet with the Highways department criteria. That was after the building was almost ready to be moved into.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Why were they building before it was zoned?

MR. McCLELLAND: They had all the approvals from the city of Langley. They went ahead on the basis that they had all the necessary approvals they needed from the local government, whom they trusted, you see. They trusted the local government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, what's wrong now, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Minister of Highways not to interrupt.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, it's his fault, is it?

These people had all the legislation they felt was necessary and the city of Langley told them they were allowed to go ahead. In fact, they hadn't had any objections from the Highways department. But the Highways department woke up one morning, found they didn't understand what was going on and wanted to put a halt to this zoning. That was after several months; in fact, almost a year later. The building was substantially completed.

I think there was another case in 100 Mile House where a building was ready to be moved into and the Highways department all of a sudden woke up and said, "Oh, we can't give you the necessary approvals to start building."

I'm suggesting that those people in that department who are charged with subdivision approvals don't know what's happening at the local level. That's why we have so much difficulty in this province with subdivision approvals which are

[ Page 1875 ]

directly controlled by the Highways department. The Minister last night suggested perhaps he wouldn't mind having that kind of thing removed from his department, and I say Amen to that. Let's get it out of that department as quickly as possible.

I recall another occasion where a person in Delta had applied for a highways access to a golf course. The reply came back from the Highways department that, no, they couldn't have that highway access but you can use this so-and-so road to get into the golf course. When we went down and looked at it, climbed in a car and attempted to get anywhere near that place, we couldn't even find that road. There was no such road; it had no beginning, it had no end, and it had no middle. It took us five miles to get into the golf course after we had driven by it from a major British Columbia highway. The Highways department didn't even know that road didn't exist.

What I'm trying to say is that there isn't any local knowledge in the Highways department office, and they're making bad decisions based on bad advice. It's not good enough because they're holding up important developments in this province and they're also creating serious problems especially with regard to accesses and local development because of that bad advice.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: I wonder if the Public Works Minister (Hon. Mr. Hartley) could fix that noise down there. Chirp, chirp. Would you call that whatever-it-is to order, Mr. Chairman; I'm having difficulty concentrating.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member standing order 17(2) which says: "When a Member is speaking, no Member shall pass between him and the Chair nor interrupt him except to raise a point of order." I would ask the Hon. Members not to interrupt the person who has the floor.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In response to the Minister's comments that there should never be any development along arterial highways, it doesn't really matter if you take development and move it inside of a town centre or wherever it's being suggested to be moved. The highway is going to be used anyway, and probably just as heavily regardless of where you place that development.

I agree that there shouldn't be major shopping centre developments and major hotels along the connectors which are meant to move people inter-region ally. But, nevertheless, there can be some kinds of development which are compatible with those highways and which don't create any more use than they would if that development was put somewhere else. I say it's a bit of a cop-out just to say, "Well, because we haven't handled it correctly in the past we won't allow any development of any kind."

Rather than just standing still and halting everything, we should get some planning going, decide what kind of uses can be compatible with those inter-regional highways, and use them to their best advantage. Don't just say we won't do anything. Of course, the only way you won't make any mistakes is if you never do anything, but you don't get anything done either. Let's get some planning going and find some uses that are compatible with those inter-regional highways. It isn't necessary that nothing go on in those areas.

The Minister's comments about tourism leave me somewhat aghast. I don't understand why he would make those kind of comments considering that we live in a province which bases its livelihood to a large degree on a pollution-free industry like tourism.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon. Member that the subject of the Minister's comments on tourism has been canvassed at length and virtually every point has been made. But if the Hon. Member has a new point to make, we would be glad to entertain it.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, you're very itchy this morning. I intend to make a couple of new points and I haven't canvassed this subject at all. I want to comment that the Minister is in danger of jeopardizing a very important industry to British Columbia. His comments in the paper the other morning of tourists not contributing anything to this economy, of them bringing their own gas has.... For crying out loud, this conjures up some kind of picture of a camper rolling down the road with 45-gallon drums of gasoline strapped to the top of the roof of the camper. It's incredible!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member, when I made the cautionary riding that this subject had been canvassed at length, under standing order 43, the point is made that speeches tend to become tediously repetitious when the arguments that have been used previously by the same person or by other persons in a debate are repeated. I'm just cautioning the Member to try to introduce new points rather than repeating arguments that have already been made.

MR. McCLELLAND: Would you point out to me in Hansard where anyone mentioned the comments made by the Minister about bringing their own gasoline into the province? I'd appreciate that so I don't go over that point again. I don't think it's been

[ Page 1876 ]

mentioned, Mr. Chairman; it's a new point. I don't think you can find it in Hansard or anywhere else. If you'll allow me to continue, we'll get through this much more quickly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member may continue if he's speaking on a new point.

MR. McCLELLAND: The comment made about the campers and tourists bringing in their own gasoline is just incredible because they don't bring in their own gasoline and they don't bring in large supplies of food, moose meat strapped on top of the camper, picnic lunches which will last for seven months. It's just incredible, Mr. Chairman. Those people come into our province because they love our province as we do; they want to visit us because we've said to them in ads in newspapers all over the country, come and see us. The travel Minister (Hon. Mr. Hall) says come and see us. We want them to come and see us. They spend their money in this country; they leave their money here. They're good citizens; they're good neighbours; they're good visitors. They don't litter the countryside. They're just fine people whom we like to see in this country and we want them to come. I hope every Member in this House except the Highways Minister will stand up and say that visitors to Canada and British Columbia are most welcome.

If we follow the example laid down by the Highways Minister, I can tell you that half of the roadside gasoline stations, cafes and motels would be out of business in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That particular point has been raised by other Members.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister also made the comment in one of his press releases not too long ago that we mustn't allow uninhibited tourism. That's a strange statement. That's the kindest I can be. The Minister may look like a fuzzy bear, but he's acting like an ostrich. You've got to get your head out of the ground. We want tourists in this province; we expect we'll get them. We want to plan — "plan" is the operative word — so that we can look after them like good hosts, as you've pointed out.

One of the greatest opportunities for Canadians came when the Rogers Pass Highway was originally opened because it allowed Canadians from all parts of this country to come and visit with us in British Columbia. It allowed us to go and visit with other parts of Canada on a more easy basis than we had ever known before. Because of the ruggedness of the travel opportunities in the past, we didn't see many visitors in British Columbia from Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Ontario. Lots from Alberta, I suppose, because it was much closer. But we didn't really see as many licence plates on the vehicles from other parts of Canada as we did from the United States before the Rogers Pass was opened.

But following that we began to see that Canadians were taking advantage of their country and intermingling between the provinces and it was because of the opening of that highway. That invitation was sent out to other Canadians to come and visit British Columbia — whether they come by car or by camper or by car and trailer or by bicycle or whatever. But we certainly don't want to be put into the position today, Mr. Chairman, of saying to those other Canadians: "Well, it's been fun, folks, but don't come back."

I don't want to see British Columbia get into that kind of position.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister commented, I think, in response to the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan)...and this is just a bit of an aside about road reports. I wanted to comment that the Highways department, at least on the lower mainland — and that is the only area with which I am familiar — should be commended for the manner in which they are handling road reports today, because I know that the lower mainland radio stations have complete access to taped road reports every morning, and it's very helpful.

I can remember, as the Minister pointed out in the House, I think yesterday, that there was a time when a radio newsroom just simply couldn't get any information from the Highways department about road conditions. But today that's not true, and it hasn't been for a couple of years, I think.

Now people who are travelling from the lower mainland to upcountry can simply turn on their radio at a given time or pick up the phone and phone a number and they can find out what the conditions are — pretty well up to date — all over the province. I think that's an excellent addition to the services provided by the Highways department.

I wonder if the Minister might comment, Mr. Chairman, on what the department is doing, if anything, with its limited resources, its limited funds and its limited responsibility — since a lot of things seem to have been taken out of the Highways department jurisdiction — about research into new highway materials, new highway building materials.

It seems to me that in this country we've not changed our methods in decades. We're still using exactly the same material on our highways. You hear and read about discoveries which are made in other parts of the world with regard to new materials for making highways both easier to drive on and safer to drive on. I just wonder what we are doing in that regard.

I know, too, Mr. Chairman, that there are people locally in British Columbia who hold patents on new methods of highway construction — new materials for

[ Page 1877 ]

highway construction. I wonder whether or not the Highways department actively seeks these people out to come and talk with them about new ideas because, obviously, there can be better ways. There can be surfaces which are.... You know, we talk about safety belts and the use of safety belts, Mr. Chairman. Why not the use of perhaps better materials on the roads to make sure they are as safe as possible? What is the Highways department doing about that?

The other thing that the Minister mentioned was: "Let's all buy Datsuns so we can save gasoline." Why talk about that kind of method of moving a person from one kind of a car to another?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that this subject has been canvassed several times; therefore, I would ask him again, if he has a new point, to raise it. Otherwise, move to another subject.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, be fair. Allow me to continue until I make my new point and if I don't make it, then call me to order.

Well, the Chairman is so touchy this morning. I don't know what's wrong because I am going to make a new point. You know, by listening to me in this House over the years, that I wouldn't be repetitious or repeat subjects which have been well canvassed. You know that, Mr. Chairman, and you should trust me. (Laughter.)

The thing the Minister should be doing, rather than trying to move people from one type of car to another type of car, is to convince people to stay out of their cars.

You know, we talk about the third crossing of Burrard Inlet; we complain about how those two crossings are jammed up. Yet if we parked our car down in front of that bridge at 8 o'clock in the morning or at 8:30, we would see, coming across that bridge, daddy in his car heading to work; momma in her car heading to shopping; junior in his car heading to university — three and four cars, Mr. Chairman, out of each family coining across the bridge with one person in them.

What we've got to convince people to do is to double up. If they want to use their car, if they must use their car, well, why take all of those cars across the bridge? It isn't a matter of using a smaller car; it's a matter of better utilization of the vehicles. If we trade in 10 Chevrolets for 10 or 15 Datsuns — and we will need 15 because the large families can't use the smaller cars — then where have we saved anything? We haven't saved anything. We've compounded the problem, that's all we've done.

So what we need to do is to start some kind of a programme. Why don't we be the first in North America to really start a programme which will attempt to discourage people from using their car's? We'd go down in history as a bold and imaginative government, That's part of the responsibilities of the Highways department.

So to get them to utilize their vehicles better, you don't tell them to buy Datsuns. You get them to utilize the vehicles on a better basis. And we'll make even the car dealers richer, Mr. Chairman, because people will use their vehicles in a better manner.

I want to mention just briefly the level crossings on Highway 401. I kind of get the idea that Highway 401 is a schizophrenic road. It doesn't know what it is. It doesn't know whether it's a freeway or a local access road. If it were really a freeway, it wouldn't have any level crossings. If it didn't have any level crossings, we'd be saving a lot of lives, Mr. Chairman. I hope you won't rule me out of order for talking about the lives of our automobile passengers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I was just going to make the point again that this matter has been canvassed by at least two other Members.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, it has been mentioned once in this debate. It happens to be of great concern to my constituency as well, because my people travel down that 401 to Chilliwack and farther, and they want to be sure that that road is maintained in as safe a manner as possible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would assume that the Hon. Member has read the answers of the Minister of Highways on the questions that were put previously; so I assume he is making a new point.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I am just expanding on the point that we need action as quickly as possible to make sure that level crossings are eliminated from freeways.

There are also a number of roads in the lower mainland which should be reclassified.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I don't know whether you call it down or up. Which way? — sideways, maybe. The point is that we need extra arterial highways which will help to ease many of the traffic problems which are now existent in the lower mainland.

