1974 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page

1757 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Highways estimates

On vote 98.

Mr. Fraser — 1757

Mr. McGeer — 1763

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1765

Mr. Phillips — 1768

Mrs. Jordan — 1769

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1774

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1779

Mr. Chabot — 1781

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 1974

The House met at 8 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 98: Minister's office, $110,176.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): That Member's already after me,

Mr. Chairman. I wish you'd bring him to order.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I enjoyed the Second Member for Vancouver-Little

Mountain's (Mr. Cummings') remarks before the supper recess,

complaining about the great City of Vancouver, deprived of all

the highways money. I was pleased to hear the Minister's answer

on that. They get a bridge every year that costs the Province

of British Columbia $40 million or $50 million. I think they're

well looked after actually. In fact, they get too much. I agree

with the Minister.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. FRASER: First of all, my remarks to the Minister. I

would like to congratulate him on his appointment; it's the

first time he has been on the hotseat as the Minister. He was

appointed in late May or early June and he's done a lot of

things around the province since that appointment: flying in

helicopters and going over all the bumpy roads via helicopter

and, oh, a few other things.

He has made a few speeches about tourism, if I recall. He was going to run

all the tourists out of the province, and not only that, he wants our local

citizens to stay at home in their backyards when they're on holidays because

he hasn't got time to build their roads. I don't think the majority of the citizens

of this province want that, and I was quite surprised to hear it. I understand

this address was made when the Minister was fairly new and didn't realize the

press was around. Well, he learned from that the hard way because, believe it

or not, those fellows are always around when you are in public life — except

when you want them. Take it from one who has had a couple of days' experience

on that.

The Minister certainly did make provincial headlines on that,

and I do think it did affect the tourist industry — I hope not

permanently. In all fairness to the Minister, I don't think he

meant what he said in that, and he did retract to a certain

degree.

The Minister has also made some remarks. I wish he would

write down a few of the questions I'll be asking when I talk

here for a few minutes tonight. If I recall, he recommended

that all our citizens buy Datsuns or some compact cars. I'd

like to know what kind of a car he's driving now. I suggest he

doesn't practise what he preaches; he isn't driving a Datsun. I

don't think it's fair to advise our citizens to buy these

import cars when he doesn't drive them himself.

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: I'd like to ask, before I leave the specific

subject of the Minister, how many executive assistants he has

got. I think he has three. I suggest he doesn't need any;

that's not a big department of government. He'll say he's just

carrying on as in the past. Well, he can't sell me that bill of

goods because any prior Minister has never had more than one. I

think they get $17,000-odd a year each, and I'd love to have

that $50,000 to build a couple of bush roads out in the

Chilcotin. We could build about 20 miles of road with that kind

of money as we didn't have to build it by highway

specifications.

But so much for the Minister. I will say to the Minister

that we're sure happy he comes from the northwest part of the

province. If he has to drive, he has to go through the Interior

of the province to the centre city of Prince George and drive

west as far as he has from Vancouver before he gets home. I

suggest he make that trip about once a month by car, and he'll

know what's going on. Right now he can't get to Prince George

if he leaves from Victoria because the frost boils are so deep

up in the Cariboo on Highway 97 that you practically need a

tractor.

I was very surprised and rather amused to see the bulletin

he put out the other day from his office: "Watch this new,

fancy sign and slow down." Well, believe me, they won't have to

look at a sign to slow down; the frost boils will slow them

down. I just say to the Minister, rather than issuing that kind

of a bulletin, fix the frost boils so they're safe for the

driving public.

I refer to the Minister's remarks before the supper hour.

I'm quite amazed at how he has given up so fast as the Minister

of Highways; he's only been the Minister for nine months. I

suggest the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board sure

sold him a bill of goods because he's accepted far too small an

amount in the budget for the Department of Highways. I think he

has really been conned into this deal.

[ Page 1758 ]

I refer to the Highways budget last year, and I'm trying to

relate the Highways budget in a priority position with the

overall budget. Last year approximately 10 per cent or 10 cents

of every dollar of public money — I'm using budget figures, not

accurate figures because the year hasn't closed — went to the

Department of Highways. This year, if you analyse the Highways

budget before us, it will work out to about 8 per cent. It's

obvious to me when you see this that Highways has less priority

than it has ever had.

I'm going to have an argument about that; it will be refuted

and so on. But the budget for the Department of Highways this

year is $212 million, more or less. But one wrong thing has

happened and I blame the Minister of Finance and the Treasury

Board for this. Our overall budget is $2.2 billion but, as

we've discussed here for the last month or so, we know very

well that's going to be in actual fact about $2.7 billion when

we come to March 31, 1975. And that's how I relate the

Highways' budget.

In my opinion, the Highways budget will be kept to what we

have here. We have an escalation in the total revenues of the

province, and so Highways goes down in priority. It certainly

upsets me, and I know it's going to upset the motorists and the

travelling public of this province as the months go by. No

matter what we think about the Highways department, they can't

do the job unless they have the funds. They have had a higher

priority in past years. I resent the fact that this government

has decided to play down the Department of Highways, a most

vital department of government.

I realize that Education and Health certainly should have

priority in the overall expenditure of public funds, but I

don't think there should be such a disparity in those

departments as related to the Highways department. I would

suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that it will cause trouble. While

I admit that Education and Health should have priority, I don't

think anyone has ever thought of the fact that if we haven't

got a decent transportation system through our highway system

we won't have any education. It will affect education; and

regarding health, the same thing applies. What is the good of

having modern hospitals and an ambulance service and so on if

you haven't got a transportation system to get the ambulances

and the sick people to the centres where they have to go for

this care? I think there are a lot of ramifications involved

here, and I certainly don't like to see what I have observed so

far in the short time I've had to analyse the Highways

budget.

There is another thing that's happening, of course, with the lowering of the

priority of the Highways department. Whether we like it or not, people are still

moving into this province and practically everybody today has a vehicle of some

sort. So here we have a cutback going on on the highways side of capital, particularly

in capital which is for new construction and so on. And we have an ever-increasing

demand on the existing highways system. Obviously there is going to be trouble

ahead.

I would like to go into another area. I've come to be

convinced that the Highways department, after all the laws and

the new bills that we've had from the new government, are still

the big dogs on the approval of subdivisions. I'm not convinced

that this should be so, because I think the Highways department

are biased in favour of the highway system. I'm not prepared

tonight to say who should have the final say, but what I am

saying is: they have the final say in our subdivisions. And I

don't think they should have.

I know they consult at a regional level, with the local

authorities and so on and so forth, but after all the red tape

has gone on about subdivision approval, all it takes is the

senior approving officer in Victoria to say no, and all the

local expertise is down the tube, as we say.

That is what's happening, as you know, to the opposition.

About every second day we're voted down the tube.

The Highways department has the hammer in the case of

subdivision control after it has gone through the process of

the local people. I don't think this is right.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I don't like to deal in

personalities, and I don't intend to. But even after it goes

through all the district level of Highways, the regional level,

it comes down to the senior approving officer in Victoria.

After this has gone through the regional district, the

subdivision, the municipality and everything else, it comes

down to this last final move — all he has to do is initial it,

and that's it. But you know, Mr. Chairman, he never initials

anything. That fellow should be renamed. His title now is

senior approving officer, and he should be renamed the senior

disapproving officer because he never approves anything.

The reason I'm stressing this, Mr. Chairman, is that I'm

pretty sure the Minister of Highways thinks this is fine. Well,

that's fine. He has to set the policy, and that's good. But I

think that municipal affairs, regional districts and that,

should be treated on an equal basis when we come to approving

subdivisions. I realize the Highways problem in approving

subdivisions: it puts a further stress and strain on the

highway system.

But I don't think this is a solution. Really what the

Department of Highways is saying here is that this is how they

are going to solve the growth patterns in our province. I don't

think we can solve it that way, by telling people who want to

subdivide for people to live on, that they can't; that the

final say is refused because it will put strain on a main

road.

[ Page 1759 ]

Maybe, Mr. Chairman, what the Highways department should

look at is giving out birth control pills. Maybe that's the

answer. I don't think what they are doing is the answer because

the people are coming in all the time. As far as I'm concerned,

I hope they keep coming. But I don't think this is the right

approach.

The right approach should be to approve subdivisions on an

orderly basis by the Highways department where it affects their

main highway system, and then upgrade the roads to accommodate

the increased traffic. They're saying that they are at a

standstill where you have a two-lane road. This applies in the

Interior and all over; all we have are two-lane roads. They

have no intention of expanding even to a third lane to

accommodate local traffic.

We've reached the point now where, through Bill 42 and all

this turn-down by the Highways department, there's no place

left to build in the Interior of the province. This is

absolutely ridiculous because there is lots of land available,

if you can get the necessary approval.

I don't say approve every subdivision. Certainly not. But

they are turning practically all of them down now, and it's of

course having the effect of increasing land for the citizens

who want to get established. I don't think it is right, to the

degree that they've taken it.

I want to go into another area in the Highways department

that hasn't been mentioned. I think it is a real can of worms.

I want to deal with the settlement of acquisition of property

by the Highways department. From experience that I've had an as

MLA there must be settlements in there that haven't...non-settlements that have been in that department 10 years.

It seems that the policy, and I direct this to the Minister,

is that the Highways department expropriates a man's land, they

build the road, it exists for seven or eight years — and they

have them in their file right now — and they don't do anything

about trying to settle with the citizen until he complains. He

complains once a year, "Why can't I get a settlement?" And he

goes through the whole circus. He doesn't get an answer; they

make an offer; he says, "I won't accept." The whole thing is

stalemated. There's something wrong with the whole policy.

I don't think our citizens should be treated that way. Maybe, Mr. Chairman,

I'm voicing opinions here that should be voiced at another level of government.

I refer to expropriation. I think we should have enacted long ago the recommendations

of the Law Reform Commission. It was recommended to government in 1970 or 1971

that we pay a fair price for land acquired by all government agencies, not only

Highways, but Hydro and so on. That is shelved in the cobwebs around here somewhere,

but I have seen it.

Just to go back for a minute on access roads and approval of

subdivisions. The Minister just recently announced, himself,

that over $100 million of development was tied up by his

department in some of the smaller areas of the province. I'll

name you those smaller places. The point I'm trying to make

here is that he didn't refer at all to any important places in

British Columbia. He refers to: Nanaimo, Penticton, Courtenay,

Salmon Arm, Abbotsford, Campbell River, Castlegar, Chilliwack,

Coquitlam, Cranbrook, Duncan, Fort St. John, Kamloops, Langley,

Port Coquitlam, Prince George, Revelstoke, Vernon and Whistler.

Well, really, I guess they are important places. I know many

more that the Minister didn't list, so I think he's probably

got at least $200 million worth of projects tied up.

I would like to ask the Minister: what, and when, is

anything going to be done, or is this all going to be brought

to a halt? I don't think that is his intention, but that's the

effect it is having at the present time.

I repeat, I haven't any answers to what we do to accommodate

the new citizens. I welcome them here, but we have to

accommodate them, and I think we've got troubles ahead over the

standstill attitude of the Highways department.

Well, the trouble is actually upon us because of the impact

of not getting further land for subdivisions approved. Of

course, the price of the existing land that is already approved

has doubled or tripled in the last 18 months, and I think

that's an injustice, particularly to the individual homeowner

trying to get going.

