CONTENTS

Motion

Adjournment of the House on matter of public importance.

Mr. Bennett — 3401

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3401

Mr. Bennett — 3401

Mr. Speaker — 3401

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3402

Mr. Bennett — 3402

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3402

Mr. Speaker — 3402

Mr. Bennett — 3402

Mr. Speaker — 3402

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources estimates

On vote 165.

Mr. Chabot — 3403

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3403

Mr. Chabot — 3403

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3403

Mr. Chabot — 3404

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3404

Department of Highways estimates.

On vote 93.

Mr. Fraser — 3404

Hon. Mr. Lea — 3404

Mr. Fraser — 3406

Hon. Mr. Lea — 3408

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3409

Hon. Mr. Lea — 3410

Mr. Smith — 3412

Hon. Mr. Lea — 3413

Mr. Liden — 3414

Hon. Mr. Lea — 3415

Mr. Phillips — 3416

THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): I would ask, under standing order 35, to adjourn the House on a matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member state the matter?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the House is meeting only for the purpose of going into estimates, but that's a matter I would have to consider. In the meantime, would the Hon. Member state the matter?

MR. BENNETT: Last Friday the Premier of the province filed in this House a financial statement on the British Columbia Railway — B.C. Railway Company Financial Statement, December 31, 1974.

At the same time in New York a preliminary prospectus dated March 13, 1975, and a final prospectus May 22, 1975, indicate a financial report for the B.C. Railway in variance with the report filed by the Premier and presented to this House.

The prospectus is signed by the Deputy Minister of Finance, who is also the secretary of the B.C. Railway.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me a second. I now have a point of order. I think points of order have precedence over....

MR. BENNETT: Well, can I not finish my statement?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, apparently not. Any Member can be interrupted by a point of order at any time, as I think the Hon. Member knows.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): A point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) is aware, there is a bill in debate before the House, at which time, it seems to me, the points he is bringing up could be thoroughly canvassed during that period.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that point is certainly well taken.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the bill in question deals with the borrowing authority of the railway. But this information which has just come to my attention is serious enough to warrant the immediate investigation and discussion by this House. Either the Premier filed a false financial statement in this House, or the prospectus which is signed by the Deputy Minister of Finance, G.S. Bryson, who is also secretary of the railway, a prospectus that is signed by the chartered accountant firms of Price Waterhouse.... They say: "The statements mentioned above fairly present the financial position of the authority as at March 31, 1974." This statement Purports to be the financial statement of 1974.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order! Order!

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, my statement is this. Either the statement is...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order! Order! Order!

MR.BENNETT: ...false and the Premier misled the House, or else we have....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated for a minute?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Would the Hon. Member please be seated for a moment? I am getting calls for order, and I must listen when I have calls for order from anywhere in the House.

It is obvious that the Hon. Member is indulging in what amounts to a debate. The simple statement of the matter under standing order 35 is merely to indicate the urgency of a matter of urgent public importance, and the question of urgency always is the urgency of debate.

Now right at this moment we are in the middle of a debate on the financial affairs of this particular railway. That is one point. The second thing that has to be considered is whether what the Hon. Member is raising is information of such currency that it could have been raised no sooner than now.

Those are two aspects I have to look at before I rule on the question of whether your application for an adjournment should be accepted.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: There is a point of order.

Interjection.

[ Page 3402 ]

MR. BENNETT: ...will not allow us to debate on second reading of the bill, and that is why I indicated urgent public importance, because that debate could not take place until this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: I have a point there that I will certainly take under consideration so that at 2 o'clock I should be able to give you an answer.

MR. BENNETT: I'd like to suggest a short recess.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: I point out to the Hon. Member that I can make an immediate decision. I thought that in the interests of a careful look at the situation it would be better to do that.

Now most parliaments, most Speakers, usually set a certain time to hand down the decision on whether or not it is in order. I like that practice because it gives me the time to study all the authorities. I can look right now on page 365 of May, 17th edition, I think it is, where it says, "...the motion has been refused when an ordinary parliamentary opportunity will occur shortly or in time."

Now obviously that will happen shortly, this afternoon. That is certainly early enough.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources is also, I gather, rising on a point of order. I would like to get the points of order settled first. Were you rising on a point of order?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Well, I wanted to raise a question on the decision of the Speaker, Mr. Speaker. It appears we have that now — that a decision will be made later. My concern was the continuing speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) prior to the decision.

MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I am raising this matter and have the information in my possession, and as second reading has taken place and is not available now, some Members will be denied the opportunity to speak on second reading who have already spoken.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you just imagine that?

MR. BENNETT: I would assume that all of the Members of this House are interested in the reputation of the province and the conduct of this Legislature and the government. I would hope for that reason they would allow and you would rule, Mr. Speaker, that this emergency debate should take place, because the reputation of our province on an international basis is at stake.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On this same point, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that early debate is necessary on this matter, particularly as the Premier is going to New York for four days to discuss the financial situation in the province with financial people. However, I would also point out that the statement, desire and request of the Leader of the Opposition is, in fact, an acceptance as truth of everything that was said last Friday. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Because of the points that have been raised on the issue by both sides, I think that a wise thing to do would be to give a decision on the matter at 2 p.m. I don't see that it is going to affect the situation of urgency for a matter of two hours.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I haven't finished my statement because I wanted to further....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member can make the material available to the Speaker. If he would kindly do that, he has already stated the matter.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

May I first say to the Hon. Member that stating the matter does not mean indulging in controversial debate on the issue.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BENNETT: There is an additional matter that is part of my statement. That matter is this: the British Columbia Railway has not filed the required financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1973, and this contravenes the Public Bodies Financial Information Act.

MR. SPEAKER: May I interrupt to say that the matter you are raising is a matter of the ordinary administrative responsibilities of government. It would therefore not be the subject of debate of a matter of urgency in this context. You will note this by looking at page 365 of the 17th edition of May. The statement that you are now starting on would therefore not be necessary. I will deal with the matter and give you a report at 2 p.m. I think that the urgency is not in any way diminished or increased by waiting until 2 p.m.

[ Page 3403 ]

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
LANDS, FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES
(continued)

Vote 164: Water Resources Service, pollution control, $3,641,734 — approved.

On vote 165: Water Resources Service, environmental conservation (SAM), $733,368.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I want to stand in support of this vote. I notice that there is quite an increase in allocation of dollars. It is an excellent programme that was initiated by a progressive, conservation-minded former government of this province. I am wondering if the Minister would elaborate and give us a few words about how the programme is presently functioning. How many cars were crushed in British Columbia last year vis-à-vis the previous year?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It is my understanding that 19,000 cars were compacted in the past year. As I indicated, the programme is reasonably successful, as the Member suggests. One of the problems, however, is the contract that the former Minister unilaterally made with the Richmond recycling company. This was a contract that did not go through normal public service procedure. As a result, that 10-year contract established in early 1972 set a low price for all of the material that is compacted under this programme. Essentially this means that for a decade, under the arrangements of that contract, the Crown would accept a price that I think anybody would consider far too low in relation to market value of steel. This was a 10-year contract, not going through the public service, not going through the Attorney-General's office, with a monopoly single buyer for a product that the Crown collects. That was the sort of thing that they did under the former administration.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I am rather shocked that a Minister of the Crown who has such little respect for contracts and for the right of the public service and government would make such irresponsible statements as he has just made.

Certainly the programme is a success. In order for the government to ensure that an industry was established in this province, it was necessary to find someone who is willing to accept these vehicles. Do you think that a shredding industry will be established in this province on the basis of competitive bidding? Who in his right mind would invest the kind of money necessary to be invested for this shredder unless there was a guarantee of supply? You know that. You can't be that stupid, can you?

The price that was negotiated at that time by the provincial government was substantially more than they were able to get from any other shredding company, be it in Seattle or anywhere else. Substantially more. That agreement they signed in 1972 was substantially better than any other kind of agreement they could have negotiated anywhere in North America, or the Pacific Northwest.

There has to be a guarantee of supply. Who's going to invest over $1 million for the shredding of automobiles in this province unless the guarantee is there? What kind of nonsensical statements is the Minister making?

