CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Department of Highways estimates On vote 93. Hon. Mr. Lea — 3511

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we commence I just wanted to announce that summer has come and after listening to the hon. learned doctor from New Westminster (Hon. Mr. Cocke), who recommends that we do something about heavy clothing, I was going to suggest that Members might, without the Chair complaining too much, consider doffing their coats when they feel like it. That might help the temperature situation. I would point out that the temperature in here goes up to 76 degrees nearly every day during this summer period. If the Members are agreed to do this and if I don't hear too much complaint, this might be of some assistance.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, have you considered that if you make it more comfortable we may be here in August? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Well, that is a drawback to the whole suggestion. Anyway, I think that we could try that and see if it is more comfortable.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
(continued)

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

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Chairman, there were two points asked about that I didn't cover in the last sitting. One was a question asked by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) in regard to the Blanshard Street extension. He had some specific questions to which I have the answers. First, he asked how many residential properties will be affected. The answer is that approximately 21 to 23 houses will have to be removed. Details are still being finalized with the new design — that is, the new design worked out by my staff and the city staff and approved by city council and myself. However, seven houses on the line of the previous tunnel route will now not be affected.

The second question was: has the department approached Pitney-Bowes? The answer is no.

Thirdly: have negotiations with property owners affected been initiated? The answer is: not yet. Surveys are presently being undertaken so that the plan for the right-of-way acquisition and design of the facility can be drawn.

Fourthly: does the estimate of $6 million include acquisition of the right-of-way? The answer is yes.

Fifthly: has the department discussed the construction schedule with Saanich with a view to reducing the impact on summer tourist traffic? Again, the answer is: not yet. The impact on tourists will be minimal, and far less than previous tunnel schemes since almost all construction will take place on local streets.

I know that the Blanshard Street extension is not in the riding of the Hon. Member for Oak Bay, but I understand the general interest that he has. I also understand that is must be quite an onerous task to have to represent the number of ridings you do because the others are represented by Social Credit MLAs. This must put quite an onus on you.

One of the other topics that was raised by two people, I think — the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) and the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) — was with regard to the effectiveness of the new speed limit. We have six months of statistics — from the beginning of December under the end of May. All of the data until the first of May is in and most of it for May, but there is still some coming in that couldn't be correlated.

Over that period last year there were 344 deaths, and in the same period this year there were 270. This is a reduction of 70 deaths in that period. If you take the number of deaths only, then you have a 22 per cent reduction. If you take the ratio over that period, it is approximately 27 per cent.

The next six months, and especially August, are the heaviest months. But to me, this indicates that there has been a reduction. At this point I wouldn't know exactly how much could be attributed to the lower speed limits, but I would say that at least the statistics coming in make it mandatory that we go on with these lower speed limits, and continue to review it. It does look very, very hopeful that we are getting this reduction. What we hope to gain is borne out in the statistics so far, but we are going to keep close watch over the statistics of the next six months and then, of course, do the year-end statistics.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Just a few questions to the Minister regarding allocation of highway funds.

First of all, does the Minister propose to take another $18,000 helicopter joyride across the province? When he was a freshman Minister, he wanted to impress the northern people and he hired a helicopter to fly over the highways. I'm wondering if he intends to try to impress any other people in any other part of the province this year with a repeat of the $18,000 taxpayer ride in the helicopter across the province.

Now one other question. On Highway 97 north of Cache Creek, it's my understanding that there are approximately 40 miles of shouldering underway. It

[ Page 3512 ]

is my understanding that it is damaging the pavement to a certain degree. Could the Minister tell me whether there's any intention of paving this section that is presently being shouldered? If so, when does the Minister propose to do the paving?

In the constituency I represent there's Highway 95, which runs a distance of approximately 150 miles throughout my constituency up and down, north and south from the valley. I'm wondering whether there's any proposed work. The Minister did tell me there's a little bit of shouldering. There's an allocation for shouldering just south of Golden. I was wondering if there's any other work proposed, primarily on the northern part of Highway 95 immediately south of Golden where it needs some improvement. Is there any allocation for improvement of the Toby Creek road? Is there an allocation for improvement of the upper Donald road in the vicinity of Golden? Could the Minister tell me what the allocation is for day labour in the Columbia River constituency?

Also, while your estimates were up before, in that short period of time in which questions were asked — but time was not provided for the Ministers to give answers — I asked a few questions regarding the Wasa bridge. I think that the Wasa bridge is a bit of a disgrace. It's a single-lane, wooden structure involving two railway level crossings that are exceedingly rough. I know there has been a survey carried out some considerable period of time ago to cross from the Skookumchuck prairie across to Wasa, which would eliminate that single-lane bridge, which should really be replaced. It has no place on an arterial highway such as Highway 97. Then it in turn would remove the necessity of crossing two railway level crossings. Are there any plans for that this year?

Mission bridge I was going to mention. I notice it's been re-decked recently. I've been travelling over it; there's been a tremendous improvement. At Mission bridge on the airport road from Cranbrook into the airport last year at high water the bridge suffered. It got knocked out of place by about a foot and a half. So it's been re-decked and it's been improved.

Is there any consideration being given to improvement of Highway 95A between Kimberley and Cranbrook? I realize that this is not in my constituency. In the question I'm asking, the Wasa bridge is very close to my constituency, a couple of miles out of it, but the Kimberley-Cranbrook road isn't — Highway 95A. Nevertheless, I get a lot of correspondence from that area. They look to me for guidance and they look to me for help; because their MLA is here in Victoria and he's not accessible to them. So on behalf of those people that come to me, I feel that I have a responsibility to ask the questions and to give them the answers.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines): Not every place has two MLAs.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: In that direction for help?

MR. CHABOT: Well, they came to the right place when they came to me.

HON. MR. LEA: I'd suggest that for help they should go to the person who has represented that riding for years and years and years and who, in my opinion, is giving them all sorts of help.

Now Golden Highway 95: as the Member knows, I travelled that not too long ago. I was very, very surprised that the road is in as good shape as it is, because from the reports I was getting in I thought that I was going to be travelling on a cow trail. That is a good highway.

MR. CHABOT: Which one?

HON. MR. LEA: Highway 95.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, south of Invermere.

HON. MR. LEA: Right. I went through the whole thing and it's a very, very good highway. In the spring it does get a little wavy for a while, that's all. As a matter of fact, the person who was driving me had been instructed to hit every pothole and every wave he could find. He was very disappointed, because at that time of the year he couldn't find any. It's a very good road. As the Member says, we are doing some shouldering there this year, but to me the road is in very good shape compared to other roads in the province that we're putting money in.

The Wasa bridge: we're still working on design there. There isn't anything in this year. Hopefully we can take a look at getting some construction done next year.

The St. Mary-Mission bridge. I'm glad to hear the Member say that he's.... You know that we're looking at that whole airport design.

MR. CHABOT: Yes.

HON. MR. LEA: We're looking for a lower spot to jump off for the new bridge because of the expense of having to go high, we're looking for a lower spot to jump off and do another crossing.

The other area that you brought up — Kimberly-Cranbrook, 95A — we're doing some small amount of work there, but nothing major this year.

The other item brought up was: am I going to take a joy ride — another joy ride, as the Member put it — in a helicopter? I haven't taken a joy ride yet on a helicopter.

MR. CHABOT: Of course you did. That was

[ Page 3513 ]

strictly a joy ride.

HON. MR. LEA: As a matter of fact, I thought that the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith), who accompanied me on part of that trip, was well-satisfied that it was a useful trip and that we could cover a lot more ground that way, and see a lot more road. You can get an overview from the air that you can't get on the ground. We touched down all the time and made side trips. I think it was a very useful trip.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Will I be doing it again? There was no fishing, Hon. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your staff did.

HON. MR. LEA: I've heard some of the charges from that side of the House — there was no fishing. As a matter of fact, at the point where they said I was fishing, the Hon. Member for North Peace River was with me and he can attest to the fact that there was no fishing.

I feel it was a useful trip — money well spent. I would only point out that at least I didn't invite 8 million people along to a picnic, using helicopters and such, as is being done by the federal government. At least I was doing my duty; I wasn't having a party.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: Everybody who is going to vote for the Liberals next time turned up — all 8 million.

MR. CHABOT: No parties on that trip at all?

HON. MR. LEA: I feel that that trip was useful and, hopefully, I can do it in other areas of the province. I don't know whether I'll have one on this year or not — maybe.

MR. CHABOT: A few questions that I asked haven't been answered for some unknown reason. The Minister wants to avoid giving answers to specific questions that are put to him.

HON. MR. LEA: Which one?

MR. CHABOT: I asked you if there was an allocation for improvement of Toby Creek Road. I asked you if there was an allocation for the Upper Donald Road. I asked you what you propose to do Highway 97 north of Cache Creek, where you're shouldering approximately 40 miles of highway — whether you intend to pave this section, and if so, when.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'm just absolutely amazed at the lack of respect for the procedures in this House. I won't know exactly how much money I have until you people pass my estimates.