Mr. Chairman, there is another item in Highways that I hope

the Minister looks at. And by the way, there is one item that I

forgot. I'll go back to it.

I mentioned three executive assistants that the Minister

has, but there's no vote in his department for a Deputy

Minister. From what I can read, he hasn't got a Deputy

Minister, and I'd like him to tell this House what his plans

are. Does he intend to get one, and when? I think it is a vital

position, and according to the estimate book here there is a

blank for the vote. If he does appoint a Deputy Minister, I

don't know where he's going to get the money to pay him.

At the management level of the Highways department, this

province is now divided into four regional highway districts.

Quite frankly, I think the time has come, Mr. Chairman, to the

Minister, that we have to take a review of that. I don't know

when the province was regionalized, but we'll say that it was

seven or eight or 10 years ago that this level was created, and

I agree with this level. But I have two regional highway

engineers that cover my riding of Cariboo, and they are really

efficient people. I have no doubt that the other two regional

engineers are, also.

The point I am making is that there are only four

[ Page 1760 ]

of them in this province. I particularly refer to the

regional engineer in the central-north part of the province,

called Region 4. That gentleman has a territory from 40 miles

north of Williams Lake, which is not even central British

Columbia, right through to the north B.C. boundary, over the

Queen Charlotte Islands and back over to the Alberta boundary.

I suggest to you that it is a physical impossibility, no matter

who that person is, to properly look after an area of such a

huge size. Geographically it is over half the Province of

British Columbia. And a lot of roads in it.

What I'm really saying is it is just about as bad in Region

2, Kamloops. I think the time has come, Mr. Chairman, to the

Minister, to reconsider the whole regional structure. I would

like to see the province divided into eight regions. I realize

that's probably asking for a lot. But let's start this year

and, say, make it six regions to take the load off these very

responsible men who are carrying out these duties to the best

of their ability. But one day there's a problem in the Queen

Charlotte Islands, and the next day they have a problem in

McBride. This man certainly has a terrific responsibility. It

is far too much for any one person. I would like to see the

province divided into six at the minimum, preferably eight, and

start on that programme this year.

Mr. Chairman, ever since I've been an MLA here, and that

isn't that long, I've complained about the equipment that the

Highways people have to work with. I want to congratulate the

Minister and his department. In the estimates we are looking

at, this year the vote has gone from $4.5 million to $8

million, and believe me, that's good news for the whole

Province of British Columbia, as long as they are able to get

the equipment. I doubt that they will be able to get it because

of non-delivery by the suppliers. But certainly the money is

there, and I hope an early attempt is made. By that, I mean

tender calls to be called now, and maybe we can get some new

bulldozers, new trucks, new graders, front-end loaders, and all

the vital equipment that is needed before the end of the fiscal

year.

On the subject of equipment I have some other observations

to make. I'm now going to talk just for a minute about the

operation of the equipment. I think the Highways department

have got a real problem here. I really don't know the answer to

it, but they aren't any different than any other employer. They

are having a fair-sized turnover in staff because that's the

way to go these days; you don't stay at any one job too long.

I'm not critical of the fact, but it is a fact of life.

I would like to ask the Minister: is there any training programme for men you

hire as bulldozer operators, grader operators, or even truck drivers? I know

that you have a safety programme, training in that. But I don't think the training

programme is for a man hired off the streets. You give him a $35,000 bulldozer

and he doesn't know the front end from the back end. I'm not criticizing you

for this, because this is what you have to do because of the shortage of these

skilled people.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the Highways department is

not getting the better type of operator if they have to hire

them now, for the simple reason that industry is paying more

money, particularly in the case of heavy equipment. I refer to

the sawmill industry, the lumber industry. I know that you have

raised their salaries, but I still feel that you somewhat are

below the level of industry.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, while I'm on equipment, and

this is so very important, not only whether you have a good

operator on a bulldozer or a grader or a truck, but you have to

have a quality piece of machinery. I'm not satisfied, Mr.

Chairman, to the Minister. I talked about this for the last two

years. It is my opinion that they are still buying junk, brand

new equipment that's junk.

I know I can't say this outside of the House because I would

have most of the manufacturers of the equipment handing me a

lawsuit. But I feel very strongly about this. I'll never

understand why this Purchasing Commission.... I brought this

up, Mr. Chairman, through the Minister of Finance, and he asked

me to bring it up in the individual departments. I'll never

understand why certain departments — and I'll name one

department, Forestry — can buy deluxe equipment or anything

they want — four-wheel drives equipped with two-way radios,

deluxe cabs, heavy-duty tires — the whole biscuit. The Highways

departments have got the money, they've sent the requisition to

the Purchasing Commission, and they say, "Oh, you don't need

that kind of stuff. You buy a pickup that has no wheels or

tires on it," and a three-speed transmission in the

pickup instead of an automatic, a standard cab instead of a

deluxe. I don't think the Highways department needs to take

that kind of guff from the Purchasing Commission.

I would like to know why they are taking it. Mr. Chairman,

to the Minister of Highways, what is happening? I want to use a

grader as an example, never mind the pickup. It happens from a

pickup right through to the biggest bulldozer you can buy, but

I'll use a grader as an example, which is a very vital piece of

equipment in the Highways department....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would hope that the Hon.

Member will save some of his remarks for the specific vote,

vote 105.

MR. FRASER: I intend to repeat them when we get to the

specific vote, you know.

We have a new Minister here, and I really believe when he's

a new Minister that he is interested in getting efficiency out

of the department, and this is

[ Page 1761 ]

part of the reason he can't: we are not getting the right

equipment.

What they are buying, thanks to the Purchasing Commission.... The Highways department tells them they want a grader of

150 horsepower, so they call a tender for that grader, and then

they add a whole bunch of junk onto the grader. It finally ends

up that they buy the one with the price in the lowest column.

The machine goes out, and they haven't bought a 150-horsepower

grader at all. With all the attachments on it they are actually

developing about 100 horsepower. Then you have failures, and

the people are wondering why the snowplough didn't come, why

the road wasn't graded in the summer months. And it's because

they bought inferior equipment that has broken down, is in down

time, and they have spent more time broken down than

operating.

I'm not here to sell equipment, and I have no shares in

equipment. But I did sell equipment for 15 years, and there are

one or two makes of equipment that can be bought for more money — $4,000 or $5,000 a machine, in relation to graders. But it

will go all the time, and it doesn't break down. I would like

to ask the Minister: who is keeping track of the down time of

the equipment in the Department of Highways? Whoever it is is a

pretty poor bookkeeper, or they would have come up years ago and

found out the economy they are losing by not keeping track of

the down time of this equipment.

The other thing is that the citizens of this province are

not getting the service on the roads when they are

monkey-wrenching this inadequate and far less than adequate

quality.... That's what's causing the whole problem. I

understand they still won't let them buy it, but they'll let

the Forest Service.... The Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), he can get anything for

the Forestry boys. But the Minister of Highways, he's got to

play third fiddle, and I resent that.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): The Premier's afraid

of him.

MR. FRASER: There's another thing; there's a discriminating

policy in the Department of Highways. I don't think the

Minister knows about this. I don't blame him for it, but it's

an old policy I'd like him to look at. I might be wrong, but I

don't think I am. Where you have a suburban area and a

subdivision goes in — this is not, say, a mile or so off an

arterial highway, but it is not within a municipality — the

subdivider has to build the roads and bring them up to your

standards, and then you take them over, forever, for

maintenance.

In the lower mainland for quite a number of years, Mr. Chairman, the Highways

department has insisted that these roads be paved. In the Interior this is not

the case from Hope north. There is no requirement that the subdivision roads

be paved. Now we're faced with a situation where thousands of people live outside

the municipalities with gravel roads. They are of a standard; all they need

is a capping. They were built to a standard of the Highways department by the

subdivider. But we let them get away with not paving them. Now we have subdivisions

with 2,000 or 3,000 people in them, and they want the roads paved. The Highways

department — it's their road, and they won't do anything about it. They just

say, "It's not our policy." So the citizen in this area continues to swallow

dust and plough his own roads in the wintertime.

We can't get away with this much longer. The Highways

department are doing the best they can, but the final solution

to this is to cap those roads. As I say, they have a face,

they're built to a face, and they certainly can be capped.

There are as many people in the Interior now living outside

municipalities and their fringe areas as there are inside

municipalities, which is a municipal responsibility. The

Minister might say, "Well, they're not; they're paying a dollar

a year taxes." You check your rolls and you'll find out that

they're paying taxes about the same as the municipal person is,

and they haven't got the services. You've got the

responsibility, and I'd like you to look at it and see what

you're going to do about it.

Another subject I'd like to bring up, Mr. Chairman, is

cattle underpasses. I want to say, first of all, that cattle

underpasses are a safety measure for all the motorists of this

province. We've got a few cows and we've got a few cowboys in

the Cariboo. We've got 270 miles of arterial highway, Highway

97. Over the years we've got that highway fenced pretty well

now, but there are still a few cattle underpasses to put

in.

I was quite upset the other day when I got a letter from the

Minister that because this farmer's cows do not cross Highway

97 six times a year, he can't have a cattle underpass. They

won't even accept his share, which he's ready to pay. A cattle

underpass, for the information of the city Members, costs about

$10,000, installed. The formula we have is that the farmer

pays $1,000 and the Department of Highways pays $9,000. In

order to get a cattle underpass the cows have got to cross six

times.

You know, Mr. Chairman, what the Minister said on this

cattle underpass? It's on Highway 97. He said: "Mr. Member,

we're turning that down because his cows don't cross six times

a year. They only cross three." And he says, "You tell your

farmer to get a horse and chase his cows across and don't worry

about the cattle underpass."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a lot of bull.

[ Page 1762 ]

MR. FRASER: Well, you try that some day with 500 head of

beef stock that have just come off the range. Try crossing them

on a busy highway like Highway 97, even in the Cariboo. You

know, there'd be just a slaughter. I know you have to have

guidelines, but I don't think the Highways department again are

looking at the safety of the motorist. All they worry about is

the cost of the underpass, and I don't think it's good

enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: It makes the road pretty slippery.

MR. FRASER: At one place that this has been turned down, I

personally have seen 25 bad accidents there in the last three

years — dead cows and hurt children and hurt drivers, and so

on. It's not a nice sight to see.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where at?

MR. FRASER: You wouldn't know if I told you, Mr. Minister of

Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford).

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member again if he could

leave some of the material that he's got for the separate

votes, because it would seem more appropriate for some of the

material, at least, to be included under specific votes.

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I don't know why you're accusing

me of carrying on. That Minister over there, of Recreation: you

never called him to order. He's got nothing to do with Highways

at all. It takes me time to get rid of him.

Another item I think should be looked into, Mr. Chairman, is

the rental of private equipment by the Department of Highways.

I resent what some of your district managers are doing on the

rental of equipment from good operators. They have a large

investment. They're independent businessmen. They have graders;

they have bulldozers; they have trucks. They go into some of

your offices, and they say, "Here's our equipment." They'll

work by your rental rate. So they sign them up — just recently

for four weeks snow ploughing...one grader. That operator

took that machine off a sawmill job for ploughing roads, put it

to work for the Department of Highways, was signed on for four

weeks work, and he was laid off in eight days.

I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that nobody should do business that way. That's

not fair. That's something that needs to be.... I think that's administrative,

but I think that should be looked into. This owner of equipment has his life's

savings tied up in that. That equipment has to work. He could have got the job

with the lumber company. But because the Department of Highways was in a bind,

he set his grader ploughing there; and then eight days later he's laid off.

