1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page 3401 ]

CONTENTS

Motion

Adjournment of the House on matter of public importance.

Mr. Bennett — 3401

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3401

Mr. Bennett — 3401

Mr. Speaker — 3401

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3402

Mr. Bennett — 3402

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3402

Mr. Speaker — 3402

Mr. Bennett — 3402

Mr. Speaker — 3402

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 165.

Mr. Chabot — 3403

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3403

Mr. Chabot — 3403

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3403

Mr. Chabot — 3404

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3404

Department of Highways estimates.

On vote 93.

Mr. Fraser — 3404

Hon. Mr. Lea — 3404

Mr. Fraser — 3406

Hon. Mr. Lea — 3408

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3409

Hon. Mr. Lea — 3410

Mr. Smith — 3412

Hon. Mr. Lea — 3413

Mr. Liden — 3414

Hon. Mr. Lea — 3415

Mr. Phillips — 3416

THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): I would ask,

under standing order 35, to adjourn the House on a matter of

urgent public importance.

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

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the House is meeting only for the purpose

of going into estimates, but that's a matter I would have to

consider. In the meantime, would the Hon. Member state the

matter?

MR. BENNETT: Last Friday the Premier of the province filed

in this House a financial statement on the British Columbia

Railway — B.C. Railway Company Financial Statement, December

31, 1974.

At the same time in New York a preliminary prospectus dated

March 13, 1975, and a final prospectus May 22, 1975, indicate a

financial report for the B.C. Railway in variance with the

report filed by the Premier and presented to this House.

The prospectus is signed by the Deputy Minister of Finance,

who is also the secretary of the B.C. Railway.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me a second. I now have a point of

order. I think points of order have precedence over....

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

MR. SPEAKER: Well, apparently not. Any Member can be

interrupted by a point of order at any time, as I think the

Hon. Member knows.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): A point of order,

Mr. Speaker. As the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett)

is aware, there is a bill in debate before the House, at which

time, it seems to me, the points he is bringing up could be

thoroughly canvassed during that period.

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the bill in question deals with the

borrowing authority of the railway. But this information which has just

come to my attention is serious enough to warrant the immediate

investigation and discussion by this House. Either the Premier filed a

false financial statement in this House, or the prospectus which is

signed by the Deputy Minister of Finance, G.S. Bryson, who is also

secretary of the railway, a prospectus that is signed by the chartered

accountant firms of Price Waterhouse.... They say: "The statements

mentioned above fairly present the financial position of the authority

as at March 31, 1974." This statement Purports to be the financial

statement of 1974.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order! Order!

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

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

statement is...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order! Order! Order!

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

else we have....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated

for a minute?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Would the Hon. Member please be seated

for a moment? I am getting calls for order, and I must listen

when I have calls for order from anywhere in the House.

It is obvious that the Hon. Member is indulging in what

amounts to a debate. The simple statement of the matter under

standing order 35 is merely to indicate the urgency of a matter

of urgent public importance, and the question of urgency always

is the urgency of debate.

Now right at this moment we are in the middle of a debate on

the financial affairs of this particular railway. That is one

point. The second thing that has to be considered is whether

what the Hon. Member is raising is information of such currency

that it could have been raised no sooner than now.

Those are two aspects I have to look at before I rule on the

question of whether your application for an adjournment should

be accepted.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: There is a point of order.

Interjection.

[ Page 3402 ]

MR. BENNETT: ...will not allow us to debate on second

reading of the bill, and that is why I indicated urgent public

importance, because that debate could not take place until this

afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: I have a point there that I will certainly take

under consideration so that at 2 o'clock I should be able to

give you an answer.

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

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: I point out to the Hon. Member that I can make

an immediate decision. I thought that in the interests of a careful

look at the situation it would be better to do that.

Now most parliaments, most Speakers, usually set a certain

time to hand down the decision on whether or not it is in

order. I like that practice because it gives me the time to

study all the authorities. I can look right now on page 365 of

May , 17th edition, I think it is, where it says, "...the

motion has been refused when an ordinary parliamentary

opportunity will occur shortly or in time."

Now obviously that will happen shortly, this afternoon. That

is certainly early enough.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

The Hon. Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources is

also, I gather, rising on a point of order. I would like to get

the points of order settled first. Were you rising on a point

of order?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources): Well, I wanted to raise a question on the decision of

the Speaker, Mr. Speaker. It appears we have that now — that a decision

will be made later. My concern was the continuing speech of the Leader

of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) prior to the decision.

MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I am

raising this matter and have the information in my possession,

and as second reading has taken place and is not available now,

some Members will be denied the opportunity to speak on second

reading who have already spoken.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you just imagine that?

MR. BENNETT: I would assume that all of the Members of this

House are interested in the reputation of the province and the conduct

of this Legislature and the government. I would hope for that reason

they would allow and you would rule, Mr. Speaker, that this emergency

debate should take place, because the reputation of our province on an

international basis is at stake.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On this same point, I agree

with the Leader of the Opposition that early debate is

necessary on this matter, particularly as the Premier is going

to New York for four days to discuss the financial situation in

the province with financial people. However, I would also point

out that the statement, desire and request of the Leader of the

Opposition is, in fact, an acceptance as truth of everything

that was said last Friday. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Because of the points that have been raised on

the issue by both sides, I think that a wise thing to do would

be to give a decision on the matter at 2 p.m. I don't see that

it is going to affect the situation of urgency for a matter of

two hours.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I haven't finished my statement

because I wanted to further....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member can make the material

available to the Speaker. If he would kindly do that, he has

already stated the matter.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

May I first say to the Hon. Member that

stating the matter

does not mean indulging in controversial debate on the

issue.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BENNETT: There is an additional matter that is part of

my statement. That matter is this: the British Columbia Railway

has not filed the required financial statements for the fiscal

year ended December 31, 1973, and this contravenes the Public

Bodies Financial Information Act.

MR. SPEAKER: May I interrupt to say that the matter you are

raising is a matter of the ordinary administrative

responsibilities of government. It would therefore not be the

subject of debate of a matter of urgency in this context. You

will note this by looking at page 365 of the 17th edition of

May . The statement that you are now starting on would therefore

not be necessary. I will deal with the matter and give you a

report at 2 p.m. I think that the urgency is not in any way

diminished or increased by waiting until 2 p.m.

[ Page 3403 ]

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

chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

LANDS, FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES

(continued)

Vote 164: Water Resources Service, pollution control,

$3,641,734 — approved.

On vote 165: Water Resources Service, environmental

conservation (SAM), $733,368.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I want to stand in support

of this vote. I notice that there is quite an increase in

allocation of dollars. It is an excellent programme that was

initiated by a progressive, conservation-minded former

government of this province. I am wondering if the Minister

would elaborate and give us a few words about how the programme

is presently functioning. How many cars were crushed in British

Columbia last year vis-à-vis the previous year?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It is my understanding that 19,000 cars

were compacted in the past year. As I indicated, the programme

is reasonably successful, as the Member suggests. One of the

problems, however, is the contract that the former Minister

unilaterally made with the Richmond recycling company. This was

a contract that did not go through normal public service

procedure. As a result, that 10-year contract established in

early 1972 set a low price for all of the material that is

compacted under this programme. Essentially this means that for

a decade, under the arrangements of that contract, the Crown

would accept a price that I think anybody would consider far

too low in relation to market value of steel. This was a

10-year contract, not going through the public service, not

going through the Attorney-General's office, with a monopoly

single buyer for a product that the Crown collects. That was

the sort of thing that they did under the former

administration.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I am rather shocked that a

Minister of the Crown who has such little respect for contracts

and for the right of the public service and government would

make such irresponsible statements as he has just made.

Certainly the programme is a success. In order for the

government to ensure that an industry was established in this

province, it was necessary to find someone who is willing to

accept these vehicles. Do you think that a shredding industry

will be established in this province on the basis of

competitive bidding? Who in his right mind would invest the

kind of money necessary to be invested for this shredder unless

there was a guarantee of supply? You know that. You can't be that stupid, can you?

The price that was negotiated at that time by the provincial

government was substantially more than they were able to get

from any other shredding company, be it in Seattle or anywhere

else. Substantially more. That agreement they signed in 1972

was substantially better than any other kind of agreement they

could have negotiated anywhere in North America, or the Pacific

Northwest.

There has to be a guarantee of supply. Who's going to invest

over $1 million for the shredding of automobiles in this

province unless the guarantee is there? What kind of

nonsensical statements is the Minister making?

We know that the price of steel has escalated, but we know

we have an industry that will shred and dispose of the litter

from the countryside of this province, and make a contribution

as far as jobs are concerned in British Columbia.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's par for the course, Mr. Chairman.