We know that the price of steel has escalated, but we know we have an industry that will shred and dispose of the litter from the countryside of this province, and make a contribution as far as jobs are concerned in British Columbia.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's par for the course, Mr. Chairman. Ideologically trapped as usual — out there in the extreme right wing, couldn't consider any alternative other than a monopoly situation with a single buyer for a product that the Crown collects all around the province; couldn't consider the possibility of a Crown entity doing a proper job from beginning to end. Ideologically trapped so that you go into any damned contract under the sun simply to avoid a proper, rational answer in terms of resolving the problem fairly and for the benefit of all citizens of the province.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just before the Hon. Member makes his reply, I would ask both the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) to use somewhat more suitable language for a jurisdiction such as this. Words like "stupid" and "damned" are just not words appropriate to a legislative chamber.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the word "stupid" as well. It's an unparliamentary word.

MR. CHABOT: I didn't call the Minister stupid.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: I said that he makes stupid statements, and he does, too, Mr. Chairman. You know it.

[ Page 3404 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member, it was a borderline case. However, it was a more direct imputation. I'm just asking that the Hon. Members use more temperate language.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, in response to those irrational and irresponsible statements from that Minister over there, the only market existing for shredding of steel at the time of that contract in 1972 was in the Pacific Northwest. The price wasn't adequate to justify the salvaging that was taking place.

It became a position of government: are they going to have a shredding plant established in this province or not? That conclusion has to be reached. The government examined the question. They discussed it with a variety of people who were interested in establishing a shredding plant, and they reached the most favourable contract with the present plant in Richmond. Now I hope the Minister's not trying to suggest that on the basis of accumulating 19,000 wrecked vehicles in this province, there is room for three shredding plants in British Columbia, because if he is, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Hon. Member can say what he likes, Mr. Chairman, but let's get it straight. It is a contract that was entered into by the former Minister of Recreation and Conservation. It was a contract that was witnessed by his executive assistant of the day. It was a contract that did not go through the Attorney-General's office, as all contracts should...

MR. CHABOT: It went through the cabinet.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): What a cabinet!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's a kind of rag-bag approach that ends up with people of the province paying again.

Vote 165 approved.

Vote 166: Water Resources Service, laboratory services, $1,526,127 — approved.

Vote 127: Water Resources Service, salary contingencies, $1,720,936 — approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, we're moving to the Minister of Highways' estimates and he's just out in the hall. He's just coming now. We have to indulge your patience for one moment.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(continued)

On vote 93: Minister's office, $138,690.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, I'm just wasting a little time, here; I think the Minister needs his staff.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Well, you know, they might write something down. I don't think the Minister will.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member proceed, please?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): I'd like to answer some of the questions he asked the other day. In one of the points brought up by the Hon. Member for Cariboo he referred to an article from The Vancouver Sun, Saturday June 7, 1975, in regard to a ferry operation on the Queen Charlotte Islands: "Subsidized ferry owner says take-over coming." Obviously the Member for Cariboo took this at face value and raised it on the floor of the House. I guess that's one way to do it. I'm not sure whether the Member did any research. Did you just refer to this, or was there any research done, Mr. Member?

MR. FRASER: I've heard other stories as well as that one.

HON. MR. LEA: I see. Okay. Now what is happening is that MITCO — the Misty Islands Transportation Co. — which has had that ferry service between Graham Island and Moresby Island for a few years....

MR. FRASER: Was Graham Island named after you?

HON. MR. LEA: Well, Moresby Island is going to be changed; that's going to be Lea Island. (Laughter.) We're going to become a separate state unto ourselves. I'll be known as governor. (Laughter.)

What has happened is that the owner of this ferry service has gone to the press, has gone public, saying that the government is taking over a service with which he has been in business for some time — that is, running the ferry service from one island to another. This isn't unusual; the former government did it; we do it, and I think it's correct.

There are government-subsidized dollars that go into ferry services over a period of time because the service is needed, but it doesn't require the kind of expensive service that can be supplied either through

[ Page 3405 ]

the Department of Highways or through the Department of Transport and Communications and the B.C. Ferries. But there does come a time, and it happens quite often, when the need for that service increases. The time comes when a better ferry service is needed to supply the kind of service that people have coming to them as citizens in this province.

Now there are about 6,000 people living there who need that ferry service. The freight service is increasing all the time. The airport is on the south island, the northern tip of the south island, and the air passenger rate is increasing. So there is more and more and more call on the services of that ferry.

For three years we subsidized the present owner of that ferry at $24,000 a year. Last year he asked for an increase. At that time we asked him to supply us figures so that we would know whether or not, after analysis of his data, an increase was called for. We felt that he put a good case in front of us and we increased the subsidy to $48,000 last year. Quite some time ago, I believe in the spring of 1974, we announced that there would be a government ferry going in. At that time, a representative of this company asked if they could meet with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and myself. They asked for some of the details, which we gave them — when we expected the ferry service to begin, et cetera.

At that time they offered us that company. They offered us the company. We said we weren't particularly interested in buying the company. There's a U-drive attached to it; there's a freight service, a water taxi and a bus service. We said the only thing we were interested in was putting a government ferry in there to serve the current needs of the people living on the Queen Charlotte Islands.

But we said that if it is going to become uneconomic for you to run the rest of your operation because of the ferry service .... One must remember that we were subsidizing that ferry at $48,000, so really we were paying taxpayers' money out for that service before and right now. So we did some negotiations with the owners of MITCO — mostly at their insistence, not ours. Then we started receiving letters in the department from Mr. Manary, president of Misty Islands Transport Co. Ltd.

There is a letter dated October 28, 1974, and signed by Mr. Chadwick, a partner of the same company. He wrote to my executive assistant:

"Dear Mr. Miller:

"Regarding Mitco Transportation Co. Ltd.

"Further to our recent telephone conversation, would you be kind enough to advise me of the name of the individual in the development corporation that will be handling the takeover of Mitco Transportation Co. Ltd. A matter requiring a decision has transpired, and therefore the division of assets and the application of such assets must be made immediately and such contact with the development corporation is necessary.

"Your cooperation in supplying this information would be greatly appreciated.

"Yours very truly...."

Mr. Chadwick was a partner of Touche Ross, the accountants.

At that time Mr. Miller wrote back to Mr. Chadwick of Touche Ross — this is November 4, 1974.

"It is apparent that there is a conflict of opinion between Misty Islands Transportation Co. Ltd. and the government in regard to the intentions of the government to purchase the company."

It goes on.

Then we had another letter — this one dated April 11, 1975, this time from the president of the company, Mr. Manary. In one paragraph he says: "Unless other arrangements can be made, we will be forced to commence phasing out these services, which we feel at this time we will no longer be able to provide after August 31, 1975." It's a letter something along the same line as the one before.

This time he has written again by Mr. Miller from my office:

"Dear Mr. Manary:

"Thank you very much for your letter of April 11. I have discussed your letter with the Minister and departmental staff. The Minister has asked me to advise you that should you deem it necessary to withdraw certain services, of course the government would be prepared to see that the people on the islands are not deprived of these necessary services such as water taxis, the U-drive, the freight service and the bus service.

"Our engineering staff advised me that there should be certain minimal interference with the operation as a result of our construction work. Any problems in this regard can be worked out."

So at no time have we gone to Mr. Manary or anyone else in that company and said we would like to even purchase their company, never mind take it over.

Then the next we knew was press releases coming out. As I understand it, he had hired a person by the name of Mr. Jerredano, who has been connected for some years with various newspapers in the province, to act as his press release person, as I understand it. All of a sudden all these press releases start coming out — "Subsidized Ferry Owner Says Takeover Coming." Then at one point in this article you referred to, Mr. Member, he said that he had a panic call from an Associate Deputy of mine. I checked — none of my Associate Deputies called him. Mr.

[ Page 3406 ]

Rhodes, the comptroller of the department, did call him and say: "We've been looking at the paper and we want to know what your intentions are so that we can act accordingly in keeping services to the people on Queen Charlotte Islands." That was the panic call he referred to, I suppose.

So we are prepared at this time, if he withdraws his service, to supply a service. But at no time have we indicated to them that we were interested in buying; we were only reacting to his offer to sell, and not very wholeheartedly. So I hope that covers the question that you had.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'm happy that the Minister has replied to the Queen Charlotte Islands ferry service. I appreciate his answer. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister is also the MLA for the area. I realize he knows a lot more about the problems there than some reporter for The Vancouver Sun, who probably has never even been there. I'm glad to hear that this service is going to continue regardless of what happened.

I have a few other things before I get into the small riding of Cariboo with a few specifics. I'd like to hear the Minister give us a report on the speed limit that was put into effect, I believe, last fall throughout the province, the average being 55 miles per hour. Some are dropped to 50; some are dropped to 45. Has there been any time to monitor the results of this policy change?