He goes back to the lumber company — and certainly they've got another grader,

and he hasn't got that job. That's not playing cricket.

I'm very unhappy, Mr. Chairman, about the money in the

budget. I'm more particularly unhappy about the Minister's

remarks before 6 o'clock, where he seems to accept it as a fait

accompli. In the budget here we haven't got enough money under

capital to look after inflation, and we're going to go

backwards in 1974 on capital projects.

I believe the figure's from $100 million to $110 million.

Inflation is going to more than use that up, Mr. Chairman. I

think that you have got to learn to be a better salesman when

you're talking to the Minister of Finance, because you got

slickered on that deal.

On the maintenance vote, I believe it's up from $49 million

to $69 million, and that's a good deal. Again, inflation is

going to eat into that quite considerably, but at least it's a

slight increase.

I'm not quite finished for a while here, Mr. Chairman.

There's been an air around this place for a month that "We're

in a hurry...and get out of here and go to Japan and play

rugby." Well, I'm not going to Japan to play rugby, and I'm not

in any hurry to leave here. I want to do the public's business,

so don't try and stampede me into anything.

Another thing, Mr. Minister, through the Chairman, dealing

with arterial routes in this province: I heard your remarks

earlier, and I completely agree that the city slicker is using

our freeways for streets. I've seen the mess there and

definitely those cities should smarten up and find a better way

to move the traffic than plugging our freeways, which are our

main routes through this province. It's disgraceful, and it

should be Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster looking after

that. I agree, and I'll support you completely.

I think we've got a good carrier system as far as Hope. But

from Hope to the Interior we're in trouble, in real trouble,

whether you go to Hope-Princeton or Trans-Canada and the Fraser

Canyon. I'd like to get the remarks of the Minister on

that.

The Fraser Canyon is absolutely plugged solid about nine

months of the year. It's completely inadequate. Hope-Princeton

is worn out. We've done some work on it, but it's a tough

grade. There has to be, in my opinion, a third route found from

Hope into the Interior. I believe some engineering has been

done on this. I'd like to hear from the Minister if there have

been any decisions made at his level to find this third route

and get on with the construction of it. If we do, it will take

10 years to build it. So we're already 10 years late.

[ Page 1763 ]

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): We're 21 years

late.

MR. FRASER: No, no, no. The only figure you fellows can use

is 20 years. There were some good things happening in that 20

years, Mr. Minister of Public Works. It just happens that I'm

recommending a third route that goes right through your riding,

and I haven't heard you say a thing about it. Your riding has

just as much trouble as mine. So go back and put some more

marble on the walls.

But, Mr. Chairman, we are in serious trouble. I think the

engineering division have a pretty good idea what they want to

do. I further — heard some bad stories about the Fraser Canyon.

If any part of those rumours are correct, we're in far more

trouble than I've related here tonight.

Regarding an access from the coast, I don't know whether it

should go from Hope to Merritt. Whether it should go from

Pemberton to Lillooet, I don't know. But it should go somewhere,

and somebody should be making some decisions and start moving

the rocks.

An item or two on surplus land property. Does anybody know

in the Department of Highways how much surplus land they've

got? I don't think they do. I'd like to know if they've got an

inventory of the surplus property. If they have, what's their

policy on disposal of it? Will they sell it by auction? Will

they lease it by action? Will they give it away? What will they

do? You have lots of surplus property in this province and, if

it is surplus, declare it so and put it on the market so the

citizens can buy it and it can generate some taxes.

We've seen for the first time this year in a long, long time

a deliberate government policy to make the Highways department

a profit department of government by the taxes derived from the

vehicles which use the highways. For the first time this year

there will be more revenue from gas tax, fuel tax, motor-fuel

tax, motor-vehicle licences taken into the general revenue than

will be spent on the whole Highways department. I don't think

that is fair or just. You should tell the Minister of Finance

that, Mr. Minister. At least you should get what those roads

generate or are in the process of generating through these

taxes. As I say, it's the first time because of the increased

revenues from fuel taxes and so on that you'll see the Highways

department actually being a net profit to the general revenue

pot. It is really a service department and was never meant to

be a profit department of government.

I think I've said enough, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to close and say that

I'm quite worried about the position the new Minister is in with his very low

priority in the overall government policy spelled out in this budget. It disturbs

me greatly. I only hope that if he needs more money, he can go back with his

tin cup later in the year like all the school boards have to do and so on as

the Premier has told them. I hope you go back with a bucket, Mr. Minister, and

you can get it filled.

The Cariboo gold rush started in 1863. All the people in

those days went in by saddle horse and horse and buggy, and

we're going to be right back to horse and buggy if you don't

get some corrective action. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just point out that we do allow a

certain latitude on the Minister's vote, but there are other

votes which cover most of the topics.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd like to ask the

Minister a few questions regarding his views of the general

highway situation in British Columbia and the people who use

those highways.

Last summer in Prince George the Minister made a speech in

which he made some pretty frank and candid statements to the

chamber of commerce there. He was reported, as he should have

been, for those statements. Essentially the message he had was

that U.S. campers ought to be banned from British Columbia

roads. The next day, in the Vancouver Province , on August 1,

1974, there's a report which says.... August 1, 1973. I'm

getting as mixed up as the Minister. I'm in trouble. It is

headlined: "Did I say that?"

The Minister of Highways said the next day at a press

conference that he offered some personal viewpoints, that he

felt campers should be banned only "if we run out of places to

camp." But the president of the chamber of commerce, John

Rahier, said the Minister's comments were of little thought and

understanding, despite denials by the Minister. He further said

that the Minister was quoted exactly correctly in his speech to

the Prince George Chamber of Commerce and that the revision of

his story at a press conference the next day came only after

he'd been chided by the Provincial Secretary and tourism

Minister (Hon. Mr. Hall) for making statements about

tourism.

The Provincial Secretary, mind you, himself had said the

previous October that he believed tourists in campers didn't

spend enough money during their vacations.

There seems to be kind of a pattern here of a Minister of

the Crown saying one thing one day and denying that he said it

the next. We even have it spilling into the backbench a little

bit. There's a story that same day in the Vancouver

Province saying,

"Colin Gabelmann and Jim Lorimer had words at the recent NDP

convention because all the Burnaby-Seymour delegates were from

Seymour and none from Burnaby. Gabelmann, when approached later for comment, said that he would

deny anything that appeared in print."

[ Page 1764 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Just like the Premier, he denies anything he

is going to say.

MR. McGEER: I just don't know, Mr. Chairman; these stories

that appear in print are very difficult for the cabinet to cope

with. I would hate to think that the backbench was....

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Let me go on with this quotation.

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

MR. McGEER: The Minister of Labour clearly asked a question

and, if it's the House's wish, I'll answer it. (Laughter.) "He

said that anything that happened was internal NDP

politics."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member confine

his remarks to the estimates of the Minister of Highways?

MR. McGEER: Yes, I'm doing that, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: I don't know what the Minister of Highways' game

really is in this matter of tourism in British Columbia. I have

here a news release from that Minister dated March 11, 1974.

This is some months after he has had his knuckles rapped by the

Provincial Secretary, but here it is under the Department of

Highways' green and orange logo, saying,

"Let me explain right away that I am in no way contradicting

the objectives or views of my colleague, the Minister of Travel

Industry, when I call for this re-evaluation. However, the

question is not whether or not we will allow tourists to come

to British Columbia. Of course, we will continue to welcome

those who come to visit us. The problems which have created

this need for re-evaluation arise from the question: how will

tourism be integrated in the new way of life we are attempting

to develop in this province?"

I'd like to ask the Minister what this new way of life is

that makes us want to kick out tourists from British Columbia.

He asks a question but he doesn't say what this new way of life

we're to have is going to be that requires we kick out the

tourists.

"The days of old, uninhibited exploitation of resources are over. By the same token, I would venture the opinion that

the old days of uninhibited tourism are over."

I ask the Minister, what kind of uninhibited tourism did we

have in this province?

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

Streakers! (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: Were they streakers? Were they bootleggers? What

sort of uninhibited tourists did we have?

"The time has come for all British Columbians to ask some

penetrating questions about tourism. You and I, as workers this

close to the industry, should take the lead in asking such

questions. Are working people, particularly people in the

travel industry, getting their fair share of the dollars spent

by tourists?"

AN HON. MEMBER: Hire only taxis.

MR. McGEER: Yes, and the services of taxi drivers.

Are we using too much of our scarce valley lands, putting in

roads mostly designed to service vacationers?

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) says yes. The Minister of

Highways merely asked a question, and the Minister of Tourism

(Hon. Mr. Hall) looks glum. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Smile, Ernie.

MR. McGEER: What does the dependence on such a fickle human

need as travelling do to an economy that needs stability? Are

the tourists fickle? Mr. Chairman, is this new way of life to

end the fickleness of travel and vacations in British

Columbia?

"What are the inflationary aspects of tourism? Should our

own people be forced to bear high costs created by a seasonal

boom caused by tourists? Does it want them here, using the

motels?"

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Don't you

ever leave Point Grey?

MR. McGEER: I leave Point Grey a lot. I like our highways,

Mr. Chairman, and I like the fact that we have tourists coming

here, bringing tourist dollars. It's the cleanest industry of

all, the industry most valuable to those who offer services in

British Columbia, and the service industry make up by far the

largest employment in the province. I like tourists. I think

they are our greatest friends. I think

[ Page 1765 ]

the tourists have added a great deal to our economy. I think

they have made our life better, not worse, and I think we have

a great future in British Columbia by encouraging tourism, not

only of our own citizens, but citizens from all over the

world.

"What are the indirect effects of the sudden arrival of

hundreds of thousands of tourists on our community services,

such as our streets and roads, and on our resources, such as

our petroleum?" He doesn't want them buying gas, even.

"Are our own people being squeezed out of hospitality

facilities and recreational areas by our tourists? We are like

a family with a beautiful home. We are proud to have guests,

and want our guests to enjoy themselves. But there is a point

when a party becomes too big. The crush of people becomes too

much. Neither guests nor hosts are enjoying it any more."

The Minister of Highways has asked some questions, but the

very nature of the questions he asks gives an indication of the

answers he has in mind. He is a Minister of the Crown, and

presumably he has a considerable influence on the adequacy of

our highways in British Columbia. It seems to me the suggestion

is that we shouldn't build more highways in British Columbia.

Instead we should kick the tourists off the roads.

Up in Prince George he stated what his policy was. He got

justifiably chewed out by the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon.

Mr. Hall) and he called a press conference to revise his story

the next day. He doesn't seem to have revised his attitudes. He

has just got a little cleverer way of putting his point across.

He asked the questions. There has been some reaction besides

that of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall). Three days

later we have got a story in The Province on March 14:

"Keep Nose Out of Tourism, Highways Minister Lea Told." The

advice came from Bert Dann, public relations director of the

B.C. Motels, Resorts and Trailer Parks Association.