There are some excellent roads already existing. I can think of 16th Avenue in Langley, for instance, which almost traverses the entire lower mainland from White Rock east. That road is already there. There are north-south roads which are already there, and in pretty fair shape, which the Highways department could easily reclassify and develop into major inter-regional roads, It's necessary for us to establish some new

[ Page 1878 ]

inter-regional roads pretty quickly before we strangle in our own automobile traffic on the lower mainland. I realize, too, that that isn't possible without some pretty significant development of local traffic corridors and collectors and connectors. I realize as well that the local authorities on some occasions are falling down in that respect.

The Minister has also said that his department will be available to help out with that local planning. Perhaps I could ask him now, Mr. Chairman, if he would be willing to give us a commitment that he would come out to Langley with me as soon as the session is over and sit down and have a look at the road system in Langley and know....

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: In a helicopter? Is that what you said? Yes. Well, I don't know — sometime. Mid-June? — that's fine.

But I would like to get the Minister to come out with me and I will talk to him privately about it. It is necessary that we get the input from the Highways department to help those local communities to do the kind of planning which will fit in later, Mr. Chairman, with new inter-regional roads, because there isn't any sense in planning in separation from each other. It must be a coordinated effort.  The other thing that it would do, of course, is that if those officials from the Highways department get down into our community — by car, I hope, or bus — they'll understand more completely what's happening on the ground in areas like Langley so they don't make those bad subdivision decisions; so they don't make those bad planning decisions; so they don't make those bad decisions about traffic lights and other matters which are directly related to the Highways department.

It's important, Mr. Chairman, that the local communities get the help, the encouragement and the active involvement of the Highways department, not in their office in Victoria, but on the road down in the communities.

I could never understand the former government's attitude to bridges on the Fraser River. I could never figure out why we started with a bridge at the far end of the river and worked down, while the population was working that way. We started the population work from Vancouver East, but the bridges worked from Hope west. I could never understand that kind of thinking, and I don't understand it to this day. Nevertheless, it's there. The bridges are there and they're not serving the population.

Even the new Mission Bridge isn't really where it should be; it should be down in Langley, at Fort Langley-Albion, because that's where the people are. What's the point of putting bridges in where there are no people? There are no people in the Mission area; the people are in Langley and in Haney and in Surrey. They're coming by droves into that area.

The Minister knows very well that in Langley we had a 15 per cent population increase last year — 15 per cent in Langley last year. I've mentioned in the House before that of the total school population increase in British Columbia last year, 35 per cent was in Langley School District. The people are in Langley and they're not being served by the Highways department.

I expect that we wouldn't be able to convince the Highways department to build another bridge over the Fraser at Fort Langley right now. I hope they'll consider it for the future, but they could help a great deal by establishing a new bridge at Annacis Island — a crossing there. I was looking through the Highways department reports and I found an item for a survey of something like $684. I forget the exact figure, but I don't know what kind of a survey could be done for $684. I'd appreciate it if the Minister would enlighten us about....

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, maybe it is a survey to see whether a survey is necessary to find out if there should be a bridge over there.

I know that we'd be vitally interested in finding out exactly what the Highways department plans are in relation to a crossing at Annacis Island. I know the municipality of Delta would sure like to know what's going on and whether or not the Highways department is going to consult the municipality of Delta in any of its plans for a new crossing, rather than going off on its own like the Municipal Affairs Minister (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) does, and making his own plans without ever consulting with anybody else. We'd like to know what's happening there.

I'd like to talk about the other crossing at Fort Langley during the estimates later on in the vote, but I just wanted to say that there doesn't seem to be much sense, or hasn't been much sense, to the planning of crossings of the Fraser River in the past. With that I'm admitting that there were some mistakes made in the past. You don't have to bring that up to me, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, because we know very well that the planning wasn't as good as it should have been with regard to those crossings.

The only other thing that I want to speak about before we get into the other estimates has to do with roadside development and landscaping. I brought up a problem — I guess you could call it a problem — sometime ago to the Highways department before this Minister took office about a little service that the Highways department could have rendered to people who are using commuter buses. Those people are taking cars off the roads and they're happy to use

[ Page 1879 ]

those commuter buses because the commuter buses are probably the most economical and judicial use of the province's highways that anybody has so far come up with.

Their use is expanding. The people who have established these commuter services have taken the lead away from the government. Because the government refused to act, they said: "Okay, we'll do it on our own." They have, in communities all over the lower mainland, established these commuter services from as far away as Chilliwack now. People going to work in Vancouver every day from Chilliwack are using commuter buses. They're making wide use of our highways and they're very happy with the service that they're getting.

I wonder, too, sometimes whether or not they might be better off using those buses rather than turning their commuter services over to the provincial government, because once they do that they probably won't get the same kind of service that they get under their own management. Nevertheless, they are doing it, and they're happy with it.

There are a couple of little things that they'd like to see done. I mentioned this a long time ago, and I don't believe it's been done yet. It has to do with developing steps up the side of the embankments at the overpasses on the 401 freeway so that those people, as they get out of their commuter buses, don't have to scramble up the side of the banks in snow and bad weather, but will have an area whereby they can walk up. Old ladies, old gentlemen, people who are infirm in one way or another who use those buses have very great difficulty getting off the highway up to wherever their cars might be parked. There are only a few areas where it would, be necessary — at the major overpasses from Surrey to Chilliwack, perhaps.

It could be an excellent opportunity to use some of that $25 million that the Labour Minister (Hon. Mr. King) is making available for summer employment for youth. Let's put them to work doing that kind of thing. You'd probably only make a very few people happy, but you might start getting hikers using those entrances or exits, and you might encourage all kinds of things. You'll make a few people happy and I think they'd be forever grateful to you.

The other thing with regard to roadside development and landscaping has to do again with the 401 freeway. Some years ago a former Member of this House who is now deceased, Harold Merilees, came up with an idea to plant daffodils and evergreen trees along the median of the 401 freeway just to generally beautify that area. I realize that that programme ran into some difficulty because of vandals, more than anything, and people who couldn't resist the opportunity to come and dig up those daffodils and trees which had been planted.

Nevertheless, a lot of them are still left there. In the spring of the year it's a beautiful sight to drive down the 401 highway and see those daffodils in bloom. It's truly a beautiful sight.

I'd like to see this government expand on that programme with perhaps flowering shrubs, other kinds of flowers — annuals, perhaps — and really beautify the medians of our highways so that we don't have to go through that endless, boring drive which also causes accidents, because there's nothing more dangerous than that kind of highway hypnosis that falls on people because they have nothing to break the monotony of their drive. Freeways lend themselves to that highway hypnosis far more than other kinds of arterial roads because of their nature. So I think that the Highways Minister would also make himself very popular with the people of British Columbia and our tourists if he would expand on the programme to beautify the highways of this province.

It might not even be a bad idea if the Highways Minister considered naming a portion of the 401 freeway Merilees Way or something like that in honour of a Member who served well in this House and has since passed away, but who left something for the people of British Columbia with his idea which he had to advance almost totally by himself, not really in opposition to anyone, but certainly he had to advance it because there was no recognition for the idea. Everybody thought it was a kooky idea, but they don't think so today when they drive down that 401 freeway and see those daffodils in bloom in the springtime.

So perhaps the Minister would show his appreciation by maybe making the suggestion to cabinet that a portion of that road be renamed Merilees Way, and also remember that Member even in a more substantial way by expanding and using some of that $25 million that the Labour Minister has for the summer employment of students to get out in our highways and not just stand around and direct traffic, but plant living, growing things on our highways. You'll be remembered forever, Mr. Minister of Highways, and the people of British Columbia will thank you for it.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask leave of the House so that we could go over to the Empress Hotel and carry on this debate with the rest of the Liberal Members. (Laughter.) I notice the leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) is in the House now, but I suppose the other Members are still snoozing away doing the people's business. I don't imagine that'll be reported to the press, though.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't imagine you're in order, either.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, I think I am, Mr. Member.

[ Page 1880 ]

I'm talking about the business of this House.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Is the Premier up in Sydney yet?

HON. MR. LEA: Oh, you can rest assured he's up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Minister to discuss his estimates.

HON. MR. LEA: There were a number of good points raised by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) and a number of points that, of course, I probably take a little exception to.

I would like to begin with, the last point that he raised about naming a highway after the late MLA, Harold Merilees. I'll take that under consideration. I think it's a good suggestion.

I think he made a worthwhile contribution to this province. This government will not only name highways or any other thing after only members of this party, but for people who have contributed to the province — whether they be in this House, or outside the House — no matter what party they are in. But we will probably do that after the Member or after the citizen has passed on, and we will do it for someone else rather than do it for ourselves while we are still alive.

Now you raised a point about subdivisions and whether or not the civil servants within this province over the years have been doing a worthwhile and a competent job in regard to the administration of subdivisions under my jurisdiction. I believe that those civil servants over the years have done a good job against odds that were almost insurmountable to deal with.

It is difficult enough to do that kind of job under rules that are set down and policies that are set down and are adhered to by a Minister. But if a Minister doesn't adhere to those rules or by those policies, indeed it must be a difficult job. I take my hat off to the civil servants for the job they have done over the years. I must say, though, that during this session of the Legislature there has been, in my opinion, a constant attack on the civil servants in this province by the opposition.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): What about Dr. Foulkes?

HON. MR. LEA: Dr. Foulkes is not a civil servant.

Now I'm saying that there has been a constant attack — and I think that it is almost in petulance, Mr. Chairman — by the official opposition. It seems to me that there is petulance because those civil servants in this province are working for the people of this province; they don't work for any one party. And because they are working for this party now, because we are in government, it seems to bother the official opposition.

Civil servants work for the people of the province and not for any particular party. I don't see why that should bother the official opposition.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member state his point of order?

MR, SMITH: The point of order is this: the Hon. Minister is maligning the opposition in imputing motives to the opposition that are entirely improper. No one on this side of the House in the official opposition has suggested that we are unhappy with the civil servants of this province. We have not in any way impugned the civil service, and I think that the Minister should withdraw that suggestion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On a point of order, I would request that the Hon. Minister would clarify....

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): We're unhappy about that whole bunch over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister to clarify his remarks so that there is no suggestion of an imputation of improper motives on the part of the opposition Members.

HON. MR. LEA: I didn't say that there were improper motives; I said that there had been constant criticism of the civil service by the official opposition all through this session.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Langley on a point of order.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, that's not good enough from that Minister. He must withdraw the imputation that we have been criticizing the civil servants. We have been criticizing the administration of the department which rests in the hands of the Minister. That has nothing to do with the civil servants, who, we agree, have done tremendous jobs in this province — sometimes under impossible odds.

We expect to be able to continue to do that unless that Minister politicizes the civil service, as is suggested by so many socialist reports which we have had before this House. I suggest that the Minister must withdraw these imputations.

[ Page 1881 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, I would request again that the Hon. Minister accept the fact that Hon. Members, when they are criticizing a department, are in fact, criticizing the administration. Therefore, if there is any imputation in that that they are not criticizing his administration, but rather criticizing individual civil servants, I think that he should withdraw the remark.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that when you criticize a special position, like the senior approving officer has been criticized, you are not just criticizing the administration. I think they are doing a good job.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think that all Members on both sides of the House accept that all civil servants are doing a good job. I think the main point is that there isn't any feeling on either side that the opposition Members are doing anything except criticizing the administration of the Minister's office and of his department.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Chairman...

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask him to withdraw any imputation of criticism of those civil servants.

HON. MR. LEA: ...I just feel that it is the obligation of Ministers of the Crown to defend the civil servants.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Right on. Why don't you do that?

MR. McCLELLAND: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would simply ask the Hon. Minister to withdraw any imputation that might have been contained in his remarks that the opposition Members were attacking civil servants.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I can't withdraw what I didn't say.

MR. McCLELLAND: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Langley on a point of order.