MR. CHABOT: That's a bunch of rubbish.

HON. MR. LEA: I'll be letting you know exactly what work will be done as soon as my estimates are passed.

MR. CHABOT: You're not going to get your estimates if you're going to be belligerent like that. (Laughter.) I asked you a very simple question. You know right now, Mr. Minister, what kind of allocations you have for these various projects. You know how much you have allocated for day labour. It's not going to change whether your estimates pass this very moment or whether your estimates pass in two hours from now or two days from now. I asked you some very specific, simple questions. Certainly they're not that difficult for you to answer, I would suspect.

I asked you what kind of an allocation you have for the Toby Creek Road. Is there an allocation this year? If so, how much? Is there an allocation for the Upper Donald Road in the vicinity of Golden this year? If so, how much? Do you propose to do any work on Highway 97 north of Cache Creek? Do you propose to do any paving? If so, to what extent and when can we expect this to start? I also asked you the question: what kind of an allocation do you have for day labour within the Columbia River constituency? I don't think those questions are that difficult. I'm sure that the answers are right behind you if you only care to look.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that every Member of the House is interested in hearing exactly what's going on in each other's constituencies. I'm quite willing to have a precedent-setting year where the government will tell opposition Members exactly what's going to be done in their ridings. I'll do that in writing immediately after my estimates are passed.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, this is the purpose of these estimates — of all estimates, really. We can't debate philosophy regarding highways. It's a question of Members asking questions of specific importance to them and to seek out answers on behalf of their constituents. These questions are being asked.

The Highways estimate, of all estimates, is where we should except some straightforward answers, not evasion such as we've seen from the Minister — unwillingness to answer. You have the answers. Why don't you produce the answers? It's about time we

[ Page 3514 ]

got some answers. You were willing the other day to indicate how much day labour was allocated for the South Peace River. All I'm asking you is to tell me how much is allocated for the area I represent, what kind of programmes you propose to have on these three points I have raised to you. Certainly it's not that difficult. Maybe your Deputy will tell you: "Don't answer him." Nevertheless, I think they're very important, and my constituents are demanding answers. You have the answers, let's have them.

HON. MR. LEA: It's $80,000 for day labour, but there's a lot of contract work being carried out in your riding.

MR. CHABOT: Well, $80,000. The Member....

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, that's why I didn't want to bring it up because I didn't want to go through the North Peace.

MR. CHABOT: You're ashamed of it.

HON. MR. LEA: No I'm not; I'm proud of it. It's $80,000 more than went to Strachan's....

MR. CHABOT: So, $80,000 for day labour. The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) was getting $300,000.

Now I'm not going to start arguing the pros and cons of whether he should get $300,000 and I should get $80,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do that in caucus. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Well, I do.

I have some specific questions. Is there any allocation for Toby Creek Road? Is there an allocation for the Upper Donald Road? What do you propose to do on Highway 97 relative to paving north of Cache Creek?

The Minister talked about contracts. There are ongoing contracts on the Trans-Canada Highway, and even though the Trans-Canada Highway does bring benefits to the community of Golden, I've never really considered it part of my constituency. There's a continuing upgrading of the highway, I know, and I know that there's a paving contract — Zacharias has a paving contract in the Kicking Horse Canyon. Also, that other firm is struggling along to finish that programme they had such great difficulty with last year. So those are the two contracts.

If the Minister is alluding to other contracts within my constituency, besides those two on the Trans-Canada Highway, could he tell me specifically where those contracts will be undertaken? Is it a paving contract on Highway 95 which desperately needs it? Is that what you're saying? If so, let me know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Shuswap.

MR. CHABOT: Well, just a moment. I asked some questions of the Minister. I'm not expecting....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member took his seat, and the Minister didn't rise, so I recognized another Member....

MR. CHABOT: No, I didn't take my seat, I bent my knees slightly. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think in all fairness I did give the Member an opportunity to have a follow-up question. I don't think this means monopolizing the time of the House.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I'd like to take this opportunity to, once again, voice my support for the Minister of Highways' speed limit which he instituted throughout the province. I think it's a right move in the right direction. One thing that does concern me in regard to the speed limit is the lack of enforcement by law enforcing officers on the road. I'm not criticizing the police as such — possibly there aren't enough officers to do the job properly. But I'm most concerned about this summer season coming on when people who are abiding the law, travelling at the 50- or 55-mile an hour speed limit, are continually being confronted by trucks and other traffic not abiding the speed limit, passing in unsafe places and putting those people's lives in jeopardy.

I would hope that the Minister would meet with other cabinet Ministers concerned to see if the highway patrol can't be boosted, to see if we can't possibly implement motor cycle radar patrols, such as the City of Vancouver is experimenting with at the present time. I understand that the City of Vancouver has indicated that they are most pleased with the results from the motor cycle radar they have in the city.

I think this would be one way that people would be more careful in regard to their driving habits. At the present time they get to know where radar traps are set up. There's a signal system operated by motorists throughout the province where they flash their lights every time they see a radar car, and it warns the public. I know everybody hates to get a speeding ticket and hates to get points on their licence, but they also have to realize they have a responsibility to other people who are on the highway. I have no sympathy whatsoever for anybody who picks up points. I feel that if they do, they have it coming to them.

I'd like to leave that subject now and move on to

[ Page 3515 ]

subdivision approvals. This is one area in which I've voiced my concern in the past, and I've voiced them to the Minister on many occasions. I think that the Highways department's subdivision approval on one-half mile from the highway is too severe. I don't think there's enough thought given to the other aspects within the community — the social aspects and how it affects that community. I would hope that this will be looked at.

In my riding the majority of the riding is controlled by Highways department because it's in narrow valleys where just about all the subdividable land is within one-half mile of the highway. I know, in particular, one trailer court which wished to put in, I think, about 22 units on a piece of road which I feel is very lightly used. They were told that they felt it would cause too much traffic on the road, with 22 more units in that court. Yet the people in that area are finding it almost impossible to get a trailer pad to set up a home. We have to realize, too, that now this is the only alternative for many young people — to go to trailer-type living because it's the only thing they can afford, what with the costs we have.

I think the Highways restriction is far too stringent. I believe in planning, and I believe in the Highways department having complete control over people entering onto that highway. But I also feel that when the present roads that come onto the highway are in a safe position, surely we can accommodate subdivisions in those areas. I think it's far too restrictive. I think it's been a part of the reason that lots in the Salmon Arm area have increased at such a rapid rate.

The right to subdivide, and the number of lots that have been withdrawn from the market, puts the developer in a position where he can more or less control the market and control the prices. I think with a little more lenient attitude by the Highways department, we could see a decrease in lot prices throughout that area.

Yet another area is when they seek subdivision approval. I can think of the Celista area where they were putting in a subdivision called Meadowcreek subdivision. I, myself, as the MLA for the area, expressed my concern to the Highways engineer in Salmon Arm and also the planning engineer in Kamloops about that particular subdivision, because it was built with entrances coming onto the roadway with no area to park cars right alongside the lake. I said that there would be a bottleneck build up along that road in coming years because they would be parking along the roadway.

The Highways officials said: "Well, we'll demand that they have two spots off the road to park on." But if you know the history of people who build along the lakes, you will know they have friends that come in from all over the place with boats and trailers and everything else. I can see a real bottleneck in that area. Yet the Highways officials weren't prepared to listen to me when I made a protest, when I made my opinion known. Yet in areas where I feel there is no social problem in regard to congestion on the highway, in regard to pollution of the lakes and that type of thing, the Department of Highways has a very deaf ear to that type of development.

I think there just has to be a total review of that stand taken by the Highways department. Maybe those particular types of problems should go to the Environment and Land Use Committee when there is more than one department involved and where they have to look at the whole community need rather than just the highway need.

I would just in closing like to ask the Minister of Highways if he would investigate this alternative.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Member, I would think that probably the jurisdiction for subdivision in rural areas came under the Department of Highways because the Department of Highways was one of the only departments that had people almost everywhere in the province.

I don't think in many cases it is probably the best way to go that the Department of Highways does it.

I would also like to point out that because of the staff who have taken a very stringent attitude towards development I believe that we have saved a great many areas of this province from what would have otherwise been undesirable development.

I believe that the whole aspect of subdivision in the rural areas has to be reviewed. We have had a number of meetings in the Environment and Land Use Committee, along with secretariat staff, to try and resolve the problem. It is not the easiest thing in the world to resolve.

One of the things I have found out: I have yet to have a complaint when I've said yes. It is always when you say no that, of course, the complaints come in.

I would also put down the subjectiveness of now. It would be quite easy to say: "Okay, let's let this one go because at this particular moment in time there will be no adverse effects. It will not be an impediment to traffic flow at this particular time to have this one go ahead." But once you let one, there is another and another and another, until the time would come when on the entire Trans-Canada Highway or a main artery, whether it is the Trans-Canada or not, we would have to drive at 20 miles an hour. It would get that bad if we let it go.

I don't think there is that much of a difference in philosophy between the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) and myself. It is just an amount of degree, I suppose.

I admit that it has to be reviewed, especially in your area because of the topography and the kind of rural subdivisions that have been taking place. As the Member knows, I have spoken to the

[ Page 3516 ]

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), and I think your area and others like it have to come under review by a number of disciplines. That possibly could be done through the secretariat of the land use committee.

I would also like to point out that we in the Highways department are the final approving officers, but oftentimes the decision that is made is not to allow the subdivision isn't necessarily one pertaining to traffic. We have to go to the Department of Health, and they may say: "We don't want that subdivision there for these reasons: ...." The Highways department is the department that is stuck with telling the proposed subdividers that no, it can't go ahead. So always the flak comes to the Department of Highways, but it would have to go to someone.

But the fact of the matter is that we do have to be very, very careful. I've said this oftentimes before and I repeat it. We do have to be careful in the kind of development we allow along our highways, because we just do not have the opportunity of moving over one with our topography. It is expensive. We can't afford it as a society, and once we put in these corridors, these transportation corridors, we have to ensure that they are free-flowing for years to come. This eventually will save money and it will mean better planning.

There are instances, I am sure, where we have been over-stringent. Usually those are reviewed at least once, or a number of times. As the Hon. Member knows, you have personally brought to me items to be reviewed. Sometimes the decision is reversed, though not too often, but when you bring a good, well-researched reason to me, I'll look at it.

In the meantime, I just have to repeat that unless we are very, very stringent with the development along roads, it is going to cost us, as a society, all sorts of money that we needn't spend if we do careful planning — and also the social fact of not being able to drive our cars at a reasonable rate of speed on those highways.

Again, I would point out a number of areas where there hasn't been a disciplined kind of planning. There is the Okanagan where you drive through now in the summer and it is very, very difficult if you are not a tourist but are, say on business and would like to get through; it can sometimes be rather bothersome.

Probably one of the most blatant examples of what I am talking about is in Duncan just north of here. The bypass route that was put in was one mile from the community. Now you drive through Duncan and we are back to the same old thing; we are now being asked for another bypass. If we had been stringent about the kind of development allowed along that new bypass route, we wouldn't be looking at that problem today.

The other thing you touched on was the kind of enforcement it takes to make sure that people do adhere to the new speed limits, or even the speed limits that were in effect before. Obviously a certain amount can be done by enforcement, but it is almost impossible to catch everyone who is speeding or driving in some other unsafe manner. We are almost talking about trying to regulate morality, which is rather hard to do. My personal experience in driving on the road these days is that I drive at the speed limit and very few people pass me. I get other reports coming in that everyone is passing everyone, but I don't find that happening. I'm not saying it doesn't happen.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: The speed limit. I don't find that many people passing me. I drove down the Island Highway yesterday and I didn't find that many people passing me. Driving in from the ferry at Swartz Bay one fellow passed me five times, weaving in and out. When we arrived at one of the stop signs close to the city centre, he was sitting beside me. I didn't pass him at all except when he couldn't get by and I kept on the speed limit — then I passed him. I don't know what advantage he thought there was in doing that weaving, zagging kind of driving he was doing.

Enforcement? Yes, I would like to see more enforcement. As I said before, I commend the RCMP for the kind of job they are doing. They don't have the manpower to do the kind of job they would like to do. As I understand things, the federal government is now looking at not sharing to the degree they have shared before in law enforcement for the province. Mr. Allmand blamed the former Social Credit government for not keeping up over the years and leaving us in a state where we were terribly behind. Now the federal government is looking at cutting the kind of shareability in terms of dollars they have contributed traditionally. I don't know where we are going in that direction; you would have to ask the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). From my point I do think that we should have more law enforcement.

I notice that the last Social Credit convention at the Hyatt Regency in Vancouver passed a resolution that the provincial highway control should be expanded. I would hesitate to do that at this point in time because of the rather wild, unfounded charges that some people in the Social Credit Party are making about us getting together and trying to have a secret police force. I think that if I did expand the highway patrol, the only way I could do it would be to have Staff-Sgt. Grace McCarthy and Cpl. Agnes Kripps there to keep an eye on things. But I'm not sure that they could do that adequately. Until such

[ Page 3517 ]

time as there is a little more rational thought flowing into the public from all politicians everywhere, I don't think we could take that route.

MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to go on record as being in favour of planning along the highways. At no time have I indicated that I am not in favour of planning along the highways.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You just want exceptions.

MR. LEWIS: If the Hon. Member for North Okanagan would give me a chance to tell my story, I'm sure she will have her opportunity later on.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've had all morning.

MR. LEWIS: When it comes to a total freeze of my riding outside municipal boundaries, which is almost what is happening at the present time, I think this is going too far. As MLA for that area I have a responsibility for that area as well. I think the traffic from Vancouver to Calgary is most important, but I also feel that the people who live in my riding are most important. I certainly will support highway planning but not planning so restrictive that the area is frozen even though there are desirable building sites in areas that won't impede highway traffic.

HON. MR. LEA: Just in brief response to that, it is not that we put total freezes on. Eighty-five per cent of the subdivision applications that come in are approved. So it isn't that we put a blanket freeze on. I know that you agree with highway planning; it is just a question of degree.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): There are a few points I would like to cover with the Minister. They are not necessarily in order of importance. I think I will jump to the question that was raised by the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) with respect to approving officers. I think that this responsibility should be transferred as soon as possible from the Highways department. Precisely where has been discussed in your comments this morning and in the comments from the Member for Shuswap.

But I think that while it may have been appropriate a good number of years ago when, as you indicated, Mr. Minister, the approving officer was attached to a department which had representation throughout the province, that has changed. I certainly don't like what I have seen in Duncan, as an example, and in a number of other parts of the province. With the development of regional districts and with the development of other government agencies and departments, it seems rather foolish to leave that subdivision approval responsibility in a Highways department. If your department is blamed for refusing subdivisions for a reason suggested by some other department, then frankly — using the vernacular — I don't see why your department should have to carry the can. This, I think, is a tendency in bureaucracy, not just at the provincial level, but at the municipal and perhaps at the federal level as well, where someone who is being turned down is not given the real reason.

I recall in municipalities in Saanich, as an example, when the advisory planning commission of the day did not like a particular idea for a variety of reasons. But did it state those reasons and pass those reasons along to the applicant in the rejection? No. They searched around and found some obscure reason, which was secondary or tertiary — as an example, traffic capacity or sewage capacity or some other reason which was not the main reason. I suggest that this is happening provincially as well. They did not provide the reason for rejecting the application for subdivision of whatever it may be. It is Highways — if it is concern in the Highways department — then well and good, let that reason be stated. But let's give people honest and complete reasons — full reasons, principal reasons — as to why a particular application should, and therefore is, being rejected.

ELUC may be the appropriate agency — I'd be interested in hearing your comments on that, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vesuvius-Crofton ferry route is very important to Saltspring Island in terms of commercial traffic coming from Duncan or from the Cowichan Valley. The Minister will know of storm damage there and at other ferry terminals from the Easter storm and one or two others thus far in 1975. There are, I believe, quite severe load limit restrictions in force on Vesuvius-Crofton. While I think there is a problem at the Vesuvius end, I'm also informed that there is a problem with the wharf at Crofton. Could the Minister indicate this morning or, if not, perhaps speak to me later with respect to upgrading of that system — the wharves at either end of that very important link?

My information is that vehicles such as cement trucks, large lumber trucks and so on cannot use the Vesuvius-Crofton run at the present time.

I would like to, frankly, congratulate the Department of Highways and then obviously, as a result of that, the Minister for putting in that link road between the Patricia Bay Highway and Victoria International Airport, avoiding that very backwoods Toonerville Trolley kind of connection which existed for a good number of years. I assume that the new road is to be given its second lift this summer or before the paving season ends. It seems to be a base coat at the moment. Perhaps the Minister could indicate now: am I correct in assuming that it's going

[ Page 3518 ]

to get a final lift or a second lift this year?

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: You'll speak to it later? Okay. Speaking of the airport, Mr. Chairman, while this is not the responsibility of the provincial Department of Highways, I'm sure that the Minister will be concerned to know that what is called the South Perimeter Road of Victoria airport is in the process, I think, this week of being closed off to public use. This means that all traffic originating to the west of the airport — Deep Cove, further out on the peninsula and south of the peninsula but on the west side — will, instead of having a reasonably direct route, have to come along McTavish on to the newly constructed airport link. I assume that the feds have done this on the basis of security as they did with that rather ridiculous and extremely expensive chain-link fence all around the property. However, again while it is not the responsibility of the provincial department, I'm sure the Minister, if he doesn't know about it, would want to know about it and perhaps would want to take this up with the Ministry of Transport or other federal people, pointing out that this is as far as I'm concerned a totally unnecessary inconvenience for those people or that traffic that wants to get to the west side of the peninsula from the airport terminal or other buildings, and which also wants to get to the terminal from the northern and central portion of the west side of the peninsula.