" 'He doesn't know what he is talking about. He should clean

up his own highways first. I don't think he should be

interfering or making statements concerning another

department.' Dann also disputed Lea's analogy of the province

as a beautiful home that begins to show the strain when the

crush of people becomes too great. 'The home he refers to is

owned by 65 per cent of the people of B.C. — 60 to 65 per cent

are B.C. tourists, who are already paying 15 cents a gallon in

provincial gasoline taxes year-round. The rest come from other

parts of Canada and the U.S. Our border doors, Alberta and

Washington state, swing both ways. We don't want them to bar

our tourists.' "

I think that is a fair statement by Mr. Dann. People from

British Columbia like to visit California, Washington and

Oregon. What would the world be like if we said we don't want

anybody else coming into British Columbia than the people who

live here, and all the other places said: "We don't want

anybody from British Columbia coming into our back yard"?

Do you see how parochial it is possible to become when you

start getting small minds into office? You know, just this past

year the United States tourists to British Columbia actually

decreased in percentage. I think it is something that should

concern us, not warm our hearts. Last year it was down to 20

per cent from the previous year's 22 per cent. Those are

figures from the Canadian Tourist Office.

Mr. Chairman, I sense a little bigotry over there. It's not

by any means shared by all the people in the cabinet, because I

think the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mr. Hall) is doing

a fantastic job. He has promoted all kinds of excellent things.

He has given us a tartan. I know when we pass that Act he is

going to be out there with the first British Columbia tartan

that is manufactured.

Sincerely, Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister is to be

commended. He truly has done a first-class job in promoting

British Columbia around the world.

MR. PHILLIPS: How many yards?

MR. McGEER: I can tell you know how many threads. I think

his position is being undermined by some members of the cabinet

who don't have as broad an approach. (Laughter.) I don't refer

to the Minister of Highways.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister of Highways tonight.... He does have an interest in this, because the state of

highways is important to tourism. He is a member of the

cabinet, and cabinet sets overall policy. I think the Minister

of Highways tonight had better stop asking questions and lay

his attitudes right on the line, so that the people of British

Columbia can know exactly where he stands on this important

subject.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Chairman, that is

one of the better speeches that I have heard in this House, the

one that was read by the Hon. Member.

I was asked a great many questions by the Hon. Member for

Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). Is he by a monitor somewhere? Maybe he is

not, so we will just deal, Mr. Chairman, with the question of

tourism and my views on it. I do think that it comes under some

aspects of my jurisdiction. I am talking about when we get an

influx of vehicles into the province, where it causes

congestion on our highways, where we are going to spend money

to build new highways, or improve the

[ Page 1766 ]

ones we have, to facilitate an influx of tourists. I think I

do have a stake in my jurisdiction on tourism.

It's interesting to hear Mr. Dann being quoted because I

heard him on CBC radio on the morning programme, and he had

some very interesting views himself. He believes that in the

wintertime the Minister of Recreation and Conservation should

close up all the parks because it's an infringement on the

private sector. All the parks should be closed so that parks

that are paid for and camping grounds that are paid for by the

people of British Columbia cannot be used by the people of

British Columbia. They should be shut down so people are forced

to go to the private sector in the winter months when they're

having a hard time.

That's free enterprise for you. If that's the kind of free

enterprise the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer)

subscribes to, then, I'm telling you, it's the kind I don't

subscribe to.

I'd like to make myself clear on my views on tourism. I

believe there is no way we can have an equitable situation in

a country of 20 million people when we live next to a

highly-mobile country of over 200 million. It seems to me we're

going to come out on the short end of the stick somewhere,

especially if that other country is going to have to put on gas

rationing and we don't do it in this country. I think the

influx of big vehicles into this country would be a mess; I

don't think it's the kind of influx we would find

desirable.

The Liberal Party may find it desirable, but if you're

driving home to the Cariboo, Mr. Member and you get behind 20

campers and can't get by — the road is congested — then I think

you may change your mind.

I didn't say we didn't want tourists; I said we should

re-evaluate and see what kind of tourists we want. I don't want

tourists coming in plugging up the highways when they're not

bringing that many dollars in. I'd like to see an evaluation of

that done and I think the Minister of Travel Industry said the

same thing, not what was said he said tonight in this

House.

It seems to me that the chambers of commerce in this

province would welcome what I have said. If we bring tourists

in in another manner, they're going to stay in our hotels,

they're going to eat in our restaurants, sleep in our motels,

and they're going to spend some money in this province. If

they're going to come, let's get some money out of it for the

people of British Columbia.

Even when they come in their campers, they bring gasoline

with them, they bring food with them. Even if they buy gasoline

here, who owns the companies? Where do those dollars go? Back

to the United States.

MR. PHILLIPS: Tell us more. The more you talk, the deeper

you dig yourself in.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, you should see the letters coming in,

Mr. Member.

I see the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) is back, so I'd

like to deal with some of the questions raised by the Member.

He mentioned the amount of dollars in highways this year to

spend. He mentioned that the ratio isn't the same as it has

been in past years; that it's down. I'd like to remind the

Member that it's up 18 per cent over last year. The ratio

towards the total budget, I quite readily admit, is down. But I

think we should judge spending in the Highways department on

the absolute need for spending and not be bound by ratio. The

ratios don't mean that much to me.

The Hon. Member also asked about subdivisions and whether

the Highways department should be in the business of looking

over and supervising subdivisions. In most of the cases along

highways, the Highways department does have a great stake in

it. In other parts of unorganized territories, I'd like to see

a review, along with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to see

whether possibly that isn't where it should go. Believe me, I

don't enjoy dealing with those areas that don't concern

highways; it's not under my jurisdiction.

There is a phenomenon going on and has been going on in this

province for a great many years when we talk about subdivisions

outside of communities, outside the boundaries of municipal

communities.

MR. FRASER: That's what I was talking about.

HON. MR. LEA: People move out there, in my opinion, in many

cases, to get away from paying their fair share within the

municipal boundaries.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: No, I'm not. What happens many times is that

those people move out there, form a community off the road, but

sooner or later are using that arterial highway between that

bedroom community and the municipality where they work, where

they go in to be entertained in the evening, as a municipal

street. All of a sudden you have an arterial highway that's so

congested the traffic which would like to go from one region to

another can't get through. There's a bottleneck, and traffic can

only flow as fast as that bottleneck. If they want to build a

municipal road from that bedroom community into the

municipality, then who cares, from my point of view, dealing

with it in terms of highways?

Also, the Hon. Member for Cariboo mentioned the fact that I

had said I was very concerned about the number of shopping

centres being built in communities throughout British Columbia.

He suggested that possibly the senior approving officer with

the Department of Highways never makes a

[ Page 1767 ]

good decision. I'd like to say I have the greatest faith in

the senior approving officer within the Department of Highways;

I think he's doing a terrific job. He's been doing the job

against insurmountable odds. Every municipal body practically

in the province has been after him to approve what they feel

they should have; every developer in the province is bringing

pressure onto the municipality to bring pressure onto the

senior approving officer; pressure is being brought on the

senior approving office directly from developers.

In some ways I don't blame the municipality; they're looking

for a tax base, so they want that new shopping centre within

their community. But very seldom do they take into

consideration the kind of stress and strain that puts on the

transportation corridors of the province, especially in terms

of free flow from one region to another.

I believe there is a role for the central body to govern

what kind of development and where it goes along highways.

Sooner or later we're congested. Then what happens? The

municipal body comes and says, "Will you build a bypass?" So

you spend millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money; you

build a bypass; you allow commercial development. Then they

come back and say, "Will you build a bypass?" You allow the

commercial development — and it goes on and on and on.

We can't even afford that luxury because of geography and

topography in British Columbia. Sooner or later there's no

place to move over. We have to take a firm stand, in my

opinion, right now to curb that kind of development. I read in

an old newspaper not too long ago where Robert Bonner made that

speech in 1953. He told his colleagues that if they didn't take

note of what was going on, we would have the kind of problem we

have today. Obviously, the people responsible for highways in

this province over the years have not paid note to Mr. Bonner

and we have a situation we can't live with for very much

longer.

The Member for Cariboo mentioned the expropriation of

property, and I agree. I agree that we need a revision, and that

revision is being done now by the Attorney-General's

department. I'm not happy with it. To me it works against the

workers the way it is now. If you go through property that's of

a lower socio-economic situation and you pay that man the

market value, he can't locate anywhere else with the kind of

money you pay him, even though you do pay him a fair market

value for his property.

If you go through West Vancouver, pay the owner $70,000 for his property, he

can locate almost anywhere in the city. Those people from whom you expropriate

property through arbitration and through negotiation in the lower socio-economic

parts of town just cannot relocate for that kind of money. I believe we should

be looking at a relocation value as opposed to the market value. I hope the

Attorney-General does take that into consideration. I'll be having a talk with

him about that because I do run into that problem.

The Hon. Member mentioned the number of regions and

districts in the province in the Highways department. I agree;

again it's under review. We are going to be going to six

regions soon, and we're also looking at the districts. The

northern region is far too big; no man, as you said, can

possibly look after it. We are looking at that.

You mentioned the equipment and the Purchasing Commission to

me in a private conversation and again here in the House

thinking that they do dictate to the Highways department.

That's not true. The Purchasing Commission is given

specifications that they order from, and they take tile lowest

bidder. Possibly we should look at not taking the lowest

bidder. I've asked my department to look into that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now you're talking.

HON. MR. LEA: There are training programmes for operators

and for mechanics. We have an extensive programme at BCIT as

far as operators go. We do have on-job training for mechanics

and the other trades relating around the repair and maintenance

of equipment. I know the Minister of Education and the Minister

of Labour are taking an active interest in speeding up and

facilitating training of more tradesmen in the province.

They're taking consideration also of the kinds of people needed

within the Department of Highways. So I would hope that

improves.

Wages have been raised, but they're still not comparable to

industry, and I think they should be. I think that after the

negotiations with the unions they may be. I don't think because

you work for government you should get any less or any more

than you get in private industry. You should get as much. In

many cases it's a more important job.

Rental rates haven't been reviewed since the spring of 1972.

Obviously the rates for rental equipment must be reviewed and

the conditions of the contract must also be looked at.

Surplus land that the Highways department acquires through

right-of-way purchases, negotiations and expropriations. If

that land is at all appropriate for farming, I get in touch

with the Land Commission and ask them if they would be

interested. If it looks like it might be good housing land or,

indeed, if there is housing on the land, then I get in touch

with the Department of Housing. My policy is that we do not

sell Crown land; we will lease it on bid, but we do not sell

Crown land. I don't believe that's the direction we should be

going.

The Member mentioned the taxes derived from gas tax. They

have had a very sad experience in the

[ Page 1768 ]

United States of earmarking dollars for roads. You have a

tendency that way to spend all the money coming in. In the

States there have been huge amounts of money, and they've

actually spent money, in my opinion, unwisely all over the

United States where they have that in effect. I don't think

it's a wise policy for the government to earmark tax dollars

for one particular department or one particular area of

concern. You have a tendency, as I said, to spend that money no

matter what. Even if you don't need to spend it, you spend it.

I don't think that's the way it should be. You should have to

say here's the kind of dollars I need to do it, and make the

case. If you have all the dollars coming in, I don't think it's

the right way to go.

You talk about the frost boils. I know it's bad; it happens

with a combination of the kind of winter you have: the moisture

and the frost intensity. Some years you have it in a more

pronounced way than other years. Believe me, the department is

aware of it and working to solve the frost boil problem.

I think I've covered all the points you made, Mr.

Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's been very interesting sitting here listening to the

Minister because what I was afraid of, unfortunately, he has

assured me is true. This Minister has absolutely no vision as

to what should be done in the Department of Highways; he has no

ability to recognize what an important portfolio he has in this

province. Certainly, the Department of Highways is now strictly

a holding operation.

I sometimes think, after listening to some of the

conversation since his departmental estimates have come up, the

Premier must have said to the Minister, "Look, you're pretty

lucky to be in the cabinet; don't come up here wanting any more

money, or you won't be there at all." It's for sure he doesn't

believe in his department, and it's for sure that he's not going

to fight for his department. It's a no-priority issue this

year.

Maybe they're still living with the fact that they used to

call us, when we were government, the blacktop government.

There was vision; the province was opened up with courage,

engineering novelties, new ideas. Certainly that day is long

past under this Minister. I doubt if he'll even do a good

holding operation.

I can understand the Minister of Highways saying that he

doesn't want too many people to use the highways, particularly

the American tourists who come in and leave their dollars,

don't pollute the area or take anything out of the country, and

leave nothing but money.

The Minister was up in the north last summer, and he didn't use the highways.

No, not at all. The Minister came up to do a survey of certain aspects of the

highways, but he didn't use the highways. He's got a new method of checking the

highways. No, not a canoe...

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...not a boat....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, the Minister used a helicopter — complete

with executives, complete with the engineers in the department.

They set down here and they set down there where the road is

good. They take a look. Reminds me of some other Ministers I

used to know who came out from Ottawa to check the Alaska

Highway. They had men out there with rakes making sure every

rock was in place before he went over it in his air-conditioned

bus. But this Minister used a helicopter. How in heaven's name

can the Minister of Highways justify...?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know what the cost was. It wasn't a

small helicopter either; it was a large helicopter complete

with crew.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's nice to have a crew along.

MR. PHILLIPS: So he came up in the great north country from

Prince Rupert over to the Peace River area, hopped around, sat

down wherever he thought things would look all right to check

into the highway situation. Maybe that's where a lot of his

budget is going; maybe we're going to have a hell-of-a-copter

department.

I want to talk about a couple of items which are of

particular interest before I get into some of the major issues

in my own riding.

A year ago or two years ago in December of 1972, I had a

call from the departmental engineer.

He said to me, "Would you be against our ceasing and

desisting the ploughing of farmers' driveways in the area?"

I said I certainly would. I would be against it, and I would

fight you every inch of the way if you stop this very important

service which you provide to the rural community in the Peace

River area.

He said, "Well, we're thinking about it. It causes a lot of

problems." I can see it caused some problems for the engineers,

but some of these farmers have lengthy roads from the highway

into their farm buildings. Equipment wasn't available, and they

do it in their spare time after the main roads are

ploughed.

So what happened this year, Mr. Chairman? I'm down in

Victoria from September 8 until

[ Page 1769 ]

approximately the middle of November. Then I go travelling

with the agriculture committee and I don't get back into my

riding until about December 8. What happened while I was gone?

Without any consultation this year whatsoever, in what I

consider is a dirty, rotten, low-down, sneaky trick by the

Department of Highways, that service was ceased. No

consultation with the Member from the area this year. No, I was

away; I was working on the people's business this fall. so the

service was stopped. Sure, the service was stopped. They said

there are private people in the area who could provide this

service — at $15 an hour.

What has happened in one of the worst snow winters we've had

in the area? In two instances I know of there were near deaths

of children because they couldn't get their roads ploughed out.

Maybe this is the way this Minister wants to operate. Well, if

he does, I'm very disappointed indeed. As I've said in this

Legislature before, this government provides few enough

services to the people in the north country who put up with

severe climatic conditions in that area — both summer and

winter — to make it easy for the rest of the people in this

province to live off the fat of the land. We talk about a need

to increase agricultural production, and what do you do at every

turn of the wheel? You give the farmer your backhand. That's

exactly what you do.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Never you mind, Mr. Woody Woodpecker, your

time's coming. It'll be around in about two weeks when your

estimates come up.

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

That soon?

MR. PHILLIPS: This is a government for the small people;

this is a government of the people. When the Member who

represents the people is out of town working for the people,

what do you do?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's your leader?

MR. PHILLIPS: Where's your leader? My leader will be here a

lot longer than your leader will be here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Will the Hon. Member confine

his remarks to the Minister's vote?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I am talking about the area you

represent, as well as the area I represent; I am talking about

the north country. I want to tell you, I won't forget that for

some time. Neither will the people of my constituency or other

northern constituencies.

I want to talk for just a few moments about a road I have discussed in this Legislature before, going to an

area which is being developed, an area where there is one of

the greatest coal deposits probably in the world — a world, I

might add, which is short of energy — going to an area which at

the present time has one of the greatest natural gas fields

under development anywhere in North America, an area in which

this gas came into being in the spring of 1972, an area which

is generating hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of wealth

and wages and equipment and supplies every month.

What is happening to this wealth being generated? It is

being siphoned off to the Province of Alberta because of the

lack of vision on the part of this Minister and this government

to see that there is a highway into that area so that those

benefits can flow to the Province of British Columbia and to

the Peace River area.

The Minister came up in his helicopter; he flew over the

area; he settled down there. Then he settled down in Dawson

Creek and went on a fishing trip. Yes, he went on a fishing

trip on that lake they call Williston Lake that is supposed to

be so polluted no boat is safe on it. But he went on there with

the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce

(Hon. Mr. Lauk), and they got some fish.

Where is the vision necessary in this Department of

Highways? I am not going to tell the Minister of Highways

through what area this road should be constructed. There are

three of four possible routes. Maybe that is why he can't make

a decision. I wonder how long it is going to take this Minister

to realize where his responsibility lies? How long is it going

to take him to grasp the responsibility he has in this

province? Maybe he never will, and it will strictly be a

holding operation.

I have several other items I am going to bring up under this

particular vote, but I would be very interested right now in

hearing the Minister's remarks on the two items I have brought

to him this evening.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Is the Minister going to

answer the Hon. Member?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Minister is obviously

not on his feet. I would ask the Hon. Member to continue.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't like to indulge in personal attacks and

innuendoes, but I have no recourse but to suggest that that

Minister of Highways has a big mouth and his foot is always in

it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: He wears a beard no doubt to hide that big

mouth. Mr. Minister, when you opened your big mouth you gobbled

up half the tourist

[ Page 1770 ]

industry in British Columbia who are involved in the tourist

industry, and that means three-quarters of the people in

British Columbia are angry with you, and their pocketbooks have

been hurt.

We are not all that enamoured with the Minister of Travel

Industry (Hon. Mr. Hall), but compared to you he is like a

saint. (Laughter.) Well, it's hard to get good saints these

days.

I would like to suggest in all fairness to you but more

specifically to years and years and years of dedication and

service by British Columbians utilized to build up a

responsible, attractive travel industry in British Columbia was

shot down the tube when you opened that big mouth.

To begin with, Mr. Minister, I suggest you should do your

homework before you go shooting from the lip and the hip in all

these areas just to get a little press. But if you don't know

the fact, the travel industry is a very sensitive industry; it

deals with a very simple clientele, and it has to examine very

carefully where its fundamental bread and butter comes from.

That fundamental bread and butter comes from the steady family

tourist. The cream off the top comes from the jet set, like the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams) and condominiums and granny workers and slavery, who

jet here and there. (Laughter.)

Skiers are divided into three groups: the jet set, the

family skiers and the local skiers. The jet set, Mr. Minister,

moves from area to area. Then there is the family group who

like to have their one-year fling this year in going to

Switzerland or down to Aspen or somewhere else. But basically

they revolve around the family ski area and are your steady

bread and butter in the skiing area, in the camping area, in

the motel area and in all sectors of the tourist industry.

You can't attract them overnight. As I mentioned, it has

taken many years in cooperation with the industry and the

department itself to build up for British Columbia a good

reputation. British Columbia is not in the main path of the

tourist area; our potential tourist market is very limited: the

Pacific Northwest dwindling down to California, Alberta, moving

slower and lower to Manitoba and somewhat to the east, but

still very sporadic from that area.

The offshore tourist market is very, very small for British

Columbia. Again, that which is here has been wooed carefully by

those in the industry and those in government and in the travel

department. The Japanese market only just now is being tapped;

it only represents about 2 per cent of the tourists in British

Columbia. You just don't go around telling people like the

Japanese who are very traditional and very sensitive, that they

have bad breath and you don't want them. That will destroy all

these years of effort. I would suggest that some of these

offshore tourist markets will be some of the most lucrative for

our industry in British Columbia.

You should have just read, before you opened this flappable

mouth of yours, the report of your own colleague with whom you

were fishing on Williston Lake. Why he didn't tell you about it

while you were bobbing around there with the trout I don't

know. It just came out: "Investment Potential in the British

Columbia Travel Industry. Government of the Province of British

Columbia." Isn't that amazing? Have you heard of them, Mr.

Chairman? "Department of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, British Columbia.

Hon. Gary V. Lauk, Minister, L.C. Hempsall, Associate Deputy

Minister." A most interesting document. There is even a brief

summary in the front the Minister could have read.

I would like to quote, Mr. Chairman, in case the Minister

doubts my own words, some very interesting sections of the

summary and projections of this report:

"During the past decade British Columbia's travel industry

has experienced a remarkable expansion, with total travel

expenditures in the province growing from approximately $145

million in 1962 to nearly $550 million in 1972.

"This growth has elevated this industry to the third-largest

revenue-producing industry in the Province of British Columbia,

next to forests and mines and petroleum."

Mr. Minister, the worst the tourists do is take a quick bath

in our pure water and use our public facilities for short

periods of time. They don't make any demands on our schools;

they don't make any demands on our libraries and the

fundamental services that are provided by our communities for

our own citizens.

They essentially use what God gave us, and the

responsibility lies not with you to damn them, but with what

that Minister — the Minister of Recreation and Conservation

(Hon. Mr. Radford) who's sitting in the wrong seat — to protect

those God-given tourist assets for the utilization of the

people in B.C., as well as the tourist.

The tourist industry is one of the cleanest industries there

is. It's a secondary industry. It doesn't build any unsightly

smokestacks or mills or industrial sites. It stimulates the

construction of attractive motels that benefit our citizens. It

stimulates the construction of attractive and well-planned

hotels which benefit our own citizens. I'd like to carry on

with the report:

"The backbone of British Columbia's travel industry is

travel within the Province of British Columbia by British

Columbian residents."

Maybe I should repeat that, Mr. Chairman, because the

Minister's talking. Mr. Minister, could I repeat that?

"The backbone of British Columbia's travel industry is

travel within the Province of British

[ Page 1771 ]

Columbia by British Columbian residents."

You know, you were hamming and damning the use of our

campsites by the tourists, this fetish you have, this

anti-Americanism about the ugly Americans, as you seem to refer

to them, using our campsites. I didn't bring my figures, and I

stand to be corrected by the Minister of Recreation, but I

believe I've got them right. In 1973, Mr. Minister, the use of

provincial government campgrounds by the American tourist was

down to 21 per cent. The next largest number of users of the

British Columbia campgrounds wasn't the ugly Americans or the

terrible Germans or whoever else you're against; it was the

rest of Canada — 23 per cent.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well then, how do you get...? Okay, 18 per

cent by Canadians. The balance of 58 per cent use in our

provincial campsites, Mr. Chairman, through you to the

Minister, was by British Columbians. Now, whose neck are you

going to cut off? Are you after British Columbians? Do you want

to soak them again as they go around the Province of British

Columbia? It was 21 per cent of our campgrounds used by not

just Americans but outside visitors combined.