Ideologically trapped as usual — out there in the extreme right

wing, couldn't consider any alternative other than a monopoly

situation with a single buyer for a product that the Crown

collects all around the province; couldn't consider the

possibility of a Crown entity doing a proper job from beginning

to end. Ideologically trapped so that you go into any damned

contract under the sun simply to avoid a proper, rational

answer in terms of resolving the problem fairly and for the

benefit of all citizens of the province.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just before the Hon. Member

makes his reply, I would ask both the Hon. Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources and the Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot) to use somewhat more suitable language for a

jurisdiction such as this. Words like "stupid" and "damned" are

just not words appropriate to a legislative chamber.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the

word "stupid" as well. It's an unparliamentary word.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: I said that he makes stupid statements, and he

does, too, Mr. Chairman. You know it.

[ Page 3404 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member, it was a

borderline case. However, it was a more direct imputation. I'm

just asking that the Hon. Members use more temperate

language.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, in response to those irrational

and irresponsible statements from that Minister over there, the

only market existing for shredding of steel at the time of that

contract in 1972 was in the Pacific Northwest. The price wasn't

adequate to justify the salvaging that was taking place.

It became a position of government: are they going to have a

shredding plant established in this province or not? That

conclusion has to be reached. The government examined the

question. They discussed it with a variety of people who were

interested in establishing a shredding plant, and they reached

the most favourable contract with the present plant in

Richmond. Now I hope the Minister's not trying to suggest that

on the basis of accumulating 19,000 wrecked vehicles in this

province, there is room for three shredding plants in British

Columbia, because if he is, he doesn't know what he's talking

about.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Hon. Member can say what he likes,

Mr. Chairman, but let's get it straight. It is a contract that

was entered into by the former Minister of Recreation and

Conservation. It was a contract that was witnessed by his

executive assistant of the day. It was a contract that did not

go through the Attorney-General's office, as all contracts

should...

MR. CHABOT: It went through the cabinet.

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

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's a kind of rag-bag approach that ends

up with people of the province paying again.

Vote 165 approved.

Vote 166: Water Resources Service, laboratory services,

$1,526,127 — approved.

Vote 127: Water Resources Service, salary contingencies,

$1,720,936 — approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, we're moving to the Minister

of Highways' estimates and he's just out in the hall. He's just

coming now. We have to indulge your patience for one

moment.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS

(continued)

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

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, I'm just wasting a

little time, here; I think the Minister needs his staff.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Well, you know, they might write something down.

I don't think the Minister will.

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

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): I'd like to answer

some of the questions he asked the other day. In one of the

points brought up by the Hon. Member for Cariboo he referred to

an

article from The Vancouver Sun , Saturday June 7, 1975, in

regard to a ferry operation on the Queen Charlotte Islands:

"Subsidized ferry owner says take-over coming." Obviously the

Member for Cariboo took this at face value and raised it on the

floor of the House. I guess that's one way to do it. I'm not

sure whether the Member did any research. Did you just refer to

this, or was there any research done, Mr. Member?

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

one.

HON. MR. LEA: I see. Okay. Now what is happening is that

MITCO — the Misty Islands Transportation Co. — which has had

that ferry service between Graham Island and Moresby Island for

a few years....

MR. FRASER: Was Graham Island named after you?

HON. MR. LEA: Well, Moresby Island is going to be changed;

that's going to be Lea Island. (Laughter.) We're going to

become a separate state unto ourselves. I'll be known as

governor. (Laughter.)

What has happened is that the owner of this ferry service

has gone to the press, has gone public, saying that the

government is taking over a service with which he has been in

business for some time — that is, running the ferry service

from one island to another. This isn't unusual; the former

government did it; we do it, and I think it's correct.

There are government-subsidized dollars that go into ferry

services over a period of time because the service is needed,

but it doesn't require the kind of expensive service that can

be supplied either through

[ Page 3405 ]

the Department of Highways or through the Department of

Transport and Communications and the B.C. Ferries. But there

does come a time, and it happens quite often, when the need for

that service increases. The time comes when a better ferry

service is needed to supply the kind of service that people

have coming to them as citizens in this province.

Now there are about 6,000 people living there who need that

ferry service. The freight service is increasing all the time.

The airport is on the south island, the northern tip of the

south island, and the air passenger rate is increasing. So

there is more and more and more call on the services of that

ferry.

For three years we subsidized the present owner of that

ferry at $24,000 a year. Last year he asked for an increase. At

that time we asked him to supply us figures so that we would

know whether or not, after analysis of his data, an increase

was called for. We felt that he put a good case in front of us

and we increased the subsidy to $48,000 last year. Quite some

time ago, I believe in the spring of 1974, we announced that

there would be a government ferry going in. At that time, a

representative of this company asked if they could meet with

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and

myself. They asked for some of the details, which we gave them — when we expected the ferry service to begin, et cetera.

At that time they offered us that company. They offered us

the company. We said we weren't particularly interested in

buying the company. There's a U-drive attached to it; there's a

freight service, a water taxi and a bus service. We said the

only thing we were interested in was putting a government ferry

in there to serve the current needs of the people living on the

Queen Charlotte Islands.

But we said that if it is going to become uneconomic for you

to run the rest of your operation because of the ferry service

.... One must remember that we were subsidizing that ferry at

$48,000, so really we were paying taxpayers' money out for that

service before and right now. So we did some negotiations with

the owners of MITCO — mostly at their insistence, not ours.

Then we started receiving letters in the department from Mr.

Manary, president of Misty Islands Transport Co. Ltd.

There is a letter dated October 28, 1974, and signed by Mr.

Chadwick, a partner of the same company. He wrote to my

executive assistant:

"Dear Mr. Miller:

"Regarding Mitco Transportation Co. Ltd.

"Further to our recent telephone conversation, would

you be kind enough to advise me of the name of the individual in the

development corporation that will be handling the takeover of Mitco

Transportation Co. Ltd. A matter requiring a decision has transpired, and

therefore the division of assets and the application of such assets

must be made immediately and such contact with the development

corporation is necessary.

"Your cooperation in supplying this information would

greatly appreciated.

"Yours very truly...."

Mr. Chadwick was a partner of Touche Ross, the

accountants.

At that time Mr. Miller wrote back to Mr. Chadwick of Touche

Ross — this is November 4, 1974.

"It is apparent that there is a conflict of opinion

between

Misty Islands Transportation Co. Ltd. and the government in

regard to the intentions of the government to purchase the

company."

It goes on.

Then we had another letter — this one dated April 11, 1975,

this time from the president of the company, Mr. Manary. In one

paragraph he says: "Unless other arrangements can be made, we

will be forced to commence phasing out these services, which we

feel at this time we will no longer be able to provide after

August 31, 1975." It's a letter something along the same line

as the one before.

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

office:

"Dear Mr. Manary:

"Thank you very much for your letter of April 11. I

have

discussed your letter with the Minister and departmental staff.

The Minister has asked me to advise you that should you deem it

necessary to withdraw certain services, of course the

government would be prepared to see that the people on the

islands are not deprived of these necessary services such as

water taxis, the U-drive, the freight service and the bus

service.

"Our engineering staff advised me that there should be

certain minimal interference with the operation as a result of

our construction work. Any problems in this regard can be

worked out."

So at no time have we gone to Mr. Manary or anyone else in

that company and said we would like to even purchase their

company, never mind take it over.

Then the next we knew was press releases coming out. As I

understand it, he had hired a person by the name of Mr.

Jerredano, who has been connected for some years with various

newspapers in the province, to act as his press release person,

as I understand it. All of a sudden all these press releases

start coming out — "Subsidized Ferry Owner Says Takeover

Coming." Then at one point in this

article you referred to, Mr.

Member, he said that he had a panic call from an Associate

Deputy of mine. I checked — none of my Associate Deputies called

him. Mr.

[ Page 3406 ]

Rhodes, the comptroller of the department, did call him and

say: "We've been looking at the paper and we want to know what

your intentions are so that we can act accordingly in keeping

services to the people on Queen Charlotte Islands." That was

the panic call he referred to, I suppose.

So we are prepared at this time, if he withdraws his

service, to supply a service. But at no time have we indicated

to them that we were interested in buying; we were only

reacting to his offer to sell, and not very wholeheartedly. So

I hope that covers the question that you had.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'm happy that the Minister has

replied to the Queen Charlotte Islands ferry service. I

appreciate his answer. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the

Minister is also the MLA for the area. I realize he knows a lot

more about the problems there than some reporter for The

Vancouver Sun , who probably has never even been there. I'm glad

to hear that this service is going to continue regardless of

what happened.

I have a few other things before I get into the small riding

of Cariboo with a few specifics. I'd like to hear the Minister

give us a report on the speed limit that was put into effect, I

believe, last fall throughout the province, the average being

55 miles per hour. Some are dropped to 50; some are dropped to

45. Has there been any time to monitor the results of this

policy change?