My observation is that nobody is paying any attention to the speed limit. They might have slowed down from 75 to 70 miles an hour. But if you drive at 55 miles an hour on any highway today, everything passes you. I'd like to know whether there has been a significant reduction in the accident rate and a significant reduction in claims to ICBC because of this. I would say to the Minister that I think it's a popular move with the motoring public, but they're not paying any attention to it. I'm talking about the main highways and that.

I would say, though, Mr. Chairman, that there are some places where there is a density of traffic I think your engineers should look at. I particularly refer to around the Massey tunnel, which is a real heavy traffic area. I believe you've got three different speed zones posted there. That's where the RCMP are located too. You have three zones there: 55 miles per hour for 100 feet, then you have a 50-mile-an-hour zone for another 500 feet and then 45 miles an hour. I think this is absolute trickery to the motorist involved. I'd like to know what the Minister has to say. You have a senior traffic engineer. What kind of thinking goes into posting speed limits like that?

I think it's very unfair. If you want the traffic to go 45 miles an hour, why not have it 45 miles an hour for a mile or so instead of three different zones? The RCMP are just sitting between these zones. It's straight trickery; that's what it is. I don't think any thought has gone by it. I know lots of MLAs who have got all kinds of points right in that area alone — I'm being non-political — from all sides of the House. I think you should look into it. When you want a speed limit reduction, why mess around with three stages of it? Go in two stages at the most. If you want to go from 55 to 45, do it at 55 and post 45 ahead — not 50 and then 45. That's not fair to the motorist.

The other day I asked the Minister about maintenance yards. I would like to know what they are doing in the riding of Cariboo. They have been talking about maintenance yards in some areas of the Cariboo for seven years now — four years under the old regime and three years under the new. Still, we don't have any buildings going up. They are very necessary, as I said the other day. I would like to know what the plans are, and please don't give me the answer that it has been left with the Department of Public Works. That just sweeps it under the rug. It will all get mixed up with those empty offices that they have and nothing will ever happen. If your answer is going to be that Public Works is going to build these buildings, then I suggest, Mr. Minister, that you have that Minister transfer some of the empty space that he already has to function properly. It would be performing a function as a maintenance establishment for the Department of Highways. I would like some answers on that.

Specifically, I am concerned about Bridge Lake and Likely, where they have nine months of winter and three months of bad sleighing. Their weather is not that good and the men working there deserve better treatment than they have been getting from the Department of Highways regarding maintenance establishments.

The other thing I would like to know concerns Highway 97 north in the area between Cache Creek and Prince George. Some 250 miles of this highway are in the riding of Cariboo. I would like to know what the ultimate end of the shouldering programme will be. It was started last year and is going on in some areas this year, even though they did start two months late. I would like to know if you intend to complete that shouldering. I might say that I consider it a good programme, but I am concerned with what you intend to do after the shouldering is done.

More specifically, are you going to call paving contracts to repave the sections of the road that you have ruined through this shouldering construction? Bulldozers and so on are crossing the pavement. As I said the other day, we are going to have more gravel service on Highway 97 north than pavement. I realize it is necessary, but I am really asking whether you can button all of this work up in 1975. I don't think you can, even if the money were supplied. There are 35 or 40 miles of main road involved here. Are you going to

[ Page 3407 ]

call a paving contract and have the work completed in the construction year 1975? In that part of the country that means you had better be out of there by the end of October.

Right now we are looking at whether or not you have tender calls ready for the paving — because they take a month or six weeks — so the paving contractor can get on the job in July or August. I would specifically like to know about that, and I think everyone in B.C. would like to know if we are going to get that road back to where it was prior to the shouldering programme.

I would also like a list — as I asked the other day, but I think it was left up in the air — of the breakdown of equipment that was purchased up to and including March 31, 1975 — how many bulldozers, trucks, and so on. I would also like to know if they all went to Cloverdale.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that last year?

MR. FRASER: Yes, up to the end of March. I would like to know if, after you bought 400 trucks, they are all down where they shouldn't be around the Lower Fraser Valley and Cloverdale. Did any of them find their way up to the interior of the province where they are really needed? They hang on to all of the good equipment in the lower mainland. They haven't got any snow or maintenance problems to look after, but they send all the junk that they don't want up to the interior and the north. I think the Minister is becoming aware of this. I hope someone is on top of this chicanery that is going on within the department and that some of the new equipment is going up where we have real problems.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chicanery.

MR. FRASER: Thank you. I always have had problems with pronunciation and I always will have. But I get the message across.

The other thing I would like to know about is day-labour projects. There are lots of rumours flying around that there is no money and that there is a freeze on hiring personnel in the Highways department. The cabinet is denying it, but I think it was properly put here on the floor the other day that there is no question that there was a circular put to all departments on April 29. We have day-labour projects in the interior, Mr. Chairman....

Maybe I should explain to the House what a day-labour project is. It is road rebuilding done by hiring private equipment and supervised by the Department of Highways in the area that the work is going on. I think it's a good programme; there's nothing wrong with it at all. But we have day-labour projects in the interior right now that have been held up until, I think, this last Monday because of the freeze that was put on hiring of personnel by the cabinet. They have to have flag people, but this freeze says that no more civil servants would be hired. Because the Department of Highways is the supervisor of the day-labour programme — really a contract is what it is — they can't hire flagmen or ladies and therefore they can't touch the project because they can't add to their staff because of this freeze. I never heard anything more ridiculous in my life, Mr. Chairman, than to stop the road rebuilding, whether it be main roads or rural roads, because you can't add staff.

I think that probably the Minister will say it's corrected, but we've already lost two months of good construction. They'll be around digging up roads in November this year when it's 10 below zero and the snow's flying and then there'll be no end of public waste of money. I'd like to find out who's making these decisions and why.

It went on in the prior administration, and it continues on in this. I blame somebody in head office for all this nonsense. The local district managers and your regional engineers are all ready and want to go on with this necessary work, and you guys issue bulletins from down here that say "here's the money for this project" and that; and then you issue another one at the cabinet level, and it nullifies it. Maybe it's done on purpose. I don't know. That's what I want to find out.

Specifically I want to refer to day-labour projects in the riding of Cariboo. I've been told by the Minister, Mr. Chairman, that we can't find out until his estimates are passed. But we're not going to give him a bad time on his estimates. I'd like to ask specifically how much money is allocated to day labour for the Horsefly road which runs from Williams Lake to Horsefly, the Likely road that runs from Williams Lake to Likely, the Masko road that runs from Quesnel to Masko and the Dog Creek road from Williams Lake to Dog Creek. I'd like to know the amount of money allocated for that very necessary piece of road.

I'd like to know the day-labour commitment for Highway 20, which runs 300 miles in my riding from Williams Lake to Bella Coola. I'd like to know what money is allocated day-labour-wise for that. I'm very sad again, Mr. Chairman, that the Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) is not in here because I'm sure he'd get up and second my motion about that because there are more potholes and rocks and broken car bodies on that road than there is in any part of British Columbia, and that's an important link with the coast.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that probably some of the questions that you are asking could be more appropriately asked under vote 95.

[ Page 3408 ]

MR. FRASER: Well, I want to get them down now. When we get to vote 95 maybe they'll have had time to cook the books and give me some answers over there. They're all looking at their books there, juggling the figures around, and this'll give them a little time.

You know, when you're on the Minister's vote you can pretty well cover the board, but I think I've covered pretty well everything I wanted except that I'd like the Minister to explain a little more. I realize he answered me the other morning about the breaking down of the four regional districts. Well, it will be breaking them down, but I believe his answer was: "We'll get to six regional districts." Is that effective as of the new fiscal year, or will that process start soon and be effective in the fall, or when will everything be in place? I understand it will probably be in place by April 1, 1976. I'd just ask again where these new areas are going to be — where the two new headquarters areas will be, if there are two.

I appreciate that, as I say, the Minister answered this the other day. I want to, Mr. Chairman, before I sit down, congratulate the Minister on this move. It's a long overdue move. Those four regions we've had are far too big a load for the senior people and I realize by going from four to six it will take a lot of responsibility off these hard-working and overworked people. Thank you.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, one thing that I would like to get straight at the outset is that there has been no holdback on funds going to the regions from headquarters....

MR. FRASER: Yes, but there's a holdback from other people.

HON. MR. LEA; No, there is not, not in my department, because as soon as I thought that there might be I went to the Treasury Board and said if that would be true it could not apply to my department because we are an on-line department where we go from approximately 6,000 staff in the winter up as high as 9,000 in the summer to get the job done with, as you say, day labour and the kind of extra staff that you need to do the maintenance work during those summer months. You don't need that kind of a work force in the winter months.