Mr. Minister, again, unfortunately I didn't bring the

breakdown of my own figures, so I stand to be corrected. The

largest campground and the campground used by non-British

Columbians most heavily in the lower mainland is Goldstream.

Then as you watch, it goes to the northern part of the

province. The heaviest concentration tends to be in the Cariboo

and up in the Peace River area. If you wish to know the

details, Mr. Minister, I'll bring them tomorrow because I have

them all broken down by every campsite.

There's not heavy pressure. Even the pressure in the

Okanagan is more heavy by Canadians and British Columbians than

it is by off-shore or non-Canadian tourists. So, Mr. Minister,

how about a little back-track on those figures?

The figures in the hotel industry are not available at the

moment. They estimate that approximately 80 per cent of motel

business in British Columbia comes from. non-British Columbian

residents. Are you going to cut that off, Mr. Minister?

I'll carry on with some of the quotes from this. I repeat

again, in case my message is not getting through, in case the

ears aren't as big as the mouth:

"The backbone of British Columbia's travel industry is

travel within the Province of British Columbia by residents, as

indicated by the fact that travel accounted for approximately

one half of the industry's receipts during 1972.

"Visitors from the United States contributed almost one-third

of British Columbia's total travel receipts, and represents 98 per cent of total

foreign visitors to the province. The growth of this important sector of the

travel industry has been impressive over the past decade, total American visitors

more than doubling from 1.6 million to 3.7 million between 1961 and 1971.

"If British Columbia can continue to provide such visitors

with sufficient high-quality facilities, while maintaining the

scenic beauty which is the province's prime attraction, then

total visitors from the United States can be expected to be

near the 6 million mark by 1980."

And they might add "a hospitable environment." When you

think that approximately 80 per cent of the business they're

referring to here — receipts to little motels, big motels,

little hotels, big hotels, in Vancouver, Victoria, Campbell

River, Fort St. John, Burns Lake — come from these tourists,

then, Mr. Minister, you should backtrack and apologize again.

It goes on to say:

"A rapidly expanding sector of the travel industry is the

overseas market. Visitors from overseas countries, while

representing only 2 per cent of foreign visitors to the

province, account for almost 10 per cent of all expenditures by

foreign tourists."

Mr. Minister, it's an interlocking programme. The further

away that they come from, the greater is their deposit of cash

in our province and in our industry.

"Although the Japanese presently represent a very small

portion of visitors to the province, their numbers have

increased by approximately 25 per cent annually in recent years

and are expected to increase by at least four times during the

next five years.

"In recent years, the potential of the Canadian travel

market has become increasingly evident in British

Columbia."

That's the Canadian travel market, Mr. Minister, not the

foreign travel market. Unless we're going to separate from the

rest of Canada, I think we should have the same standards here

in British Columbia for British Columbians as well as

Canadians, including fishing free if you're under 16.

"Although the province's distance from the major population

centres in eastern Canada will necessitate imaginative

packaging of British Columbia as a travel destination, the

value of attracting visitors from other provinces...."

lnterjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Would you like me to sit down in a minute and

you can make your speech?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

[ Page 1772 ]

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I think, Mr. Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), that this is one of

the problems with this lower mainland thinking, as you think in

terms of isolated packages.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Member for North

Okanagan address the Chair, please?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The tourist industry can't

be looked at as an insular package. This is what happened with

the Minister of Highways. He took one look at his rocky, burnpy,

frost-heaved roads that he hasn't been looking after and said:

"Oh, my goodness, I'll blame it on the tourists. Nobody will

know." It's an interlocking thing. Highways, Health, Provincial

Secretary, Recreation and Conservation, Education — these are

all part of the tourist package. And certainly the Minister of

Labour. You can't look at it in an isolated area.

Anyway, I would like to say again, Mr. Chairman:

"Although the province's distance from the major population centres in eastern Canada will necessitate

informative, imaginative packaging of British Columbia as a

travel destination...."

In other words, Mr. Minister, to

keep a stable travel industry in British Columbia, we're going

to have to continue to work at it in terms of our facilities,

in terms of our recreational areas, in terms of our promotion,

and certainly in terms of our attitude. Nothing browns the

visitor off more than a cold shoulder at an information booth,

a rip-off in a restaurant or a cold attitude on the part of a

Minister that's not factual. All these things contribute.

We've all travelled. I'm sure you've got out of Prince

Rupert before this, Mr. Minister, and you can remember places

where you got a sloppy beer or an unkind word and you wouldn't

go back again. Just one of these thoughtless actions or

comments can destroy thousands of dollars of effort and just an

inestimable amount of work by people in the industry.

I would just mention that following that it says:

"The value

of attracting visitors from other provinces is indicated by their estimated expenditures of

$90 million in British Columbia in 1972."

$90 million — that's

not a bad intake.

"Alberta is by far British Columbia's most important source

of such travelers."

Are we going to set up one standard for British Columbians,

one for Albertans, and then one for the rest of Canada, one for

the ugly Americans, and one for the Japanese?

It goes on to say, Mr. Minister, when you're talking about over-use of your

highways:

"During 1972, approximately 356,000 cars travelled westward through the Rogers Pass."

You know, Mr. Minister, I don't know a great deal about

highways and highway construction and highway loads, but I

would think 356,000 cars in a year over Rogers Pass is not very

great. I myself was through there five times between the last

session and now, and there was many a time when I went around 8

or 9 o'clock in the evening, and frankly, I'd have been glad to

see a car. So I would suggest there's ample room for these

tourists.

Then they go on to say in your colleague's report:

"A prime requisite for a thriving travel industry is the

progressive accommodation sector, able to maintain high

standards while adapting to the ever-changing demands of

the travel public."

And this is what I mean about a fickle travel public, Mr.

Minister. How on earth does the Minister feel we are going to

be able to support, in our industry, quality accommodation in

areas outside the Vancouver area if we put a penalty on

tourists or we take discouraging action which will keep them

from flowing around our province?

You should be doing the opposite, Mr. Minister. You should

be standing up and championing British Columbia as a tourist

area. Talk about how marvelous the north is in December — you

should be encouraging your constituents to put on snowmobile

parties and Christmas parties, and encourage package deals for

people from Japan. The snowmobile is going to be one of the

most valuable areas of tourist attraction from areas further

away, because you don't have to have a lot of talent and a lot

of sophisticated equipment to use a snowmobile.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You are running down the wrong

Minister.

MRS. JORDAN: We hope to annihilate this Minister before he

annihilates the tourist industry in British Columbia. He's

worthy of this type of attention, in view of the comments he's

made.

Mr. Minister, there are such things as shoulder months in

the tourist industry, which are essentially spring months and

fall months, and there are dead months, the winter months. What

you should be doing, if you are thinking about your

responsibilities as Minister of Highways, is thinking about how

to spread the traffic load around the year so that poor old

MLAs are not going across the Rogers Pass at 8 o'clock at night

and there's no traffic. You should be up encouraging your

colleagues and making your statements attract people to British

Columbia in these shoulder months.

Talk about the bird watching, or the other factors — photography of our wild animals. Talk about the

[ Page 1773 ]

recreation and the sports festival that would attract people

here in these shoulder months. Talk about the winter carnival,

Mr. Minister, which has been the saving grace, in the area that

I represent, in the winter months for our accommodation

industry, and a lot of our stores. We used to run at a 30 to 40

per cent occupancy rate, Now, because we've concentrated on

winter attractions for the tourist industry — many of whom do

come from British Columbia, I'll admit — we run at a 75 to 80

per cent occupancy rate. We can afford at last to have quality

hotels. We have; and we've got quality motels.

Many of those motels, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman, are family-operated. They are not chain motels

belonging to some far-flung empire; they belong to British

Columbians. I would suggest that in our area, and in the

Okanagan, 95, 96 per cent of the tourist accommodation is owned

by individual families within the Okanagan Valley. I would

suggest when you go north, that you'd find the percentage rises

even higher than that.

Mr. Minister, these British Columbians can't afford to

provide the type of accommodation, change their accommodation

rapidly enough to meet the needs of the tourists and their

fancies, unless they have an assured basic industry, and every

effort on the part of all of us to extend their season to a

year-round basis.

Then the Minister said that the money wasn't really going to the province. This

article was printed in

1963, and unfortunately there isn't a later one, but I'm

advised by those who know the industry well that these

percentages apply. They suggest that 20 per cent of a tourist's

expenditure goes for lodging; 24 per cent goes to their travel

around the province, and that's in terms of tires, repairs in

the garages, gasoline. The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) gave you the figures as far as the tax is concerned.

Shopping. You know, all those little stores along the way — little stores in places like Winfield and Pouce Coupe where people stop, 17 per cent of their expenditure

goes there. Food, 29 per cent.

That's not a bad breakdown for dispersal of money in the

province. Then, because I realize the Minister is a little

thick to get through to, here's a publication....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: Well, you may say, "oh, oh...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Hon. Member to use

somewhat more suitable parliamentary terms. I think we must

treat Hon. Members with a certain amount of courtesy....

MRS. JORDAN: I wouldn't suggest that he's thick-headed at all. But if

he just would have looked in his own department.

This was reprinted, and it was started in '69, Mr. Chairman.

This one was published in 1972, and it gives you a complete

breakdown, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, of

exactly where the tourist dollar goes in British Columbia. I

won't read them all, but I'll give you a few examples.

This was 1972: "Total income from the tourist industry in

lodging in British Columbia..." and this includes hotels,

motels, inns, resorts, trailer parks, campsites, apartments,

fishing and hunting camps. I would just interject here, Mr.

Minister, that in private campsites in British Columbia over 60

per cent of their clients are non-British Columbia residents.

So, if you do away with the tourists you are going to do away

with a lot of small, private campsites.

But in 1972, $96,324,000 came into the lodging industry.

Then it goes on to show where this goes. The disbursal is

really fantastic, because if you take the lodging industry as a

whole, the people who benefit from that are the sign people,

screws — screws that are used to screw on the handles and the

doorknobs — these from little hardware stores, Mr. Minister.

Not everybody builds these in Vancouver. In Vernon we have a

little hardware store, and they sell all kinds of screws to the

tourist industry. Roofers, plumbers, painters, nurseries — you

know, the agricultural industry, Mr. Chairman. Nails,

publishers, logging machinery....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would request the Hon. member

to try a little bit to make her remarks more relevant to the

Minister of Highways' responsibilities.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. I'm trying to prove to

him, as factually as I can, his need to change his attitude on

highway construction in British Columbia as it relates to the

tourist industry. Or to understand the tourist industry as it

relates to the use of highways in British Columbia.

I wouldn't go through all this detail, really, if it hadn't

become so evident that this Minster had no understanding at all

of this sphere of his responsibilities. Mr. Chairman, you know

and I know that a lot of people don't like to fly. There are a

lot of places in British Columbia where you can't go by train;

you have to go by car. Most of us don't have four-wheel drive,

and most of the tourists don't. They have to have roads to go

there, Mr. Member, and they don't want just to have patched-up

roads, they want good roads. They are used to having good roads

in Europe; they are used to having good roads in the United

States; and they are used to having good roads in other parts

of Canada, although I will admit that British Columbia has

higher quality roads than any other province that I've been in,

and more extensive

[ Page 1774 ]

high-quality roads.