My observation is that nobody is paying any attention to the

speed limit. They might have slowed down from 75 to 70 miles an

hour. But if you drive at 55 miles an hour on any highway

today, everything passes you. I'd like to know whether there

has been a significant reduction in the accident rate and a

significant reduction in claims to ICBC because of this. I

would say to the Minister that I think it's a popular move with

the motoring public, but they're not paying any attention to

it. I'm talking about the main highways and that.

I would say, though, Mr. Chairman, that there are some

places where there is a density of traffic I think your

engineers should look at. I particularly refer to around the

Massey tunnel, which is a real heavy traffic area. I believe

you've got three different speed zones posted there. That's

where the RCMP are located too. You have three zones there: 55

miles per hour for 100 feet, then you have a 50-mile-an-hour

zone for another 500 feet and then 45 miles an hour. I think

this is absolute trickery to the motorist involved. I'd like to

know what the Minister has to say. You have a senior traffic

engineer. What kind of thinking goes into posting speed limits

like that?

I think it's very unfair. If you want the traffic to go 45 miles an

hour, why not have it 45 miles an hour for a mile or so instead of

three different zones? The RCMP are just sitting between these zones.

It's straight trickery; that's what it is. I don't think any thought

has gone by it. I know lots of MLAs who have got all kinds of points

right in that area alone — I'm being non-political — from all sides of

the House. I think you should look into it. When you want a speed limit

reduction, why mess around with three stages of it? Go in two stages at

the most. If you want to go from 55 to 45, do it at 55 and post 45

ahead — not 50 and then 45. That's not fair to the motorist.

The other day I asked the Minister about maintenance yards.

I would like to know what they are doing in the riding of

Cariboo. They have been talking about maintenance yards in some

areas of the Cariboo for seven years now — four years under the

old regime and three years under the new. Still, we don't have

any buildings going up. They are very necessary, as I said the

other day. I would like to know what the plans are, and please

don't give me the answer that it has been left with the

Department of Public Works. That just sweeps it under the rug.

It will all get mixed up with those empty offices that they

have and nothing will ever happen. If your answer is going to

be that Public Works is going to build these buildings, then I

suggest, Mr. Minister, that you have that Minister transfer

some of the empty space that he already has to function

properly. It would be performing a function as a maintenance

establishment for the Department of Highways. I would like some

answers on that.

Specifically, I am concerned about Bridge Lake and Likely,

where they have nine months of winter and three months of bad

sleighing. Their weather is not that good and the men working

there deserve better treatment than they have been getting from

the Department of Highways regarding maintenance

establishments.

The other thing I would like to know concerns Highway 97

north in the area between Cache Creek and Prince George. Some

250 miles of this highway are in the riding of Cariboo. I would

like to know what the ultimate end of the shouldering programme

will be. It was started last year and is going on in some areas

this year, even though they did start two months late. I would

like to know if you intend to complete that shouldering. I

might say that I consider it a good programme, but I am

concerned with what you intend to do after the shouldering is

done.

More specifically, are you going to call paving contracts to

repave the sections of the road that you have ruined through

this shouldering construction? Bulldozers and so on are

crossing the pavement. As I said the other day, we are going to

have more gravel service on Highway 97 north than pavement. I

realize it is necessary, but I am really asking whether you can

button all of this work up in 1975. I don't think you can, even

if the money were supplied. There are 35 or 40 miles of main

road involved here. Are you going to

[ Page 3407 ]

call a paving contract and have the work completed in the

construction year 1975? In that part of the country that means

you had better be out of there by the end of October.

Right now we are looking at whether or not you have tender

calls ready for the paving — because they take a month or six

weeks — so the paving contractor can get on the job in July or

August. I would specifically like to know about that, and I

think everyone in B.C. would like to know if we are going to

get that road back to where it was prior to the shouldering

programme.

I would also like a list — as I asked the other day, but I

think it was left up in the air — of the breakdown of equipment

that was purchased up to and including March 31, 1975 — how

many bulldozers, trucks, and so on. I would also like to know

if they all went to Cloverdale.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that last year?

MR. FRASER: Yes, up to the end of March. I would like to

know if, after you bought 400 trucks, they are all down where

they shouldn't be around the Lower Fraser Valley and

Cloverdale. Did any of them find their way up to the interior

of the province where they are really needed? They hang on to

all of the good equipment in the lower mainland. They haven't

got any snow or maintenance problems to look after, but they

send all the junk that they don't want up to the interior and

the north. I think the Minister is becoming aware of this. I

hope someone is on top of this chicanery that is going on

within the department and that some of the new equipment is

going up where we have real problems.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chicanery.

MR. FRASER: Thank you. I always have had problems with

pronunciation and I always will have. But I get the message

across.

The other thing I would like to know about is day-labour

projects. There are lots of rumours flying around that there is

no money and that there is a freeze on hiring personnel in the

Highways department. The cabinet is denying it, but I think it

was properly put here on the floor the other day that there is

no question that there was a circular put to all departments on

April 29. We have day-labour projects in the interior, Mr.

Chairman....

Maybe I should explain to the House what a day-labour project is. It

is road rebuilding done by hiring private equipment and supervised by

the Department of Highways in the area that the work is going on. I

think it's a good programme; there's nothing wrong with it at all. But

we have day-labour projects in the interior right now that have been

held up until, I think, this last Monday because of the freeze that was

put on hiring of personnel by the cabinet. They have to have flag

people, but this freeze says that no more civil servants would be

hired. Because the Department of Highways is the supervisor of the

day-labour programme — really a contract is what it is — they can't

hire flagmen or ladies and therefore they can't touch the project

because they can't add to their staff because of this freeze. I never

heard anything more ridiculous in my life, Mr. Chairman, than to stop

the road rebuilding, whether it be main roads or rural roads, because

you can't add staff.

I think that probably the Minister will say it's corrected,

but we've already lost two months of good construction. They'll

be around digging up roads in November this year when it's 10

below zero and the snow's flying and then there'll be no end of

public waste of money. I'd like to find out who's making these

decisions and why.

It went on in the prior administration, and it continues on

in this. I blame somebody in head office for all this nonsense.

The local district managers and your regional engineers are all

ready and want to go on with this necessary work, and you guys

issue bulletins from down here that say "here's the money for

this project" and that; and then you issue another one at the

cabinet level, and it nullifies it. Maybe it's done on purpose.

I don't know. That's what I want to find out.

Specifically I want to refer to day-labour projects in the

riding of Cariboo. I've been told by the Minister, Mr.

Chairman, that we can't find out until his estimates are

passed. But we're not going to give him a bad time on his

estimates. I'd like to ask specifically how much money is

allocated to day labour for the Horsefly road which runs from

Williams Lake to Horsefly, the Likely road that runs from

Williams Lake to Likely, the Masko road that runs from Quesnel

to Masko and the Dog Creek road from Williams Lake to

Dog Creek. I'd like to know the amount of money allocated for

that very necessary piece of road.

I'd like to know the day-labour commitment for Highway 20,

which runs 300 miles in my riding from Williams Lake to Bella

Coola. I'd like to know what money is allocated day-labour-wise

for that. I'm very sad again, Mr. Chairman, that the Member for

Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) is not in here because I'm sure he'd

get up and second my motion about that because there are more

potholes and rocks and broken car bodies on that road than

there is in any part of British Columbia, and that's an

important link with the coast.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that probably some of the questions that you are asking

could be more appropriately asked under vote 95.

[ Page 3408 ]

MR. FRASER: Well, I want to get them down now. When we get

to vote 95 maybe they'll have had time to cook the books and

give me some answers over there. They're all looking at their

books there, juggling the figures around, and this'll give them

a little time.

You know, when you're on the Minister's vote you can pretty

well cover the board, but I think I've covered pretty well

everything I wanted except that I'd like the Minister to

explain a little more. I realize he answered me the other

morning about the breaking down of the four regional districts.

Well, it will be breaking them down, but I believe his answer

was: "We'll get to six regional districts." Is that effective

as of the new fiscal year, or will that process start soon and

be effective in the fall, or when will everything be in place?

I understand it will probably be in place by April 1, 1976. I'd

just ask again where these new areas are going to be — where

the two new headquarters areas will be, if there are two.

I appreciate that, as I say, the Minister answered this the

other day. I want to, Mr. Chairman, before I sit down,

congratulate the Minister on this move. It's a long overdue

move. Those four regions we've had are far too big a load for

the senior people and I realize by going from four to six it

will take a lot of responsibility off these hard-working and

overworked people. Thank you.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, one thing that I would like to

get straight at the outset is that there has been no holdback

on funds going to the regions from headquarters....

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

people.