MR. McCLELLAND: I won't accept anything less than a withdrawal from that Minister. It isn't up to the Minister to defend the civil servants; it is up to the Minister to defend his administration of his department if there is any defence to be done, and that is as far as it should go. Mr. Chairman, the Minister must withdraw if we are to get on with business of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I'm simply asking the Minister to make the statement to the committee that if there was any suggestion in his remarks imputing improper motives to the opposition, in that they were criticizing civil servants directly and not his administration, he should withdraw that remark.

HON. MR. LEA: Oh, there wasn't Mr. Chairman.

MR. McCLELLAND: There was.

HON. MR. LEA: There wasn't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, that Minister stood in his place and said that the opposition was continually criticizing the civil service. I demand that he withdraw that statement.

HON. MR. LEA: Getting on to some of the other remarks that were made by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Minister be seated for a moment?

To the Hon. Minister, on the point of order that has been made, I think that the main point is a clarification to the opposition. It's not necessarily the fact that you were saying that you didn't or did do something. I would ask the Hon. Minister if, in his next remarks, he would simply clarify the fact that he accepts the fact that the opposition were not acting improperly in what they were doing — that they were criticizing his administration. That's all I'm asking.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Chairman, I surely will make that point clearly. I'm sure that they didn't mean to criticize the civil service. It may have appeared that way to me, that's all. So, if there's been any misunderstanding, I hope that it is cleared up now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Minister continue?

HON. MR. LEA: Now, subdivisions...where did we leave off?

MRS. JORDAN: You're all mixed up.

HON. MR. LEA: Okay, we were talking about subdivisions. You know, this is the very point I made last night in this House: that some municipalities, some regional districts, will go ahead and allow a building to be built when the zoning has not been

[ Page 1882 ]

changed to allow that. Then, after the building has been built, they do come to the Highways department and ask for access to the highway.

That's exactly the kind of thing that we should try to avoid — not only the Department of Highways but the municipalities involved. As I mentioned last night, I have sent letters out to all municipalities and to all regional districts just to remind them — possibly there are new people on those regional districts or municipalities — so they will know that there is the proper procedure to follow.

There's one other point that I really would like to clear up, because I do think that the Member for Langley did leave the flavour in the House that I had made statements about people from other provinces travelling to this province as visitors and as tourists. At no time did I ever mention that other Canadians should be prohibited in any way from travelling into the Province of British Columbia. I would just like to get that on the record.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'd ask Hon. Members not to speak from their seats.

HON. MR. LEA: She always does!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Minister continue, please?

HON. MR. LEA: Now the Member did bring up also the reclassification of some municipal roads. I think that's a good point. But I would be more susceptible to the requests from municipalities to reclassify roads if I could get together with those municipalities and decide that there was going to be no access to those roads once they are arterial highways and into a regional carrier.

The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) pointed out the 401 and made a good point, I think. He wants it to be saved for people to travel on. I suggest that the more access allowed to high-speed, inter-regional carriers, the more chance there is for accidents. I think that's a known fact.

You can't have it both ways, Mr. Chairman. You have to have limited and very limited access to that inter-regional carrier: only feeder streets coming in and not every Tom, Dick and Harry having an access to the highway.

So I would be susceptible to the request as long as I could get some sort of guarantee back that the municipality from there on would not pressure me or my department to allow access to those arterial highways. I think we would be willing to pick up a bigger share of the cost tinder those tenders.

Oh, one other thing on subdivisions and requests for access to highways: it has been mentioned that there's been a lot of trouble getting approval for subdivisions and for access to highways. Well, the facts don't bear that statement out, Mr. Member. Before the Agricultural Land Development Act passed, the actual final disapprovals were less than 2 per cent, and the initial approvals — that's the first time that someone applies — were 50 per cent, and in the final analysis the approvals were 98 per cent. I don't really call that being difficult with regional districts and municipalities and the general public. I think that that's a good and a fine record of the senior approving officer and his staff.

The people who work in my department in regard to approvals have to follow the Acts of this House. After the Agricultural Land Development Act was passed in this House, the disapprovals have amounted to 35 per cent, but we are bound by the Act of this House, and it's a good Act, I suggest. So I'd just like to have those facts on record that there hasn't been haphazard dealings with the public; we've acted within the department in a responsible way.

New materials for highways. The Member suggested that there haven't been new materials used for highways in decades. My memory goes back one or two decades and it seems to me I recall mostly dirt roads in this province. Now we're using pavement.

At the same time I'd like to point out to the Member that we're constantly doing research. I'd like to add, too, that it's no halo to me, but this department has over the years been a forerunner within Departments of Highways throughout North America in research. I'd also like to say that the department are members of the Roads and Transportation Association, which does a lot of fine work into research. Not only do we get a lot of good ideas and a lot of good suggestions, but we do make those suggestions to them, too. Also the department is a member of the Highway Research Board of the United States of America. New methods and new material are constantly under research by the Department of Highways. I don't think that anyone in the province could say that from a technical point of view the Department of Highways in British Columbia, in terms of the actual building of roads, can take second seat to any Department of Highways within this country or within North America.

The Member also mentioned getting more people out of their cars. I think we should. He mentioned one family with the father travelling across the bridge into town, the mother coming along in another car and another person in that family possibly heading off to university in another car. I certainly agree that that is one of the areas in which we should be going, but it is only one. It's a good suggestion. As a matter of fact, some of the people that are in the traffic area of the department suggested to me that if we could get two people in every car within the greater urban area of Vancouver, we would literally solve most of

[ Page 1883 ]

our traffic problems for possibly the next five to 10 years. That's really something to think about. If we can get two people in every car, then we'd have a lot of our problems licked for some time and it would give us some breathing space to address ourselves to the great transportation problems that we have to face within this province at the present time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lions Gate Bridge?

HON. MR. LEA: Lions Gate Bridge and the Second Narrows Bridge will probably pack all the traffic that we could put in there for the next five years at least, and we'd have a breathing space to look at third crossings and to give the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) a chance to assess more thoroughly what he has to do. He's been given an impossible task to solve a situation which was allowed to deteriorate over the years. I think he's doing a commendable job in that respect, but it's a very difficult job. I appreciate the suggestion.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: It's the same all over the world, although I think possibly we've been a little slower in this province to address ourselves to the situation. I do think that many of the suggestions made by the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) were good suggestions.

MR. McCLELLAND: On the point of research, I appreciate the Minister's comments about research, but instead of giving us these dull, dry Highways reports, why don't you tell the people of B.C. about what research is going on from time to time? We can then go and expand on it to other people. Let's hear about the research that's going on, because I wasn't aware that there was any. I'm glad to hear there is, but it would be nice to know about it. That's the point I was making.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, yesterday I received pretty intemperate treatment both from the Minister and, with all respect, from the Chair when I was attempting to discuss safe driving in the Province of British Columbia. It was the position taken by the Minister that it did not come under his jurisdiction and that I was out of order, and it was also the position taken by you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! There were two points in which it was ruled out of order. One was that it is not under his jurisdiction; the other point was that it was a matter of legislation and therefore out of order in estimates.

MR. GARDOM: No, I asked him what his programmes were and I wasn't referring to specific legislation. I did mention an amendment to the Act and asked him whether or not he would support it. You ruled that question out of order. But I can certainly ask him what his programmes are.

Mr. Chairman, this, I'm sure, will be of considerable interest to you, just to show how germane my remarks were and how wrong your ruling was, and how wrong the Minister of Highways was when he attempted to stifle debate. I find, mirabile dictu, Mr. Chairman, 11 pages in his report dealing with the cause of fatal accidents and safe driving. I'd like to read to you some of the very interesting information from the report of the Minister of Highways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The fact that these statistics are contained in the Minister's report does not necessarily make them relevant to these estimates.

MR. GARDOM: If they are not relevant to the Minister's estimates, they're certainly not going to come in in the report of any other Minister of this House. We have 11 pages here under the heading of the Minister of Highways. Are you suggesting to me that I cannot refer to these documents? If I can't refer to them, Mr. Chairman, he's got to delete them from his report; it's as simple as that.

It says here: "For the ninth consecutive year...." We seem to have nine years of precedent which you're ignoring, Mr. Chairman, because for the ninth consecutive year, referring to the Department of Highways, "the department continued to analyse reports of these fatal accidents...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The point, Hon. Member, is that it's a matter of appropriateness for the right time to consider something. If statistics are contained within this report, it's appropriate to refer to them when you're considering the Minister's estimates before us. However, if some of the statistics are more relevant to another Minister's estimates, then it would be appropriate to bring those statistics up at that time. However, they can be referred to incidentally, providing you're dealing with this Minister's estimates.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On a point of order, which perhaps can settle this argument once and for all, the fact is that public moneys voted last year to the Department of Highways have been used to compile statistics and used to print documents. We assume from the Minister's estimates that this year public moneys voted under the Department of Highways estimates will also be used to do precisely the same thing. So I would think that the statistics of

[ Page 1884 ]

last year are very germane because they involve public funds expended upon the estimates of the Department of Highways last year, and also being expended under the Department of Highways estimates for this year.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): On a point of order, I would draw to the attention of Members of the House that there are a number of other votes where this matter is referred to directly. Vote 239, $600,000 "highway safety and promotion," happens to be in another department, and the records are brought together by the Motor Vehicle Branch, which is also another vote.

MR. GARDOM: The funds that were spent for this report were spent by the Minister of Highways, unless the Minister of Highways is going to deny that fact.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I think the Hon. Member knows that the production of the report certainly is a responsibility and was a responsibility of this Minister. The action of producing that report certainly could be discussed and statistics in it referred to, but any substantial discussion of points in it should be appropriately relevant to the department and also there should be no discussion of anything that's a matter of legislation.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, since the Minister has seen fit to publish 12 pages of report, the material of which I would say was garnered at considerable public expense, and since the Minister has seen fit to include this report within the aegis of this department, which is obviously the correct place to have it be, I can refer to the report. I'm going to read some excerpts from it. I see that for nine consecutive years, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Highways says that it has continued to analyse reports of fatal accidents. It says in this one that:

"fatal accidents on provincial highways accounted for 75 per cent of the province-wide fatal accidents and 77 per cent of the fatalities."

Next is a very, very disturbing statistic which I wish the Minister to comment upon. It says:

"The present study period therefore indicated an increase of 117 or 29 per cent in fatal accidents, and an increase of 141 or 29 per cent in the number killed,"

whereas motor-vehicle registrations — and this, I'm sure, will amaze everyone in the House — only increased 8 per cent. So during this period we find fatal accidents up 29 per cent and registrations up only 8 per cent.

It also says that "79 per cent of those killed were 50 years of age or younger and 40 per cent were between the ages of 16 and 25 years." Within a nine-year period we find 40 per cent of the people who were killed in traffic accidents falling within that age bracket. This means an increase in the former group of 5 per cent, and an increase of 2 per cent in the latter.

Also it mentions, Mr. Chairman, that Fridays and Saturdays accounted for 43 per cent of the fatal accidents. It says further that 72 per cent of fatal traffic accidents occurred on rural highways. It states this on page 52:

"As in previous years, reports showed that responsibility for the vast majority of fatal motor accidents must be placed on the shoulders of the careless drivers and pedestrians involved."

Those are the questions I wish to put to the Minister. What is he doing to see that we have safety driving measures in the Province of B.C.?

On drug and alcohol involvement, it says that 47 per cent of the 522 fatal accidents reported by the police indicate that alcohol was consumed. It talks about excessive speed. It talks about the wrong side of the road. It talks about seat belts. It talks about illness and fatigue.

The conclusions seem to be these on pages 53 and 54 of the report of the Hon. Minister of Highways, which he does not wish to answer questions about. It says this:

"1. Although the number of motor vehicles registered in the province increased by only 8 per cent over the previous study period, both the number of fatal motor vehicle accidents and fatalities increased by almost 29 per cent. This indicates" — under the aegis of this Minister, under his responsibility, Mr. Chairman — "a return to the upward trend which was temporarily reversed by a 6 per cent decrease in the previous study."