MR. FRASER: You went to Treasury to....

HON. MR. LEA: No there is not, not in my answer. They said first of all that the freezes that the opposition had been talking about are not around and that it's a perfectly normal year for you to go ahead. But on my own I did a number of things.

I mentioned the other day that the day-labour jobs have traditionally been handled at the beginning of the year for the full year. Because of the spiralling costs that we're going through and experiencing now, there is no way that I know what a day-labour job is going to come in at in the fall of this year.

If I am going to keep within my budget, I have to handle it a little differently than it has been handled in the past, where there hasn't been that very precipitous increase in costs in the same year. What I am doing now is handing out the day-labour jobs on a quarterly basis, so that at the end of each quarter I can assess where I am and what I can let out for the next quarter, the next quarter and the final quarter.

MR. FRASER: Well, you won't take all the next quarter's budget and shut the whole job down, will you?

HON. MR. LEA: No.

Okay, the yards. I think you brought up a good point. Horsefly, Likely — the working conditions there are atrocious. There is no doubt about it.

Now what we have done over the past two years is that there has been a new establishment. Williams Lake and 100 Mile House are both within your riding. Now there are also plans for Likely and Horsefly. It's being planned now by the Department of Public Works at our request.

MR. FRASER: Burns Lake?

HON. MR. LEA: Yes.

MR. FRASER: You were planning that four years ago.

HON. MR. LEA: What we are going to be doing this....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Minister proceeds, I would appreciate it if the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) would restrain himself until the Minister has finished so that we can have order.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Anyway, we are planning temporary facilities this year for those workers. The permanent facilities are on line with the Department of Public Works.

I would like to point out that there has been a change of policy, a drastic change of policy within the Department of Highways since we have become government. The maintenance budget this year — that is, in the regions — is up 45 per cent over last year; that's maintenance. Just to show you that the policy has changed, the highest increase in a maintenance budget this year over last year will be in Kelowna, 61

[ Page 3409 ]

per cent up.

MR. FRASER: I'm not interested in that riding.

HON. MR. LEA: You're not interested in that riding? I think you are interested in the fact that we are not playing politics with maintenance money, which did go on before.

Yours, by the way, the two districts within your riding, is up 48 per cent this year over last year.

Now the Massey Tunnel, the different speed limits: I had a complaint about that not too long ago, and I have asked for an investigation into that. I'm not personally aware of the problem there, but my staff are looking into that at the moment.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: No, as a matter of fact, when someone said he had a few points to bring up, I didn't realize the kind of points we were going to be talking about.

I think I have covered the points that you.... Oh, getting down to when you are going to know. You mentioned that I said that I would be letting you know the jobs after my estimates are through the House. They are finalized now, but I think it would be a waste of the House's time for me to run through each time a Member comes up. As soon as I am finished, which probably should be this morning, I'll make sure that another practice is changed within this department: opposition Members will also get to know what is going to be happening in their ridings in this fiscal year.

The one thing I would like to caution you on is to make sure that when you are telling your constituents what is going to be done, remember that quarterly procedure we're going into on day labour. That would probably save Members some embarrassment, because we may have to change as the year goes on because of ....

MR. FRASER: I want to comment on 55 Mile House.

HON. MR. LEA: The speed limits. There has been a marked decrease in the number of accidents. I think it is too early to say whether....

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, we do have them. It hasn't been a year yet. I would like to let the year pass and then do an assessment that can be made public and to the Members.

There is a large increase of vehicles on the road. and we're holding our own in terms of accident statistics. So I think that there has been a marked effect. I will make sure that all the statistics are given to Members at the end of the first year. But I think if we are going to assess it every month, I don't think it would be a good policy. I want to give it a year, assess the programme, do a statistical analysis and then make it available to Members and the public.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I thank the Minister for those remarks about the Deas Island tunnel, and also about the speed limit.

I think, however, he should, if indeed this is affecting accident rates, try to give us this month's or last month's figures compared to a year ago, because I think they would be of great interest. I think he should keep encouraging people to realize that the lower speed limit is having an effect. As the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) points out, that speed limit for most vehicles in most parts of the province is being observed in the breach, and you are not actually having any real decrease in the speed the cars travel, even though the posted signs are somewhat different.

So I would be most interested in some information. And while I am on my feet on this point, I wonder whether the Minister of Highways could get after the motor vehicle branch for their refusal to give out accident statistics.

I've tried to get accident statistics month after month after month from that division. They won't give them out because they say that if they give me the accident statistics, I will be able to work out ICBC losses, and I have to wait until the annual report is filed. That is wrong.

If that is public information, and is available, if it affects the safety of the public, as it does, that information should be made available to opposition Members as well as others. The motor vehicle branch has been acting in a thoroughly reprehensible manner in not providing that type of information to Members of this Legislature. It is public information, and we should get it. I urge the Minister of Highways, who perhaps doesn't have direct responsibility here, to get onto the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and make sure this is all straightened out. It really is absurd that we can't get that information when we request it.

I would like to raise a couple of questions. One concerns the City of Penticton and the proposed rerouting of Highway 97 to the west part of the city. I have in my hand a petition dealing with this, and which has also been sent to the Hon. Graham Lea. Dated March 22, it talks about this rerouting. The petition has 345 signatures on a total of 23 pages. Michael Abel, who organized this, said: "I am an instrumentman surveyor with seven years experience. I have worked with the B.C. Department of Highways in the location branch, construction branch and in a district office. The plan to put Highway 97 through

[ Page 3410 ]

the west part of Penticton city is the worst that I have ever seen."

It talks about the Indian opposition to this route. The Indians own land on the east side of the river, and will definitely block construction. It talks about the federal government concern, the local citizen concern, and the city's concern.

I would ask the Minister what information he has on this in terms of this rerouting, and why it went ahead. There is a joint federal-provincial-municipal housing project going in there, and apparently the moving of Highway 97 will move it through this housing development, according to Mr. Abel.

It appears to be a curious decision. Certainly we all know the problems of Penticton with the highway going through the city — you have a long strip of motels, gas stations, used car lots and other things. I can see rerouting being a desirable objective. Many of us going through that town in the summer get somewhat frustrated especially with those great big American campers, which the Minister knows all about, in front of us. But if the rerouting proposal is going to destroy this area, part of which is apparently put aside for parks, and if it is going to adversely materially affect a joint federal-provincial-municipal pilot project for housing, it should be re-examined. Particularly when you have some people with knowledge, such as Mr. Abel, and when you have the local residents concerned, I think there is some reason for re-examination. I trust the Minister will comment on that at some stage in his estimates and, hopefully, indicate that it is being changed.

I would like to mention another subject — the closing of the Fraser Canyon road. I would like to congratulate the department for their more recent attempts this spring to try and minimize the impact on the local businessmen in the area. There certainly wasn't that attitude back in October when the thing first started. The two press releases that I have from the Minister's office — one dated October 4, 1974 and the other undated, but which I received April 16 — are quite different in their approach. I would like him to congratulate the people who have realized that their initial disregard of the public was wrong, and who changed the policy. This had a very serious effect on some of the businessmen in the area, and has virtually pushed some of them to the wall.

I would like to know what the Minister's attitude is toward assisting or giving recompense to people who suffered very severe economic hardship as a result of the very lengthy cutting off of the highway. I am thinking particularly of people in the Boston Bar area. There is obviously a need to get the highway in good shape. At the same time, though, when the work done is done in such a way that it virtually destroys the livelihood of many people.... I wonder if the Minister would indicate whether he is considering some sort of compensation or assistance because, in my view, the department closures, while necessary in the public interest, have affected a small group of people in a very adverse way. I think they have a legitimate reason for believing they are entitled to some assistance.

I wonder if the Minister, in his estimates, could indicate to me whether the old Gellatly Road on the lakeshore of Lake Okanagan has been illegally closed. I understand that section 114 of the Land Registry Act indicates that the permanent road closure should be under the Highways Minister's signature and published in the B.C. Gazette. This is clearly a question that the Minister might answer later in his estimates, but I wonder if he would indicate whether or not that was the case.

That was the case. The Gellatly Road issue is one that has been brought to my attention by another brief which is dated June 5 of this year. This question is raised there, and there are some other questions raised which, I think, deserve some sort of examination. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that third point when he deals with either this vote or some other later on.