HON. MR. LEA ; No, there is not, not in my department, because

as soon as I thought that there might be I went to the Treasury Board

and said if that would be true it could not apply to my department

because we are an on-line department where we go from approximately

6,000 staff in the winter up as high as 9,000 in the summer to get the

job done with, as you say, day labour and the kind of extra staff that

you need to do the maintenance work during those summer months. You

don't need that kind of a work force in the winter months.

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

HON. MR. LEA: No there is not, not in my answer. They said

first of all that the freezes that the opposition had been talking

about are not around and that it's a perfectly normal year for you to

go ahead. But on my own I did a number of things.

I mentioned the other day that the day-labour jobs have

traditionally been handled at the beginning of the year for the full

year. Because of the spiralling costs that we're going through and

experiencing now, there is no way that I know what a day-labour job is

going to come in at in the fall of this year.

If I am going to keep within my budget, I have to handle it

a little differently than it has been handled in the past,

where there hasn't been that very precipitous increase in costs

in the same year. What I am doing now is handing out the

day-labour jobs on a quarterly basis, so that at the end of

each quarter I can assess where I am and what I can let out for

the next quarter, the next quarter and the final quarter.

MR. FRASER: Well, you won't take all the next quarter's

budget and shut the whole job down, will you?

HON. MR. LEA: No.

Okay, the yards. I think you brought up a good point.

Horsefly, Likely — the working conditions there are atrocious.

There is no doubt about it.

Now what we have done over the past two years is that there

has been a new establishment. Williams Lake and 100 Mile House

are both within your riding. Now there are also plans for

Likely and Horsefly. It's being planned now by the Department

of Public Works at our request.

MR. FRASER: Burns Lake?

HON. MR. LEA: Yes.

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Minister

proceeds, I would appreciate it if the Hon. Member for Cariboo

(Mr. Fraser) would restrain himself until the Minister has

finished so that we can have order.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Anyway, we are planning temporary facilities

this year for those workers. The permanent facilities are on

line with the Department of Public Works.

I would like to point out that there has been a change of

policy, a drastic change of policy within the Department of

Highways since we have become government. The maintenance

budget this year — that is, in the regions — is up 45 per cent

over last year; that's maintenance. Just to show you that the

policy has changed, the highest increase in a maintenance

budget this year over last year will be in Kelowna, 61

[ Page 3409 ]

per cent up.

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

HON. MR. LEA: You're not interested in that riding? I think

you are interested in the fact that we are not playing politics

with maintenance money, which did go on before.

Yours, by the way, the two districts within your riding, is

up 48 per cent this year over last year.

Now the Massey Tunnel, the different speed limits: I had a

complaint about that not too long ago, and I have asked for an

investigation into that. I'm not personally aware of the

problem there, but my staff are looking into that at the

moment.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: No, as a matter of fact, when someone said he

had a few points to bring up, I didn't realize the kind of

points we were going to be talking about.

I think I have covered the points that you.... Oh, getting

down to when you are going to know. You mentioned that I said

that I would be letting you know the jobs after my estimates

are through the House. They are finalized now, but I think it

would be a waste of the House's time for me to run through each

time a Member comes up. As soon as I am finished, which

probably should be this morning, I'll make sure that another

practice is changed within this department: opposition Members

will also get to know what is going to be happening in their

ridings in this fiscal year.

The one thing I would like to caution you on is to make sure

that when you are telling your constituents what is going to be

done, remember that quarterly procedure we're going into on day

labour. That would probably save Members some embarrassment,

because we may have to change as the year goes on because of

....

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

HON. MR. LEA: The speed limits. There has been a marked

decrease in the number of accidents. I think it is too early to

say whether....

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, we do have them. It hasn't been a year

yet. I would like to let the year pass and then do an

assessment that can be made public and to the Members.

There is a large increase of vehicles on the road. and we're holding

our own in terms of accident statistics. So I think that there has been

a marked effect. I will make sure that all the statistics are given to

Members at the end of the first year. But I think if we are going to

assess it every month, I don't think it would be a good policy. I want

to give it a year, assess the programme, do a statistical analysis and

then make it available to Members and the public.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I thank the Minister

for those remarks about the Deas Island tunnel, and also about

the speed limit.

I think, however, he should, if indeed this is affecting

accident rates, try to give us this month's or last month's

figures compared to a year ago, because I think they would be

of great interest. I think he should keep encouraging people to

realize that the lower speed limit is having an effect. As the

Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) points out, that speed limit

for most vehicles in most parts of the province is being

observed in the breach, and you are not actually having any

real decrease in the speed the cars travel, even though the

posted signs are somewhat different.

So I would be most interested in some information. And while

I am on my feet on this point, I wonder whether the Minister of

Highways could get after the motor vehicle branch for their

refusal to give out accident statistics.

I've tried to get accident statistics month after month

after month from that division. They won't give them out

because they say that if they give me the accident statistics,

I will be able to work out ICBC losses, and I have to wait

until the annual report is filed. That is wrong.

If that is public information, and is available, if it

affects the safety of the public, as it does, that information

should be made available to opposition Members as well as

others. The motor vehicle branch has been acting in a

thoroughly reprehensible manner in not providing that type of

information to Members of this Legislature. It is public

information, and we should get it. I urge the Minister of

Highways, who perhaps doesn't have direct responsibility here,

to get onto the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and

make sure this is all straightened out. It really is absurd

that we can't get that information when we request it.

I would like to raise a couple of questions. One concerns

the City of Penticton and the proposed rerouting of Highway 97

to the west part of the city. I have in my hand a petition

dealing with this, and which has also been sent to the Hon.

Graham Lea. Dated March 22, it talks about this rerouting. The

petition has 345 signatures on a total of 23 pages. Michael

Abel, who organized this, said: "I am an instrumentman

surveyor with seven years experience. I have worked with the

B.C. Department of Highways in the location branch,

construction branch and in a district office. The plan to put

Highway 97 through

[ Page 3410 ]

the west part of Penticton city is the worst that I

have ever seen."

It talks about the Indian opposition to this route. The

Indians own land on the east side of the river, and will

definitely block construction. It talks about the federal

government concern, the local citizen concern, and the city's

concern.

I would ask the Minister what information he has on this in

terms of this rerouting, and why it went ahead. There is a

joint federal-provincial-municipal housing project going in

there, and apparently the moving of Highway 97 will move it

through this housing development, according to Mr. Abel.

It appears to be a curious decision. Certainly we all know

the problems of Penticton with the highway going through the

city — you have a long strip of motels, gas stations, used car

lots and other things. I can see rerouting being a desirable

objective. Many of us going through that town in the summer get

somewhat frustrated especially with those great big American

campers, which the Minister knows all about, in front of us.

But if the rerouting proposal is going to destroy this area,

part of which is apparently put aside for parks, and if it is

going to adversely materially affect a joint

federal-provincial-municipal pilot project for housing, it

should be re-examined. Particularly when you have some people

with knowledge, such as Mr. Abel, and when you have the local

residents concerned, I think there is some reason for

re-examination. I trust the Minister will comment on that at

some stage in his estimates and, hopefully, indicate that it is

being changed.

I would like to mention another subject — the closing of the

Fraser Canyon road. I would like to congratulate the department

for their more recent attempts this spring to try and minimize

the impact on the local businessmen in the area. There

certainly wasn't that attitude back in October when the thing

first started. The two press releases that I have from the

Minister's office — one dated October 4, 1974 and the other

undated, but which I received April 16 — are quite different in

their approach. I would like him to congratulate the people who

have realized that their initial disregard of the public was

wrong, and who changed the policy. This had a very serious

effect on some of the businessmen in the area, and has

virtually pushed some of them to the wall.

I would like to know what the Minister's attitude is toward

assisting or giving recompense to people who suffered very severe

economic hardship as a result of the very lengthy cutting off of the

highway. I am thinking particularly of people in the Boston Bar area.

There is obviously a need to get the highway in good shape. At the same

time, though, when the work done is done in such a way that it

virtually destroys the livelihood of many people.... I wonder if the

Minister would indicate whether he is considering some sort of

compensation or assistance because, in my view, the department

closures, while necessary in the public interest, have affected a small

group of people in a very adverse way. I think they have a legitimate

reason for believing they are entitled to some assistance.

I wonder if the Minister, in his estimates, could indicate

to me whether the old Gellatly Road on the lakeshore of Lake

Okanagan has been illegally closed. I understand that

section

114 of the Land Registry Act indicates that the permanent road

closure should be under the Highways Minister's signature and

published in the B.C. Gazette. This is clearly a question that

the Minister might answer later in his estimates, but I wonder

if he would indicate whether or not that was the case.

That was the case. The Gellatly Road issue is one that has

been brought to my attention by another brief which is dated

June 5 of this year. This question is raised there, and there

are some other questions raised which, I think, deserve some

sort of examination. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that

third point when he deals with either this vote or some other

later on.

HON. MR. LEA: Dealing with the Penticton area first, Mr.