So the Minister has got a bad situation on his hands, and I'm asking him to comment upon that. It says in point 2 on page 54:

"2. The percentages of those killed in the two age groups, 50 or younger and 16 to 25, increased from 74 per cent to 79 per cent and 38 per cent to 40 per cent respectively."

It carries on:

"3. Although alcohol impairment showed a slight percentage decrease when compared to the previous study period, it continued to be a major problem. Impaired drivers and/or pedestrians...were involved in 18 per cent of the total fatal accidents and there was some alcohol involvement in 47 per cent."

The last point it makes is:

"4. Of the 431 fatalities where information on seat belt use was both available and applicable, 102 or 24 per cent died in vehicles

[ Page 1885 ]

not equipped with seat belts."

So I'm going to once again, Mr. Chairman, ask the Hon. Minister of Highways if he is proposing any programmes to keep the drunken driver off the road. I'm once again going to ask him whether or not he's in favour of a province-wide compulsory motor-vehicle testing. I'm once again going to ask him whether or not he's in favour of driver education in all of our high schools. Once again I'm going to ask him if he's in favour of programming the defensive driving course through the Province of British Columbia. And I'm going to ask him, finally, Mr. Chairman, what his position is concerning the seat belt question. Does he intend to see that this is imposed mandatory in the province or not?

Now, Mr. Chairman, if those questions are out of order...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. GARDOM: ...this Minister should not be the Minister of Highways. He should resign.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey that I do appreciate the fact that he kept his remarks brief, but vote 239 under the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), Motor Vehicle Branch, item 047 — "highway safety promotion and research, $600,000" — would clearly be the place where such a discussion or debate should take place.

MR. FRASER: I've had a few things to say on this Minister's vote over the last couple of days, but I have tried to stay at the policy level of the government and the department. I now want to deal with the policies again of the department as they apply to the riding of Cariboo.

I get a great kick, Mr. Chairman, out of hearing these MLAs here who are experts on highways, particularly the ones from Vancouver–Point Grey. They have 14 miles of public roads. Real big deal!

As an example, in the riding of Cariboo there are 3,800 miles of public roads. I'd like to put that in light as far as the Cariboo is concerned — 3,800 miles of public roads and 90 per cent of them are gravel, full of potholes and broken springs and tires and so on, and 10 per cent of them paved. Nobody can tell me about highways because we have every type of problem in the riding.

As far as ridings are concerned in the province, we have 48 ridings and the Cariboo road mileage has the largest, at 3,800 miles. The next one even close, by riding, is North Peace River with 1,900 miles, and the average for the province is about 800 miles. So don't think for one minute that Highways isn't important as far as the Cariboo is concerned. It is almost as important as Education and Health in the priority of government, and that's why I mentioned the other day the priority of the money for Highways being so low in this budget we are looking at.

By the way, the citizens of the Cariboo don't want all their roads paved, by any means. They just want to see progress. The rate of progress in the last few years in the Cariboo of rebuilding and paving averages about 10 miles a year, and we have around 3,400 miles to go, so 340 years from now the roads will all be at the paved standard. As I repeat, they don't want all their roads paved, but they want to see better maintenance. That's why I'm zeroing in on the equipment side and the department people and so on — to emphasize that.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I'm happy with the portion of the budget that shows a substantial increase in the Highways department for maintenance. That is certainly in the right direction.

There is something I would like to ask the Minister that is a cause of concern I think, all over the province, not only in the Cariboo. I would like him to make a note and when his staff are back I'd like to know what their standards for right-of-way are. I've heard different stories. In other words,300 feet they want for right-of-way,200 feet for right-of-way, and so on and so forth. I'd like to know which is correct.

I realize that you have to have certainly a wide right-of-way when you're dealing with a freeway situation, or even an arterial situation, but I'm also referring to secondary roads, and I repeat the width of the right-of-way that their policy is on all types of public roads, because as a member, Mr. Chairman, last year of that municipal committee of the Legislature, we toured the Gulf Islands out here.

Here we find where subdivision approval is given by the Department of Highways, they are demanding rights-of-way of 66 feet and so on of roads a mile or two in length, and they end nowhere. It seems to me that those requirements are certainly just too much. They are occupying too much land. Of course they go in and clear the right-of-way off and devastate this width.

I don't think that's necessary, and it seems to me while we're on that tour, the Minister announced that they were going to relax, for areas like this, the right-of-way requirements. I'd like to just hear from the Minister if the regulations have been changed or what actually has taken place.

There's one point, getting back to local matters. Highway 97, in the riding of Cariboo, is a distance of some 260 miles. There's been a lot of upgrading of Highway 97 and the Cariboo people are a lot happier with it than they were a few years ago. There's some work yet to go, and there's one bad place still left, traffic-hazard wise, and I would like the Minister to comment. I think he's been approached on this, and I'm referring to the BCR overpass on the Clinton Hill.

[ Page 1886 ]

There are continuous accidents there, bad accidents. What is really wrong there, from the layman's standpoint, is the alignment. I'm not suggesting a new overpass of the railroad — I don't think that's necessary — but if proper realignment was to take place, I think it would cut down. But what's been happening actually is that the vehicles, particularly the southbound vehicles, with strangers are coming down, admittedly probably going fast. It's well signed. You've got these bright things in it, but you know what people are like driving. They run into the concrete abutments and they stop pretty suddenly.

It is out of line. There is no question about it. The engineers would have to say what the problem is. I hope they don't say they have to relocate the overpass, but what I'm saying is: we've got a bad hazard there, and maybe a small amount of money might be eliminated, and I mention that because it is on a main arterial, Highway 97.

We were talking earlier in the debate about staff and the civil service. I want to say that from my experience with the Highways department for 20 years in my municipal life and provincial life, dealing with different personnel in that department, I consider that department one of the best with one of the best, most efficient staffs of any government department. They do a wonderful job under trying conditions and they should be congratulated.

Yes, we all get mad at the senior approving officer because people tell me they didn't even know they had to have a building permit, let alone whether it's zoned or not. Of course when an authority comes along and says it's illegal, naturally they don't like it. But in most cases, it's ignorance that gets people into trouble; they should inquire what the law is.

I think more public information should come out of the Highways department. I don't know how you do it, whether you have a PR man or what. It was mentioned earlier by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) that in research, who knows what the Highways department is researching? That's correct; very few know what's going on, and I think a public relations department would help a lot.

On another subject, Mr. Chairman, I'd like the Minister to make a note. And I'm glad to see the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) is in his chair.

Again you're dealing with a staff. To upgrade the tools they have to work with, which we're all trying to do through equipment purchases and so on, and better working conditions.... I'm referring to the men who actually do the work in the Highways department. We have places in my riding, the Cariboo, right today with five feet of snow on the ground, and they have no building whatsoever to put their equipment in — trucks, pickups, graders and bulldozers. I've never run it down, but I believe, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, you requisition the Minister of Public Works and he seems to take anywhere up to a year just to draft a plan for a garage. Then he turns around when that's gone by and says that they are out of money and can't call a tender. I want to tell you again, as far as the efficiency of the department is concerned, it would be greatly improved if we could get more maintenance buildings.

There are two places in Cariboo right today where those men went to work this morning at 8 o'clock in five feet of snow, and all the department equipment is out in the open. I refer to Bridge Lake and Likely. These are the conditions they go out to work in in the morning at 7 o'clock; it's 40 below zero, their vehicle has been sitting there, they can't even start it. Everybody's on the telephone — where's the snowplough and what's going on here? I'm saying it is terribly costly to park this stuff out, as we say in the Cariboo, in the swamps. They're not under any....

I think there's a convention going on here, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Members to take their seats, please.

MR. FRASER: Well, at least you can't accuse us of having secret meetings. (Laughter.) No more open and public place than this.

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: In the last couple of years, for your information, Mr. Minister, one maintenance building has been put up. These two places are in an area where, again as we say in the Cariboo, they have nine months of winter and three months of bad sleighing. I refer to Bridge Lake and Likely where you have a detachment crew.

I think they're costing $150,000 a building, and that would be saved in operation in the department, in my opinion, in a couple of years. If they do get a bulldozer going, they tow the grader and they tow the dump trucks while they're tearing the axles and the transmissions out. It's very costly and losing hours and hours where they could be doing proper work. I would like you to make note of these two particular areas in my riding which are badly in need of buildings of some type. I don't think they have to be fancy buildings, but you do have a standard.

There is a breakdown from the Minister of Highways back to the Minister of Public Works in this. I suggest that you should get on top of that and find out how he's delaying these things and why. I don't think it's done on purpose, but again from one department to another, red tape, red tape, red tape. Consequently it ends up with the citizen not getting the service he's paying for or deserves.

I have letters of all kinds there, but I just want to read an excerpt from some citizens at Bridge Lake. I

[ Page 1887 ]

don't necessarily agree but I'm telling you these people have been there all their lives and regarding Bridge Lake they say:

"The boundaries of Bridge Lake the highway crew should be shortened. With the pavement extending out to Horse Lake, it should certainly shortened"

— he is referring to pavement a further way down the road —

"...a heavy equipment inspector to test all personnel from time to time, or go into an area and instruct local men in the use of equipment.

"... planning of a little more initiative to provide a credible job to the people who are being served.

"The hiring from time to time for a road-building crew" — as the forestry do — "experts in their field to do the best possible job in the shortest period of time at the best price. And, of course, we want more equipment."

That's an observation from a citizen in a remote area. The Highways department is their lifeline, really, Mr. Minister.

I'd like to comment on something else, Mr. Chairman — roadwork and when they do it. The department has a paving branch. They do their own paving, and on the larger jobs they call tenders. All of the arterials it seems they do by tender, but a lot of the secondary rural roads, when they decide to cap them, their own paving branch does it. Their timing, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, is just terrible in regard to climatic conditions. They come into the interior and the north part of the province, and I'm referring to the Highways department crews, in the fall of the year when the weather is starting to change, raining and so on. Of course, they can't pave. They do put it on what we call graded cold mix, and the next year it has to be all graded off because they didn't have the right weather conditions.

It's a small problem, but the department must know that if they go into that part of the Interior and the north of the province with their crews, they could do a good job if they get the weather. They will find they always get good weather in May, June and July. After that, they're running on their luck on weather. It is costing the public a lot of money, and apart from that, a lack of a surfaced road.

As an example, last year they were in the Cariboo in October and they had to leave without getting hardly anything done because the weather changed on them. What I'm saying is why can't they schedule these crews and their own crews for a better time of the year, when the weather is more stable?

I'm just about through, Mr. Chairman. I want to give you a comment about the student programme which I believe applies to this Department of Highways. It was on last year and is going to be repeated this year. I think this is a good programme, but I want to relate a few things that happened last year, as related to the students hired by the Highways department.

These are young people from high school and university. They're very anxious to have this work in clearing rights-of-way and so on. But they just ran helter-skelter all over, knocking down trees and shrubs. It was not the students' fault, it was the lack of proper supervision. I would say this year, Mr. Minister, you should make sure when these students are hired that they put somebody in charge of them who knows what they're supposed to do and he stays with them.

I had all kinds of complaints when they were slashing rights-of-way last year. They even went onto private property because there was nobody there to show them where the highway right-of-way boundaries were. It made the citizens really mad about the whole deal, and it was actually a lack of supervision. I took it up with the district engineer in charge. He said, "Well, we just haven't got these people. We make spot checks on them every three hours or so, and lay out the work." But really, there's got to be someone there all the time. We would improve on the programme a lot if we had better supervision. I think the students would appreciate it. I can assure you that citizens would appreciate it because it would show that they would get a lot more value for their money than they did last year.