HON. MR. LEA: Dealing with the Penticton area first, Mr. Chairman, for years the department has been trying to get a bypass route on the westerly side of the City of Penticton. The route that the Highways department was trying to secure was through Indian reserve land. I think it's gone on for 12 or 13 years. At this point, the staff of the department, working with the staff of the City of Penticton, the Department of Lands and other various departments, have come up with a route that seems acceptable to the city and to the department and other departments of government. The bypass route would be going along the easterly side of the canal, which is not on Indian reserve land. That seems to be acceptable to not only the city but to our various parts of government.

There is a housing project going on, as the Hon. Member mentioned. We're taking a great deal of care so that the bypass route will interfere in a very minimal way with that housing project. There's going to be a buffer park strip between the project and the highway.

The need for an alternate route is paramount. The main street in Penticton, which is also Highway 97, is probably one of the biggest bottlenecks we have during the summer months. So we just have to solve the problem. Because of the topography of British Columbia, we don't have that many options when we go to put alternate routes in. This is the only alternative that we can find that would be viable.

It's a problem throughout British Columbia. I think what we're going to have to do, Mr. Member, when we do put alternate routes in, is we're going to have to be very, very careful and very stringent about

[ Page 3411 ]

the kind of development that is allowed on those new alternate routes or, sooner or later — probably sooner — we'll be looking for a new alternate route. We just have to really tighten up; I haven't tightened up administratively a great deal.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Penticton and Duncan.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes. But Duncan is a perfect example of strip development along highways that in the final analysis will cost the taxpayers a lot more money to build another alternate route and another and another. That might even be okay if we had an inexhaustible supply of money, which we don't in society. But we don't have that flexibility in terms of the topography in British Columbia either. So we just really do have to tighten up even more, maybe legislatively at some point, on the kind of development that we're going to allow along the transportation corridors in the province.

The Fraser Canyon. I don't think that there was an unfeeling move by the department in regard to the merchants along the Fraser Canyon. I think it did take some time to work out a system where everybody would be as satisfied as possible. As a matter of fact, I've had letters from some of the merchants now saying that they're very pleased with the final results. It has taken a little time so that we're all fairly pleased. That's been resolved.

The other problem you dealt with was about making economic payments to people who are going to be adversely affected in their business by highway closures because of work that has to be done. I realize that it does happen once in a while that a small business may come under economic hardship because of road closures. At the same time, the viability of that business relies on the highway in a great many instances, which is out of public funds. So it's about six of one and half a dozen of the other. I don't think we could get into the area of compensating people for losses because of highway closures, because there is that other side of the question that if it weren't for the public expenditure in the first place business wouldn't have been viable. I think that in the final analysis they do come out about equal.

The speed limits. I've asked my staff to try and get those statistics into the House. If I'm finished today, I'll answer during question period; if not, I'll bring it in the next time I'm up in my estimates. We'll try and get them. The person in charge, the highway safety engineer, is speaking to a safety organization in Quebec City today. He's not here, but we'll try and get the statistics from his files for you. If I'm finished today, question period this afternoon; if not, the next time I'm up.

Gellatly Road. I'm aware of the brief and the letter that a person has been sending to all Members and to the media in regard to Gellatly Road. As a matter of fact, it was brought to my attention not long after I was Minister and I asked for a report on Gellatly Road.

As a matter of fact, I thought no one ever asked better to let sleeping dogs lie. But you've asked, so I'll read to the House the report that I did have from one of my Deputies on the relocation of Gellatly Road at Westbank outside of Kelowna.

Firstly, there was a section 6 public road right at the edge of the water within the property, which was a large area, and it was proposed that waterfront lots be created for sale as summer dwellings, et cetera. Obviously the first vital factor was to move the road at least 150 feet back from the waterfront. If this could be done the value of the property as waterfront lots would be immensely improved. The owners of the individual lots would have unobstructed access to the waterfront which is vital to such use of the land. The old road was very winding where it first crossed Powers Creek as it approaches the area in question.

The first fortunate thing for the subdivider was that the department decided to relocate the road in its crossing of Powers Creek and build a new bridge at that town. This was done in conjunction with the moving of the road back from the waterfront. The subdivider agreed to dedicate some of his property as park, including waterfront property. The point is made that one-third of the total water frontage was dedicated to this use. However, under the existing regulations, a lot has to be at least 25 feet back from the waterfront because nowhere in the area dedicated for park was the depth available for the waterfront greater than 125 feet, and most of it was much less than that. So the one-third of the property that was dedicated for park use could not have been subdivided under regulations at any rate.

The subdivider outlined his subdivision with the road allowance at least 150 feet back throughout the area, and he rough-graded the road allowance at his own expense. There was very little clearing. The fortunate thing for him was that another development further up the lake was in process at the time and this involved dredging and excavation of the lake bottom material for proposed inland waterways. These people required some place to dump the excess material and it was arranged that it be hauled to the new section of road, free of charge to the subdivider. This material proved to be granular gravel suitable for road surfacing and was good enough to use for the road mix pavement. The subdivider was in luck, again.

As department-owned equipment was already on the site due to the fortunate circumstances that the department was building a new approach to the Powers Creek bridge at that particular time, rather than the subdivider having to haul in privately owned equipment, the department agreed to rent to him its equipment without any cost for transportation to the site. The next fortunate thing was that the

[ Page 3412 ]

Department of Highways at that time rented equipment for very much less cost than privately owned equipment. The reason for this was that such equipment was not normally rented except for ploughing snow, et cetera, for rural farms, ranches and suchlike. In order to help these people we gave a very low rental rate. The subdivider obtained a TD Cat for $23.22 a day, and he had it for five days.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: For $23.22 a day?

HON. MR. LEA: For $23.22 a day, and he had it for five days. If he had rented the same equipment commercially, he would have had to pay approximately $11 an hour, or $88 a day for eight hours' work. Similarly, he rented two departmental graders for a total of 10 days. One was at $21.84 a day; the other grader at $23.45 a day. If he had rented commercially he would have to pay $17.50 an hour, or approximately $140 a day for an eight-hour day.

Not only did he get his road graded very cheaply in this manner, but the department also undertook to supply asphalt to mix into the road mix pavement with the granular material he'd obtained free of charge. The cost of this, according to the invoice, was $1,000 for 1,000 feet of roadway which if he had had to do it commercially would have cost a great deal more. In summary a series of most fortunate circumstances occurred for the subdivider, enabling him to construct and pave 1,000 feet of road for somewhere in the vicinity of $3,000, which it is estimated would be at least one-third of what it would have cost him if he had used commercial equipment, and possibly one-fifth of what it would have cost him if he had not been fortunate enough to have free fill hauled to the road at no cost.

As far as I can ascertain the road that was put in, back 150 feet, was gazetted legally and the No. 6 road was taken out legally. There's no problem in the legality of the gazetting of the road.

MR. P.D. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Who's the developer?

HON. MR. LEA: Scottish Co-holdings is the only name I have. It's a Kelowna-based outfit — Mrs. Lois Bennett.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, a few words to the Minister of Highways on his estimates this morning, particularly on some of the remarks that he's made. I've followed with interest some of the suggestions he's made, and one thing that does concern me is the Minister's suggestion that the amount of money available for day-labour work will be spread over the full year on a quarterly basis.

Now I can agree that that might be a good objective in some parts of the province, but I have to draw to the Minister's attention the fact that we don't have a 12-month construction season in about 50 per cent of the Province of British Columbia. We have to compress everything that will be done in any given year into a period of six months or less. For that reason our Department of Highways personnel have to know early....

HON. MR. LEA: We'll allow for that.

MR. SMITH: Are you going to allow for that? Fine, because if you don't, there's no use coming along in late fall and suggesting that another quarterly allocation of day-labour funds will be available, because that would be a detriment and it would be wasted money because of the weather conditions.

I'd like to mention a number of specific problems with respect to development in the north and draw to the Minister's attention the fact that I think there is a deplorable lack of funds in his budget for either proper maintenance of existing roads, rebuilding roads that are starting to wear out and/or new construction.

When you take into consideration the inflation factor which is there with us that you can't escape in construction today, really the dollars you have, in terms of actual work on the ground, will probably produce less than in prior years. For that reason I think it's unfortunate that the priority of the Department of Highways seems to have been downgraded at a time when almost all of the major roads in the province and many of the market roads need substantial repair and reconstruction.

I'd suggest to the Minister that the people of the Peace River country are just a little fed up with the fact that the government and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) seem to wish to throw around the so-called windfall profits from the sale of natural gas at great abandon, but not spend any of it in the area where the natural gas and the oil is produced, or very little of it.

I'd like to draw to the Minister's attention that since 1972 there has been one tender called in the North Peace for highways, and that happened to be for a bridge on the Halfway River — at least, the piers for a bridge on the Halfway River. Every bit of road construction, with the exception of day-labour, was out to contract prior to the end of 1972, and that's a fact.