Chairman, for years the department has been trying to get a

bypass route on the westerly side of the City of Penticton. The

route that the Highways department was trying to secure was

through Indian reserve land. I think it's gone on for 12 or 13

years. At this point, the staff of the department, working with

the staff of the City of Penticton, the Department of Lands and

other various departments, have come up with a route that seems

acceptable to the city and to the department and other

departments of government. The bypass route would be going

along the easterly side of the canal, which is not on Indian

reserve land. That seems to be acceptable to not only the city

but to our various parts of government.

There is a housing project going on, as the Hon. Member

mentioned. We're taking a great deal of care so that the bypass

route will interfere in a very minimal way with that housing

project. There's going to be a buffer park strip between the

project and the highway.

The need for an alternate route is paramount. The main

street in Penticton, which is also Highway 97, is probably one

of the biggest bottlenecks we have during the summer months. So

we just have to solve the problem. Because of the topography of

British Columbia, we don't have that many options when we go to

put alternate routes in. This is the only alternative that we

can find that would be viable.

It's a problem throughout British Columbia. I think what

we're going to have to do, Mr. Member, when we do put alternate

routes in, is we're going to have to be very, very careful and

very stringent about

[ Page 3411 ]

the kind of development that is allowed on those new

alternate routes or, sooner or later — probably sooner — we'll

be looking for a new alternate route. We just have to really

tighten up; I haven't tightened up administratively a great

deal.

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

HON. MR. LEA: Yes. But Duncan is a perfect example of strip

development along highways that in the final analysis will cost

the taxpayers a lot more money to build another alternate route

and another and another. That might even be okay if we had an

inexhaustible supply of money, which we don't in society. But

we don't have that flexibility in terms of the topography in

British Columbia either. So we just really do have to tighten

up even more, maybe legislatively at some point, on the kind of

development that we're going to allow along the transportation

corridors in the province.

The Fraser Canyon. I don't think that there was an unfeeling

move by the department in regard to the merchants along the

Fraser Canyon. I think it did take some time to work out a

system where everybody would be as satisfied as possible. As a

matter of fact, I've had letters from some of the merchants now

saying that they're very pleased with the final results. It has

taken a little time so that we're all fairly pleased. That's

been resolved.

The other problem you dealt with was about making economic

payments to people who are going to be adversely affected in

their business by highway closures because of work that has to

be done. I realize that it does happen once in a while that a

small business may come under economic hardship because of road

closures. At the same time, the viability of that business

relies on the highway in a great many instances, which is out

of public funds. So it's about six of one and half a dozen of

the other. I don't think we could get into the area of

compensating people for losses because of highway closures,

because there is that other side of the question that if it

weren't for the public expenditure in the first place business

wouldn't have been viable. I think that in the final analysis

they do come out about equal.

The speed limits. I've asked my staff to try and get those

statistics into the House. If I'm finished today, I'll answer

during question period; if not, I'll bring it in the next time

I'm up in my estimates. We'll try and get them. The person in

charge, the highway safety engineer, is speaking to a safety

organization in Quebec City today. He's not here, but we'll try

and get the statistics from his files for you. If I'm finished

today, question period this afternoon; if not, the next time

I'm up.

Gellatly Road. I'm aware of the brief and the letter that a person

has been sending to all Members and to the media in regard to Gellatly

Road. As a matter of fact, it was brought to my attention not long

after I was Minister and I asked for a report on Gellatly Road.

As a matter of fact, I thought no one ever asked better to

let sleeping dogs lie. But you've asked, so I'll read to the

House the report that I did have from one of my Deputies on the

relocation of Gellatly Road at Westbank outside of Kelowna.

Firstly, there was a

section 6 public road right at

the edge of the water within the property, which was a

large area, and it was proposed that waterfront lots be created

for sale as summer dwellings, et cetera. Obviously the first

vital factor was to move the road at least 150 feet back from

the waterfront. If this could be done the value of the property

as waterfront lots would be immensely improved. The owners of

the individual lots would have unobstructed access to the

waterfront which is vital to such use of the land. The old road

was very winding where it first crossed Powers Creek as it

approaches the area in question.

The first fortunate thing for the subdivider was that the

department decided to relocate the road in its crossing of

Powers Creek and build a new bridge at that town. This was done

in conjunction with the moving of the road back from the

waterfront. The subdivider agreed to dedicate some of his

property as park, including waterfront property. The point is

made that one-third of the total water frontage was dedicated

to this use. However, under the existing regulations, a lot has

to be at least 25 feet back from the waterfront because nowhere

in the area dedicated for park was the depth available for the

waterfront greater than 125 feet, and most of it was much less

than that. So the one-third of the property that was dedicated

for park use could not have been subdivided under regulations

at any rate.

The subdivider outlined his subdivision with the road

allowance at least 150 feet back throughout the area, and he

rough-graded the road allowance at his own expense. There was

very little clearing. The fortunate thing for him was that

another development further up the lake was in process at the

time and this involved dredging and excavation of the lake

bottom material for proposed inland waterways. These people

required some place to dump the excess material and it was

arranged that it be hauled to the new

section of road, free of

charge to the subdivider. This material proved to be granular

gravel suitable for road surfacing and was good enough to use

for the road mix pavement. The subdivider was in luck,

again.

As department-owned equipment was already on the site due to

the fortunate circumstances that the department was building a

new approach to the Powers Creek bridge at that particular

time, rather than the subdivider having to haul in privately

owned equipment, the department agreed to rent to him its

equipment without any cost for transportation to the site. The

next fortunate thing was that the

[ Page 3412 ]

Department of Highways at that time rented equipment for

very much less cost than privately owned equipment. The reason

for this was that such equipment was not normally rented except

for ploughing snow, et cetera, for rural farms, ranches and

suchlike. In order to help these people we gave a very low

rental rate. The subdivider obtained a TD Cat for $23.22 a day,

and he had it for five days.

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

HON. MR. LEA: For $23.22 a day, and he had it for five days.

If he had rented the same equipment commercially, he would have

had to pay approximately $11 an hour, or $88 a day for eight

hours' work. Similarly, he rented two departmental graders for

a total of 10 days. One was at $21.84 a day; the other grader

at $23.45 a day. If he had rented commercially he would have to

pay $17.50 an hour, or approximately $140 a day for an

eight-hour day.

Not only did he get his road graded very cheaply in this

manner, but the department also undertook to supply asphalt to

mix into the road mix pavement with the granular material he'd

obtained free of charge. The cost of this, according to the

invoice, was $1,000 for 1,000 feet of roadway which if he had

had to do it commercially would have cost a great deal more. In

summary a series of most fortunate circumstances occurred for

the subdivider, enabling him to construct and pave 1,000 feet

of road for somewhere in the vicinity of $3,000, which it is

estimated would be at least one-third of what it would have

cost him if he had used commercial equipment, and possibly

one-fifth of what it would have cost him if he had not been

fortunate enough to have free fill hauled to the road at no

cost.

As far as I can ascertain the road that was put in, back 150

feet, was gazetted legally and the No. 6 road was taken out

legally. There's no problem in the legality of the gazetting of

the road.

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

HON. MR. LEA: Scottish Co-holdings is the only name I have.

It's a Kelowna-based outfit — Mrs. Lois Bennett.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, a few words to the Minister of

Highways on his estimates this morning, particularly on some of

the remarks that he's made. I've followed with interest some of

the suggestions he's made, and one thing that does concern me is

the Minister's suggestion that the amount of money available

for day-labour work will be spread over the full year on a

quarterly basis.

Now I can agree that that might be a good objective in some

parts of the province, but I have to draw to the Minister's

attention the fact that we don't have a 12-month construction

season in about 50 per cent of the Province of British

Columbia. We have to compress everything that will be done in

any given year into a period of six months or less. For that

reason our Department of Highways personnel have to know early....

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

MR. SMITH: Are you going to allow for that? Fine, because if

you don't, there's no use coming along in late fall and

suggesting that another quarterly allocation of day-labour

funds will be available, because that would be a detriment and

it would be wasted money because of the weather conditions.

I'd like to mention a number of specific problems with

respect to development in the north and draw to the Minister's

attention the fact that I think there is a deplorable lack of

funds in his budget for either proper maintenance of existing

roads, rebuilding roads that are starting to wear out and/or

new construction.

When you take into consideration the inflation factor which

is there with us that you can't escape in construction today,

really the dollars you have, in terms of actual work on the

ground, will probably produce less than in prior years. For

that reason I think it's unfortunate that the priority of the

Department of Highways seems to have been downgraded at a time

when almost all of the major roads in the province and many of

the market roads need substantial repair and

reconstruction.

I'd suggest to the Minister that the people of the Peace

River country are just a little fed up with the fact that the

government and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) seem

to wish to throw around the so-called windfall profits from the

sale of natural gas at great abandon, but not spend any of it

in the area where the natural gas and the oil is produced, or

very little of it.