I just touched on some subjects here, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, and I'd really like to get some answers on a few of those things. In other words, the rights-of-way widths that are required for the different types of roads. I particularly would like to know if any maintenance buildings are scheduled. I think he'll find they are, but he'll find them bogged down and lost in that Minister's department, the Department of Public Works. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.

HON. MR. LEA: Commenting on points raised by the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), I take notice of the number of miles you do have in your riding compared to even other rural ridings. You do have problems other people do not have.

The right-of-way. You said I had made some rulings and they varied from the past, and that's true to a certain degree. In the Gulf Islands, for instance, we were taking and clearing 66 feet of right-of-way. My department officials assure me if we don't take that 66 feet we'll be in trouble later on. So I want to hedge my bets, so to speak. What I've said now is that we'll take the 66-feet right-of-way for the time being, but we won't clear it. We'll try and leave these roads in a more pristine nature and, if we do need it later on, then it's there. If we don't need it later on, we can turn it back to the private owners of the

[ Page 1888 ]

property.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

HON. MR. LEA: In some of the northern areas in the Interior where we get snow, if we do not take the required amount of right-of-way, we find that in the springtime, especially on some of the side roads that are not paved, the sun can't get in there and dry those roads up in the spring. We just feel it's better at this point to take that 66 feet of right-of-way. On paved roads, the ice doesn't go off them and we feel it's a real hazard to the travelling public. I'm not convinced that in those areas we should go below the 66 feet.

The only other area where we do take more right-of-way than that is within municipalities where we feel there's going to be need for more lanes of traffic in the future. We will take 80 or 100 feet, and most of the municipalities do that also. Again I suppose, until we come up with a different mode of transportation, that's the direction that by necessity we're going to have to take.

But first the good news, Mr. Member. Your cattle underpass near Quesnel is in for this year — $ 10,000 to build that underpass.

Highway 97. The British Columbia Railway overpass on Clinton Hill. I agree with you, and I'm going to give that special consideration. I know the area you mentioned. I should also mention that it's a bad spot for black ice and is a danger point. We're going be looking after that and I appreciate you bringing that up.

The maintenance buildings. The fact that the drivers and the operators have to go out and dicker with that equipment at 40-below weather is a problem and something I'm sure many people in the south don't fully understand or appreciate. I will say I've had good cooperation from the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley). I know he has gone to Treasury Board and battled on my behalf and on the workers' behalf to get some maintenance buildings in northern ridings where there is a great deal of snow and inclement weather. It's a priority. We're going to look at those before we look at the sunny Okanagan or the lower mainland. I think we have to deal with them in that priority. Maintenance buildings in the north and in the Interior where there's a lot of snow are going to take priority with the department.

MR. FRASER: I realize the staff wasn't here, but back on right-of-way and what you are requiring. What is the minimum you are requiring now for rights-of-way for where the freeway is on Highway 97? I understand, for instance, it jumped from 200 to 300 feet, but you mentioned 60 to 80 feet. I realize you're referring to a secondary road, I'd like to know each width of right-of-way you want for each classification of road.

HON. MR. LEA: Okay, I'll get that information for you. It doesn't have to be here, I don't think.

MR. McCLELLAND: I just want to make a couple of comments about some of the discussion which took place and was reported in the report on the Western Economic Opportunities Conference in November, 1973. It mentions in here and it's been mentioned by other Members that there is a statement: "British Columbia mentioned the desire for an east-west highway through the north." I wonder if there was only the mention made of that highway. Is the department actively seeking consultation with Ottawa to get that highway going?

There was also a mention in there about removing the tolls in national parks. I wonder if the department is negotiating with Ottawa again on this basis? It seems to me that we pay enough taxes without having to pay tolls as well through our national parks. I realize, too, that it isn't jurisdiction of this Highways department, but it could be a matter of consultation and negotiation in this department.

The other thing I wanted to mention from this report is again with the highways from the north. It says:

"There is a growing recognition in western Canada of the need to develop a strong highway access to support the future development of northern resources that will benefit Canada as a whole.

"As a first step toward the provision of one of the major determinates of northern development, the western provinces propose a road system commencing in Winnipeg, running through Saskatchewan and Alberta to Dawson Creek, British Columbia, and on to Prince Rupert to connect with the vast markets of the Pacific Rim countries. Prince Rupert is an advantageous shipping port...."

  It goes on to talk about the reasons for that need.

I just wonder, given the fact that the Minister has said he's offering us a purely maintenance budget, where can we reconcile that maintenance budget with the need which has been clearly demonstrated all across Canada for that kind of a road network serving northern development in British Columbia? Surely there must be far more than a maintenance budget in order to develop that kind of a road network.

If, for instance, we're going to lose another year in getting transportation links to the north, even the planning of those transportation links, then we're in trouble with regard to any kind of development in the north. The need has been clearly delineated in this economic conference. How do we reconcile that maintenance budget with the need which has been so clearly demonstrated?

[ Page 1889 ]

HON. MR. LEA: At my insistence, at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference in Calgary, I'm proud to say the tolls in parks have been taken off since then.

MR. McCLELLAND: Good.

HON. MR. LEA: The northern highway which was also a point I raised at the conference in Calgary, is something we've been actively working on. I might add that the three western provinces, including the Conservative Province of Alberta, have backed me up. They can see it would be of benefit to those provinces to have more and better access from prairie to tidewater. In economic terms and in social terms, it's a thing I think we all desire in western Canada.

I might add that when I said I'm going to put more emphasis on maintenance, I didn't mean I was going to de-emphasize the kind of road improvements and construction we need in British Columbia to take us ahead into the 1970s.

MR. McCLELLAND: Where is the money? The budget clearly is a maintenance budget. Is there any money in it for that kind of thing?

HON. MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Member, there is $110 million there for new construction and improvements to roads. I wouldn't call that nothing.

MR. McCLELLAND: Where is that $110 million for new construction?

HON. MR. LEA: It's vote 101.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Last evening the Minister referred to a 1966 report on bridging the islands. I have the report here in front of me. I think he left the impression with the House that the former government had intended to follow up that report and actually do some of the things which were in that report.

I want to make it abundantly clear that that report was completely rejected. The former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) had said publicly there was no intention of using that report and of bridging the islands. That report was circulated to all the then MLAs: and it was unanimously turned down by all of them. As a matter of fact, the end result of that report was the 10-acre freeze which was then placed on the islands. I think that conclusively proves the intention of the former government not to make the Gulf Islands into a highway link.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'd like to remind the Member that you're dealing with vote 98 which is the estimates of the Minister of Highways.

MR. MORRISON: That's exactly what I'm coming to.

HON. MR. LEA: I'll answer that, Mr. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm concerned that you deal with what's on the table now.

MR. MORRISON: Well, don't rush me.

The Minister now says they are going to build a ferry terminal on the east end of Gabriola Island and that they will have a road highway linked up from Gabriola Island on to the mainland through Mudge Island. As a matter of fact, that is part of the route which is shown on this particular map, a route which they are trying to say on one hand they have no intention of doing, and on the other hand the other Ministers are saying publicly that, "There's the route." There it is right on the map if you want to see it.

Therefore, as I say, it's this government making the plans to bridge the islands, not the former government. There has been no consultation made, as far as I can find out, with the Nanaimo Regional District or the Greater Vancouver Regional District for this proposal. Frankly, I think what he was trying to say last night is incorrect and I'd like him to bring that record straight.

HON. MR. LEA: I didn't leave that inference in the House that the past government intended to do it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: Madam Member asked me whether there were plans within the Highways department of that nature. I said there were. They weren't originated with this administration and that's what I state clearly now. I did not say the former Premier had given any thought at all to following those plans.

I would also like to say that in terms of the Gabriola plans you referred to, there has been no firm decision made by this government. No Minister has said there has been.

Also, I'd like to point out that the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and myself did go and meet with the Nanaimo Regional District and discussed thoroughly the possibility of that kind of approach. I won't say there was any agreement even between the three of us or with them. I'm afraid that's the way people are. We did consult with them and there will be more consultations before any firm decision is made on both sides.

MR. MORRISON: I can take it, then, from that

[ Page 1890 ]

conversation that there is absolutely nothing in this vote this year for any money to be spent in that area on highways or bridging, through Mudge Island onto Gabriola, for this year's vote and this year's estimates. Is that correct?

HON. MR. LEA: That's right.

Vote 98 approved.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the House grant leave to reopen the vote?

Leave granted.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's no point of order.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! When you raise a point of order I'll recognize you, but take your seat when you're asked to. Retake your seat! Will you please take your seat!

I want to make one thing clear. If we're going to have any sort of order, then the Chair has to be recognized. You can raise a point of order, but when you are asked to take your seat, you do so.

Now then, I asked the House if they would grant leave to reopen that vote. I heard yes, I didn't hear any no. I recognize the Member for North Okanagan.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will you please take your seat! I want the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) to withdraw that statement immediately. You have imputed the chair. Will you please stand up and withdraw the statement you just made? You know the statement you made.

MR. McCLELLAND: What statement?

AN HON. MEMBER: And try to be a gentleman!

MR. CHAIRMAN: You imputed the chair, and you'll withdraw that statement or I'll report to Mr. Speaker — that's what I must do.

MR. McCLELLAND: What statement?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You said I'm running this House like a kindergarten. Will you withdraw that?

MR. McCLELLAND: I withdraw that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Member for North Okanagan.

MR. MORRISON: On a point of order, may I remind you that when you said that vote was called....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The vote has been reopened; it's no longer a debatable issue.

MR. MORRISON: It was never closed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The vote has been reopened; it's not a debatable issue.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, look who's talking about who's asleep. There's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11; there's about 20 Members of the NDP who aren't....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! You are dealing with vote 98.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your comment. It's a shame so few of the NDP Members, the government Members, are taking part in this debate.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Do we have to be in here to listen to a filibuster?

MRS. JORDAN: Filibuster?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Member for North Okanagan has the floor.

MRS. JORDAN: Would you like to bet 10 bucks on that, Mr. Minister? I'll take you on right now. Put your money where your mouth is, because certainly that's not what you are doing in Health.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Where's granny today? Did you give her a day off?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I've got to listen to her for an hour!

[ Page 1891 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! This is vote 98.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, last evening there was a lot of debate and we were crowded out by the clock. There were some questions I had asked the Minister which I'd like him to answer today because he didn't.

One is whether you will consider the area along Woods Lake, from Woodsdale to Oyama on Highway 97 as a development area for a picnic-pedestrian long-range programme. If the plans are not already drawn up, will you undertake to have them drawn up this year? We recognize this won't happen overnight; it's something that, once the plan is drawn up, should involve the communities as a whole. They should have the opportunity to take part in providing picnic benches or trees or anything.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, if you won't answer it now, I have other questions.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: All right, I'll be speaking again....

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the answer is no.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh! Why not? The Minister refuses to consider a programme that was committed by the former administration, which was the beautification of that area along Woods Lake. You're not an imaginative Minister, Mr. Minister; you're an unimaginative Minister. I shall certainly let the people of the Okanagan know that, in spite of the fact that money has been spent there, trees have been planted and the people have even gone out and watered those trees by hand, including some of the Highways personnel, this government and this Minister and his administration refuses to do anything towards helping develop it. Pretty poor show, Mr. Minister. I suppose it's rather typical of what's going on in Highways in British Columbia.

The next point I asked the Minister that he didn't answer — I hope he'll show a little more open mind in this area — is just what he in his administrative post is doing toward organizing a province-wide, cost-sharing programme for road maintenance and entrance into non-profit ski areas in the Province of British Columbia. With inflation the way it is and the number of B.C. interests and the number of ski areas and long-term recreational areas.... I believe ski areas should include tobogganing and sleigh riding, skating and viewing areas so that all the public can enjoy them. This is growing in British Columbia. The majority of them are operated on a non-profit basis but, by nature of our climate and terrain, many of them have to be a good distance from major highways.