HON. MR. LEA: Not true. Not true.

MR. SMITH: Check it, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. LEA: I know it's not true.

MR. SMITH: The only work that we've had other

[ Page 3413 ]

than day-labour funds has been the call to tender of the piers for the Halfway River bridge.

The other money that the Department of Highways has received has come as a result of day-labour funds, nothing else. But I'm not deploring day-labour funds, because I think it's a useful way of spreading money around in the constituencies of the province, and you get substantial work completed for the money you invest.

Speaking of day-labour money, I'd like to make a suggestion to the Minister. At the present time, due to the cutback on exploration in northeastern British Columbia, there is ample — as a matter of fact, excess — heavy equipment available to go into day-labour work.

Trucks, Cats, graders, scrapers, buggies — you name it; it's there. It's available, and the people who ordinarily would employ their equipment in the oil patch are desperate for work, particularly when they don't know what will happen this fall or winter with respect to the oil patch.

So I'm suggesting to the Minister that there was never a better time to invest some money in day-labour work than right at the present, this summer, because the equipment is there. It's sitting idle and the people who would ordinarily be employed are out of work right now. Believe me, Mr. Minister, they'd rather work than go on welfare. They certainly feel that they have the ability, and the time and the equipment is there; so put it to work.

Talk to the Minister of Finance if you have to, and suggest to him that a few bucks spent in day-labour vote, extra additional funds, would be much better at this time than probably any other time of the year. It's a situation that you can take advantage of, so reinvest a few of those dollars.

I'd like to ask the Minister when the tender will be called for the reconstruction of the two arterial highways that go through Fort St. John. This is a project that has been on the books under the planning stage for years. It involves substantial expenditure because of storm sewer requirements and redefinition of grades and all the rest of it. I realize that it's an expensive project. But I understand, if I'm correct in what I hear and have been told, you have now Treasury Board approval.

What I'd like to suggest to the Minister is that the call to tender be as quickly as possible. Even now, if the contract was awarded in the next two months, the amount of time that could be devoted to that particular project before freeze-up is getting less every day. So will you give me some indication of when the tenders will be called on that particular project?

What about the Fort Nelson-Fort Simpson Road? Where are we going on that, and when do you intend to get back to work on that particular project?

Also, when can we expect a renewal of the programme started some time ago to pave the main feeder roads out into the respective farming communities of the Peace River area? There are about four major farm areas lying north and east of Fort St. John. Each one of those should be fed by a feeder road of substantial standard, and it should be paved. The programme was started about four years ago. There is now a much-improved road into the Cecil Lake area; there's a much-improved road directly north towards Rose Prairie and up into the north part of that farming community, but we still lack about half of the programme. I'd say it's about half-completed in respect to what we need. So when can we get back to that?

Also, when can we get on to the programme on a more effective basis of not only repairing the roads that are rapidly wearing out, but also building new construction where it's needed?

HON. MR. LEA: It is probably only going to be one or two days, then I'll make everything that is going on in your riding available to you. I would like to point out to you, though, that when you said there have been no tenders called in your riding...

MR. SMITH: For crushing gravel, maybe.

HON. MR. LEA: ...since we've been government, I think is what you meant. You agree that that is what you meant?

MR. SMITH: Yes.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Member, there has been.

MR. SMITH: One bridge.

HON. MR. LEA: No. A bridge, a paving contract — 12 miles, $723,000....

MR. SMITH: That was tender that was awarded before you became government.

HON. MR. LEA: No, it was not. It was awarded in 1973, Mr. Member. That is the kind of research that you're always doing, Mr. Member.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Minister, that was a continuation of a contract that was awarded before that time.

HON. MR. LEA: In 1973 it was awarded. So it's incorrect.

MR. SMITH: Cecil Lake to Boundary Lake area — that contract was prior to that.

HON. MR. LEA: What you had to say was incorrect, Now you talked about going into the day-labour

[ Page 3414 ]

work on a quarterly basis. We have taken into consideration the weather in northern ridings, and they will be treated a little differently.

MR. SMITH: You have to.

HON. MR. LEA: That's right. You also went into....

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: But that contract was let in September 18, 1973 — the one I referred to, the surfacing contract.

You say that the priority of the department has been downgraded. I don't know how you can say that, Mr. Member, with a 41 per cent increase over last year in this year's budget. As a matter of fact, I remember Mrs. Jewett on TV, not long after the budget came out, saying that it was a crime that the Highways department should get this kind of increase. I don't think it is; we could always use more, as you are aware, Mr. Member. But 41 per cent is a pretty healthy increase in anybody's language.

MR. SMITH: It depends on what condition the roads in the province are in.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Member, we could dump $1 billion in, but we have to live within the economic constraints we have, which you had to when your party was government, and which we do. If it's going to be a good government, you have to spend money, set up your priorities and keep within those boundaries. That's what I'm doing within the department — trying to do a rational job of keeping the roads in shape. I think that I was treated very fairly by the Treasury Board, and I couldn't expect any more out of this budget than what I received. All I can do now is try and spend it wisely, setting up priorities within the department.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Chairman, I want to raise some questions with the Minister. We've got lots of traffic problems, and highways need to be built in my area. We've got some kinds of starts on some things, but I never quite know where they're at. We've got a traffic problem in the Patullo Bridge–Scott Road area that is unbelievable; we've got a growing one at the tunnel that's really getting bad, too.

There are some things there that have improved, though. I think we have to compliment the department for the construction of the washing machine that's working in the tunnel. I don't think it's perfect yet — there are modifications that need to take place. But at least it has brightened it up somewhat, As I understand it, now the amount of time spent washing is about eight hours to wash the entire tunnel, whereas before it took six days and a big crew of men to wash it by hand. It just didn't work before.

What we need now are the lights for the tunnel. I know that we talked about that last year, and we've talked about it earlier this year. I don't know what's happening: I don't know whether tenders are going to be called; I don't know whether the equipment has been ordered or just what's happening. But certainly we need lights in the tunnel so that we can brighten the place up.

Every night now on the north side of the river, we've a lineup of traffic that goes back there two or three miles, and it is as a result of just one person that slows down. All you need is one person in the tunnel slowing down to 25 miles an hour, and from then on everything is slowed down.

The lighting system that is there, the old one, is just not doing the job, and it probably was a mistake at the outset. But we've got to get on with the plan to light that tunnel up.

When you get out of the tunnel on the south side, there has been a great deal of work done in that overpass, in that area, but it is not completed. It needs to be finished. It should have a finished coat of blacktop put on and proper lines put on. We have some traffic hazards in the way traffic is merging in those areas and until the job is completed, that won't be cleared up.

I know there was a problem last winter in putting the finish coat of blacktop on, but I don't think there is any problem now. The weather is such that the job could be done.

This raises another question that has been raised with me by people in my constituency that have travelled throughout the province. They tell me there has been very little white-lining, centre-lining, done on the highways in the interior. I don't know that first hand. People have been contacting me when they come home from trips saying: "What's going on? Have you guys run out of paint?" I wonder what you are doing. I would think that that's usually done by this time of year.

The area of Scott Road and Pattullo Bridge and trying to improve that situation: I raise it as much from a safety interest as anything else, because we have got some real hazards on Scott Road. The merging of the traffic from the industrial area that is developing in the Surrey-Fraser docks, and the kinds of problems that we are growing there with the intersection of River Road and Scott Road.... I know there has been some discussion about an industrial road along that whole new industrial area, but I don't know what's happened to that.

I know there have been problems in working together with Surrey and Delta, although the problems are not from the Delta side. I know that we

[ Page 3415 ]

had an agreement that we were going to start widening Scott Road in the area from 99th Avenue to 80th. I know that Surrey was hanging back, and I don't know what has really happened there. I thought Surrey had come around and agreed to do that job, but I saw something in the paper the other day which indicated that Surrey wanted it started at Pattullo Bridge first — that whole rebuilding of Scott Road. I just hope the department doesn't go along with that kind of proposition because, if they do, we really end up delaying that work for another year. I know that the engineering and survey work is pretty well completed on the original first phase, and that work should be starting. I would hope it would be starting very quickly.

Just one more point, Mr. Chairman. There has been a feasibility study done for a new crossing of the Fraser River. That feasibility study has been in the hands of the department for some time, and I want to know what is happening there. But before we make any decisions, I would hope that the Minister would make that study public. I think that a case can be made for some input from the communities that surround that congested area, both on the Surrey-Delta side of the river and on the Burnaby side.