I'd like to draw to the Minister's attention that since 1972

there has been one tender called in the North Peace for

highways, and that happened to be for a bridge on the Halfway

River — at least, the piers for a bridge on the Halfway River.

Every bit of road construction, with the exception of

day-labour, was out to contract prior to the end of 1972, and

that's a fact.

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

MR. SMITH: Check it, Mr. Minister.

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

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

[ Page 3413 ]

than day-labour funds has been the call to tender of the

piers for the Halfway River bridge.

The other money that the Department of Highways has received

has come as a result of day-labour funds, nothing else. But I'm

not deploring day-labour funds, because I think it's a useful

way of spreading money around in the constituencies of the

province, and you get substantial work completed for the money

you invest.

Speaking of day-labour money, I'd like to make a suggestion

to the Minister. At the present time, due to the cutback on

exploration in northeastern British Columbia, there is ample — as a

matter of fact, excess — heavy equipment available to go

into day-labour work.

Trucks, Cats, graders, scrapers, buggies — you name it; it's

there. It's available, and the people who ordinarily would

employ their equipment in the oil patch are desperate for work,

particularly when they don't know what will happen this fall or

winter with respect to the oil patch.

So I'm suggesting to the Minister that there was never a

better time to invest some money in day-labour work than right

at the present, this summer, because the equipment is there.

It's sitting idle and the people who would ordinarily be

employed are out of work right now. Believe me, Mr. Minister,

they'd rather work than go on welfare. They certainly feel that

they have the ability, and the time and the equipment is there;

so put it to work.

Talk to the Minister of Finance if you have to, and suggest

to him that a few bucks spent in day-labour vote, extra

additional funds, would be much better at this time than

probably any other time of the year. It's a situation that you

can take advantage of, so reinvest a few of those dollars.

I'd like to ask the Minister when the tender will be called

for the reconstruction of the two arterial highways that go

through Fort St. John. This is a project that has been on the

books under the planning stage for years. It involves

substantial expenditure because of storm sewer requirements and

redefinition of grades and all the rest of it. I realize that

it's an expensive project. But I understand, if I'm correct in

what I hear and have been told, you have now Treasury Board

approval.

What I'd like to suggest to the Minister is that the call to

tender be as quickly as possible. Even now, if the contract was

awarded in the next two months, the amount of time that could

be devoted to that particular project before freeze-up is

getting less every day. So will you give me some indication of

when the tenders will be called on that particular project?

What about the Fort Nelson-Fort Simpson Road? Where are we going on

that, and when do you intend to get back to work on that particular

project?

Also, when can we expect a renewal of the programme started some

time ago to pave the main feeder roads out into the respective farming

communities of the Peace River area? There are about four major farm

areas lying north and east of Fort St. John. Each one of those should

be fed by a feeder road of substantial standard, and it should be

paved. The programme was started about four years ago. There is now a

much-improved road into the Cecil Lake area; there's a much-improved

road directly north towards Rose Prairie and up into the north part of

that farming community, but we still lack about half of the programme.

I'd say it's about half-completed in respect to what we need. So when

can we get back to that?

Also, when can we get on to the programme on a more

effective basis of not only repairing the roads that are

rapidly wearing out, but also building new construction where

it's needed?

HON. MR. LEA: It is probably only going to be one or two

days, then I'll make everything that is going on in your riding

available to you. I would like to point out to you, though,

that when you said there have been no tenders called in your

riding...

MR. SMITH: For crushing gravel, maybe.

HON. MR. LEA: ...since we've been government, I think is

what you meant. You agree that that is what you meant?

MR. SMITH: Yes.

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

MR. SMITH: One bridge.

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

$723,000....

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

became government.

HON. MR. LEA: No, it was not. It was awarded in 1973, Mr.

Member. That is the kind of research that you're always doing,

Mr. Member.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Minister, that was a continuation of a

contract that was awarded before that time.

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

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

was prior to that.

HON. MR. LEA: What you had to say was incorrect, Now you

talked about going into the day-labour

[ Page 3414 ]

work on a quarterly basis. We have taken into consideration

the weather in northern ridings, and they will be treated a

little differently.

MR. SMITH: You have to.

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

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: But that contract was let in September 18,

1973 — the one I referred to, the surfacing contract.

You say that the priority of the department has been

downgraded. I don't know how you can say that, Mr. Member, with

a 41 per cent increase over last year in this year's budget. As

a matter of fact, I remember Mrs. Jewett on TV, not long after

the budget came out, saying that it was a crime that the

Highways department should get this kind of increase. I don't

think it is; we could always use more, as you are aware, Mr.

Member. But 41 per cent is a pretty healthy increase in

anybody's language.

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

province are in.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Member, we could dump $1 billion in, but

we have to live within the economic constraints we have, which

you had to when your party was government, and which we do. If

it's going to be a good government, you have to spend money,

set up your priorities and keep within those boundaries. That's

what I'm doing within the department — trying to do a rational

job of keeping the roads in shape. I think that I was treated

very fairly by the Treasury Board, and I couldn't expect any

more out of this budget than what I received. All I can do now

is try and spend it wisely, setting up priorities within the

department.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Chairman, I want to raise some

questions with the Minister. We've got lots of traffic

problems, and highways need to be built in my area. We've got

some kinds of starts on some things, but I never quite know

where they're at. We've got a traffic problem in the Patullo

Bridge–Scott Road area that is unbelievable; we've got a

growing one at the tunnel that's really getting bad, too.

There are some things there that have improved, though. I think we

have to compliment the department for the construction of the washing

machine that's working in the tunnel. I don't think it's perfect yet —

there are modifications that need to take place. But at least it has

brightened it up somewhat, As I understand it, now the amount of time

spent washing is about eight hours to wash the entire tunnel,

whereas

before it took six days and a big crew of men to wash it by hand. It

just didn't work before.

What we need now are the lights for the tunnel. I know that

we talked about that last year, and we've talked about it

earlier this year. I don't know what's happening: I don't know

whether tenders are going to be called; I don't know whether

the equipment has been ordered or just what's happening. But

certainly we need lights in the tunnel so that we can brighten

the place up.

Every night now on the north side of the river, we've a

lineup of traffic that goes back there two or three miles, and

it is as a result of just one person that slows down. All you

need is one person in the tunnel slowing down to 25 miles an

hour, and from then on everything is slowed down.

The lighting system that is there, the old one, is just not

doing the job, and it probably was a mistake at the outset. But

we've got to get on with the plan to light that tunnel up.

When you get out of the tunnel on the south side, there has

been a great deal of work done in that overpass, in that area,

but it is not completed. It needs to be finished. It should

have a finished coat of blacktop put on and proper lines put

on. We have some traffic hazards in the way traffic is merging

in those areas and until the job is completed, that won't be

cleared up.

I know there was a problem last winter in putting the finish

coat of blacktop on, but I don't think there is any problem

now. The weather is such that the job could be done.

This raises another question that has been raised with me by

people in my constituency that have travelled throughout the

province. They tell me there has been very little white-lining,

centre-lining, done on the highways in the interior. I don't

know that first hand. People have been contacting me when they

come home from trips saying: "What's going on? Have you guys

run out of paint?" I wonder what you are doing. I would think

that that's usually done by this time of year.

The area of Scott Road and Pattullo Bridge and trying to

improve that situation: I raise it as much from a safety

interest as anything else, because we have got some real

hazards on Scott Road. The merging of the traffic from the

industrial area that is developing in the Surrey-Fraser docks,

and the kinds of problems that we are growing there with the

intersection of River Road and Scott Road.... I know there has

been some discussion about an industrial road along that whole

new industrial area, but I don't know what's happened to

that.

I know there have been problems in working together with

Surrey and Delta, although the problems are not from the Delta

side. I know that we

[ Page 3415 ]

had an agreement that we were going to start widening Scott

Road in the area from 99th Avenue to 80th. I know that Surrey

was hanging back, and I don't know what has really happened

there. I thought Surrey had come around and agreed to do that

job, but I saw something in the paper the other day which

indicated that Surrey wanted it started at Pattullo Bridge

first — that whole rebuilding of Scott Road. I just hope the

department doesn't go along with that kind of proposition

because, if they do, we really end up delaying that work for

another year. I know that the engineering and survey work is

pretty well completed on the original first phase, and that

work should be starting. I would hope it would be starting very

quickly.

Just one more point, Mr. Chairman. There has been a

feasibility study done for a new crossing of the Fraser River.

That feasibility study has been in the hands of the department

for some time, and I want to know what is happening there. But

before we make any decisions, I would hope that the Minister

would make that study public. I think that a case can be made

for some input from the communities that surround that

congested area, both on the Surrey-Delta side of the river and

on the Burnaby side.