It's our feeling and my feeling that the government should be entering into an equitable programme that would apply to the whole province in offering some assistance in the construction and maintenance of these roads. I would invite the Minister's comments on that. I won't repeat my arguments I made last night, Mr. Chairman.

It's a matter of serious concern regarding this Minister and his administration, and it relates to the new City of Kelowna. In the agreement outlined by your government....

HON. MR. LEA: Your leader can't handle it himself, eh?

MRS. JORDAN: Well, this is quite interesting, Mr. Chairman. I think really the comment by the Hon. Minister of Highways — can't my leader detail this programme — indicates one of the most serious problems we have with this Minister and his administration. He simply doesn't know what his responsibilities are, where the problems are and where the jurisdictions are. A very large portion of the North Okanagan constituency administered by the Member for North Okanagan lies within the new City of Kelowna. You might be interested to know, Mr. Chairman, that a good deal of that is agricultural land that your tsar of planning wants to turn into residential areas. This very much concerns the Member for North Okanagan and it very much concerns the people in the North Okanagan. I can see now the problem doesn't stem from within the department; it stems from the Minister himself.

One of the major problems is that you simply cannot get any answers about any roadwork that is to be done or not done in that area. You talk to the city highway engineer; he asks you to refer the matter to the provincial highway engineer. You talk to the provincial highway engineer; he refers you to the city highway engineer.

I'll try and find the letter because I'm sure it will interest him. This is a letter from the district highways manager to myself but was previously sent originally to some constituents who wrote. It's regarding specific roads, and I'll go into those specific roads under his vote. But he says, regarding such and such and such a road: "I wish to advise you they lie in the North Okanagan Electoral District and are now within the boundaries of the new City of Kelowna."

What type of answer is that? They are in the Kelowna highway district. They are within the former Central Okanagan–South Okanagan highway district, and by way of the agreement that your government proposed to the new City of Kelowna, are in fact your responsibility. And your own highway engineer,

[ Page 1892 ]

bless him — and I wouldn't blame him, because quite obviously this is a problem within your administration — is giving this sort of political gobbledygook and runaround to the people in this area and to the duly-elected representatives.

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I have had to solicit the help of the mayor of the City of Kelowna in order to get these people some answers, because your department is so reluctant to commit themselves because they are not getting the back-up from you and your government that they should be.

That is not an attack on the civil service, Mr. Chairman; that is a condemnation of this Minister.

HON. MR. LEA: They'll figure that out for themselves.

MRS. JORDAN: It's quite justified.

For the Minister's convenience, I would refresh his memory. He wasn't then the Minister of Highways, but he should be aware of this, I'm sure. There was a commitment made with the City of Kelowna, when it was forced into this shotgun marriage, regarding highways:

A) the provincial government to pay for maintenance of all roads, street, bridges, culverts, drainage, signing, control of access permits, and all other duties currently carried out by the Department of Highways for a period of five years.

No wonder the Minister has left in such a hurry. This is a direct condemnation of him in light of the letter I read previously. After five years the new city will assume financial responsibility to a maximum cost of 5 mills. Any excess costs, Mr. Chairman, will be shared 20 per cent by the new city and 80 per cent by the provincial government.

Well, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it is very clear in that agreement who is responsible for what for the next five years, regarding the City of Kelowna. I would ask the Minister why, when citizens of the area who were the victims of this shotgun marriage speak to the regional highway engineer, they get such a political and really stupid answer. Why isn't the Minister giving this man the leeway to carry out his responsibilities?

I would like to know from the Minister specifically how much money his department, under his administration and the former Minister of Highway's (Hon. Mr. Strachan's) administration, has spent in accord with this agreement in the new City of Kelowna last year. I would also like to know what specific commitments he has made for this year, on which roads and how much will be involved in each instance.

The next agreement that was made with the new City of Kelowna which involves a very large segment of the North Okanagan constituency is under section B): the provincial government to pay for the cost of a comprehensive community plan and base map, one inch to one mile, I guess it is, or better, the cost of which is estimated at approximately $150,000.

My understanding at the moment is that this cost is now ranging between $200,000 and $250,000. I would like to know specifically, through you, Mr. Chairman, to that Minister, at what point this plan stands, how much that cost is and whether the government is going to assume the total cost.

The next point is C): the provincial government to construct all roads in the new city in accordance with the provincial government grid road plan, as prepared by the Department of Highways during the years 1971 and 1972, which was the grid road plan prepared by the former administration. I bring that to your attention, Mr. Chairman, because this Minister's very fond of suggesting that there was no planning done in the Highways department by the former Minister. I felt he should know that there was a very extensive internal grid system planning programme, and an external grid planning programme going on in the Okanagan.

I would like to know from this Minister, because these roads affect the constituency of North Okanagan, exactly what steps he is prepared to take this year, how much he is prepared to expend, and on which roads.

The next agreement is D): the provincial government to upgrade all bridges and culverts in the new city; the provincial government to provide the new city with sand and gravel pits in or adjacent to the new city. I would like to know on that point exactly what commitments the Minister made and carried out last year, and what commitments in terms of action and dollars he has made and intends to carry out this year.

F) the provincial government to provide capital funds in the amount of $1.5 million for the purpose of construction and providing a major public works yard together with three depots in the new municipality. The depots will contain storage sheds for the graders, loaders, trucks and other miscellaneous highway maintenance equipment. I would like to know, Mr. Minister, which one of the storage sheds is going in the North Okanagan constituency, and also the state of progress of this commitment and the estimated cost at this time.

Now, Mr. Minister, there's a clause here, and I read that, which allows the government to slip out from under its responsibilities in this shotgun marriage after five years. And I wish to assure you on behalf of the constituents who live within this area from the North Okanagan that they expect you to meet your commitments and not use that clause as a means of slipping out from responsibilities as has happened previously by this administration.

Another matter which is in fact a commitment made by this Minister under his administration, and

[ Page 1893 ]

it's under his vote, Mr. Chairman — because he used government funds to visit the area — is with regard to the Westside Road leading from the west bank side of the Okanagan Lake to O'Keefe's Corner in the North Okanagan. The majority of this road resides in the North Okanagan electoral district and highway district.

To refresh his memory I would bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, a letter dated October 23, 1973, addressed to myself and signed by the chairman of the Westside Property Owners Committee:

"On September 5, 1973, a meeting was held at the Firtree Marina where some 200 property owners from the Westside Road attended to make the Minister of Highways, the Hon, Graham Lea, who was present, aware of the frustration they encounter in travelling this road, and their attempts to have improvements made. At the time, we were given two days notice of the Minister's visit."

This is a rural area, Mr. Chairman, and they have radio-telephones. It is very difficult...and I advise the Minister that in the future they would like more notice of the meeting. They also endeavoured to get in touch with the MLA from the North Okanagan, but unfortunately I was travelling with a committee at that time and didn't hear from them until the day of the meeting and couldn't leave my government responsibilities. But they would like me to pass on to you the fact that in future they would like to have their MLA there.

However, "At the time, we were given" — and I continue to quote — "two days notice of the Minister's visit. I endeavoured to contact you in the event that you wished to be present"...et cetera.

"In any event, at this meeting a committee was appointed to communicate with the Department of Highways re improvements to the Westside Road. There were commitments made by the Minister of Highways at this September meeting, and the committee feels many of the discussed problem areas to [;e improved this fall have not received any attention. A member of this committee on October 17 instructed me, as acting chairman, to bring this to your attention"...et cetera.

You know, Mr. Chairman, the pity of this is that he was at that time a new Minister and, in fact, this revolved around an election in which the NDP candidate went in and made very broad commitments to the people of that area, and these commitments were backed up by the Minister of Highways. But, in fact, he didn't meet them. I would bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, some of these concerns.

A lady — and I won't mention her name — reported she had been visited by five members of the Department of Highways engineering staff who were investigating new routes through Nahun Point and other trouble spots on the existing Westside Road. She further pointed out that the new bridge at the area of Simpson's log dump near Kelowna was just about completed, now driveable and there was considerable grading on the south end for a few miles. And that, Mr. Minister, was a bridge slated under the former administration.

"However, between Nahun's Landing and the south end of the gravel surface all were concerned with the generally bad condition of most of the surface, particularly washboard, in areas where fill work had been done. But lack of attention to those unpaved hills, dangerous comers, some with extreme drops to the lake, and grades in those corners which slope towards the outer cliffside, make the most hazardous conditions when covered with snow, ice and mud."

Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't suggest that these hazards just arrived. They didn't. But in fact this government's road programme last year was so inadequate and so out of keeping with previous progressive programmes in the area that not only did this area not get the attention it should have for the future, but it deteriorated. This Minister must answer for this.

"The committee wish to remind the Minister that the unsafe areas to the south were discussed at the September 5 meeting when in the Minister's closing statement he said: 'The unsafe and deplorable condition was recognized.' and stated that steps would be taken to remove the main hazards this fall."

That was last fall, Mr. Chairman.

We have all heard his very confident statements to the House, and we can imagine how he spoke with aplomb and authority at that meeting where he was out to make a good election appearance. Then, in fact, didn't meet his commitment. These people believed his effort, believed him to be sincere.

"He said that this would help to provide a safer route for school buses, and those travelling daily with children to and from school.

"Members of the committee from Nahun north pointed out that the road had had little improvement, with the exception of one grading attempt improving the conditions for a day or two. This was done just before the long weekend and heavy traffic soon dispersed the surface."

In fact these members stated that the north end of the road was the worst they had ever seen it, since the NDP took over.

Mr. Chairman, again I don't suggest that this road has ever been a paradise for driving. But I suggest that the people in the area, following a year's

[ Page 1894 ]

administration by the NDP government, themselves stated that this road had never been in worse condition.

They also pointed out to the Minister where the most serious driving hazards in the fall and winter were, and that was from the south corner going north. In case the Minister, who doesn't seem very familiar with this area, has forgotten, I would remind him that approximately one mile north of the end of the pavement there are two very bad comers on a steep hill, each with a severe drop to the lake. Mr. Minister, these corners not only need widening, which is a difficult thing to do, but they also need retaining walls to hold them up, and to be filled and widened.

The next area where they are concerned and which they brought to the attention of the Minister, was area D.L. 39 of the new bridge, where logging trucks are using the Westside Road for about one mile. They suggested that the hill there had a washboard condition which was extreme, in their experience, and had deteriorated since the NDP took over.

Point (3): D.L. 2549, 4497 and 3546. I'm reading these numbers out, Mr. Chairman, because I hope the Minister, in view of the fact that he broke his commitment to these people last fall, will indicate today to this Member and this House exactly what he intends to do in each of these areas this year. They say that within these areas are short stretches of very narrow rocky roadbed where it is impossible for two cars to pass and difficult to back up to a safe position. This is quite true, Mr. Minister.

Point (4): D.L. 3541 at Nahun Point. This is a very interesting point, Mr. Chairman, and I'd love to take you over.

"It is a major hazard area under any conditions, as approaches on each end are steep, very narrow, curved and seem to miss any service attention during the winter." — and this has not improved this winter, Mr. Chairman — "Sanding and chains are a must, even under light frost, providing the road has been ploughed, which has been on few occasions this year. This is due in part to the road width being too narrow for the graders."

Mr. Minister, you made a commitment on that corner. You haven't done anything about it. I can recognize your problem: that is an extremely difficult corner to deal with and it's going to cost many thousands and thousands of dollars. If you intend to put that money in there, fine. I can recognize why that corner might not have been repaired last fall.