Also, the concrete barrier on the Patricia Bay Highway — correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Minister, but I understood that it was put up as something of an experiment, as a test. At least it was indicated that because it is relatively portable, and I stress relatively, if it was found that it was not working out, then it could be removed. I notice a number of tire marks up and down its height, indicating that it has indeed prevented traffic from crossing over into the oncoming lanes. I wonder if the Minister would tell us if he's quite satisfied with the barrier, or if there are some other plans afoot for the extremely busy and still dangerous Patricia Bay Highway.

Then finally, another Gulf Island matter, Mr. Chairman. Within recent days, very recently, received was a copy of a letter addressed to the Premier from a resident of Galiano Island who expresses concern that there has been no scything along the roadside on Galiano. She reports in her letter to the Premier that the machine broke down during the winter and the work will not commence for some time yet as some of the other islands have first claim on its time. There's a reference here in which you'll be interested, Mr. Minister: "Our Galiano road foreman is excellent and he's most willing, but if the government hasn't sufficient finances to cover breakages or new machines, his hands are tied." You might not have the answer, I appreciate, this morning on that specific, but some comment in due course would be appreciated in terms of: is there an equipment breakdown or an equipment shortage on the Gulf Islands for roadside maintenance? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, what I have done generally on the Gulf Islands is cut down on the kind of clearing that has normally taken place over the years. I've done this on an experimental basis. A great many requests were coming in from residents of the Gulf Islands, including Galiano, that they wanted the roads left in a more pristine manner, blending ....

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, that, and also the kind of slashing and scything that was going on. So I decided that we would try that for awhile. If the residents there want that kind of aesthetic value, then why not? — as long as there wasn't any real danger in terms of safety and vision.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, and vision. I'll check and see that at least the visual aspect is good in terms of the same.

MR. CURTIS: She's been told that the machine broke down.

HON. MR. LEA: I haven't had any reports coming in about there being a lack of good, well-working machinery.

The perimeter road at the airport, as the Hon. Member has pointed out correctly, is federal jurisdiction. If you do have some thoughts on it, and on which you would like me to make representation to federal people, I'd be glad to get them if you'd like to detail them.

B.C. Ferries. The ferry you were talking about is a B.C. Ferry, under B.C. Ferry jurisdiction. It's not under my jurisdiction, so bring that up with....

MR. CURTIS: Well, I'm not speaking about the ferry, I'm speaking about the wharves. Mr. Chairman, just to assist the Minister, I receive on a regular basis press releases on the letterhead of the Department of Highways. This one deals with Village Bay Ferry Terminal, contract 2, an electrical contract in the amount of $42,000 awarded to Scott Electric. Now I appreciate that the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is concerned with the ferries, but if this is not within your jurisdiction, then perhaps he should sell you some letterhead.

[ Page 3519 ]

HON. MR. LEA: I'll explain that. We do that work at the request of the Department of Transport and Communications. It's done through our department, but it's at their request. We just handle it because we're a little better equipped for letting contracts and some expertise. We do the work at their request. So you could bring that up with the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications. I believe he's still coming up.

The Pat Bay Highway barriers. In talking with my staff, they feel that the barrier is a good thing, that it has stopped a number of accidents, They are so designed that when you do hit them, they do throw you back into your lane of traffic. Apparently it works. I've yet to hit one and I'm not looking forward to ever doing it, but apparently they do work rather effectively. So at this point I have no plans to alter those barriers.

The approving officer. As I mentioned earlier this morning, I'm not really satisfied with the way it works. For instance, if it went to Municipal Affairs, it would mean more staff out in the field to do it. I can't think of any other agency at this point that has the kind of provincial network that the Department of Highways has. We do tell people, you know, why their subdivision has been turned down — the reasons for it. Oftentimes there's a first refusal and we say: "Okay, there are certain things you have to do; you have to meet this health requirement." Or it might be parking spaces. "You don't have enough parking spaces to deal with it adequately." So we say: "If you do this and do that and do this and bring it back, it will be approved." Oftentimes the second time they're approved, or it may go to the third. But there are certain requirements that we demand, and the reason is given.

I know there's a great deal of frustration. Even though we have the only network that I know of at this point, we are understaffed and it's taking longer to get the subdivision approvals through than I would like to see. At the same time, I think the job that's being done by the people who are doing the subdivision approvals both in the field and in Victoria at the final approval level.... You know, they have to be commended for the job they've done, because they have been overworked. There's no doubt about it.

But I'm not satisfied with the way it's going, and we have to look at other ways of dealing with them more quickly and to the desire of more people. It's really a tricky, tricky kind of problem to try and resolve. But I can tell you that it is in front of the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat and we have been working on it. Quite frankly, we haven't come to a great deal of resolve. We're still talking about it. You spend an hour and come out as frustrated or more frustrated than you went in to the meeting. It's a real problem. We're working on ways to resolve it, but so far we haven't come up with all of the solutions.

MR. CURTIS: A brief follow up on that point, to the Minister. There are other agencies, and I mentioned it briefly. Perhaps the Minister, as he reviews this with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and other of his colleagues would consider using regional districts with final authority perhaps resting in the hands of the ELUC. Now not all regional districts have full-scale planning departments, but most — I think most now — are pretty well developed in terms of planning expertise and planning capability. The Minister disagrees. Well, we could do a count sometime and determine.

But I do suggest that in many areas of the province, if not most, Mr. Chairman, it could be that the regional districts could be given.... it would go a great deal to reassure local government in this province that the present government recognizes that it has some ability and some responsibility. I think regional districts and municipalities are feeling just a little bit downcast these days in that regard. So regional districts with the final responsibility coming to, say, ELUC — or to Highways....

HON. MR. LEA: Well, we do work very closely with the regional districts. If they request us to hold up an application because they would like to take a look at it, or they disapprove completely, we look at their zoning and work with their zoning. So we do work with them as closely as possible. But as you know, there are a great many regional districts that do not have the kind of staff they should have. I'm not blaming the regional districts for it; it's just a fact of life.

I would like to see that level of government beefed up. I'd like to see that level beefed up so that they do make more decisions at the local level. At the same time, as I'm sure you'll agree, there has to be some sort of provincial standard we have to follow also.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things in Highways that one is tempted to talk about because it really is such a vital portfolio in this province; and it really has been so sadly neglected under this government.

But before starting — and I do intend to confine most of my remarks to the constituency area of the North Okanagan — I would, as one who travels the highways a great deal in this province all times of the year, like to pay my annual tribute to the Highways department.

AN HON. MEMBER: You just attacked him.

MRS. JORDAN: From the Deputy Minister up to the man who drives the grader, there is just no way

[ Page 3520 ]

that we in most parts of British Columbia could possibly survive if it weren't for the dedication and the knowledge and the cheerful nature and the willingness of these crews who plough night and day in the wintertime to meet our needs. I know that in the North Okanagan, and we are really a fairly heavy snow plough area, we are eternally grateful to these men — and, I hope someday soon, women — who man the graders and take care of the highways and who are a source of reassurance to people on the highways when they're travelling from A to B, particularly in the wintertime. If one if travelling the Monashee or perhaps the pass into the Kootenays, it's very nice to notify one highway department that you're leaving and to notify the other when you get there, because of slides. And it's nice to know they're around.

I can't be quite as complimentary to the Minister. I'm sorry. As much as I enjoy his charming personality, I find he's very long on talk and very short on accomplishments. The highways in British Columbia are deteriorating in a very serious way. I would strongly recommend to this Minister that he not confine his driving from the ferry terminal to the parliament buildings, but that he get out of his helicopter and get out of his jet and get onto the highways of British Columbia, not just in a bus, but to drive.

I wonder, by the way, if the Minister has taken that bus trip yet around the province. There is a marked deterioration. The Fraser Canyon is deteriorating badly. One well appreciates the problems of Jackass Mountain, and it will probably be ever thus, but the general maintenance of the roads and the general confidence that people used to have in our highway system is lacking. The general enthusiasm within the highway crew is diminishing. I would venture to say that the general morale in the highway crews is decreasing. This must be attributed directly to the Minister's administration.

I urge him to beef up this department. I urge him not to talk so much in the Legislature but to talk more in cabinet. I'll cite an example in a few minutes of where this is necessary. Mr. Minister, building highways in British Columbia is a difficult and expensive business at the best of times. If highways are not properly maintained the amount of time and money spent and the loss of convenience to people in reclaiming neglected highways is going to be staggering at today's costs.

The heavily used Hope-Princeton highway is another case in point. The inefficiency in the drawing out of that widening section near Manning Park has got to be a classic. I believe I am correct in saying that the contract was considered and let before the change of administration. It is one of the most simple highway widening projects that could be undertaken in this province. But it is still not completed, according to my last trip over there some few weeks ago. One drives over that piece of roadwork and is shocked to find maybe one or two gravel trucks and a grader. That piece of highway should have been rehabilitated and widened in one season or certainly two at the most. I think it is a shocking example of the lack of inspiration that this Minister is giving his team and of the contracts he is letting. When people are building highways once the decisions and environmental considerations are made this is business. People's lives depend on these highways and there shouldn't be the tomfoolery and almost ant-like undertakings that are going on in this province under this administration.

As an example, I was in the Kootenays last year. Down near Slocan there is a massive ravine that I assume the Highways department is going to cut off a corner of. What do you find down at the bottom of the ravine but two little miniature Cats working away to fill the ravine. Yet there are two sign men at each end of the area advising people to go slowly. I asked them what was going on and someone said they had an ant trying to build the Aswan Dam. It might look good, Mr. Minister, but it is a terrible way to repair and build roads in this province and it is a terrible waste of taxpayers' money. If the Minister got out and realized what is going on he would tighten up his administration or else give the authority to those who need it in order to carry these projects out in a business like manner.

One has to talk to the drivers of transport trucks. They know what is going on in this province. They have nicknamed the Minister the architect of the Pothole Pathway to the Pacific. There is no question that from the Rockies to the Pacific the highways in British Columbia are deteriorating.

I would like to lend my voice of support to the idea that has been expressed of transferring the approving authority from the Highways department. It is proving too much for the department itself, as the Minister said. I think it had a very useful purpose in the past but now, with many regional districts increasing their own planning staffs and authority and with other departments moving in in a cohesive way, this is no longer necessary. We find that too much power has been consolidated in the hands of too few people, often with the appearance of being in the hands of one person. I think this is unfair to that individual because I am sure that that individual is taking the brunt for decisions made in many other departments. It is also unfair to those in the local areas who are trying to get answers and reasons for answers. Reasons for denials of accesses and denials of subdivisions are not that readily forthcoming from your department. As I mentioned, that tends to fall in the hands and on the head of one individual in your department. I don't think it is fair to him or to the public.

[ Page 3521 ]

The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) is for motherhood but he doesn't want to have a pregnancy. He is all for planning but he wants exceptions. I would suggest that everyone in this Legislature and the majority of the people in British Columbia do want plans, but they want them based on rational criteria. One of the most serious concerns of people today is that a planner comes in fresh out of training, bushy-eyed, wiggly-tailed, ready to go, moves in on a community and tries to impose his or her concept, often theoretical, on a community. The community is forced to accept those concepts and live with them. Five years later the airy-fairy planner is gone and the people have to live with those concepts. Planning, Mr. Minister, whether it is highways or subdivisions or recreational planning or straight community planning, should strongly reflect the views of the people who were there before the planner came, who must live there while the planner is there, who will live there after the planner has gone, and who will be paying the price, not only economically or dollar-wise, but socially for those theories that have been imposed upon them. I know in the area in which I live there is serious concern that it is the planner's views that are prevailing and not the people's views, guided by sound planning principles, that are prevailing.

It also leads to the unfortunate circumstances of what appear to be exceptions to the rules. Mr. Minister, I don't intend to bring up any specific ones today, but this is a matter of growing concern with the Highways department. In the Member's area, why were certain exceptions made? Why is one person being treated differently than another? In the North Okanagan constituency, but in the South Okanagan highway district, Mr. Minister, on a stretch of Highway 97 between Winfield and Ellison Lake, there has been a tradition for a number of years of no commercial access on that highway. Yet an application was made repeatedly for a commercial access on both sides of the highway which was turned down by the former administration.

I'm not pointing the finger at wrongdoings, but I am saying, Mr. Minister, that you are leaving yourself open to serious concern. One of these involves the use of Indian lands, which leaves other people who are concerned in a very, very difficult situation. If they question why this access was given, then they're immediately labelled as being anti-development as far as the native people are concerned — that's not the point.

Mr. Minister, I urge you to take a look at that piece of highway. I would like to have written reasons as to why those two commercial accesses have been given. One of them is a good business and I'm glad the native people are leaving their land, but that one commercial access on the right-hand side going north is at a most precarious point of highway, You're driving around the access and you do not have clear visibility. That was denied under the former administration unless they put in a service road. I would ask you why the department has not required a proper commercial access, if it's going to be given, and a service road — why that commercial access has direct access to Highway 97 when other people along the area can't get it, and when, in fact, it is a very dangerous situation.

I think that it's incumbent upon Highways to make very clear through their department and their regulations just what is required for access and what type of internal roads are required so that there can be no feeling among the local people that special privileges are being granted. This is a growing concern in the North Okanagan and I say not directly attributable to this Minister in the whole area. I do question the one on Highway 97 south below Winfield and at Ellison Lake. The reasons should be made public; anyone should be able to have this information of why they were turned down.

Just speaking of highways in general, I would urge the Minister — I know he's not responsive to this type of thing — again to establish as much as possible greenbelt medians on highways. I think that Highway 97 north of Kelowna is an excellent example where there is a median. A progressive cooperation programme between the city and the government to put trees and shrubbery on that area would enhance our highways a great deal — the same in my own area.

Speaking of greenbelts, I would ask the Minister again to change his mind as far as the area along Highway 97 from Woodsdale to Oyama is concerned — along Woods Lake. This was slated to be developed as a long-term project as a greenbelt area — picnic spots, cycling, walking areas. The Minister has stopped it and refuses to consider it. But I would urge him again to reconsider and slowly, when we have fill, develop that area so that people can enjoy the use of the lake in a safe manner, and also so that it is much more attractive than it is. I would make the commitment that that will be a commitment of the next administration in British Columbia. We will see that that greenbelt area does develop on a progressive basis, so that it has more safe parking areas, trees and picnic areas. In other words, a people's walkway.

Mr. Minister, speaking of Highway 97 north, particularly in the North Okanagan, we've listened to you on a number of occasions speak in the House very gently, answering questions, talking about the achievements of his department, yet we find in our area a classic example of the lack of communication between this Minister, his colleagues and Treasury board. Perhaps it's one of the major reasons why we are having so many highway problems in British Columbia.

I frequently requested that the Minister of

[ Page 3522 ]

Highways give serious consideration to progressing with the development of Highway 97 north, between Kelowna and the Armstrong area. The Minister, in short, has repeatedly blamed it on local politicians, that there was no consensus of opinion, and that he was ready to go when they were ready to go. This simply is not so.

As late as Tuesday, May 27 of this year, in the Vernon Daily News there's a statement by Vernon's Mayor Stewart Fleming, who has been on a good deal of the discussions and the planning, which absolutely contradicts the statements of this Minister. Mayor Fleming and other mayors were meeting with the Premier and Minister of Finance of this province, Premier Barrett, and they were discussing Highway 97. I would read for your information, Mr. Chairman, from the Vernon News with a report from David Obee "Okanagan mayors and regional district chairmen told Premier Dave Barrett last weekend of the need for improvements to Highway 97 through the valley. Vernon Mayor Stewart Fleming, who represented the city along with Alderman Jack Mead, said Monday that the Premier had not been aware of the presentations made to the government by Valley representatives during recent years."

Now isn't that interesting in light of the statements this Minister has made in this House? I'll repeat it:

"They said Monday that the Premier had not been aware of the presentations made to the government by Valley representatives during recent years.

"Mr. Barrett apparently did not realize the mayors in the Valley were as unanimous in their requests as they are."

Now, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, just what sort of hanky panky is going on here? The Minister of Highways stands up and says that he's ready to go as soon as the mayors can agree. The Premier of this province, and the president of Treasury board, says that he's never heard of the presentations; he's not aware. Now does this Minister ever talk to Treasury board, or is that why we're not getting the money we should be getting for highway development?

They go on to say: "When we mentioned three-laning of some sections of the highway, we got the impression the Premier thought it was a sensible idea."

Instead of the Minister of Highways standing up in this House and trying to create friction between the communities of the Okanagan on a very difficult subject at best, this Minister of Highways should be trying to co-ordinate some effort at his level of administration as to where the authority is and the money is to develop this highway.

Highway 97 was designed and built in the early 1950s to meet the then needs and the projected needs of the Okanagan Valley into the 1960s. Those needs have materialized and we now find ourselves in the situation where we have a highway which is inadequate in terms of its conflict of use. It's along a lake area, a beautiful scenic area, and the tourists want to come to the valley. We want them to come to the valley, enjoy themselves and spend their money. They want to see the scenery. We have commercial traffic, trucking traffic, which is in conflict with the tourist traffic. We have the internal traffic which is not a leisurely type of traffic. We have fruit hauling, log hauling, all sorts of internal commercial traffic trying to compete with the tourists and the external commercial traffic. Then we are a retirement area, so we have in pockets like Okanagan Centre, Winfield and Oyama, areas like Ellison and Glenmore, more retired people who wish to communicate back and forth on the highway, but drive at a pace much different and very much in conflict with the other use of this highway. So I would urge the Minister go get on with Highway 97, to get down to the details of the project, consult with those in the small communities, such as Okanagan Centre, Winfield and Oyama who are going to be affected and get this project off the ground. We've had enough of these phony excuses. And, obviously, they are phony when we listen to what the Premier has to say, and listen to what the Minister has to say in this House. So cut the talk and get on with the job.

I would ask again that the Minister hold a public meeting in the Winfield–Okanagan Centre–Oyama area, or do it through the regional district if he chooses, to make the people aware of the alternatives there are for this highway in dealing with its current problems. It may be well to think in terms of a bypass up the west side of Okanagan Lake, but the time for this problem is now, not five years from now.

Even then, because only 15 per cent of the traffic load is through traffic, that is not going to, if it is moved over onto the Westside bypass, if it ever materializes, solve the problem of this internal traffic. But let's remember, when we are talking about internal traffic in this, area, that it's not like a community with isolated internal traffic, but it draws widely from around the area and that traffic is the lifeblood of that whole area and, to a large degree, the valley.

I would again urge the Minister to put a crosswalk in Winfield. We have a constant problem. People are trying to get from one side of the community to the other. The schools are on both sides of the highway. The commercial development is on both sides of the highway. The fruit orchards are on one side of the highway and the packing houses are on the other side of the highway. We have an industrial development programme, an industrial park with Hiram Walker and the plastics plant and other plants which are on one side of the highway, and if one examines the

[ Page 3523 ]

employment picture in this industrial park, one finds that most of the people working there come from either Vernon or Kelowna, so we have added pressure.

There has been one tragedy there; we don't need another. I would urge the Minister to review the whole policy on crosswalks and traffic lights when we get into smaller communities. It is all very well to be proud of reducing the speed limit to 50 miles an hour on the main highways, but where the speed limits need to be reduced is in these small communities — Winfield, Oyama. This is where the traffic barrels through, this is where community life is crossing the highways, and this is where a lot of the accidents are happening. It is well to live by a warrant system, but I believe that warrant system has got to be readjusted and common sense has got to prevail for the safety of children and older people in the area.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

I am sorry to have to take up so much time regarding highways in the North Okanagan, but we really are having great difficulties.

I would like to speak to the Minister about Okanagan Landing bypass, a road that feeds the centre of town, the community of Okanagan Landing, and then a public provincial park. The former administration had recognized that we had a problem, and it is a very serious problem because the original survey is not accurate and it certainly hasn't been adhered to as far as development along the road is concerned. We have a heavy tourist flow into that area over a very narrow road, people pulling 10-, 15-, 10- and 30-foot trailers around impossible corners, and the local community life carrying on at the same time.

The former administration, with the cooperation of the regional district, planned an alternate route, and this was accepted by the regional district and by the department. While it wasn't top priority, it was agreed that so much money should be spent each year. This was cut off by this administration, and we now find ourselves in the position in that area where traffic is increasing to the point where, Mr. Minister, people want you to either get on with the road or close the provincial park. They are not prepared to sacrifice their children for the lack of planning and foresight in the Highways department.

Mr. Minister, I would urge you to either accept this bypass and get on with the job, or speak to your colleague and close the provincial park, because the trailers go back and forth, back and forth, and there have been people killed on this road, it is a bad road, and it is only suitable for internal traffic.

I'd like to ask the Minister if Carr's Landing Road will be paved this year at last. This is a matter of concern to these people. It hasn't been an easy road to develop because of the lack of proper gravel, but that gravel is available. The contract was let, and I would urge the Minister to see that it is paved this year.

The whole matter of the oiling of our roads is of serious concern in areas such as Trinity Valley and Creighton Valley, because progressive road development in those areas has been halted by the government and nothing has been done and they are not even getting oil. I ask the Minister: does he not understand the difficulty that these people have? There is heavy logging traffic over gravel roads. There is tourist traffic, but there is agricultural development....

If the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) would sit down I could talk to the Minister of Highways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are really speaking to the Chair, in any case.

MRS. JORDAN: If the Chair would ask the Minister of Education to sit down, I would appreciate it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is quite in order for her to be on her feet.

MRS. JORDAN: Blocking the view?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your view is to the Chair.

MRS. JORDAN: I find the Minister of Highways a more acceptable view at this time.

Mr. Minister, what happens in the spring and the fall is it is not graded? I appreciate the problems of weather, but the dust rises and it falls on the crops. If you have a hay crop, which we have at this time of the year, and the dust falls on the hay crop, the cattle simply won't eat it. So the producer, at 40 cents a bale just to have the hay baled, without production costs, is out thousands of dollars if he's got a crop that can't be utilized by the livestock.

We have serious problems. We don't have enough oil. It isn't released soon enough. Other areas have been oiling but our area has not. I would implore the Minister to expand our oil allowance so that these roads can be kept in a condition suitable to the demands that are being placed on them. I would also urge the Minister to continue with the progressive road plan for Trinity Valley, for Creighton Valley, for our Mabel Lake roads.... The list is so numerous that I am embarrassed to go over it. They simply have all been set aside.

What is happening is that the local people become very frustrated. They take it out on the local highway employees. The local highway employees have no alternative because the money is not forthcoming. It

[ Page 3524 ]

creates unhappiness in the community and it certainly is not the treatment that these people deserve. These logging trucks contribute handsomely to the revenues of the province. We want to keep people in agricultural production but the roads are causing them problems. It just seems to be working one end against the other, and it is quite inconsistent with responsible highway policy.

I have a number of concerns. I must again say to the Minister of Highways that I believe he is making a mistake on Highway 6. That highway should be put up on the upper level. It should be developed that way and it should link up with the bypass around the City of Vernon.

I must again suggest that the Minister's reclassification of 27th Street through Vernon linking it with Highway 6 as a secondary route, encouraging commercial traffic along this route, is a grave error unless it is only a temporary step to get that bypass up. What he has done is increase the commercial traffic in an area that is residential, church and school. This is completely incompatible with the surroundings.

Vernon needs a bypass. The main highway traffic from Highway 97 going into Vernon down the so-called Mission Hill is creating tremendous problems for children getting across that area to school and people crossing to the hospital. There is an increase in the development of cross vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic. The Highways department says that it can't put in a cross light for these people because of the grade. If it does, then when trucks or cars are coming down the hill in the wintertime, they will run the light through no fault of their own, and people are liable to be hurt this way. The only answer, Mr. Minister, is the bypass. That bypass should come in from Lumby on the upper levels. It should be developed now and it should roughly follow the line of the Gray Line canal. Vernon's bypass should go on the upper level of the east side mountain. I know of no other solution. I know that this is an acceptable solution to the regional district and the regional planners and it is an acceptable solution internally to the Highways staff. What it needs is the Minister to get on with the job.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your green light is on. You should be winding up your remarks.

MRS. JORDAN: I have a lot of correspondence about highways. To sum up, the main points are that our highway crews need more money, more authority. It gets so that I have to get on the bandwagon and then we get something done. That is wrong. It should be the regional highway engineer who is taking care of the roads and meeting the people's needs. People shouldn't be resorting to their MLAs.

As a last point, Mr. Minister, I find it very disappointing that your estimates for the North Okanagan highway district are not available and will not be available until after your estimates have been discussed in this House.

Mr. Minister, it is now the middle of June and our highway work should be well underway. You only have four months in this area. Your estimates have not been approved and allotted in total. We haven't got our student component hired, The last count I got was that we only had four students hired for the summer. I would like the Minister to comment on this. The North Okanagan needs highway attention just to maintain its pace, but we would also like to go ahead. It is not forthcoming from this department and this Minister at this time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I would like to ask a number of quick questions. One deals with the Cayoosh-Jaffery forestry access road. Briefly, this is a case where a company is responsible for a couple of miles of road. It is in the Lillooet area — Cayoosh-Jaffery road. The buck is being passed between the Forestry department and Highways departments on this. The private company concerned finds itself providing a road essentially for public use. They would like to know if the Highways department will get going on this so we can make sure that Wald & North Enterprises, which is the company that owns the grader and uses this grader virtually exclusively on this road, not be required to constantly keep a public road open.

I have some notes here. There is a two-mile stretch from the end of pavement to the gate on the private road. Much of the two miles is a steep grade, full of switchbacks, and the entire two miles is surfaced with gravel. The road runs from Lillooet to Pemberton. The Minister knows what a valuable road this could be in cutting off congestion through Vancouver, Valley and canyon areas. It's used extensively by the public and it's apparently maintained by nobody but Mr. Flemming of Wald & North Enterprises.

The people in forestry state that forestry had been upgrading portions of the road with the idea of turning it over to the Department of Highways. Why the forestry people have to upgrade it before you people get hold of it, is something I don't understand. But, unfortunately, the work stopped and the equipment has been removed from the Lillooet area by the forestry people. Mr. Leerly of forestry engineering stated that he doesn't know exactly how much is still the responsibility of forestry, which is fair enough.

Mr. McCarthy in the Department of Highways stated that they're not authorized to maintain the road beyond the end of pavement — the two mile stretch in there. I would like to know why the Highways department cannot take this over from

[ Page 3525 ]

forestry, and whether we can get this thing properly dealt with in the public interest.

So I will leave that with the Minister. Perhaps he has not got the information at his fingertips; perhaps he would like to reply to me by letter. It is an important problem. What is boils down to is that the highway is unmaintained because neither your department or forestry will take responsibility for it. The private individual concerned is caught in between in a bind of providing a road, to a very large extent, for the public. He has about 20 employees a day, during working days, going over it. I am sure the Minister would like to give me some information on that.

The second quick question is on the Savona steel ball mill. The Minister knows about this. It's a case where the company, Noranda — or I should say Quebec Iron Foundries, a subsidiary of Noranda — wishes to build a steel ball mill at Savona.

The regional district likes the idea, the people wanted to go ahead — it would provide jobs. But the whole programme foundered on the question of highway access. The Highways department said that the firm could not get access unless they put in about $1 million worth of road, involving an overpass. This made the plan uneconomic from the point of view of Noranda and Quebec Iron Foundries. I would like to know whether the Minister could inform me whether his department is still in touch with Noranda, whether there is still a possibility of the Highways department getting that road built and getting it built by the public rather than by the company so that we can get these new and very valuable jobs into that area.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to go at a whole string of questions. Perhaps those two could be quickly answered and I could come back with more.

HON. MR. LEA: First of all, dealing with the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). I listened carefully and intently to both her complaints and her constructive suggestions. Those complaints and suggestions will, of course, be part of input when deciding decisions within the Department of Highways, particularly those areas concerning her own riding. As far as the jobs that are going to be done this year, of course, she will be notified, along with all Members of the House.

Highway 97, I admit, is a real problem; it's one we inherited. I guess that doesn't make any difference at this point; it's a problem we have to deal with. I may have been quoted incorrectly, but at no time did I say that the mayors couldn't make up their minds what they wanted to do.

MRS. JORDAN: Internal policy is the problem.

HON. MR. LEA: Dealing with questions asked by the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) — the Cayoosh Pass Road is rather a complex set of circumstances. For instance, we are paying the money and forestry is building the road. I think this year we're putting in $200,000. I think possibly the best way to handle it is the way that the Hon. Member suggested — that we do write you a letter with all the details. If there's anything further you'd like to follow up on, we could be in touch with each other on that.

The Savona industrial development is an area that we also would like to see go ahead in terms of jobs and that sort of thing. But it's at a very difficult place in the highway. I'm sure the Hon. Member is aware that as you come down the long hill and across the bridge, it's directly to the right just as you cross the bridge. We are suggesting that if there's going to be development on that side of the road — I guess it would be the south side of Savona — then obviously we're going to have more and more and more of the road completely bisecting the community of Savona. So, hopefully, as we allow development on that south side, there will be an adequate overpass of traffic system that will mean it won't create a bottleneck situation in Savona for the highway traffic.

We have been working with the developer, trying to work out a solution so that it isn't too costly to him and doesn't stop the development from going in, and, at the same time, allows a good traffic flow through there.

We are also having a look at another area there where a person wants to do a rather good-sized subdivision for residential property, and again we are looking at how we are going to get that traffic across the highway into the main centre of Salmon Arm without creating a bottleneck.

So we are working with both of those and, as I understand it, there is ongoing discussion with the developer. I can say, though, looking at the alternatives, that the solution probably won't be cheap in terms of dollars, but even then possibly we can look at the kind of jobs that are going to be created and whether or not government should provide some incentive to the developer.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I thank the Minister for his information. I would like to go over personally with him the whole question of the road area in Lillooet, and the Salmon Arm matter I feel I could take up with him again by mail.

The Minister has been accused, in his last appearance before this committee, of "using smear tactics for political purposes." I assume it refers to him, but it appears that some people, namely the Minister, who will stoop to any lengths to attempt to attempt to discredit another Member of this House. Now these are very serious charges and I want the Minister to answer one or two questions about what

[ Page 3526 ]

he said on Gellatly Road.

I want him to answer whether or not in fact, not as claimed by him in his statement, but as claimed by others, the Gellatly Road construction was actually built by the Highways department and not built by a private company to which the Highways department rented equipment at rates somewhere approximating a quarter of the commercial.

In other words, did they build the road themselves and then bill back the company? I think that is fairly important. I would like him to track down an invoice dated March 19, 1968, for $1,481. Who signed it, who did it go to, and was there, indeed, a second Highways department agreement in the whole Gellatly Road matter, as well as the first?

I would like to ask him whether or not the fill he talked about came from Highways people or a Highways programme elsewhere, or whether it came from a private developer, because the fill made an important difference in cost to that road and it is claimed that it came from a private developer.

One other matter. It has been stated that this smear attack by the Minister on another Member of this House was on a Member who had nothing to do with the company, Scottish Cove Holdings. I would like the Minister to check and find out whether indeed at the time that this series of fortuitous circumstances was occurring any present Member of this House was a member of that company. I would like him to check and find out whether or not the annual report for 1968, dated September 116, was in fact signed by one W.R. Bennett as a director of that company, and whether or not later on a request went to the company's office asking that the name of the directors be amended and that the name of the director who signed that be taken off the records of directors for that particular year, as well as other years.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Retroactive legislation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Retroactive legislation, as the Member for Oak Bay mentions.

The unfortunate matter is the signature occurred on what is purported to be the annual report of the company, and presumably it must be a forgery, because apparently the Member in question was not a director of the company at that time. So was there a forgery in the annual report as filed?

These are questions which must come to light, because the Member should be protected if, indeed, he was not a director at that time and had nothing at all to do with the matter in question. So I think that should be checked out. After all, if he was a director and did sign it, any subsequent latter sent to the companies branch indicating that the name should be different sounds rather hollow and phony in the light of the signature on the annual report.

I would like the Minister to answer a number of questions on his statement of last Thursday. He stated that the first fortunate thing for the subdivider was when the department decided to relocate the road. On whose signature was this decision made? Who was it made by? What is the documentation of the "department's decision" from the Minister's statement?

The second matter — and I would like to find out whose signature was involved here — was the other development up the lake. Now was that a private one? Was it a public one?

Did the material come from the Highways people free of charge, as was indicated, or was it actually from another private outfit? Again, it would be interesting for the Minister to check that out because that's been denied. His statement in the House has been denied. The report of his officials has been denied.

I wonder whether the Minister could indicate who agreed — I'm quoting the Minister's statement: "The department agreed to rent to him its equipment without any cost for transportation." Who made that agreement? Whose signature was involved?

I'd like the Minister on another question to give me other examples where a similar situation occurred, if this was normal practice at the time and not something special. Well, let's see what other occasions there were when equipment was made available without charge for transportation and where this was made at something approaching one-sixth to one-quarter of the otherwise commercial cost. I want to exclude in this instance, naturally, any case of snow-removing or things of that nature in road construction. I think the Minister should answer that.

I think that the Minister should answer as to why the department...and I'm quoting again from the Blues of last week: "The department also undertook to supply asphalt to mix into the road mix pavement and that the granting of the material be obtained free of charge." I wonder whose signature authorized that or whether it was all done without any signatures or anything of that nature. So I think that the Minister, in the light of the accusation that the Minister is simply indulging in political attacks and in the light of the accusation that some people.... Quoting now the Province newspaper of last Friday: "Some people will stoop to any lengths in an attempt to discredit me personally, or the party."

I think, in the interest of fair play in this House, the Minister should start answering some of those questions. If indeed there was no connection and nothing was known about this matter, as was indicated by the questioning outside the House, well, it's a very different thing than if, in fact, as appears to be the case with what is alleged to be the company annual report, a Member of this House was a director

[ Page 3527 ]

at that time.

Letters later on amending the company records, or at least the records of the company at the company's office, retroactively don't particularly stand up if signatures on annual reports are valid.

So those are some questions to the Minister. I think they are particularly important. This Minister was accused today again of taking a very partisan and political approach. I think that the Minister should, in fact, clear his name and straighten out the record here.

Further, Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister should take a look at Hansard and check out the Hansard statements of his colleagues in this affair, and check on whether they are accurate or not, because once more, this is a sorry performance if it's indeed nothing more than a politically motivated attack on fabricated material within the department against a Member of this House.

The present Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) stated that, "I ran into a range of problems" — talking about this Gellatly road, in the Hansard here. "I ran into a range of problems. I first took the matter up with the lands branch. I'd like to say first that I do not think that the lands branch is basically involved in a matter such as this. It's a matter for the Highways department."

That was the statement of the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, speaking then as an opposition MLA in 1971. He states again: "It's clear that the responsible cabinet Minister throughout all of this was the former Minister of Highways, the Member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Gaglardi)."

He talks in that about the Highways department. He talked about the need to have a Highways department that "not have one access policy for its friends and one for its enemies." I do believe that the statements made by the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources when in opposition, where he stated that there was a file on this whole matter which he was denied access to, should be looked into. I'll quote Hansard once more, February 19, 1971.

I told him (that's the Deputy Minister of Highways) yesterday about a few matters I wanted to discuss, one the Kamloops bypass and, two, Gellatly Road at Westbank. When I went there this morning I asked for the file on Gellatly Road. The Deputy Minister agreed that there was a file here in Victoria on that matter, but he refused to give me the file or let me see the file. Again, I was told that I could not see that file unless the Minister himself approved. Again, Mr. Speaker, my quarrel is not with the civil servant. It's the cabinet Ministers and this government which give these kind of orders.

Well, the government has changed, the Minister has changed and that file would undoubtedly either clear this Minister of improper use of internal documents within his department for political motivated gain, or indeed indicate what the facts are in this matter. The Gellatly Road has been passed off as something in the past, something irrelevant.

But when I see that the Minister is accused of misusing public information, public documents, and public servants as well, for political purposes and I don't think we can totally ignore it. There are questions which now must be answered. And we can start with the one of the company's report in the company's department, which he may not have at hand. Mr. Chairman, there are only seven minutes left; I'm going to sit down now to get at least some comment from the Minister. Perhaps we'll have to continue this discussion.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I am a little distressed with the turn of events that's taken place since I read the report into the records of this House. For one thing, I would like to have it on the record that beyond a doubt I did not know, the other day when I made that report to this House, that the Hon. Member for South Okanagan had ever been a director of that company. I didn't know that. I've not looked at the records of the Companies Act which the Hon. Member has described this morning.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: I have no knowledge of that, except from hearsay from a reporter who volunteered that information to me this morning. The second time I heard it was when you brought it to my attention now, in the House.

I at no time accused the Hon. Member for South Okanagan of anything in this House; I didn't mention his name. I didn't mention his name outside this House. All I did was read into the record, in this House, a report from a senior official of my department — a report that was done, I think, in October, 1973 in regard to Gellatly Road. Because of the remarks that have been made outside this House, that I have overstepped my bounds in using public information, over the weekend I have asked that my department do a check into all the details surrounding the Gellatly Road situation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can I get that Lands department file, too?

HON. MR. LEA: I will ask for all information available, just to check and make sure that Members of this House have all the information that's available to me or to anyone else. When that information is compiled, I'll make it available to this House.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, just one or two quick questions. Some months ago a statement was

[ Page 3528 ]

made in the North West Territories about British Columbia dragging its heels on completing a road which crosses the boundary between northern B.C. and the North West Territories.

Without going into all the details or reading from the report, the basic thrust of the suggestion is that presently all the material being shipped in for the development of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline is coming from Alberta because we don't have a road between Port Simpson and Fort Nelson. I gather that the North West Territories' government is developing at least part of the proposed highway in their own jurisdiction, but there are 120 miles in northern British Columbia which needs to be developed.

As I say, there's quite a well-documented article in the Vancouver Sun on March 8, 1975. We don't have time to go into details now, but I wonder if the Minister could say where that 120 miles of highway construction in northern B.C. Is at the present time. Does the government view it as holding the economic potential that the article outlined? It said that the boost to the economy of British Columbia in jobs, transportation and so on, could be worth many millions of dollars. I wonder if it is as vital as suggested, and where the planning is at the moment.

I just want to add another note. I've had further letters from people concerned about the Fort Langley ferry. I know the Minister promised to look into it, and that was only a week or so ago. But it's quite obvious, from the correspondence I'm getting, that it is a very inefficient ferry. The kind of thing that I'm getting — in letters is that there are time lags, times when the ferry does not operate because of fog, there are long pauses for coffee breaks, and the ship is continually snagging fishnets...we need a more reliable service. These are some of the comments that people are expressing, and the question about a bridge is again asked. I know the Minister said that the department had looked at the cost of a bridge, and felt that the cost was unjustified, or would be unjustified. But many of the people living in this area.... This other gentleman who writes to me, I'll just quote quickly: "On Monday of this week I had to cross over from Fort Langley to Albion on business, and as usual, I waited three hours for the ferry." Now if people are waiting three hours to take a five-minute trip, it seems pretty.... I would be pretty frustrated, too. I don't know how often this happens, but, as I say, I'm getting letters.

The other issue concerns citizens in north Vancouver Island. I'm sure the Minister of Highways remembers the correspondence we've had, or that he has had, with a gentleman — I won't mention his name — who lives in Port Alice. He documents the fact that it takes him 15 hours and 45 minutes to get to Vancouver, by the time he waits for the ferry.

I know the Minister is not responsible for the Nanaimo-Vancouver ferry but there are letters on the Minister's desk from this gentleman. I'm sure he probably well remembers who I am talking about. He is talking in particular about the highway from northern Vancouver Island that connects with Sayward. He understands that contracts have been let by the Department of Highways but he is unhappy that progress is so slow.

In addition to the highway problem he is asking if the Minister will discuss with the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) the concept mentioned many times in this House that northern island residents be given some kind of preferential consideration on the Nanaimo-Vancouver ferry. I know this is not this Minister's jurisdiction, but there is an interrelated problem here of the highways getting from northern Vancouver Island to Nanaimo and then waiting three or four hours in Nanaimo to get on the ferry. It does seem to me that that is not an unreasonable request.

The last little point I have been asked to raise is from another person living in the Fort Langley area who asked if I would inquire about the widening of the Lougheed Highway at Haney where you go past Valleyfair Shopping Centre. Again, this is apparently a local issue that people have been asking about for some time. They want an answer and maybe the Minister could comment on it.

HON. MR. LEA: In dealing with the Fort Nelson-Fort Simpson road that the Hon. Member raised, my policy on that has been that whenever the federal government.... And it is federal government, not the North West Territories. It is directly under the jurisdiction of the federal Minister of Northern Development, Hon. Judd Buchanan.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: I went to Ottawa and saw the Hon. Jean Chretien when he held that portfolio. I told him of British Columbia's desire to have that link completed. He appeared to me to be of the same mind and said that previous to that, when the Social Credit government was in, the federal government has been desirous of completing that stretch of road, and they allocated funds down there. In his office in Ottawa, he told me that they could not get anywhere with the former Premier who would not have anything to do with that stretch of road. He would make no commitments, no promises and he wouldn't even talk about it.

They felt that it was rather silly of them to leave that money allocated for that stretch of road if British Columbia was not going to budge one inch under the former Premier. They took that money out for the Mackenzie Highway. When I spoke with the Minister, I said that we didn't have that same

[ Page 3529 ]

attitude. We thought it would be of help to British Columbia and to the north particularly if we could complete that piece of road.

He asked me at that time to give him some time to turn around their appropriation of money. He asked for a year, because he said he couldn't pull back at that time. That was about a year ago. At that time we were looking at a four-year completion date. Since that time we have been running into a bit of trouble with the federal government in terms of what kind of money they are going to spend in the north.

The provincial government policy is that whenever the federal government meets their end to that border, we will be there to meet them. It is really up to the federal people. We will meet that obligation. We will meet them at that border whenever they decide to be there.

MR. WALLACE: But we are working on our end of the deal now?

HON. MR. LEA: We have done some work. At the same time we are doing a socio-economic impact study in that area. There has been some work done but we would like to see it refined. I don't think that the benefits are going to be as far-sweeping as the chamber of commerce in the northeastern part of the province want, but we do feel that there is going to be some benefit both in revenue for the BCR if the Mackenzie pipeline goes ahead and just for the general forest industry. So we are looking at that and we are willing to meet the federal deadline at any time they decide.

On the Albion ferry, as I said the other day, I will have an operational review done of that ferry based on a number of things you have brought up in other areas.

On the Sayward to Woss road on the northern part of Vancouver Island we have, I feel, been doing a great deal of work in that area. It has taken a lot of the budget. There have been contracts let. One is from Woss Camp to Nimpkish for $1,300,000. One is from Sayward to Keta Summit for $3 million; Keta Summit to the Eve River for another $2.5 million; and another $50,000 from Sayward to Keta Summit. About $7 million of contracts have been let in the last couple of years. We feel that we are doing about all we can at this point. We are looking at other contracts possibly in the fall.

MR. WALLACE: What about the ferries?

HON. MR. LEA: Well, I guess you'll get it with the other Minister who is responsible.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:04 p.m.