What is going to happen when you dump traffic into

already-built-up areas? I suspect there are going to be a

number of problems from the existing residents in some areas,

and certainly I think the department would be well advised to

get some input from the communities. Certainly all the

municipalities through their engineering departments have to be

tuned in, and I suppose that goes without saying. But I would

like to see that we go one step further and make the reports

available to the general public. Maybe it is too big a thing to

do. Maybe you can't make it public or make copies available to

many groups. But certainly some sort of a resume of that study

can be put together in some way so that the public can get a

look at it, can get an idea what the engineering studies say,

or the feasibility study says, so that the people in the

community can reasonably make their input.

I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that in replying the Minister

will be able to tell me that he's prepared to make that study

public, as this government has done with almost all studies

that have been conducted.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden)

is one Member I do know who understands some of the traffic

problems that are happening not only in his riding but in the

surrounding ridings of the greater Vancouver regional area.

I would take his first comment and tie it to his question about the

Annacis crossing or the study done on another crossing of the Fraser

River. I would like to point out at the outset that there is no way

that

this department can solve the traffic problems of the greater

Vancouver regional area. There is no way. The responsibility

mainly lies with the local governments and the 14

municipalities of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. We

shouldn't be involved in the greater Vancouver area as much as

we are as a department, but it has evolved that way through the

years. I believe that the concern of this department should be

mainly with those areas outside of the Greater Vancouver

Regional District and out of Victoria, too, like they do in

other jurisdictions.

On the question that the Member asked about the study that

was done about a crossing on the Fraser River; it was done by

CBA Engineering. The department has had that study for some

time. We are doing an analysis of that study which is not quite

complete. I can tell you that it is going to be published. I

think it is something that the people should get their teeth

into before the government or I decide one way or another. The

information that I have now leads me to believe that if we go

ahead with another crossing at this point in time we are

looking at $150 million. This would be for another crossing. It

is an awful lot of money, and it probably won't solve the

problem.

Before we spent that kind of money we really do have to get

the public, the municipalities and the Greater Vancouver

District involved and maybe not spend it at all. It is a little

too early to decide.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Cut out the refinery. Come on, Graham,

cut out the refinery. Say you are with us.

HON. MR. LEA: With you on what?

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

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

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

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

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

Dealing with the tunnel, I agree the lighting is bad. The

washing machine that has been designed and built and is being

used in there is doing a reasonable job, but I would like to

commend the people within the department who have designed,

engineered and built it. It has been a great feat, in my

opinion. Tom Johnson, the service engineer who has been mainly

responsible, really does deserve a round of applause for the

job that he has done. But the lighting is bad, and we are

looking at it.

[ Page 3416 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: It's a badly lit tunnel, there is no doubt

about it. But it is going to cost a lot of money. To do the

lighting in that tunnel and to clean it up the way it should be,

we are looking at $2 million. That's a lot of money, so we want

to look at it very carefully before we spend that kind of money

and see which we should go.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did it just go bad?

HON. MR. LEA: No, it has been bad for quite some time. It

was bad even when you were government.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I have been sitting

here for four days waiting to get up on the estimates, Mr.

Chairman. I appreciate being recognized very much.

I would like to ask the Minister a number of questions. I

certainly don't want to prolong the debate. I'm not going to

make a speech if I can get the answers.

First I would like to deal with the telegram that was sent

May 2 from Mayor Trail of Dawson Creek regarding Maska Avenue.

There was another follow-up telegram on June 3, 1975, asking

for an answer. To date they have not had the courtesy of an

answer or a reply with regard to what the government intends to

do with the horrible condition of Alaska Avenue, which runs

through Dawson Creek. I'm not going to go into it, but this is

the start of the world-famous Alaska Highway. I think you would

have to see that portion of the highway to really believe it.

You've brought in a patching crew and you are patching it up,

but the same problem is going to occur next year only much

worse. I'm telling you, if it gets worse than it was this year

you are going to lose whole cars. That's about how bad it was.

What are your intentions? You've gone in there with a patch

crew and you have temporarily patched it. What do you intend to

do? The surface of the highway is gone, and it has to be

rebuilt.

If you are ever going to alleviate the problems on that

particular stretch of highway, put in some storm sewers. In the

spring the runoff comes down off all of the side hills. It runs

across the road, the road surface deteriorates, and the water

gets into the subsurface. Until you alleviate that problem we

are going to have a continuing problem. I would just like to

ask the Minister what he is going to do and why he didn't reply

to the wire. They didn't send the wire just because they wanted

something to do, Mr. Minister. They were concerned about

this.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.

HON. MR. LEA: I've met with them a number of times. Frankly,

I wasn't aware that we hadn't answered their wire. I'll check

into that.

On the

section you've mentioned — Alaska Avenue as part of

the highway within the boundaries of Dawson Creek — we were

prepared to do that last year. The money was there and one of

the other contracts that was scheduled didn't go ahead and it

had to be done at the same time. The money was available last

year.

Last time I spoke with Mayor Trail they pointed out to me

the name of those local people that could do it, and I did ask

the department to check and see whether there was that kind of

capability in Dawson Creek so we wouldn't have to wait for a

larger contract to make a part of that. Since that time other

matters have come to light. You touched on it — the drainage

problem — and we feel it's going to take one or two years to

get that drainage solved so there's no point really in doing

it.

Also it came as quite a surprise to some of us that we

didn't know that there were plans for a waterline extension by

the city. We have to check with the city a little more closely,

but we see that as a reason that anything that's going to be

done in terms of storm sewers and waterline extensions should

be done prior to the construction of the roads. We are trying

to do a top-notch job of patching this year for Dawson Creek.

The money was available last year. It would have been available

this year if we'd the capability to do the job. It's not a case

of the money not being there.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I can appreciate what happened last

year. There are major contractors in. As you know they are

doing Highway 49 to Alberta but, in all sincerity, I think that

it's not a waterline extension. They're going to replace the

old waterline. The officials have met with you with regard to

the Department of Highways sharing in the cost of the drainage

problem there — storm sewers. Are you prepared to say at this

time that you will cooperate with solving that problem along

Alaska Avenue? Will you assist the city with the cost of the

storm sewers to alleviate that drainage problem, and as soon as

this is completed will you be prepared to redo that particular

section of road? It's only about two miles long.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, we would be prepared to assist the city

in terms of the provincial formula we use to assist in those

matters. There's no doubt about it — it is a priority, and money

will be made available.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister has been

[ Page 3417 ]

contacted by Mr. Jim Harder, who actually lives in Surrey

and has some property in Prince George, with regard to

expropriation proceedings. I understand you've just had some

recent information. You're offering this man, evidently,

$20,000 for his property when he paid over $50,000 for it.

You've talked to the man. The man is concerned that you've

gazetted this road. According to him you didn't do it according

to Hoyle and you've even expressed the opinion yourself to him,

from the information I have, that you're not happy with the way

this was proceeded with. What I'd like to know now and what the

man would like to know and I think what you owe him is to tell

him what you're going to do.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Member, I would appreciate it if you would

drop by my office and I'll show you the report rather than

here.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll be quite interested in seeing the

report, but I want your assurance here that this man is going

to be treated fairly and squarely.

HON. MR. LEA: You have my assurance he will be, but I would

sooner you read the report. You can raise it again if you want

to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now just a minute. I'm not through just yet.

Mr. Chairman, I have a number of highways problems in the area.

I'd like to ask the Minister just what the day-labour vote is

this year for the South Peace River area.

HON. MR. LEA: In dollars?

MR. PHILLIPS: In dollars and cents. Every time I go to the

highway engineer, Mr. Chairman, with a small problem — an

extension of a road or upgrading the roads — there's no

money.

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

a speech.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well I don't need to be heckled from you. I'll

take as long as I wish in this House to talk on highways. I

suppose you're interested, Mr. Member, because you haven't got

a highway in your constituency. I don't appreciate being

heckled by you. You haven't sat in this House and waited for

these estimates to come up.

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

the Chair please?

MR. WALLACE: I think I got to him.

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

I would like to know, Mr. Minister, just how much we're

going to have for day-labour vote in this department because

every time I go....

HON. MR. LEA: $350,000.

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

year?

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

MR. PHILLIPS: I would suggest to you that there's no

increase at all. As a matter of fact it might even be a

decrease, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister has been approached. He has letters, he has

wires from pioneers in that area who need maybe $250 or $300,

an extension of the road for people.... I've got files full of

them. As I say, I might not take the time of the House to bring

them all up; then again, I just might.

But we need an increase. Mr. Chairman; we need an increase

in this day-labour vote. Not only is it not looking after

keeping the roads upgraded or looking after the problems caused

by natural erosion, the winter conditions and so forth, but

it's not giving us anything to build extensions. There are more

farmers going into that area all the time. There are areas

where we need roads upgraded because of changes in equipment.