But, Mr. Minister, on the lodging, I can go on through, but

I won't. Carpeting, domestic help, draperies — these are all

dollars that radiate through the small communities. In travel

alone, which is service stations, auto dealers, shops,

airlines, buses, ferries, B.C. Ferries, taxis, U-drives,

steamships — $115,000,588. Then they list again, and I won't go

through them all — taxis, advertising, stewardesses. It helps

keep the stewardesses working, and they are having their

problems right now in trying to gain equality in their

interests. If you cut down their income by all your bad

advertising, they are going to have problems. Snowmobiles, auto

towing, credit cards, photographic supplies — they're included

in that, Mr. Chairman. Shopping in 1972: $81,875,000, and this

is souvenir shops, specialty shops...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: ...sporting goods, drugstores....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would draw the attention of the Hon.

Member that you are clearly violating standing order 43. You

are tending to become repetitious. I would ask you to raise a

new point in regard to the Minister's office.

MRS. JORDAN: I only have one more figure to introduce. But,

Mr. Chairman, the Minister said in this statement that the

tourist dollar did not filter down to the people. He implied

that there were a lot of rip-off artists making all this money,

if there was any money to be made. It is really important that

he understand that it does filter down. It filters down more

than any other dollar in the province, any other industry, to

the most people. Even to babysitters, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure in

your area that you'll find many 12- and 14-year old boys and

girls who have babysitting jobs in the summertime in

conjunction with hotels and tourist camps. And it's hard for

these young people to get jobs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I find it very difficult to

believe that the Hon. Member is really debating the Minister's

estimates. I would ask her to give more serious attention to

the vote before us, rather than to belabour this point.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, fine, Mr. Chairman. I won't speak on

behalf of your area because you don't seem to care.

I want to point out to this Minister that we in the Okanagan want good highways;

we want properly planned highways. We have done our environmental studies so

that we can enjoy a well-planned and controlled tourist industry. We know that

in boat rentals and laundromats, and barbeques alone $19 million is there for

the having, for the people of British Columbia.

The people who use the Okanagan, who have their little

businesses there, who rely on your roads to help bring the

tourists there, want their share. We have a small theatre, and

I'm sure you have a small theatre, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member

either to change to another part of the Minister's

responsibilities or else to discontinue her speech. You're

clearly violating standing order 43.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I'd like to speak about Highway 97 North,

which runs from Vernon to Armstrong, Mr. Chairman. That road

has been heaving this winter. We have always had problems with

frost heaves in this province, but they are particularly bad

this year, and the complaint is that the roads have never been

worse since this Minister took over. In Armstrong, Mr.

Minister, there are a lot of activities in conjunction with

Vernon; people need that road for health services, they have an

exhibition, they have a number of agricultural shows, and they

rely on that $28,897,000 that comes into B.C. per year from the

tourist industry in the area of entertainment.

Mr. Chairman, I won't try you any longer. I appreciate your

patience in this, and ordinarily I wouldn't extend it as far as

I have, but I would ask the Minister to stand up now in this

House and admit that he spoke off the cuff; he didn't

understand what he was saying.

Everybody will support all efforts to plan our tourist

industry and our roads in cooperation and conjunction. But for

goodness' sakes, in trying to do one job well, don't destroy

the efforts of many that have been applied through the years

and don't destroy in one fell swoop and thoughtless words, the

reputation that British Columbia has built up over the

years.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to talk about

another aspect of the Department of Highways, Minister's

office, vote 98 expenditure, and that is its dramatic increase

in the last little while.

We have here in the red book, this year's estimate book, a

jump under vote 98 (about seven or eight lines down) $55,092

last year for four people, six people this year $100,176.

A very, very substantial jump. Getting on for double. I

don't think it's been properly explained. Now, if you compare

that with last year, the blue book, last year's estimates, we

have 000 for expenditures under salaries and we have a total of

$8,000 for the expenditures of the office.

Last year the total office expenditure, salaries and

[ Page 1775 ]

other things, went from $8,000 to $55,000, this year to $100,000. From $8,000 to over $100,000, which is an enormous

jump.

Now, that's not all, because previously we had a Department

of Highways and we had no Department of Transportation and

Communication. If you look in the blue book you won't find

anything at all for that department. It's a 000 figure. But if

you look in this year's red book you find that it's jumped from

$9,500 to $100,716.

You add them together and you get a simply phenomenal jump.

There was $8,000 two years ago and for next year we're asking

for something over $210,000, and that's only in the Ministerial

office. For those two departments, Mr. Chairman, it's gone from

$8,000 to $210,000 plus. That's a phenomenal jump.

I think the Minister should explain it, and explain it

pretty carefully because I said before, and I genuinely

believe, there's an enormous increase in the fat of government

operations. I think that there's a dramatic increase in his

department in particular — and I refer only to the other

department because the functions of this department, the role

of the Transportation and Communication used to come under

Highways, or basically under Highways. It was spread out more,

but it was essentially under Highways, and we've had a simply

phenomenal jump. Even if we restrict it only to the Department

of Highways in its reduced position now, as opposed to

previously, you get an increase of about 11 times what it was

but two years ago — a request for 11 times as much money as to

what it was a short time ago. I think that's well worthy of

some careful explanation by the Minister of Highways.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to point out that last

year we had about a three per cent increase in personnel in the

Department of Highways under the other votes that follow vote

89. That was a three per cent increase in personnel in the

Department of Highways under the other votes that follow vote

89. That was a three per cent increase in the blue book,

between the two years in the blue book, the fiscal year ending

March, 1973 and fiscal year ending in 1974.

This year we only increase the number of people in the

Department of Highways, other than in the Minister's office, by

one, I believe — one person. One-fifth of one per cent in

percentage terms of increase, and yet the Minister's staff goes

up not 0.20 per cent, it goes up 20 per cent and the increase

in the Minister's office alone is double the increase of the

more than 500 employees elsewhere in the Department of

Highways.

So what you're getting is an enormous increase in the non-productive end of

the Department of Highways — an enormous increase in the Minister's office —

and this does not include anything that might be attributable to public works

by way of putting in new offices or decorating new offices, but it's just a

substantial increase in the amount of money going into the non-service part

of the Minister's department.

It's not going down the line and winding up in more roads,

more blacktop, better curbing or anything of that nature. It's

a straight non-productive expenditure in terms of the end

product and the product to the public of British Columbia.

So I hope the Minister will explain that. Why have the staff

increases been so dramatic in his own office, and why have the

increases in expenditure for himself and his direct assistants

in his own office been equally dramatic? Because I feel, Mr.

Chairman, if you look at these figures for this year under 98

and 99 and so on down to 105 you find almost no increase in

services to the people by way of more highway construction. No

more people are going to be working in that department — I

shouldn't say no more; there is one more, I believe; it goes

from 301 in vote 99 to 302, an increase of one person over the

300 there. Absolutely no increase in vote 100 (205 to 205),

absolutely no increase in vote 103 (3 to 3).

The only area you find increases of any substantial nature

are in the Minister's office, and that deserves an explanation

because we are simply not getting an increase in services to

the people of the province in the budget as put forward for the

Department of Highways.

There are, perhaps, increases as mentioned by the Member for

Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) in the purchase of equipment, but in terms

of the number of people working for the department and in terms

of the work being done, we're simply not finding an increase in

the department.

It doesn't even equal the increase in population in the

province. Undoubtedly, in real terms, we will not be having an

increase in services to the people of B.C. In the Highways

department.

I think that's something that should be explained. We have a

very big increase in money but no real increase in services

provided. Money goes up, you have money going up in vote 99,

for example, from $3,770,000 to $4,493,000, and yet that

increase of over $700,000 is for one person increase in staff.

Now, of course there are increases in salaries for other people

(and many of these will be well deserved), but it's not clear

from the Minister's statement that so little, in fact almost

infinitesimal, increases are taking place in the actual

services that his department will be providing the people of

British Columbia.

Now, another point, Mr. Chairman, that I'd like to speak on

at this time is safety. I don't know whether the Minister of

Communication and Transportation takes the major responsibility

for highway safety. If that is the case, perhaps the Minister of

Highways would indicate to me and I can question that

Minister

[ Page 1776 ]

under his estimates, but I believe that safety is a major

factor.

I would like to know what's being done by his department in

this area. We have the experience in the United States where,

because of a fuel shortage, they enforced a lower speed limit.

They insisted upon more careful use of vehicles, and at the same

time they cut down on the number of drivers by the happy

expedient of having the gas stations only open maybe two hours

a day.

The result has been a 40 per cent decline in the number of

people killed on the highways. It's just a dramatic change in

the picture of highway safety. I don't know what it's like in

B.C. I tried to find out in British Columbia. The report of the

Motor Vehicle Branch, which is not this Minister's

responsibility, I understand, is not in for '73, at least I

haven't been able to find it.

I notice in B.C. the accident rates are pretty appalling.

The number of people killed is going up constantly, the number

injured is going up, and I'd like to know what is being done in

safety.

I'd like to know — in view of a letter I received from a man

in Prince George, by the name of Ditmars, who came out with a

proposal which he thought would reduce accidents on

highways.

He had a little company which he set up with another fellow

who he'd worked with, another man who was in the mill with him.

They developed a system of having what you might call an

automatic policeman; if you go past a certain spot on the

highway too fast, a light will flash up saying, "Too fast — slow down!"

It sounds a very simple thing to you and me, Mr. Chairman,

but it was something which had a real effect.

If I can find it, I will shortly read you a few words from a

policeman who saw this in operation, checked it out and

approved it very heartily. It was called the "Delta

Speed-Warning System," and it was on trial in Prince George in a

30-mile-an-hour zone. It was successful.

What happened there was that the device was put in the

road-bed; the light was set up on a lamp standard — or, at

least, a traffic-light type of structure. And the system would

flash a light saying "too fast" when a car went by too

quickly.

It was not done with a view to penalizing people with points

against their licence. It was done automatically. It changed

the amount of speeding substantially because, apparently, many

people went by and did not realize they were speeding. When

they were reminded by the light, they slowed down. And the

speeding rate dropped to less than half of what it was

previously.

They did a check on this. The RCMP in Prince George were involved; the city

engineer was involved. They found that it reduced speeding by half. When you

think of reducing speeding by half, and you think of what is happening in the

States where they've cut down on speeding and they've cut down on mortality

on the roads by a really substantial percentage, you realize that there is real

virtue to this. But what was the experience of our friend who developed this

system in B.C.? He got the run-around, Mr. Chairman. He had his system set up,

and it goes on to say in The Vancouver Sun , March 20, 1974 — not so long ago:

"His roadblock to success has been the provincial Department

of Highways, whose officials in Victoria have never seen it in

operation."

And yet they've not approved it.

"If the resistance continues, Mr. Corrigan said, he will move

his wife and children to Alberta or to the U.S. because he

cannot stand the financial and mental strain much longer.

" 'We've already lost our house and had our furniture

repossessed. All of my personal assets have gone into this

thing.' "

He had to quit his job as an instrument technician at

Northwood Pulp, and then he worked on his own system.

"The invention for which Corrigan has fought for three years

for acceptance consists of a screen suspended over the road

that flashes eight times per second when the speeding motorist

passes electrical loops buried in the road.

"When it was tested by city RCMP on a highway entrance to

Prince George last year, it was found to reduce speeding by 44

per cent."