What is going to happen when you dump traffic into already-built-up areas? I suspect there are going to be a number of problems from the existing residents in some areas, and certainly I think the department would be well advised to get some input from the communities. Certainly all the municipalities through their engineering departments have to be tuned in, and I suppose that goes without saying. But I would like to see that we go one step further and make the reports available to the general public. Maybe it is too big a thing to do. Maybe you can't make it public or make copies available to many groups. But certainly some sort of a resume of that study can be put together in some way so that the public can get a look at it, can get an idea what the engineering studies say, or the feasibility study says, so that the people in the community can reasonably make their input.

I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that in replying the Minister will be able to tell me that he's prepared to make that study public, as this government has done with almost all studies that have been conducted.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) is one Member I do know who understands some of the traffic problems that are happening not only in his riding but in the surrounding ridings of the greater Vancouver regional area.

I would take his first comment and tie it to his question about the Annacis crossing or the study done on another crossing of the Fraser River. I would like to point out at the outset that there is no way that this department can solve the traffic problems of the greater Vancouver regional area. There is no way. The responsibility mainly lies with the local governments and the 14 municipalities of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. We shouldn't be involved in the greater Vancouver area as much as we are as a department, but it has evolved that way through the years. I believe that the concern of this department should be mainly with those areas outside of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and out of Victoria, too, like they do in other jurisdictions.

On the question that the Member asked about the study that was done about a crossing on the Fraser River; it was done by CBA Engineering. The department has had that study for some time. We are doing an analysis of that study which is not quite complete. I can tell you that it is going to be published. I think it is something that the people should get their teeth into before the government or I decide one way or another. The information that I have now leads me to believe that if we go ahead with another crossing at this point in time we are looking at $150 million. This would be for another crossing. It is an awful lot of money, and it probably won't solve the problem.

Before we spent that kind of money we really do have to get the public, the municipalities and the Greater Vancouver District involved and maybe not spend it at all. It is a little too early to decide.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Cut out the refinery. Come on, Graham, cut out the refinery. Say you are with us.

HON. MR. LEA: With you on what?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Cutting out the refinery.

HON. MR. LEA: What refinery? (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't even know.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He's in outer-cabinet.

HON. MR. LEA: That's right. It's safer. (Laughter.)

Dealing with the tunnel, I agree the lighting is bad. The washing machine that has been designed and built and is being used in there is doing a reasonable job, but I would like to commend the people within the department who have designed, engineered and built it. It has been a great feat, in my opinion. Tom Johnson, the service engineer who has been mainly responsible, really does deserve a round of applause for the job that he has done. But the lighting is bad, and we are looking at it.

[ Page 3416 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: It's a badly lit tunnel, there is no doubt about it. But it is going to cost a lot of money. To do the lighting in that tunnel and to clean it up the way it should be, we are looking at $2 million. That's a lot of money, so we want to look at it very carefully before we spend that kind of money and see which we should go.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did it just go bad?

HON. MR. LEA: No, it has been bad for quite some time. It was bad even when you were government.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I have been sitting here for four days waiting to get up on the estimates, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate being recognized very much.

I would like to ask the Minister a number of questions. I certainly don't want to prolong the debate. I'm not going to make a speech if I can get the answers.

First I would like to deal with the telegram that was sent May 2 from Mayor Trail of Dawson Creek regarding Maska Avenue. There was another follow-up telegram on June 3, 1975, asking for an answer. To date they have not had the courtesy of an answer or a reply with regard to what the government intends to do with the horrible condition of Alaska Avenue, which runs through Dawson Creek. I'm not going to go into it, but this is the start of the world-famous Alaska Highway. I think you would have to see that portion of the highway to really believe it. You've brought in a patching crew and you are patching it up, but the same problem is going to occur next year only much worse. I'm telling you, if it gets worse than it was this year you are going to lose whole cars. That's about how bad it was. What are your intentions? You've gone in there with a patch crew and you have temporarily patched it. What do you intend to do? The surface of the highway is gone, and it has to be rebuilt.

If you are ever going to alleviate the problems on that particular stretch of highway, put in some storm sewers. In the spring the runoff comes down off all of the side hills. It runs across the road, the road surface deteriorates, and the water gets into the subsurface. Until you alleviate that problem we are going to have a continuing problem. I would just like to ask the Minister what he is going to do and why he didn't reply to the wire. They didn't send the wire just because they wanted something to do, Mr. Minister. They were concerned about this.

HON. MR. LEA: Are you talking about the city?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.

HON. MR. LEA: I've met with them a number of times. Frankly, I wasn't aware that we hadn't answered their wire. I'll check into that.

On the section you've mentioned — Alaska Avenue as part of the highway within the boundaries of Dawson Creek — we were prepared to do that last year. The money was there and one of the other contracts that was scheduled didn't go ahead and it had to be done at the same time. The money was available last year.

Last time I spoke with Mayor Trail they pointed out to me the name of those local people that could do it, and I did ask the department to check and see whether there was that kind of capability in Dawson Creek so we wouldn't have to wait for a larger contract to make a part of that. Since that time other matters have come to light. You touched on it — the drainage problem — and we feel it's going to take one or two years to get that drainage solved so there's no point really in doing it.

Also it came as quite a surprise to some of us that we didn't know that there were plans for a waterline extension by the city. We have to check with the city a little more closely, but we see that as a reason that anything that's going to be done in terms of storm sewers and waterline extensions should be done prior to the construction of the roads. We are trying to do a top-notch job of patching this year for Dawson Creek. The money was available last year. It would have been available this year if we'd the capability to do the job. It's not a case of the money not being there.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I can appreciate what happened last year. There are major contractors in. As you know they are doing Highway 49 to Alberta but, in all sincerity, I think that it's not a waterline extension. They're going to replace the old waterline. The officials have met with you with regard to the Department of Highways sharing in the cost of the drainage problem there — storm sewers. Are you prepared to say at this time that you will cooperate with solving that problem along Alaska Avenue? Will you assist the city with the cost of the storm sewers to alleviate that drainage problem, and as soon as this is completed will you be prepared to redo that particular section of road? It's only about two miles long.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, we would be prepared to assist the city in terms of the provincial formula we use to assist in those matters. There's no doubt about it — it is a priority, and money will be made available.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister has been

[ Page 3417 ]

contacted by Mr. Jim Harder, who actually lives in Surrey and has some property in Prince George, with regard to expropriation proceedings. I understand you've just had some recent information. You're offering this man, evidently, $20,000 for his property when he paid over $50,000 for it. You've talked to the man. The man is concerned that you've gazetted this road. According to him you didn't do it according to Hoyle and you've even expressed the opinion yourself to him, from the information I have, that you're not happy with the way this was proceeded with. What I'd like to know now and what the man would like to know and I think what you owe him is to tell him what you're going to do.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Member, I would appreciate it if you would drop by my office and I'll show you the report rather than here.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll be quite interested in seeing the report, but I want your assurance here that this man is going to be treated fairly and squarely.

HON. MR. LEA: You have my assurance he will be, but I would sooner you read the report. You can raise it again if you want to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now just a minute. I'm not through just yet. Mr. Chairman, I have a number of highways problems in the area. I'd like to ask the Minister just what the day-labour vote is this year for the South Peace River area.

HON. MR. LEA: In dollars?

MR. PHILLIPS: In dollars and cents. Every time I go to the highway engineer, Mr. Chairman, with a small problem — an extension of a road or upgrading the roads — there's no money.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): He said he wasn't going to make a speech.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well I don't need to be heckled from you. I'll take as long as I wish in this House to talk on highways. I suppose you're interested, Mr. Member, because you haven't got a highway in your constituency. I don't appreciate being heckled by you. You haven't sat in this House and waited for these estimates to come up.

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

MR. WALLACE: I think I got to him.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think you did too. (Laughter.)

I would like to know, Mr. Minister, just how much we're going to have for day-labour vote in this department because every time I go....

HON. MR. LEA: $350,000.

MR. PHILLIPS: How much of an increase is that over last year?

HON. MR. LEA: We don't have it available right here.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would suggest to you that there's no increase at all. As a matter of fact it might even be a decrease, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister has been approached. He has letters, he has wires from pioneers in that area who need maybe $250 or $300, an extension of the road for people.... I've got files full of them. As I say, I might not take the time of the House to bring them all up; then again, I just might.

But we need an increase. Mr. Chairman; we need an increase in this day-labour vote. Not only is it not looking after keeping the roads upgraded or looking after the problems caused by natural erosion, the winter conditions and so forth, but it's not giving us anything to build extensions. There are more farmers going into that area all the time. There are areas where we need roads upgraded because of changes in equipment. We're losing ground, Mr. Chairman. We're not making any headway, and a lot of the pioneers in that area are getting a little disgusted.

Back in 1966, '67, '68 and '69, when the dollar was worth a lot more than it is today, we used to get $1 million a year in that constituency on the day-labour vote — $1 million a year! If we had kept on with that $1 million a year over a period of years, today we wouldn't be having the problems we are having. So $350,000 is nowhere near enough. We need at least three times that amount and we don't need it for one year; we need it over a period of continuing years.

Mr. Chairman, this government, as mentioned by the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith), doesn't mind siphoning off all the money from the oil fields and the gas fields in that area, and all the natural resources. We'd like a little return. The main thing we ask for that northeastern part of the province is money for roads. Very few other projects do we ask for. It's a most important part of that constituency because it is a developing area; it is still a developing area. It's an area where more farmland is being taken out all the time. People move into an area with nothing but a bulldozed trail, then more farmers take out land. We need to upgrade those roads because more farmland is coming under development. As the land comes under development and families

[ Page 3418 ]

move in, there's a need for school buses. This is a continuing project, and unless you want to say to those people: "Stay off that farmland, don't go in there and develop the area, don't produce food," unless you want to say that to them, you'd better be prepared to give us some more money, because $350,000 for day labour in that constituency is not enough. It wasn't enough last year, and it wasn't enough the year before.

You've got an election coming up pretty soon, Mr. Chairman. If the Minister wants to do something for the people in that constituency, he could be at least politically oriented and the year before an election give us some money. I thought you'd come out this year with at least $2 million for day labour in that constituency. Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't mind, and I wouldn't ask for money, if the government didn't have it. But that government has money for every project under the sun, and they waste hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

MR. PHILLIPS: Nonsense! That's right! Do you want me to give you a list of them?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll just mention a little bit of the money you waste — hundreds of thousands of dollars on vacant office space. What do you think the farmers in my constituency think about that when they can't get $250 for a load of gravel? Thousands and thousands of dollars wasted on plush offices here in the parliament buildings and new buildings all over the place for the hierarchy and the bureaucracies that this government hires. Lots of money to buy land because this government wants to frolic in the real estate business.

MR. FRASER: Right on!

MR. PHILLIPS: There's $5 million for Mr. Gaffney to sit out there and do nothing at the University of Victoria.

MR. FRASER: Think tank!

HON. MR. LEA: Pity you didn't have one of those in your government. No think tanks there.

MR. PHILLIPS: An increase of 15,000 civil servants. I'll tell you this government is wasting money! You're telling me this government isn't wasting money? Don't give me that. This is supposed to be a government of people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you're a riding thumper.

MR. PHILLIPS: I tell you, the people of my riding who have to travel over these potholes.... That Minister can't fill those potholes with soft-soap. It takes money to fill those potholes, and gravel and paving.

Government that has no regard for the tax dollar — wastes it all over the province. Lots of money for the Premier to tour around the world several times at the taxpayers' expense while the people who opened up that constituency in the province can't get $250 for a load of gravel, can't get the roads upgraded, tear their equipment all to pieces taking their farm products to market. And what do we get? A lousy, measly $350,000 for day labour.

That Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) wasted more than that last year on vacant office space. As I go through this budget there are literally hundreds and hundreds and thousands of dollars for printing and periodicals to spread government propaganda. What do we get? A measly $350,000 for day labour for highways.

MR. FRASER: Peanuts.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's disgraceful! It's not even peanuts. It's all right for the government to spend $750,000 on the Foulkes report. For what? A discussion paper.

A government that's supposed to be helping small people! It's the same promise with your rural electrification — you can't say a word, Mr. Minister of Finance. People are sick and tired of you wasting taxpayers' dollars when the real needs of the people — roads — are not being looked after. Tearing your equipment apart!

I'll tell you why the losses in ICBC are so high this year. It's because the roads are full of potholes. There was an accident last Sunday night on the Hart Highway 20 miles north of Prince George. Why? Four young teenagers lost their lives.

MR. FRASER: Potholes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Another engineer of a radio station lost his life and two other people employed in the same radio station are in critical condition. Why are they in the hospital? Why? Because of the deplorable condition of that Hart Highway north of Prince George, that's why. They hit a soft shoulder.

I'll tell you why the losses on ICBC are so high. It's because of the deplorable conditions of the highways in British Columbia. They've gone to pot since you people took over. A measly $350,000 for day labour!

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Would you please speak louder?

[ Page 3419 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll speak as loud as I want, Mr. Premier. When you stop wasting the taxpayers' money, maybe I won't get so excited. But it gets me excited when I see millions and millions of dollars being wasted. You should resign as Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't be so angry!

MR. PHILLIPS: It makes me angry when I see millions and millions of dollars being wasted and all I get is a measly $350,000 for day labour in my constituency. That's a pittance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't give him anything.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure, don't give him anything. That's the kind of cocky, arrogant attitude from that Minister of Finance. "Don't give him anything." Cocky, arrogant....

AN HON. MEMBER: Irresponsible.

MR. PHILLIPS: Irresponsible — of course, irresponsible.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Worse than irresponsible.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: You pay that Minister Without (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler) a half a million dollars to do what? To be a political machine for you — to go up and tell the people up north why you can't build roads. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, I'm not satisfied with $350,000 for day labour. I'm not satisfied....

MR. FRASER: Stand there till you get more.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Neither are the people of my constituency and neither are the people of the whole north. You've got lots of money to build a new bridge and road at Kitwanga. Why? For Can-Cel. Political roads. Oh, and the Minister of Finance says: "Oh, roads won't be made on political decisions." Oh, no.

I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the Highways department in this province has gone completely to pot since that government took over. Last year they said: "We're not going to build any new highways." I remember that Minister in his estimates: "We're not going to build any great big superhighways. No, we're going to maintain the highways we've got." They didn't maintain the highways we've got. In the last year the highways of this province have gone steadily downhill. The government's gone to pot and the roads have gone to potholes under that government.

But they've sure got lots of money — $350 million to build a refinery while the Premier goes on an ego trip and while the people in my riding.... Their trucks are broken down hauling their produce to market. This Premier says he's a Premier of the little people. I'll tell you, Mr. Minister of Highways: I want more than $350,000. I want $1 million, and that won't even solve the problem. I want $1 million day labour. If you've got money to waste and squander — taxpayers' money to waste and squander — and the Premier can travel all over the world, I want more money.

I want more money for day labour. If not, I'm going to hound you with all of these problems. I'm going to make you go up there and face those people that I have to face and see the tears in their eyes when their vehicles break down and they're locked in. When it rains they can't get their children to school or they can't get out to buy groceries. You sit there, Mr. Minister of Highways and laugh — laugh over the problems of those people. And the Premier laughs. Those are real problems, Mr. Chairman; they're not airy-fairy problems. They're real problems of real people, and this government completely ignores them. This government is arrogant, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Alex Fraser is killing himself laughing at you. (Laughter.)

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): You should have an audition for Oral Roberts. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, we had an agreement last year with the federal government: an agreement to upgrade certain roads in the northern part of the province — an agreement that was forced on the federal government, but nevertheless a good agreement — an agreement to upgrade the Alaska Highway, an agreement to upgrade the Hart Highway, an agreement to upgrade Highway 16 from Prince George to Prince Rupert. There was approximately, as near as I can figure out, some $800 million in the overall agreement; there was approximately $1.5 million spent last year. Mr. Chairman; this year the agreement has not been re-signed. Are those projects on the Alaska Highway to replace the Kiskatinaw Bridge, to upgrade the Hart Highway, to upgrade Highway 16 coming to a grinding halt because this agreement has not been signed again this year with Ottawa? Is it going to be signed? Are you going to take advantage of that federal money? Where are you?

I discussed this with you, Mr. Minister, a little while ago, and you said negotiations were still going on. You know, it is pretty near the end of June. Are

[ Page 3420 ]

you going to negotiate until September when the cold weather moves in and you can't do anything? Are you blaming it on Ottawa and Ottawa blaming it on you? What is happening?

You made the agreement at the greatly touted Western Economic Opportunities Conference held in Calgary. You said there was going to be cooperation. What has happened to all of these glossy words that we heard about there going to be a new day? Tell me, Mr. Minister, where is this agreement at at the present time? Are you still negotiating with Ottawa? Are you close to an agreement? Are you going to reach an agreement this year so these projects can be carried on? I would like to know.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.