What I question you on is the fact that you made this commitment in view of an election, and you haven't carried out your commitment. I want to know, through you, Mr. Chairman, if you are going to carry out that commitment, on all these areas, on this extremely difficult road which, it appears, you went over and didn't appreciate in terms of its difficulties and its cost factor.

The next ones are D.L. 2923 and 2550, just north of a residential subdivision called Valley of the Sun.

"At the top of a long steep hill is a bottomless sand corner, so rutted and. deep, at times a vehicle cannot travel up and down."

I'm not familiar with that particular road and I don't know whether it's part of a subdivision. If it is, then I think the Minister's responsibility doesn't lie there. But if, in fact, it's a public road and if he made this commitment, I want to know what he's going to do about it.

The next one is D.L. 3329, Ewing's Landing area.

"Here there are several hazards. A wet clay surface sloping to the ditch almost ensures one going off the road when meeting an oncoming truck or car. To make matters worse there are three or four bad twisting curves with grades in every direction and large trees which would seem to be in the road right-of-way."

You made a commitment there, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. Is the Minister going to meet this commitment?

D.L. 3795:

"Rock has been used here, which creates a condition of driving on giant marbles."

The last one that they are concerned about are two hills at the north end, one at approximately D.L. 2198, the other just before the pavement.

"Each are steep, twisting and have severe washboard. So much so that it is reported the school bus may have to cancel its extended service."

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, I am aware, and I think everybody in his department is aware, of what an extremely difficult road this is in terms of widening it any further. There has been considerable work done on it over the years, it's very expensive and it's very frustrating because the road in the north end is used extensively by logging trucks, and they chew it up very quickly. We have an extreme problem of heat and dryness which leads to further washboard problems. Oiling it as much as the people would like has proved expensive. The thought of widening the whole road in the past has been beyond reasonable priorities in light of the fact that there hasn't been a large population in there over the past years.

But, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that population has increased dramatically in the last two or three years, and the patch-up job and the reasonable condition of this road has been treated. The commitments that you made are in the areas of the most difficult area and have not been supported by your department in the past.

My point is: are you going to meet the commitments that you made and broke last year, and carry out this work this year? Is the Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, going to, in fact, take care of all

[ Page 1895 ]

these corners, build the retaining wall, take out the Nahun corner rockbluff, and blacktop that road?

If he is, I'll be the first to applaud him. I hope he will stand up and assure the Member and the people in this area that he will meet this commitment, that this will be done this year, and that there is money in this meagre vote for maintenance and upgrading.

I'll go back to the specific questions I asked him in regard to the new City of Kelowna when he has answered because I have some more. I'd like to bring to his attention the matter of Highway 97, between Kamloops and Vernon. I'm really surprised that the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) didn't mention this.

The road from Kamloops to Vernon, Highway 97, is used very extensively by both commercial traffic, including logging, tourists traffic, and the small amount of local traffic. It has been extended and widened as far as Monte Lake, but the area from Monte Lake into O'Keefe Corner is, at best, a patch-up job in terms of what the Minister appears to have planned this year.

I'd like to ask the Minister, when he elaborated last night and said "repair and maintenance" if he really didn't mean he was just going to dust off the roads, he was going to do more black topping and shouldering. On behalf of these people, I would like to ask if they will be widening this road, paving the shoulders, and indeed, bringing it up at least to the standard of the road from Monte Creek to Monte Lake.

I'd also like to speak in terms of some provincial policies. There has been some debate about whether one can discuss highway safety under this Minister's vote, in spite of the fact that he utilizes a fair number of pages of his annual report in this discussion.

With the problem of minor infractions within the highway usage, and putting together the fact that we are always short of blood in British Columbia, I would like to suggest that the Minister of Highways get together with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke).

Where people are in sound health but are habitual offenders in speeding and other areas that don't involve alcohol, while they don't have to pay a fine today — they only get demerits — they will have to pay an increase in their premium under their driver's permit but also to set an arbitrary figure of six demerits. When a person has six demerits, they also, if they are in a fine state of health, are requested to donate a pint of blood to the Red Cross blood bank.

Mr. Minister, a large percentage of blood is used in highway accidents on an emergency basis.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You are dealing with vote 98, not the Minister of Health.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, those in highway accidents are large users of blood in this province. We are short of blood in this province and I am suggesting to this Minister, who has spent a great deal of time in this House in discussing his desires to promote highway safety, that this is one more way he can make drivers more conscious of the need to obey the speed limits and safety rules which he is helping to institute in this province. Anyone beyond 6 demerits, if they are in good health, does have to contribute a pint of blood to the British Columbia Red Cross. That may save their own life when they abuse the highways this Minister is building.

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

  Following through with my colleague, I fully endorse his comments on Mr. Merilees, the former Member of this House, and the beautification programme he worked so hard with the department to promote. I fully concur. I felt the meridian should have been named "Merilees Meridian."

I would like to ask the government to continue its programme, which is very sparse indeed, of using artificial turf at all areas where we have a cement or blacktop meridian and turnoff areas. Just out here on the main intersection out of Victoria, there are lovely trees on the sides of the roads. Then you have this ugly blacktop meridian. Further down, you have a smaller area utilizing the turf. I believe this should be a policy all over the province. Where we have blacktop meridians, they should be covered with artificial turf.

There is also a matter of considerable concern regarding the ferry on the Shuswap Lake. There is another rumour emanating from your department that the ferry, because it only carried 1,780 passengers last year and has a low average, is going to be discontinued. Is the Minister listening?

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, I am listening.

MRS. JORDAN: The people are most concerned that this ferry service, which is utilized by the local residents and is also a marvelous tourist attraction, be maintained and upgraded. Perhaps more effort could be made on the part of the gentleman operating it to provide more generous but still simplified food service in terms of pop and candy bars. So often people get on the ferry, they haven't taken any food and they get sick or feel queasy if the lake is rough. They can't always buy something. There should be some sort of staple foods on this ferry that are not perishable so they can get something to help settle their tummies.

I hope the Minister will assure this House and the people that this ferry will maintain its run and every effort will be made to meet these simple needs of the people. Maybe a few more chairs would help also.

[ Page 1896 ]

Also under the Minister's vote I would like to speak in general terms of policy. I'll have to make specific reference to a point which I will bring up in more detail under the detailed votes. This is a matter of division between traffic warrant and common sense.

I think every Member in this House appreciates the need of the department and the engineers and designers to basically operate on a warrant system and the traffic-count system. There comes a time when the adherence to the system absolutely destroys common sense.

I speak of the bypass to Allison Park at Okanagan Landing as one example. I am quite free to say, as I did at the time, that this is not necessarily a high priority but it was a commitment by the former administration to involve themselves in a progressive programme, doing a little bit each year. This policy has been reversed by the current administration and we now have letters from the Minister suggesting that, in short, there is going to be no bypass and that it's an internal problem, which is to a large degree true. If anything, they are going to upgrade the present road.

Again I suggest that you spoke without knowing the full facts. The problem of that road, as in many other roads in this province — and one is on the other side of the Kootenay Lakes — go back years and years, some of them 50, 60, 70 years. It started out as a walking area, then was a horse area and a cattle area, then a car area, and now it's a traffic area to a large provincial park as well as a tourist area in terms of driving to visit, as well as a community area in terms of people living there. There is no way, Mr. Minister, you can upgrade that current road without destroying yourself as Minister. As a politician, I suppose I should be sitting on the sidelines, hoping you will do it, but I don't because I don't wish you that sort of a situation.

I feel the responsible thing to do is not blast that road, which would virtually, in some instances, go through peoples' living rooms, into a wider situation and encourage more traffic into that area. This is why you should recognize that the outside traffic in that area was not extreme in terms of traffic counts and warrants but was a hazard to children and to residents within the area and to the tourists themselves.

The Minister has talked about mobile homes with bathtubs on them. Well, lots of these mobile homes come from British Columbia. Trying to get them through that area is extremely dangerous both for the drivers and for the people living in the community spot.

I would urge you to reconsider your position and to continue a progressive programme utilizing the Ellison bypass plan that was drawn up in conjunction with the regional planner of North Okanagan in cooperation with the highway engineer from the City of Vernon and with your own department. It went to public hearing and was approved by the people. It was designed in such a way that it could eventually linkup with any major change that was made on Highway 97.

These people have been very patient. It took two or three years before I could get a sympathetic ear from the department under our former administration, but they took a realistic point of view. Frankly, we have been sitting on a bubbling kettle all this time. These people have been stating very firmly that they intend to see that your government meets its commitments and they intend to take whatever steps are necessary as a committee themselves.

As MLA, I urged the people not to take this type of step. If we take a responsible and rational approach to the department, I believe we will get a commitment and the recognition of what the problem is in this area. This is in no way a threat, Mr. Minister; it's just a very frank statement. If your department, under your administration, and you as Minister don't stop talking about blasting your way through people's living rooms to improve the current road, and make a commitment to carry on a progressive development stage of the bypass, then I certainly won't be answerable for what the people do. I believe they will raise such a storm that eventually you will have to give in. So why wait until they pressure you into the pot? Why not make a reasonable and rational decision and meet this commitment?

I would be very pleased to have you come up and we'll have an open meeting. You can take all the credit and the glory for it. I certainly don't want to see in the North Okanagan marching mothers and barricades of tourists and all the things that have been suggested will be done. I think it's bad politics on your part not to look at the realities of the facts. I think it's a breach of faith to suggest that these people should have this road blasted through their living rooms.

I would also like to advise the Minister that people voluntarily put together a questionnaire with the help of the Minister's department, which was under the former administration, type of questions to present the situation to them and get their views. This was all volunteer help by people who had previously said they were going to be militant. They took a responsible attitude; the people responded as helpfully and responsibly as they could. If there is a break in this commitment, it's your break. I would suggest to you as kindly as I can that you avoid that break and avoid putting yourself in the position where you're going to be blasted to the wall and eventually have to give in anyway. I would invite the Minister's comments on that.

I have some other points which I wish to bring up but perhaps the Minister would answer these

[ Page 1897 ]

questions at this time. Then I'll carry on when other Members have had a chance to speak.

HON. MR. LEA: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan asked me to come up with an overall plan for access roads to privately-owned ski hills and otherwise. I suggest that we have looked at each individual request from each society, from each group, from each private owner, from the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) and we've dealt with each one on its individual merits.

MRS. JORDAN: What's your policy?

HON. MR. LEA: The policy is, Madam Member, that we deal with each one on its individual merit. That's the policy.

She also asked about the ferries on Shuswap. The fellow has done a commendable job on the ferry service that's there. There's been agreement signed with that person who has the older ferry, with the department and with the fellow who wants to put in a new service, not conflicting with the old but to supply additional ferry service on Shuswap Lake under this administration.

MRS. JORDAN: Was he willing to go along with you?

HON. MR. LEA: Everyone was willing. I didn't do it until everybody had said they were willing: the person who had the original ferry service, the person who has the new one, and the department. There's been agreement all around and I have it in writing.

The agreement made between the provincial government and the City of Kelowna: this government will meet every obligation in that agreement in the time schedule that has been agreed to. I do not believe there's any thought within the City of Kelowna that we're trying to renege in any way on that agreement. I've asked members of my staff to get Hansard for all the comments you've made about that agreement. I'll have that information and I'll file it in the House: what we've spent, what we plan to spend and what the time schedule 1s.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: I'll file it all in the House, Madam Member. I think that should be satisfactory.

Dealing with the two roads you mentioned specifically. I've left these to last so I could boil down a little because I find it incredible that she has the gall to raise them.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, I would. There was a previous Minister of Highways in this province before P.A. Gaglardi. His name was W.A.C. Bennett. He represented the riding of South Okanagan and, while he was Minister of Highways and while that Member was a Minister in this House without portfolio, and while there was a Minister in the riding of Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) — with three Ministers representing both Okanagan ridings and Boundary-Similkameen, one of them being a Premier and the Minister of Highways — he repeatedly turned those projects down. The department repeatedly requested they be done and that former Premier, that former Minister of Highways wouldn't listen to you then and wouldn't listen to the Department of Highways then. You have the gall to come in here and say that the past administration was going to do Allison bypass. It was turned down by the former Premier when he was the former Minister of Highways with a dual portfolio. So don't hand me that, Madam Member.

MRS. JORDAN: A point of order....

HON. MR. LEA: You know darned well what the history is on those projects.

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order!

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to draw to the attention of all Hon. Members that they should address the Chair when they're debating estimates. I would appreciate in the future, Madam Member, if you would not interrupt when the Chairman is drawing you to order. Thank you.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Minister like to continue?

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I'll even compare birth certificates as to senility.

The Westside Road. Yes, I did commit my department to doing certain things on the Westside Road and those commitments are being carried out. It was point out by Members of the opposition earlier that I should look towards planning because they reminded me, and justifiably so, you just don't say, "Today I'm going to do a project," and tomorrow the bulldozers are out. It does take planning; it does take design work, and that has to be done. The Hon. Member admitted that five officials from my department had been in there talking with people and looking at different routings and designs.

[ Page 1898 ]

MRS. JORDAN: That was for the major bypass.

HON. MR. LEA: The commitments made by me at that meeting are being kept.

MRS. JORDAN: When'!

HON. MR. LEA: They are being kept on a time schedule that can be kept, with all the facilities of the department. But on the Allison bypass, I made no commitment. The only commitment made on that that I know of has been by this Member, and it surely wasn't made by the previous administration, as that Member pointed out.

So I believe this House should have all of the facts in front of it when we're debating estimates. It was not committed by this administration; it was not committed by the previous administration. I should also point out that I don't feel it's incumbent upon me to meet all the commitments made by the previous administration. That's why we won the election in August of 1972 — so that 4 great many of those commitments made by that previous administration would not be met.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I find it most amusing that the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) stands up in this House and tries to get a few Brownie points on something that's happened or hasn't happened in my riding.

MRS. JORDAN: Why don't you get a few Brownie points?

MR. LEWIS: It's through the mismanagement of that past government that there was nothing done or that I'm not able to work for something on that highway. Prior to the election in 1972, they took that highway, a highway that hasn't got proper ditching, has no shoulder — and they patched a third of it. It has patching a half-mile long all the way up that highway. They've spent so much money on that highway, the new government would look ridiculous tearing up that amount of money that was spent on patching.

She's surprised the Member for Shuswap hasn't taken some part. It's too bad you didn't take some part when you were serving in the past government and spoke out at that time for that road.

It might be a surprise to you, but do you know that I worked for the Department of Highways while your government was in power in this province?

AN HON. MEMBER: Aha!

MR. LEWIS: Some of the things I saw that went on while your government was in power were totally irresponsible. I worked on projects prior to an election. They would move a crew into a project for four or five days before the election time. We'd spend about a day getting the signs up and everything else prepared for the job and work for two or three days. The election would come along; the Socreds would win again. The day after the election they'd shut the job down.

You talk about the Minister wasting money while he's touring the province. I'd like to inform the Member that, while the Minister was in my riding, I used my car. We travelled throughout the riding and visited with the personnel in the different yards. There was no money wasted whatsoever.

If the Member knows the northern part of this province, you'll have to realize that to travel around that region and to hop from the area around Terrace over to the Peace River would cost considerably more money if they had done it by car with the highways personnel and the amount of money that would have been expended in their salaries.

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: It's not rubbish.

MR. PHILLIPS: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What's your point of order?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it sure is very misleading....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Member for Shuswap continue, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: The Member is misleading the House.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: That party down there has gone into a....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would like to remind Members of the House that the Hon. Member for Shuswap has the floor. The Chair would appreciate it if all Members would be quiet in their seats.

MR. LEWIS: The thing that concerns the Socreds at the far end of the House is that they can't find anything under this Minister to criticize. They've had to pick out an $18,000 item that was justified.

[ Page 1899 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEWIS: They've had to enter into personal attacks. That's the only area they feel they can make any headway in in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind the Member for Shuswap that you should try and direct your remarks toward the vote.

MR. LEWIS: Well, I think they have been directed to the vote far more than what they have in the past.

I think it's time the public really knew what's going on in this House. When I came to this House I thought, well, I've served on the regional district for four years; I'm going into the big time. Things are going to be better and people are going to know how to behave. I'm absolutely disgusted that we've spent the amount of time...

MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you quit then?

MR. LEWIS: ...we've spent in this House over things that are totally irrelevant to the Minister's estimates.

I'd like to ask the Socreds, seeing there's a few of them in the House now, to start to deal with the Minister's estimates, and pass the Minister's estimates so we can get on and do the people's business.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask if I heard right when the Minister answered one of my questions. With regard to the tolls on roads in national parks, did I hear the Minister say that those tolls have been removed?

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, you did.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, they haven't, Mr. Chairman. The tolls are still on in parks. Now what's going on here? What kind of answer is that from the Minister? We just made a call to one of the national parks, and the tolls are still in place. They are charging tolls to go through the parks. Yet, the Minister stands in this House and tells us they're not. At least let's get some things straight in this debate.

The Minister has indicated he wants to answer, and I'll wait while someone else speaks.

MR. LEWIS: I'm waiting for my answer, too.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, after checking with my staff, the indication we have from the federal government to us is that the policy has been changed: it's been passed; it's being done, and they're off. If that information is incorrect, we'll check it out, Mr. Member. I just want to say that I didn't try to mislead this House, that's the information we had from the federal government. We'll check it out.

MR. PHILLIPS: I hope Hansard doesn't credit me with all that last speech because I don't remember hearing the Chairman recognize the Minister. However, I appreciate the Minister's interruption.

Just a couple of quick subjects that I'd like to discuss here, Mr. Chairman.

I've been giving a lot of thought to the very timely subject of tourists and campers on our highways. I'd like to just forward a thought to the Minister at this time about that subject. Even though he wants campers and trailers off of our highways, unless he puts up some sort of barrier at the border, I don't feel he is going to keep them off the highway.

I'll have to admit that from time to time I have been antagonized myself when I've been driving from point A to point B, trying to keep within the speed limit and have been held up by a long line of campers. But usually I find that this long line of campers is on a particular stretch of road that has not the opportunity for faster-moving automobiles to pass. In other words, it's been in a hilly area or it's been on a long series of white lines or double white lines.

I suggest to the Minister, and I'd like his comments on this. What are you doing, what are your plans and what are your proposals to provide more passing lanes? We don't necessarily need four-lane highways, and we don't necessarily only have to have passing lanes on hills. Couldn't we provide passing lanes on level stretches where there is an opportunity to widen the road? We could have passing lanes going both ways. This would prevent some of the bottlenecks that occur on our highways. I'd like to have the Minister comment on this.

I asked the Minister, yesterday, what he was going to do about two particularly bad areas in my constituency where three-lane passing should be provided on the Hart Highway. He said they weren't in the estimates for this year. But if there were more passing lanes, it would eliminate some of the bottlenecks that we find in the tourist season with the slower-moving campers and cars and trailers. So maybe the Minister would comment on that for me, please.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I had occasion not too many weeks ago to travel in the central and northern part of the province to conduct a series of meetings in the Skeena area, and to travel on the highways of that area, I have waited to hear whether or not the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) would take this matter up with the Minister of Highways. Since he hasn't....

I indicated to the people that I would take this matter to the Minister because it involves a question

[ Page 1900 ]

of policy. I'm glad to hear the Minister say that he is going to be concerned more with maintenance of highways than with new construction. In travelling the highway from Prince Rupert to Terrace, there is no question but that the completion of this highway is a must. It's in the Minister's own area, and I'm sure this will be looked after.

My question is not with that particular stretch of road but with the stretch between Terrace and Kitimat. There is unusual heaving in that area. In that area they tell me that weather conditions are not unusual, although they've had more moisture than usual, but as far as freezing temperatures are concerned, nothing unusual in that area.

But they noticed that last fall the practice usually followed by the Highways department was not followed. Normally the highway crews move in and fill in all of the cracks and the crevices which develop in the blacktop over the summer months. But in the past year, in the last fall, this did not occur, and with the unusually heavy rainfall in the area, the moisture has found its way underneath the blacktop and the heaving is unusual. As a matter of fact, they are concerned that it will require hundreds of thousands of dollars to repair an item which may have been looked after for a small amount had it been cared for during the fall months and before the rain fell.

My question to the Minister is: In your new-found love for maintenance, why were the cracks in the Kitimat-Terrace road not filled in last fall, as they have been each year heretofore? The natives say this is the first year this has not occurred and now we are going to have a multi-thousand dollar repair job on just the one stretch of road alone.

This is not a frivolous question; this is a serious question which I promised your people I would ask you. Perhaps you could give me an answer, Mr. Minister.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, much earlier in this debate, I asked the Minister some questions which he promised he would find an answer for. As yet he hasn't answered. As far as I understand, the particular question I asked is still in his department, although probably will be removed as of April 1. It is concerning the new high-frequency, single-side band system which was installed near Victoria as part of an air-medical dispatch system to be used in conjunction with the government's newly acquired aircraft.

The questions I asked were: Where is it installed? How much did it cost? How much has it been used for emergency purposes? And is a log maintained for its use? He assured me he would give me an answer, and as yet we have not had that answer.

HON. MR. LEA: Possibly I could clear that up. Last year, as you know, in May the jurisdiction of highways passed from this Minister to myself, and the responsibly for those radios you talk about are under his jurisdiction.

MR. MORRISON: They are not.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Member, they are.

MR. MORRISON: You just told me not until April 1, which is a week, three or four days away.

HON. MR. LEA: The money has been there all the time, and they've been administered by that Minister. Now if you truly want information then I suggest that you ask this Minister when his.... If it's information you want, I'm suggesting to you a method of getting it. The Minister has told me that he's told you that outside the chamber, and he'd check it out for you. All we want to do is try and get you that information, and we'll do it.

MR. MORRISON: Just to keep the record straight; I asked the Minister of Transportation and Communication if it was in his department. He said that it was not in his department, but it might be as of April 1.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I said the money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the Member should take the Minister's word.

MR. MORRISON: Well, I just want to get the record straight. I asked the Minister of Highways first and I haven't got an answer. I then asked the Minister of Transportation and Communications, and he told me it wasn't in his department. So maybe these two guys can get together. But at the moment, it's in the Highways budget.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. MORRISON: If, I'm misquoting the Minister of Transportation, I apologize. But the impression I got just a few minutes ago from his was that it was not yet in his department.

Interjections.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, what we're talking about today is money. That's what we're on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think Hon. Members that we, would make more progress if the Hon. Member would wait until the other estimates are up.

[ Page 1901 ]

Interjections.

MR. MORRISON: It's already been purchased.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, Hon. Members!

MR. MORRISON: Surely I'm entitled to an answer today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I don't believe you are, Hon. Member, because the Minister has indicated that the money next year is in another vote and that that question can be asked at that time. I would ask you to ask it at that time.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, the equipment has been purchased. I want to know where it's installed. I want to know how much it cost. I want to know how it's being used. And I want to know if there's a log being maintained. Now the Minister made a big issue about submitting this White Paper to us; he made a big issue to this House. He wanted to get it out so we could discuss it during these estimates.

Now either he has some intention to mislead us with this, or he intended that we should talk about it; and that's exactly why I'm asking the questions. I think I'm entitled to an answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I would like to make a couple of points, if I may. The first is that the Minister has indicated that the vote is in another vote and, secondly, in any event, the Minister does not have to answer questions that are posed by Hon. Members. Thirdly, I would ask you not to impute that the Minister was misleading the House.

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 12:57 p.m.