I said more than 50 per cent; I was wrong.

"Corrigan said, 'The rapid flashing and the penetrating

power of the Xenon gas light source have a subliminal effect

upon the minds of drivers, causing them to slow down. In

addition, they can be seen in fog or snow when normal traffic

signals are obscured, and will provide a cheap and faultlessly

accurate means of traffic counts.'

"RCMP corporal Sandy Fraser, officer in charge of the city's

traffic department said: 'At first I was very skeptical, but it

has slowed down traffic immensely. We could use this to

prosecute speedsters, but we would much rather make them aware

of the limit and that they are exceeding it.' "

Now that's the comment from Corporal Fraser. It sounds like

a pretty reasonable remark. He's not out to bring people in for

speeding; he's out to slow them down, which I think is the

right approach.

"The system was endorsed by 20 district school principals,

and the school board asked for a Highways department test,

anticipating its eventual installation outside Blackburn

School

[ Page 1777 ]

on Highway 16, east of the city.

"The only skeptics are Highway department officials."

I would like, at this stage, having indicated what the Delta

Speed-Warning System is, to go on to indicate what troubles

this man has had.

He's had trouble because the civil service officials have

decided that this particular product would not be desirable for

a number of reasons. I have a letter here to Mr. Carpenter,

Secretary-Treasurer of School District 57 in Prince George.

It's from the senior traffic engineer.

"Dear Sir;

"Re: Speed-Warning System, Northern Traffic and Signal

Systems Ltd.

"I've been asked to reply to your letter of April 18, 1973" — this by the way, is on July 18 — "addressed to the Minister

of Highways in which you requested an appraisal of the above

speed-warning system.

"We have completed our evaluation of the system, and I would

make the following comments:

"The system was only in operation for a short time, and its

effectiveness in causing less speeding over an area of

considerable length has not been studied or proven."

Yet the corporal in charge of the RCMP in the area said he

was skeptical at first and said it had — let's see if I can find

that quote again — "slowed down traffic immensely." Yet the

Highways department in Victoria believe that it has not been

proven. The people up there think it has been. Point 2 of this

letter:

"It is apparently a patented device, and there would be no

commercial competition supplying it. This is an undesirable

situation for the department."

Well, Mr. Chairman, if it is a good device and it saves

lives and it cuts down on the number of kids killed and maimed

on our highways, surely whether or not it's a patented device

should not inhibit us from giving it a proper study and,

perhaps, if we think it's worth it, buy the patents from this

man. It's an absurd proposal to say that because he's got a

patent on it, the government can't proceed with buying it. That

is a really nutty statement.

Point 3.

"It would become quite popular due to the emotion with which

the public views prevailing speeds. As a result we would be

pressed for a large number of installations. At about $10,000

per installation, this could become a serious problem."

Well, heaven's above, if it's good and people want it because it cuts down

on death on the highway, it cuts down on that fantastic $8 million that ICBC's

already spent on claims. If it cuts down on that, what is $10,000 to throw?

It's a pretty small amount. I just find that statement, again, to be really

absurd. It doesn't make sense. If this is a good product and people do want

it, even if they have to buy a lot of them, then because there are fewer deaths

on the highway, fewer cars in accidents, and it works — that's why people want

it. To say that it'll probably be successful and therefore we'll be behind the

eight ball providing them, is back-to-front logic, and I just cannot accept

that at all.

Point 4 in this letter:

"Such an installation would tend to weaken observance of

those slower speed zones where the device was not installed.

The presence of this device would imply 'Obey the law here but

don't bother at places where there is no flashing sign.' "

Mr. Chairman, this is the type of argument which you could

apply to the RCMP: if you know they're not on the highway,

obviously you're going to speed. It would apply to speed signs

on the highway saying 30 miles, 45 miles, 60 miles, whatever it

might be. It would apply to anything you put up to reduce the

speed. To single this particular device out, again, doesn't

make the slightest bit of sense.

Indeed, if you carry this to a logical extreme, you should

take the speedometers out of your vehicles because drivers

would then observe the same speed and you wouldn't have

to have this mechanical device to indicate what it might be.

That type of logic, you know, really doesn't make any sense at

all. I hope the Minister agrees with me on this point.

Point 5 of the letter:

"We should not encourage drivers to rely on mechanical

devices to check their performance, as this causes them to use

their own judgment less and less."

Well, back to my argument about speedometers. Are they going

to be taken out of the cars in British Columbia because we're

relying upon a mechanical device to check speed? It doesn't

make any sense.

"In critical driving situations, motorists must be able to

depend on their own judgment."

Well, bully for them. Let's take

the RCMP highway patrols off the road because we want motorists

to use their good judgment and not

be inhibited by the thought

that there might be a policeman behind the next billboard, or

anything like that. We want them to use their own judgment.

This letter is great.

Point 6:

"It is desirable that traffic control devices proposed for

use in British Columbia be approved by the council on uniform

traffic control devices for Canada, which operates under the

Roads and Transportation Association of Canada with

headquarters in Ottawa. There is no indication that such an

approval has been obtained."

[ Page 1778 ]

Well, Mr. Chairman, we're again back-to-front. We have a

provincial Department of Highways; we have the local police in

Prince George thinking this is a red-hot idea, a first-class

little invention, best idea since stoplights; you have the

Department of Highways saying because it hasn't been approved

by a committee in Ottawa, which hasn't had the opportunity of

evaluating it because the Department of Highways in British

Columbia has not taken it to the committee to approve it or

evaluate it, therefore we cannot consider it. Now that, again,

is horse-before-the-cart logic. It just cannot be accepted.

"The use of this device should also be approved by the

British Columbia headquarters...."

AN HON. MEMBER: Cart before the horse.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, is that it? Sorry. It's late at

night. I stand corrected by that expert on horses, and which

end of them comes first.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right. The expert on horsepower. Anyway,

whatever it is, he knows what I mean.

Point 7:

"Use of this device should also be approved by the

British Columbia headquarters of the RCMP, as they would be quite

concerned with certain aspects of its operation."

Well, gee whiz, why don't they just ask the RCMP to check

with Corporal Fraser? The RCMP may be a para-military

structure, but it's not totally monolithic, and they have some

respect for the intelligence of the officers they put in the

field.

I am quite sure that is not the absolute bar the Department

of Highways seems to think it is. The final paragraph is:

"In view of these things, I feel the department should not endorse the use of this particular device at this time."

I was sent other letters by the people involved, who don't

feel they got much support from their MLA.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

I raise this because safety is an important issue. We have here a situation

where some British Columbian ingenuity of two fellows who were working in the

mill came out with a bright idea. They mortgaged their houses; they did their

best to do the experimental work necessary. They put it in in Prince George

and apparently got the approval of 20 school principals who must have had some

idea what was involved. They got the approval of the RCMP constable for the

area in charge of the city's traffic department. I can't quite see it here,

but I believe the city engineering department also gave its approval. All systems

were go; it was a good idea.

What happened when they tried to take it any further? They

hit the lethargy of the Department of Highways, apparently, who

had not given it the evaluation the people of Prince George

had. The whole thing ground to a halt for this Canadian

inventor, this British Columbian inventor, this ingenious

fellow. I sure wish the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) was here because this might be

something we could sell around the world if it works (and he's

not here, of course.) It's unfortunate because this guy has

staked everything on developing this thing and it may be the

type of thing that puts British Columbia secondary industry at

world class.

He's going to move out to another part of Canada or to the

States. Why? Not because the thing hasn't proved out, not

because the Department of Highways has evaluated it as he

thinks they should, but because they've simply refused to give

it the evaluation he thinks they should.

I, of course, have to rely on what he has told me. Perhaps

the Minister will come forward with some different information,

and I'd be delighted to hear it. I realize that inventors and

civil servants are probably somewhat apart in terms of

thinking, but I do feel the whole question of safety on our

roads is something that deserves a great deal of thought. I

would certainly like to hear that the proposal of Mr. Ditmars,

who is a director of this company, Northern Traffic and Signal

Systems Ltd., and that the work of inventor Brian Corrigan, has

at least been given a fair shake by officialdom here in

Victoria when it comes to evaluation. What's the point putting

up the phony reasons I read out in that letter when they just

don't make any sense at all?

I have a couple of other things I'd like to mention. I'd

like to ask the Minister what the status is of the Town &

Country shopping centre tunnel which is up in the northern end

of our town here in Victoria. I must say I find the proposals

to put in the tunnel not very bright, but that's my personal

view. Perhaps he can enlighten me on why they have to put in

this wildly expensive tunnel instead of simply extending the

highway system as proposed previously to carry on and meet with

the Pat Bay Highway further out.

The Blanshard Street extension has gone on forever in

Victoria, and I'm sure the Minister of Highways has a fair

amount of information on that, which perhaps he could bring me

up to date on. It's a ridiculous problem created by ridiculous

bureaucratic decisions at the city level mostly. I trust the

Department of Highways will be able to help us get around the

problems created there.

I'd also like to mention a subdivision at Westside in

Kamloops. The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) talked earlier

about the Highways department being

[ Page 1779 ]

the planning authority for many of the unorganized areas of

the province. Here was a subdivision approved by the Highways

department. Later on, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Lorimer) put in compulsory amalgamation without a vote in

the area, just a short time after his party had campaigned on

the basis of neighbourhood government. Westside, included in

the City of Kamloops, has a serious flooding problem, allegedly

because of bad original design on the part of the Highways

department.

The city feels — and I believe they have a very good case — that if they're to be saddled with compulsory amalgamation they

should not be saddled with the mistakes of the Highways

department. If they're forced to take over this area they

should be given some financial compensation for the extra costs

involved due to what is in their mind, bad Highways department

planning. I trust the Minister will comment on this because it

is a fairly serious problem for the area.

The city feels it cannot afford the work that has to be

done; they know they wouldn't have to foot the bill for it if

the government had not forced amalgamation on them. They feel

they are getting a raw deal in both directions.

I questioned the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer) on this, and he has been good enough to say this is

still under consideration for decision. But as it was the

Highways department which originally made the errors, as it was

the Highways department that essentially set the system up so

the city would have to spend a large amount of money correcting

it, perhaps the Minister would like to comment on that Westside

problem.

I wonder whether the Minister would also like to say a few

words about the widening of the road at Goldstream. I believe

the Member for Okanagan indicated this was in the lower

mainland but I'd like to inform you, Mr. Minister — as perhaps

you are fully aware — that it's on Vancouver Island. I think he

made a very sensible suggestion....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I think you made an excellent suggestion when you

put it to some of the residents and the local people involved and asked what

they wanted: "Do you want it widened, or do you want to leave it the way it is,

even though it will create some bottlenecks?" I don't know what the result of

all that has been, but I believe it is going to remain as it is. My personal

view is that's the way it should be. Perhaps we'll have to go a little slower

in that area; perhaps on wet nights and in cold weather there will have to be

some extra lighting or some more warning facilities or something of that nature.

It is a dangerous corner. I think they'll reject the idea of widening it at

that point. I'm open to persuasion by the Minister if he's made his decision

some other way on the basis of good information.

Goldstream is a particularly attractive area. The new

highway that went in there when the Trans-Canada was built did

a lot of damage to the aesthetics of the area. I still remember

with some fondness the old highway, and I trust we're not going

to continue the destruction of Goldstream for highway purposes.

I think it's a very good example of what the Mini