We're losing ground, Mr. Chairman. We're not making any

headway, and a lot of the pioneers in that area are getting a

little disgusted.

Back in 1966, '67, '68 and '69, when the dollar was worth a

lot more than it is today, we used to get $1 million a year in

that constituency on the day-labour vote — $1 million a year!

If we had kept on with that $1 million a year over a period of

years, today we wouldn't be having the problems we are having.

So $350,000 is nowhere near enough. We need at least three

times that amount and we don't need it for one year; we need it

over a period of continuing years.

Mr. Chairman, this government, as mentioned by the Member

for North Peace River (Mr. Smith), doesn't mind siphoning off

all the money from the oil fields and the gas fields in that

area, and all the natural resources. We'd like a little return.

The main thing we ask for that northeastern part of the

province is money for roads. Very few other projects do we ask

for. It's a most important part of that constituency because it

is a developing area; it is still a developing area. It's an

area where more farmland is being taken out all the time.

People move into an area with nothing but a bulldozed trail,

then more farmers take out land. We need to upgrade those roads

because more farmland is coming under development. As the land

comes under development and families

[ Page 3418 ]

move in, there's a need for school buses. This is a

continuing project, and unless you want to say to those people:

"Stay off that farmland, don't go in there and develop the

area, don't produce food," unless you want to say that

to them, you'd better be prepared to give us some more money,

because $350,000 for day labour in that constituency is not

enough. It wasn't enough last year, and it wasn't enough the

year before.

You've got an election coming up pretty soon, Mr. Chairman.

If the Minister wants to do something for the people in that

constituency, he could be at least politically oriented and the

year before an election give us some money. I thought you'd

come out this year with at least $2 million for day labour in

that constituency. Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't mind, and I

wouldn't ask for money, if the government didn't have it. But

that government has money for every project under the sun, and

they waste hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

MR. PHILLIPS: Nonsense! That's right! Do you want me to give

you a list of them?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll just mention a little bit of the

money you waste — hundreds of thousands of dollars on vacant

office space. What do you think the farmers in my constituency

think about that when they can't get $250 for a load of gravel?

Thousands and thousands of dollars wasted on plush offices here

in the parliament buildings and new buildings all over the

place for the hierarchy and the bureaucracies that this

government hires. Lots of money to buy land because this

government wants to frolic in the real estate business.

MR. FRASER: Right on!

MR. PHILLIPS: There's $5 million for Mr. Gaffney to sit out

there and do nothing at the University of Victoria.

MR. FRASER: Think tank!

HON. MR. LEA: Pity you didn't have one of those in your

government. No think tanks there.

MR. PHILLIPS: An increase of 15,000 civil servants. I'll

tell you this government is wasting money! You're telling me

this government isn't wasting money? Don't give me that. This

is supposed to be a government of people.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: I tell you, the people of my riding who have

to travel over these potholes.... That Minister can't fill

those potholes with soft-soap. It takes money to fill those

potholes, and gravel and paving.

Government that has no regard for the tax dollar — wastes it

all over the province. Lots of money for the Premier to tour

around the world several times at the taxpayers' expense while

the people who opened up that constituency in the province

can't get $250 for a load of gravel, can't get the roads

upgraded, tear their equipment all to pieces taking their farm

products to market. And what do we get? A lousy, measly

$350,000 for day labour.

That Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) wasted more

than that last year on vacant office space. As I go through

this budget there are literally hundreds and hundreds and

thousands of dollars for printing and periodicals to spread

government propaganda. What do we get? A measly $350,000 for

day labour for highways.

MR. FRASER: Peanuts.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's disgraceful! It's not even peanuts. It's

all right for the government to spend $750,000 on the Foulkes

report. For what? A discussion paper.

A government that's supposed to be helping small people!

It's the same promise with your rural electrification — you

can't say a word, Mr. Minister of Finance. People are sick and

tired of you wasting taxpayers' dollars when the real needs of

the people — roads — are not being looked after. Tearing your

equipment apart!

I'll tell you why the losses in ICBC are so high this year.

It's because the roads are full of potholes. There was an

accident last Sunday night on the Hart Highway 20 miles north

of Prince George. Why? Four young teenagers lost their

lives.

MR. FRASER: Potholes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Another engineer of a radio station lost his

life and two other people employed in the same radio station

are in critical condition. Why are they in the hospital? Why?

Because of the deplorable condition of that Hart Highway north

of Prince George, that's why. They hit a soft shoulder.

I'll tell you why the losses on ICBC are so high. It's

because of the deplorable conditions of the highways in British

Columbia. They've gone to pot since you people took over. A

measly $350,000 for day labour!

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

louder?

[ Page 3419 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll speak as loud as I want, Mr. Premier.

When you stop wasting the taxpayers' money, maybe I won't get

so excited. But it gets me excited when I see millions and

millions of dollars being wasted. You should resign as Minister

of Finance.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: It makes me angry when I see millions and

millions of dollars being wasted and all I get is a measly

$350,000 for day labour in my constituency. That's a

pittance.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure, don't give him anything. That's the kind

of cocky, arrogant attitude from that Minister of Finance.

"Don't give him anything." Cocky, arrogant....

AN HON. MEMBER: Irresponsible.

MR. PHILLIPS: Irresponsible — of course, irresponsible.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Worse than irresponsible.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: You pay that Minister Without (Hon. Mr.

Nunweiler) a half a million dollars to do what? To be a

political machine for you — to go up and tell the people up

north why you can't build roads. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman,

I'm not satisfied with $350,000 for day labour. I'm not

satisfied....

MR. FRASER: Stand there till you get more.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Neither are the people of my constituency and

neither are the people of the whole north. You've got lots of

money to build a new bridge and road at Kitwanga. Why? For

Can-Cel. Political roads. Oh, and the Minister of Finance says:

"Oh, roads won't be made on political decisions." Oh, no.

I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the Highways department in this

province has gone completely to pot since that government took over.

Last year they said: "We're not going to build any new highways." I

remember that Minister in his estimates: "We're not going to build any

great big superhighways. No, we're going to maintain the highways we've

got." They didn't maintain the highways we've got. In the last year the

highways of this province have gone steadily downhill. The government's

gone to pot and the roads have gone to potholes under that government.

But they've sure got lots of money — $350 million to build a

refinery while the Premier goes on an ego trip and while the

people in my riding.... Their trucks are broken down hauling

their produce to market. This Premier says he's a Premier of

the little people. I'll tell you, Mr. Minister of Highways: I

want more than $350,000. I want $1 million, and that won't even

solve the problem. I want $1 million day labour. If you've got

money to waste and squander — taxpayers' money to waste and

squander — and the Premier can travel all over the world, I

want more money.

I want more money for day labour. If not, I'm going to hound

you with all of these problems. I'm going to make you go up

there and face those people that I have to face and see the

tears in their eyes when their vehicles break down and they're

locked in. When it rains they can't get their children to

school or they can't get out to buy groceries. You sit there,

Mr. Minister of Highways and laugh — laugh over the problems of

those people. And the Premier laughs. Those are real problems,

Mr. Chairman; they're not airy-fairy problems. They're real

problems of real people, and this government completely ignores

them. This government is arrogant, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Alex Fraser is killing himself laughing at

you. (Laughter.)

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

Oral Roberts. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, we had an agreement last year

with the federal government: an agreement to upgrade certain

roads in the northern part of the province — an agreement that

was forced on the federal government, but nevertheless a good

agreement — an agreement to upgrade the Alaska Highway, an

agreement to upgrade the Hart Highway, an agreement to upgrade

Highway 16 from Prince George to Prince Rupert. There was

approximately, as near as I can figure out, some $800 million

in the overall agreement; there was approximately $1.5 million

spent last year. Mr. Chairman; this year the agreement has not

been re-signed. Are those projects on the Alaska Highway to

replace the Kiskatinaw Bridge, to upgrade the Hart Highway, to

upgrade Highway 16 coming to a grinding halt because this

agreement has not been signed again this year with Ottawa? Is

it going to be signed? Are you going to take advantage of that

federal money? Where are you?

I discussed this with you, Mr. Minister, a little while ago,

and you said negotiations were still going on. You know, it is

pretty near the end of June. Are

[ Page 3420 ]

you going to negotiate until September when the

cold weather

moves in and you can't do anything? Are you blaming it on

Ottawa and Ottawa blaming it on you? What is happening?

You made the agreement at the greatly touted Western Economic

Opportunities Conference held in Calgary. You said there was going to

be cooperation. What has happened to all of these glossy words that we

heard about there going to be a new day? Tell me, Mr. Minister, where

is this agreement at at the present time? Are you still negotiating

with Ottawa? Are you close to an agreement? Are you going to reach an

agreement this year so these projects can be carried on? I would like

to know.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home

Page ]

Copyright

© 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada