1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3511 ]

CONTENTS

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

Lea — 3511

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we commence I just wanted to announce

that summer has come and after listening to the hon. learned

doctor from New Westminster (Hon. Mr. Cocke), who recommends

that we do something about heavy clothing, I was going to

suggest that Members might, without the Chair complaining too

much, consider doffing their coats when they feel like it. That

might help the temperature situation. I would point out that

the temperature in here goes up to 76 degrees nearly every day

during this summer period. If the Members are agreed to do this

and if I don't hear too much complaint, this might be of some

assistance.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, have you

considered that if you make it more comfortable we may be here

in August? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Well, that is a drawback to the whole

suggestion. Anyway, I think that we could try that and see if

it is more comfortable.

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

chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS

(continued)

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

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

were two points asked about that I didn't cover in the last

sitting. One was a question asked by the Hon. Member for Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace) in regard to the Blanshard Street extension.

He had some specific questions to which I have the answers.

First, he asked how many residential properties will be

affected. The answer is that approximately 21 to 23 houses will

have to be removed. Details are still being finalized with the

new design — that is, the new design worked out by my staff and

the city staff and approved by city council and myself.

However, seven houses on the line of the previous tunnel route

will now not be affected.

The second question was: has the department approached

Pitney-Bowes? The answer is no.

Thirdly: have negotiations with property owners affected

been initiated? The answer is: not yet. Surveys are presently

being undertaken so that the plan for the right-of-way

acquisition and design of the facility can be drawn.

Fourthly: does the estimate of $6 million include

acquisition of the right-of-way? The answer is yes.

Fifthly: has the department discussed the construction

schedule with Saanich with a view to reducing the impact on

summer tourist traffic? Again, the answer is: not yet. The

impact on tourists will be minimal, and far less than previous

tunnel schemes since almost all construction will take place on

local streets.

I know that the Blanshard Street extension is not in the

riding of the Hon. Member for Oak Bay, but I understand the

general interest that he has. I also understand that is must be

quite an onerous task to have to represent the number of

ridings you do because the others are represented by Social

Credit MLAs. This must put quite an onus on you.

One of the other topics that was raised by two people, I

think — the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson)

and the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) — was with regard

to the effectiveness of the new speed limit. We have six months

of statistics — from the beginning of December under the end of

May. All of the data until the first of May is in and most of

it for May, but there is still some coming in that couldn't be

correlated.

Over that period last year there were 344 deaths, and in the

same period this year there were 270. This is a reduction of 70

deaths in that period. If you take the number of deaths only,

then you have a 22 per cent reduction. If you take the ratio

over that period, it is approximately 27 per cent.

The next six months, and especially August, are the heaviest

months. But to me, this indicates that there has been a

reduction. At this point I wouldn't know exactly how much could

be attributed to the lower speed limits, but I would say that

at least the statistics coming in make it mandatory that we go

on with these lower speed limits, and continue to review it. It

does look very, very hopeful that we are getting this

reduction. What we hope to gain is borne out in the statistics

so far, but we are going to keep close watch over the

statistics of the next six months and then, of course, do the

year-end statistics.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Just a few questions to

the Minister regarding allocation of highway funds.

First of all, does the Minister propose to take another

$18,000 helicopter joyride across the province? When he was a

freshman Minister, he wanted to impress the northern people and

he hired a helicopter to fly over the highways. I'm wondering

if he intends to try to impress any other people in any other

part of the province this year with a repeat of the $18,000

taxpayer ride in the helicopter across the province.

Now one other question. On Highway 97 north of Cache Creek,

it's my understanding that there are approximately 40 miles of

shouldering underway. It

[ Page 3512 ]

is my understanding that it is damaging the pavement to a

certain degree. Could the Minister tell me whether there's any

intention of paving this

section that is presently being

shouldered? If so, when does the Minister propose to do the

paving?

In the constituency I represent there's Highway 95, which

runs a distance of approximately 150 miles throughout my

constituency up and down, north and south from the valley. I'm

wondering whether there's any proposed work. The Minister did

tell me there's a little bit of shouldering. There's an

allocation for shouldering just south of Golden. I was

wondering if there's any other work proposed, primarily on the

northern part of Highway 95 immediately south of Golden where

it needs some improvement. Is there any allocation for

improvement of the Toby Creek road? Is there an allocation for

improvement of the upper Donald road in the vicinity of Golden?

Could the Minister tell me what the allocation is for day

labour in the Columbia River constituency?

Also, while your estimates were up before, in that short

period of time in which questions were asked — but time was not

provided for the Ministers to give answers — I asked a few

questions regarding the Wasa bridge. I think that the Wasa

bridge is a bit of a disgrace. It's a single-lane, wooden

structure involving two railway level crossings that are

exceedingly rough. I know there has been a survey carried out

some considerable period of time ago to cross from the

Skookumchuck prairie across to Wasa, which would eliminate that

single-lane bridge, which should really be replaced. It has no

place on an arterial highway such as Highway 97. Then it in

turn would remove the necessity of crossing two railway level

crossings. Are there any plans for that this year?

Mission bridge I was going to mention. I notice it's been

re-decked recently. I've been travelling over it; there's been a

tremendous improvement. At Mission bridge on the airport road

from Cranbrook into the airport last year at high water the

bridge suffered. It got knocked out of place by about a foot

and a half. So it's been re-decked and it's been improved.

Is there any consideration being given to improvement of

Highway 95A between Kimberley and Cranbrook? I realize that

this is not in my constituency. In the question I'm asking, the

Wasa bridge is very close to my constituency, a couple of miles

out of it, but the Kimberley-Cranbrook road isn't — Highway

95A. Nevertheless, I get a lot of correspondence from that

area. They look to me for guidance and they look to me for

help; because their MLA is here in Victoria and he's not

accessible to them. So on behalf of those people that come to

me, I feel that I have a responsibility to ask the questions

and to give them the answers.

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

two MLAs.

Interjection.

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

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

came to me.

HON. MR. LEA: I'd suggest that for help they should go to

the person who has represented that riding for years and years

and years and who, in my opinion, is giving them all sorts of

help.

Now Golden Highway 95: as the Member knows, I travelled that

not too long ago. I was very, very surprised that the road is

in as good shape as it is, because from the reports I was

getting in I thought that I was going to be travelling on a cow

trail. That is a good highway.

MR. CHABOT: Which one?

HON. MR. LEA: Highway 95.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, south of Invermere.

HON. MR. LEA: Right. I went through the whole thing and

it's a very, very good highway. In the spring it does get a

little wavy for a while, that's all. As a matter of fact, the

person who was driving me had been instructed to hit every

pothole and every wave he could find. He was very disappointed,

because at that time of the year he couldn't find any. It's a

very good road. As the Member says, we are doing some

shouldering there this year, but to me the road is in very good

shape compared to other roads in the province that we're

putting money in.

The Wasa bridge: we're still working on design there. There

isn't anything in this year. Hopefully we can take a look at

getting some construction done next year.

The St. Mary-Mission bridge. I'm glad to hear the Member say

that he's.... You know that we're looking at that whole

airport design.

MR. CHABOT: Yes.

HON. MR. LEA: We're looking for a lower spot to jump off for

the new bridge because of the expense of having to go high,

we're looking for a lower spot to jump off and do another

crossing.

The other area that you brought up — Kimberly-Cranbrook, 95A

— we're doing some small amount of work there, but nothing

major this year.

The other item brought up was: am I going to take a joy ride

— another joy ride, as the Member put it — in a helicopter? I

haven't taken a joy ride yet on a helicopter.

MR. CHABOT: Of course you did. That was

[ Page 3513 ]

strictly a joy ride.

HON. MR. LEA: As a matter of fact, I thought that the Member

for North Peace River (Mr. Smith), who accompanied me on part

of that trip, was well-satisfied that it was a useful trip and

that we could cover a lot more ground that way, and see a lot

more road. You can get an overview from the air that you can't

get on the ground. We touched down all the time and made side

trips. I think it was a very useful trip.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Will I be doing it again? There was no

fishing, Hon. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your staff did.

HON. MR. LEA: I've heard some of the charges from that side

of the House — there was no fishing. As a matter of fact, at

the point where they said I was fishing, the Hon. Member for

North Peace River was with me and he can attest to the fact

that there was no fishing.

I feel it was a useful trip — money well spent. I would only

point out that at least I didn't invite 8 million people along

to a picnic, using helicopters and such, as is being done by

the federal government. At least I was doing my duty; I wasn't

having a party.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: Everybody who is going to vote for the

Liberals next time turned up — all 8 million.

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

HON. MR. LEA: I feel that that trip was useful and,

hopefully, I can do it in other areas of the province. I don't

know whether I'll have one on this year or not — maybe.

MR. CHABOT: A few questions that I asked haven't been

answered for some unknown reason. The Minister wants to avoid

giving answers to specific questions that are put to him.

HON. MR. LEA: Which one?

MR. CHABOT: I asked you if there was an allocation for

improvement of Toby Creek Road. I asked you if there was an

allocation for the Upper Donald Road. I asked you what you

propose to do Highway 97 north of Cache Creek, where you're

shouldering approximately 40 miles of highway — whether you

intend to pave this section, and if so, when.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'm just absolutely amazed at

the lack of respect for the procedures in this House. I won't

know exactly how much money I have until you people pass my

estimates.

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

HON. MR. LEA: I'll be letting you know exactly what work

will be done as soon as my estimates are passed.

MR. CHABOT: You're not going to get your estimates if you're going

to be belligerent like that. (Laughter.) I asked you a very simple question.

You know right now, Mr. Minister, what kind of allocations you have for these

various projects. You know how much you have allocated for day labour. It's

not going to change whether your estimates pass this very moment or whether

your estimates pass in two hours from now or two days from now. I asked you

some very specific, simple questions. Certainly they're not that difficult for

you to answer, I would suspect.

I asked you what kind of an allocation you have for the Toby

Creek Road. Is there an allocation this year? If so, how much?

Is there an allocation for the Upper Donald Road in the

vicinity of Golden this year? If so, how much? Do you propose

to do any work on Highway 97 north of Cache Creek? Do you

propose to do any paving? If so, to what extent and when can we

expect this to start? I also asked you the question: what kind

of an allocation do you have for day labour within the Columbia

River constituency? I don't think those questions are that

difficult. I'm sure that the answers are right behind you if

you only care to look.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that every Member

of the House is interested in hearing exactly what's going on

in each other's constituencies. I'm quite willing to have a

precedent-setting year where the government will tell

opposition Members exactly what's going to be done in their

ridings. I'll do that in writing immediately after my estimates

are passed.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, this is the purpose of these

estimates — of all estimates, really. We can't debate

philosophy regarding highways. It's a question of Members

asking questions of specific importance to them and to seek out

answers on behalf of their constituents. These questions are

being asked.

The Highways estimate, of all estimates, is where we should

except some straightforward answers, not evasion such as we've

seen from the Minister — unwillingness to answer. You have the

answers. Why don't you produce the answers? It's about time

[ Page 3514 ]

got some answers. You were willing the other day to indicate

how much day labour was allocated for the South Peace River.

All I'm asking you is to tell me how much is allocated for the

area I represent, what kind of programmes you propose to have

on these three points I have raised to you. Certainly it's not

that difficult. Maybe your Deputy will tell you: "Don't answer

him." Nevertheless, I think they're very important, and my

constituents are demanding answers. You have the answers, let's

have them.

HON. MR. LEA: It's $80,000 for day labour, but there's a lot

of contract work being carried out in your riding.

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

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, that's why I didn't want to

bring it up because I didn't want to go through the North

Peace.

MR. CHABOT: You're ashamed of it.

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

than went to Strachan's....

MR. CHABOT: So, $80,000 for day labour. The Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips) was getting $300,000.

Now I'm not going to start arguing the pros and cons of

whether he should get $300,000 and I should get $80,000.

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

MR. CHABOT: Well, I do.

I have some specific questions. Is there any allocation for

Toby Creek Road? Is there an allocation for the Upper Donald

Road? What do you propose to do on Highway 97 relative to

paving north of Cache Creek?

The Minister talked about contracts. There are ongoing

contracts on the Trans-Canada Highway, and even though the

Trans-Canada Highway does bring benefits to the community of

Golden, I've never really considered it part of my

constituency. There's a continuing upgrading of the highway, I

know, and I know that there's a paving contract — Zacharias has

a paving contract in the Kicking Horse Canyon. Also, that other

firm is struggling along to finish that programme they had such

great difficulty with last year. So those are the two

contracts.

If the Minister is alluding to other contracts within my constituency, besides

those two on the Trans-Canada Highway, could he tell me specifically where those

contracts will be undertaken? Is it a paving contract on Highway 95 which desperately

needs it? Is that what you're saying? If so, let me

know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Shuswap.

MR. CHABOT: Well, just a moment. I asked some questions of

the Minister. I'm not expecting....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member took

his seat, and the Minister didn't rise, so I recognized another

Member....

MR. CHABOT: No, I didn't take my seat, I bent my knees

slightly. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think in all fairness I did give the

Member an opportunity to have a follow-up question. I don't

think this means monopolizing the time of the House.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I'd like to take this opportunity

to, once again, voice my support for the Minister of Highways'

speed limit which he instituted throughout the province. I

think it's a right move in the right direction. One thing that

does concern me in regard to the speed limit is the lack of

enforcement by law enforcing officers on the road. I'm not

criticizing the police as such — possibly there aren't enough

officers to do the job properly. But I'm most concerned about

this summer season coming on when people who are abiding the

law, travelling at the 50- or 55-mile an hour speed limit, are

continually being confronted by trucks and other traffic not

abiding the speed limit, passing in unsafe places and putting

those people's lives in jeopardy.

I would hope that the Minister would meet with other cabinet

Ministers concerned to see if the highway patrol can't be

boosted, to see if we can't possibly implement motor cycle

radar patrols, such as the City of Vancouver is experimenting

with at the present time. I understand that the City of

Vancouver has indicated that they are most pleased with the

results from the motor cycle radar they have in the city.

I think this would be one way that people would be more

careful in regard to their driving habits. At the present time

they get to know where radar traps are set up. There's a signal

system operated by motorists throughout the province where they

flash their lights every time they see a radar car, and it

warns the public. I know everybody hates to get a speeding

ticket and hates to get points on their licence, but they also

have to realize they have a responsibility to other people who

are on the highway. I have no sympathy whatsoever for anybody

who picks up points. I feel that if they do, they have it

coming to them.

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

[ Page

3515 ]

subdivision approvals. This is one area in which I've voiced

my concern in the past, and I've voiced them to the Minister on

many occasions. I think that the Highways department's

subdivision approval on one-half mile from the highway is too

severe. I don't think there's enough thought given to the other

aspects within the community — the social aspects and how it

affects that community. I would hope that this will be looked

at.

In my riding the majority of the riding is controlled by

Highways department because it's in narrow valleys where just

about all the subdividable land is within one-half mile of the

highway. I know, in particular, one trailer court which wished

to put in, I think, about 22 units on a piece of road which I

feel is very lightly used. They were told that they felt it

would cause too much traffic on the road, with 22 more units in

that court. Yet the people in that area are finding it almost

impossible to get a trailer pad to set up a home. We have to

realize, too, that now this is the only alternative for many

young people — to go to trailer-type living because it's the

only thing they can afford, what with the costs we have.

I think the Highways restriction is far too stringent. I

believe in planning, and I believe in the Highways department

having complete control over people entering onto that highway.

But I also feel that when the present roads that come onto the

highway are in a safe position, surely we can accommodate

subdivisions in those areas. I think it's far too restrictive.

I think it's been a part of the reason that lots in the Salmon

Arm area have increased at such a rapid rate.

The right to subdivide, and the number of lots that have

been withdrawn from the market, puts the developer in a

position where he can more or less control the market and

control the prices. I think with a little more lenient attitude

by the Highways department, we could see a decrease in lot

prices throughout that area.

Yet another area is when they seek subdivision approval. I can

think of the Celista area where they were putting in a subdivision

called Meadowcreek subdivision. I, myself, as the MLA for the area,

expressed my concern to the Highways engineer in Salmon Arm and also

the planning engineer in Kamloops about that particular subdivision,

because it was built with entrances coming onto the roadway with no

area to park cars right alongside the lake. I said that there would be

a bottleneck build up along that road in coming years because they

would be parking along the roadway.

The Highways officials said: "Well, we'll demand that they have two spots off

the road to park on." But if you know the history of people who build along

the lakes, you will know they have friends that come in from all over the place

with boats and trailers and everything else. I can see a real bottleneck in

that area. Yet the Highways officials weren't prepared to listen to me when

I made a protest, when I made my opinion known. Yet in areas where I feel there

is no social problem in regard to congestion on the highway, in regard to pollution

of the lakes and that type of thing, the Department of Highways has a very deaf

ear to that type of development.

I think there just has to be a total review of that stand

taken by the Highways department. Maybe those particular types

of problems should go to the Environment and Land Use Committee

when there is more than one department involved and where they

have to look at the whole community need rather than just the

highway need.

I would just in closing like to ask the Minister of Highways

if he would investigate this alternative.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Member, I would think that probably

the jurisdiction for subdivision in rural areas came under the

Department of Highways because the Department of Highways was

one of the only departments that had people almost everywhere

in the province.

I don't think in many cases it is probably the best way to

go that the Department of Highways does it.

I would also like to point out that because of the staff who

have taken a very stringent attitude towards development I

believe that we have saved a great many areas of this province

from what would have otherwise been undesirable

development.

I believe that the whole aspect of subdivision in the rural

areas has to be reviewed. We have had a number of meetings in

the Environment and Land Use Committee, along with secretariat

staff, to try and resolve the problem. It is not the easiest

thing in the world to resolve.

One of the things I have found out: I have yet to have a

complaint when I've said yes. It is always when you say no

that, of course, the complaints come in.

I would also put down the subjectiveness of now. It would be

quite easy to say: "Okay, let's let this one go because at this

particular moment in time there will be no adverse effects. It

will not be an impediment to traffic flow at this particular

time to have this one go ahead." But once you let one, there is

another and another and another, until the time would come when

on the entire Trans-Canada Highway or a main artery, whether it

is the Trans-Canada or not, we would have to drive at 20 miles

an hour. It would get that bad if we let it go.

I don't think there is that much of a difference in

philosophy between the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) and

myself. It is just an amount of degree, I suppose.

I admit that it has to be reviewed, especially in your area because of the

topography and the kind of rural subdivisions that have been taking place. As

the Member knows, I have spoken to the

[ Page

3516 ]

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), and I think your area and

others like it have to come under review by a number of disciplines. That possibly

could be done through the secretariat of the land use committee.

I would also like to point out that we in the Highways

department are the final approving officers, but oftentimes the

decision that is made is not to allow the subdivision isn't

necessarily one pertaining to traffic. We have to go to the

Department of Health, and they may say: "We don't want that

subdivision there for these reasons: ...." The Highways

department is the department that is stuck with telling the

proposed subdividers that no, it can't go ahead. So always the

flak comes to the Department of Highways, but it would have to

go to someone.

But the fact of the matter is that we do have to be very,

very careful. I've said this oftentimes before and I repeat it.

We do have to be careful in the kind of development we allow

along our highways, because we just do not have the opportunity

of moving over one with our topography. It is expensive. We

can't afford it as a society, and once we put in these

corridors, these transportation corridors, we have to ensure

that they are free-flowing for years to come. This eventually

will save money and it will mean better planning.

There are instances, I am sure, where we have been

over-stringent. Usually those are reviewed at least once, or a

number of times. As the Hon. Member knows, you have personally

brought to me items to be reviewed. Sometimes the decision is

reversed, though not too often, but when you bring a good,

well-researched reason to me, I'll look at it.

In the meantime, I just have to repeat that unless we are

very, very stringent with the development along roads, it is

going to cost us, as a society, all sorts of money that we

needn't spend if we do careful planning — and also the social

fact of not being able to drive our cars at a reasonable rate

of speed on those highways.

Again, I would point out a number of areas where there

hasn't been a disciplined kind of planning. There is the

Okanagan where you drive through now in the summer and it is

very, very difficult if you are not a tourist but are, say on

business and would like to get through; it can sometimes be

rather bothersome.

Probably one of the most blatant examples of what I am

talking about is in Duncan just north of here. The bypass route

that was put in was one mile from the community. Now you drive

through Duncan and we are back to the same old thing; we are

now being asked for another bypass. If we had been stringent

about the kind of development allowed along that new bypass

route, we wouldn't be looking at that problem today.

The other thing you touched on was the kind of enforcement

it takes to make sure that people do adhere to the new speed

limits, or even the speed limits that were in effect before.

Obviously a certain amount can be done by enforcement, but it

is almost impossible to catch everyone who is speeding or

driving in some other unsafe manner. We are almost talking

about trying to regulate morality, which is rather hard to do.

My personal experience in driving on the road these days is

that I drive at the speed limit and very few people pass me. I

get other reports coming in that everyone is passing everyone,

but I don't find that happening. I'm not saying it doesn't

happen.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: The speed limit. I don't find that many people

passing me. I drove down the Island Highway yesterday and I

didn't find that many people passing me. Driving in from the

ferry at Swartz Bay one fellow passed me five times, weaving in

and out. When we arrived at one of the stop signs close to the

city centre, he was sitting beside me. I didn't pass him at

all except when he couldn't get by and I kept on the speed

limit — then I passed him. I don't know what advantage he

thought there was in doing that weaving, zagging kind of

driving he was doing.

Enforcement? Yes, I would like to see more enforcement. As I

said before, I commend the RCMP for the kind of job they are

doing. They don't have the manpower to do the kind of job they

would like to do. As I understand things, the federal

government is now looking at not sharing to the degree they

have shared before in law enforcement for the province. Mr.

Allmand blamed the former Social Credit government for not

keeping up over the years and leaving us in a state where we

were terribly behind. Now the federal government is looking at

cutting the kind of shareability in terms of dollars they have

contributed traditionally. I don't know where we are going in

that direction; you would have to ask the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald). From my point I do think that we should

have more law enforcement.

I notice that the last Social Credit convention at the Hyatt

Regency in Vancouver passed a resolution that the provincial

highway control should be expanded. I would hesitate to do that

at this point in time because of the rather wild, unfounded

charges that some people in the Social Credit Party are making

about us getting together and trying to have a secret police

force. I think that if I did expand the highway patrol, the

only way I could do it would be to have Staff-Sgt. Grace

McCarthy and Cpl. Agnes Kripps there to keep an eye on things.

But I'm not sure that they could do that adequately. Until

such

[ Page 3517 ]

time as there is a little more rational thought flowing into

the public from all politicians everywhere, I don't think we

could take that route.

MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to go on record as

being in favour of planning along the highways. At no time have

I indicated that I am not in favour of planning along the

highways.

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

exceptions.

MR. LEWIS: If the Hon. Member for North Okanagan would give

me a chance to tell my story, I'm sure she will have her

opportunity later on.

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

MR. LEWIS: When it comes to a total freeze of my riding

outside municipal boundaries, which is almost what is happening

at the present time, I think this is going too far. As MLA for

that area I have a responsibility for that area as well. I

think the traffic from Vancouver to Calgary is most important,

but I also feel that the people who live in my riding are most

important. I certainly will support highway planning but not

planning so restrictive that the area is frozen even though

there are desirable building sites in areas that won't impede

highway traffic.

HON. MR. LEA: Just in brief response to that, it is not that

we put total freezes on. Eighty-five per cent of the

subdivision applications that come in are approved. So it isn't

that we put a blanket freeze on. I know that you agree with

highway planning; it is just a question of degree.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): There are a few

points I would like to cover with the Minister. They are not

necessarily in order of importance. I think I will jump to the

question that was raised by the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr.

Lewis) with respect to approving officers. I think that this

responsibility should be transferred as soon as possible from

the Highways department. Precisely where has been discussed in

your comments this morning and in the comments from the Member

for Shuswap.

But I think that while it may have been appropriate a good number of years

ago when, as you indicated, Mr. Minister, the approving officer was attached

to a department which had representation throughout the province, that has changed.

I certainly don't like what I have seen in Duncan, as an example, and in a number

of other parts of the province. With the development of regional districts and

with the development of other government agencies and departments, it seems

rather foolish to leave that subdivision approval responsibility in a Highways

department. If your department is blamed for refusing subdivisions for a reason

suggested by some other department, then frankly — using the vernacular — I

don't see why your department should have to carry the can. This, I think, is

a tendency in bureaucracy, not just at the provincial level, but at the municipal

and perhaps at the federal level as well, where someone who is being turned

down is not given the real reason.

I recall in municipalities in Saanich, as an example, when

the advisory planning commission of the day did not like a

particular idea for a variety of reasons. But did it state

those reasons and pass those reasons along to the applicant in

the rejection? No. They searched around and found some obscure

reason, which was secondary or tertiary — as an example,

traffic capacity or sewage capacity or some other reason which

was not the main reason. I suggest that this is happening

provincially as well. They did not provide the reason for

rejecting the application for subdivision of whatever it may

be. It is Highways — if it is concern in the Highways department

— then well and good, let that reason be stated. But let's give

people honest and complete reasons — full reasons, principal

reasons — as to why a particular application should, and

therefore is, being rejected.

ELUC may be the appropriate agency — I'd be interested in

hearing your comments on that, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman.

The Vesuvius-Crofton ferry route is very important to

Saltspring Island in terms of commercial traffic coming from

Duncan or from the Cowichan Valley. The Minister will know of

storm damage there and at other ferry terminals from the Easter

storm and one or two others thus far in 1975. There are, I

believe, quite severe load limit restrictions in force on

Vesuvius-Crofton. While I think there is a problem at the

Vesuvius end, I'm also informed that there is a problem with

the wharf at Crofton. Could the Minister indicate this morning

or, if not, perhaps speak to me later with respect to upgrading

of that system — the wharves at either end of that very

important link?

My information is that vehicles such as cement trucks, large

lumber trucks and so on cannot use the Vesuvius-Crofton run at

the present time.

I would like to, frankly, congratulate the Department of

Highways and then obviously, as a result of that, the Minister

for putting in that link road between the Patricia Bay Highway

and Victoria International Airport, avoiding that very

backwoods Toonerville Trolley kind of connection which existed

for a good number of years. I assume that the new road is to be

given its second lift this summer or before the paving season

ends. It seems to be a base coat at the moment. Perhaps the

Minister could indicate now: am I correct in assuming that it's

going

[ Page 3518 ]

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

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: You'll speak to it later? Okay. Speaking of the

airport, Mr. Chairman, while this is not the responsibility of

the provincial Department of Highways, I'm sure that the

Minister will be concerned to know that what is called the

South Perimeter Road of Victoria airport is in the process, I

think, this week of being closed off to public use. This means

that all traffic originating to the west of the airport — Deep

Cove, further out on the peninsula and south of the peninsula

but on the west side — will, instead of having a reasonably

direct route, have to come along McTavish on to the newly

constructed airport link. I assume that the feds have done this

on the basis of security as they did with that rather

ridiculous and extremely expensive chain-link fence all around

the property. However, again while it is not the responsibility

of the provincial department, I'm sure the Minister, if he

doesn't know about it, would want to know about it and perhaps

would want to take this up with the Ministry of Transport or

other federal people, pointing out that this is as far as I'm

concerned a totally unnecessary inconvenience for those people

or that traffic that wants to get to the west side of the

peninsula from the airport terminal or other buildings, and

which also wants to get to the terminal from the northern and

central portion of the west side of the peninsula.

Also, the concrete barrier on the Patricia Bay Highway —

correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Minister, but I understood that it

was put up as something of an experiment, as a test. At least

it was indicated that because it is relatively portable, and I

stress relatively, if it was found that it was not working out,

then it could be removed. I notice a number of tire marks up

and down its height, indicating that it has indeed prevented

traffic from crossing over into the oncoming lanes. I wonder if

the Minister would tell us if he's quite satisfied with the

barrier, or if there are some other plans afoot for the

extremely busy and still dangerous Patricia Bay Highway.

Then finally, another Gulf Island matter, Mr. Chairman. Within recent days,

very recently, received was a copy of a letter addressed to the Premier from

a resident of Galiano Island who expresses concern that there has been no scything

along the roadside on Galiano. She reports in her letter to the Premier that

the machine broke down during the winter and the work will not commence for

some time yet as some of the other islands have first claim on its time. There's

a reference here in which you'll be interested, Mr. Minister: "Our Galiano road

foreman is excellent and he's most willing, but if the government hasn't sufficient

finances to cover breakages or new machines, his hands are tied." You might

not have the answer, I appreciate, this morning on that specific, but some comment

in due course would be appreciated in terms of: is there an equipment breakdown

or an equipment shortage on the Gulf Islands for roadside maintenance? Thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, what I have done generally on

the Gulf Islands is cut down on the kind of clearing that has

normally taken place over the years. I've done this on an

experimental basis. A great many requests were coming in from

residents of the Gulf Islands, including Galiano, that they

wanted the roads left in a more pristine manner, blending

....

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, that, and also the kind of slashing and

scything that was going on. So I decided that we would try that

for awhile. If the residents there want that kind of aesthetic

value, then why not? — as long as there wasn't any real danger

in terms of safety and vision.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, and vision. I'll check and see that at

least the visual aspect is good in terms of the same.

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

HON. MR. LEA: I haven't had any reports coming in about

there being a lack of good, well-working machinery.

The perimeter road at the airport, as the Hon. Member has

pointed out correctly, is federal jurisdiction. If you do have

some thoughts on it, and on which you would like me to make

representation to federal people, I'd be glad to get them if

you'd like to detail them.

B.C. Ferries. The ferry you were talking about is a B.C.

Ferry, under B.C. Ferry jurisdiction. It's not under my

jurisdiction, so bring that up with....

MR. CURTIS: Well, I'm not speaking about the ferry, I'm

speaking about the wharves. Mr. Chairman, just to assist the

Minister, I receive on a regular basis press releases on the

letterhead of the Department of Highways. This one deals with

Village Bay Ferry Terminal, contract 2, an electrical contract

in the amount of $42,000 awarded to Scott Electric. Now I

appreciate that the Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) is concerned with the ferries, but if this

is not within your jurisdiction, then perhaps he should sell

you some letterhead.

[ Page 3519 ]

HON. MR. LEA: I'll explain that. We do that work at the

request of the Department of Transport and Communications. It's

done through our department, but it's at their request. We just

handle it because we're a little better equipped for letting

contracts and some expertise. We do the work at their request.

So you could bring that up with the Hon. Minister of Transport

and Communications. I believe he's still coming up.

The Pat Bay Highway barriers. In talking with my staff, they

feel that the barrier is a good thing, that it has stopped a

number of accidents, They are so designed that when you do hit

them, they do throw you back into your lane of traffic.

Apparently it works. I've yet to hit one and I'm not looking

forward to ever doing it, but apparently they do work rather

effectively. So at this point I have no plans to alter those

barriers.

The approving officer. As I mentioned earlier this morning,

I'm not really satisfied with the way it works. For instance,

if it went to Municipal Affairs, it would mean more staff out

in the field to do it. I can't think of any other agency at

this point that has the kind of provincial network that the

Department of Highways has. We do tell people, you know, why

their subdivision has been turned down — the reasons for it.

Oftentimes there's a first refusal and we say: "Okay, there are

certain things you have to do; you have to meet this health

requirement." Or it might be parking spaces. "You don't have

enough parking spaces to deal with it adequately." So we say:

"If you do this and do that and do this and bring it back, it

will be approved." Oftentimes the second time they're approved,

or it may go to the third. But there are certain requirements

that we demand, and the reason is given.

I know there's a great deal of frustration. Even though we

have the only network that I know of at this point, we are

understaffed and it's taking longer to get the subdivision

approvals through than I would like to see. At the same time, I

think the job that's being done by the people who are doing the

subdivision approvals both in the field and in Victoria at the

final approval level.... You know, they have to be commended

for the job they've done, because they have been overworked.

There's no doubt about it.

But I'm not satisfied with the way it's going, and we have to look at other

ways of dealing with them more quickly and to the desire of more people. It's

really a tricky, tricky kind of problem to try and resolve. But I can tell you

that it is in front of the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat and

we have been working on it. Quite frankly, we haven't come to a great deal of

resolve. We're still talking about it. You spend an hour and come out as frustrated

or more frustrated than you went in to the meeting. It's a real problem. We're

working on ways to resolve it, but so far we haven't come up with all of the

solutions.

MR. CURTIS: A brief follow up on that point, to the

Minister. There are other agencies, and I mentioned it briefly.

Perhaps the Minister, as he reviews this with the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and other of his

colleagues would consider using regional districts with final

authority perhaps resting in the hands of the ELUC. Now not all

regional districts have full-scale planning departments, but

most — I think most now — are pretty well developed in terms of

planning expertise and planning capability. The Minister

disagrees. Well, we could do a count sometime and

determine.

But I do suggest that in many areas of the province, if not

most, Mr. Chairman, it could be that the regional districts

could be given.... it would go a great deal to reassure local

government in this province that the present government

recognizes that it has some ability and some responsibility. I

think regional districts and municipalities are feeling just a

little bit downcast these days in that regard. So regional

districts with the final responsibility coming to, say, ELUC — or to Highways....

HON. MR. LEA: Well, we do work very closely with the

regional districts. If they request us to hold up an

application because they would like to take a look at it, or

they disapprove completely, we look at their zoning and work

with their zoning. So we do work with them as closely as

possible. But as you know, there are a great many regional

districts that do not have the kind of staff they should have.

I'm not blaming the regional districts for it; it's just a fact

of life.

I would like to see that level of government beefed up. I'd

like to see that level beefed up so that they do make more

decisions at the local level. At the same time, as I'm sure

you'll agree, there has to be some sort of provincial standard

we have to follow also.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things in

Highways that one is tempted to talk about because it really is

such a vital portfolio in this province; and it really has been

so sadly neglected under this government.

But before starting — and I do intend to confine most of my

remarks to the constituency area of the North Okanagan — I

would, as one who travels the highways a great deal in this

province all times of the year, like to pay my annual tribute

to the Highways department.

AN HON. MEMBER: You just attacked him.

MRS. JORDAN: From the Deputy Minister up to the man who

drives the grader, there is just no way

[ Page 3520 ]

that we in most parts of British Columbia could possibly

survive if it weren't for the dedication and the knowledge and

the cheerful nature and the willingness of these crews who

plough night and day in the wintertime to meet our needs. I

know that in the North Okanagan, and we are really a fairly

heavy snow plough area, we are eternally grateful to these men

— and, I hope someday soon, women — who man the graders and

take care of the highways and who are a source of reassurance

to people on the highways when they're travelling from A to B,

particularly in the wintertime. If one if travelling the

Monashee or perhaps the pass into the Kootenays, it's very nice

to notify one highway department that you're leaving and to

notify the other when you get there, because of slides. And

it's nice to know they're around.

I can't be quite as complimentary to the Minister. I'm

sorry. As much as I enjoy his charming personality, I find he's

very long on talk and very short on accomplishments. The

highways in British Columbia are deteriorating in a very

serious way. I would strongly recommend to this Minister that

he not confine his driving from the ferry terminal to the

parliament buildings, but that he get out of his helicopter and

get out of his jet and get onto the highways of British

Columbia, not just in a bus, but to drive.

I wonder, by the way, if the Minister has taken that bus

trip yet around the province. There is a marked deterioration.

The Fraser Canyon is deteriorating badly. One well appreciates

the problems of Jackass Mountain, and it will probably be ever

thus, but the general maintenance of the roads and the general

confidence that people used to have in our highway system is

lacking. The general enthusiasm within the highway crew is

diminishing. I would venture to say that the general morale in

the highway crews is decreasing. This must be attributed

directly to the Minister's administration.

I urge him to beef up this department. I urge him not to

talk so much in the Legislature but to talk more in cabinet.

I'll cite an example in a few minutes of where this is

necessary. Mr. Minister, building highways in British Columbia

is a difficult and expensive business at the best of times. If

highways are not properly maintained the amount of time and

money spent and the loss of convenience to people in reclaiming

neglected highways is going to be staggering at today's

costs.

The heavily used Hope-Princeton highway is another case in

point. The inefficiency in the drawing out of that widening

section near Manning Park has got to be a classic. I believe I

am correct in saying that the contract was considered and let

before the change of administration. It is one of the most

simple highway widening projects that could be undertaken in

this province. But it is still not completed, according to my last trip over there some few weeks ago. One

drives over that piece of roadwork and is shocked to find maybe

one or two gravel trucks and a grader. That piece of highway

should have been rehabilitated and widened in one season or

certainly two at the most. I think it is a shocking example of

the lack of inspiration that this Minister is giving his team

and of the contracts he is letting. When people are building

highways once the decisions and environmental considerations

are made this is business. People's lives depend on these

highways and there shouldn't be the tomfoolery and almost

ant-like undertakings that are going on in this province under

this administration.

As an example, I was in the Kootenays last year. Down near

Slocan there is a massive ravine that I assume the Highways

department is going to cut off a corner of. What do you find

down at the bottom of the ravine but two little miniature Cats

working away to fill the ravine. Yet there are two sign men at

each end of the area advising people to go slowly. I asked them

what was going on and someone said they had an ant trying to

build the Aswan Dam. It might look good, Mr. Minister, but it

is a terrible way to repair and build roads in this province

and it is a terrible waste of taxpayers' money. If the Minister

got out and realized what is going on he would tighten up his

administration or else give the authority to those who need it

in order to carry these projects out in a business like

manner.

One has to talk to the drivers of transport trucks. They

know what is going on in this province. They have nicknamed the

Minister the architect of the Pothole Pathway to the Pacific.

There is no question that from the Rockies to the Pacific the

highways in British Columbia are deteriorating.

I would like to lend my voice of support to the idea that

has been expressed of transferring the approving authority from

the Highways department. It is proving too much for the

department itself, as the Minister said. I think it had a very

useful purpose in the past but now, with many regional

districts increasing their own planning staffs and authority

and with other departments moving in in a cohesive way, this is

no longer necessary. We find that too much power has been

consolidated in the hands of too few people, often with the

appearance of being in the hands of one person. I think this is

unfair to that individual because I am sure that that

individual is taking the brunt for decisions made in many other

departments. It is also unfair to those in the local areas who

are trying to get answers and reasons for answers. Reasons for

denials of accesses and denials of subdivisions are not that

readily forthcoming from your department. As I mentioned, that

tends to fall in the hands and on the head of one individual in

your department. I don't think it is fair to him or to the

public.

[ Page 3521 ]

The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) is for motherhood but he

doesn't want to have a pregnancy. He is all for planning but he

wants exceptions. I would suggest that everyone in this

Legislature and the majority of the people in British Columbia

do want plans, but they want them based on rational criteria.

One of the most serious concerns of people today is that a

planner comes in fresh out of training, bushy-eyed,

wiggly-tailed, ready to go, moves in on a community and tries

to impose his or her concept, often theoretical, on a

community. The community is forced to accept those concepts and

live with them. Five years later the airy-fairy planner is gone

and the people have to live with those concepts. Planning, Mr.

Minister, whether it is highways or subdivisions or

recreational planning or straight community planning, should

strongly reflect the views of the people who were there before

the planner came, who must live there while the planner is

there, who will live there after the planner has gone, and who

will be paying the price, not only economically or dollar-wise,

but socially for those theories that have been imposed upon

them. I know in the area in which I live there is serious

concern that it is the planner's views that are prevailing and

not the people's views, guided by sound planning principles,

that are prevailing.

It also leads to the unfortunate circumstances of what

appear to be exceptions to the rules. Mr. Minister, I don't

intend to bring up any specific ones today, but this is a

matter of growing concern with the Highways department. In the

Member's area, why were certain exceptions made? Why is one

person being treated differently than another? In the North

Okanagan constituency, but in the South Okanagan highway

district, Mr. Minister, on a stretch of Highway 97 between

Winfield and Ellison Lake, there has been a tradition for a

number of years of no commercial access on that highway. Yet an

application was made repeatedly for a commercial access on both

sides of the highway which was turned down by the former

administration.

I'm not pointing the finger at wrongdoings, but I am saying,

Mr. Minister, that you are leaving yourself open to serious

concern. One of these involves the use of Indian lands, which

leaves other people who are concerned in a very, very difficult

situation. If they question why this access was given, then

they're immediately labelled as being anti-development as far

as the native people are concerned — that's not the point.

Mr. Minister, I urge you to take a look at that piece of highway. I would like

to have written reasons as to why those two commercial accesses have been given.

One of them is a good business and I'm glad the native people are leaving their

land, but that one commercial access on the right-hand side going north is at

a most precarious point of highway, You're driving around the access and you

do not have clear visibility. That was denied under the former administration

unless they put in a service road. I would ask you why the department has

not required a proper commercial access, if it's going to be given, and a service

road — why that commercial access has direct access to Highway 97 when other

people along the area can't get it, and when, in fact, it is a very dangerous

situation.

I think that it's incumbent upon Highways to make very clear

through their department and their regulations just what is

required for access and what type of internal roads are

required so that there can be no feeling among the local people

that special privileges are being granted. This is a growing

concern in the North Okanagan and I say not directly

attributable to this Minister in the whole area. I do question

the one on Highway 97 south below Winfield and at Ellison Lake.

The reasons should be made public; anyone should be able to

have this information of why they were turned down.

Just speaking of highways in general, I would urge the

Minister — I know he's not responsive to this type of thing —

again to establish as much as possible greenbelt medians on

highways. I think that Highway 97 north of Kelowna is an

excellent example where there is a median. A progressive

cooperation programme between the city and the government to

put trees and shrubbery on that area would enhance our highways

a great deal — the same in my own area.

Speaking of greenbelts, I would ask the Minister again to

change his mind as far as the area along Highway 97 from

Woodsdale to Oyama is concerned — along Woods Lake. This was

slated to be developed as a long-term project as a greenbelt

area — picnic spots, cycling, walking areas. The Minister has

stopped it and refuses to consider it. But I would urge him

again to reconsider and slowly, when we have fill, develop that

area so that people can enjoy the use of the lake in a safe

manner, and also so that it is much more attractive than it is.

I would make the commitment that that will be a commitment of

the next administration in British Columbia. We will see that

that greenbelt area does develop on a progressive basis, so

that it has more safe parking areas, trees and picnic areas. In

other words, a people's walkway.

Mr. Minister, speaking of Highway 97 north, particularly in

the North Okanagan, we've listened to you on a number of

occasions speak in the House very gently, answering questions,

talking about the achievements of his department, yet we find

in our area a classic example of the lack of communication

between this Minister, his colleagues and Treasury board.

Perhaps it's one of the major reasons why we are having so many

highway problems in British Columbia.

I frequently requested that the Minister of

[ Page 3522 ]

Highways give serious consideration to progressing with the

development of Highway 97 north, between Kelowna and the

Armstrong area. The Minister, in short, has repeatedly blamed

it on local politicians, that there was no consensus of

opinion, and that he was ready to go when they were ready to

go. This simply is not so.

As late as Tuesday, May 27 of this year, in the Vernon Daily

News there's a statement by Vernon's Mayor Stewart Fleming, who

has been on a good deal of the discussions and the planning,

which absolutely contradicts the statements of this Minister.

Mayor Fleming and other mayors were meeting with the Premier

and Minister of Finance of this province, Premier Barrett, and

they were discussing Highway 97. I would read for your

information, Mr. Chairman, from the Vernon News with a report

from David Obee "Okanagan mayors and regional district chairmen

told Premier Dave Barrett last weekend of the need for

improvements to Highway 97 through the valley. Vernon Mayor

Stewart Fleming, who represented the city along with Alderman

Jack Mead, said Monday that the Premier had not been aware of

the presentations made to the government by Valley

representatives during recent years."

Now isn't that interesting in light of the statements this

Minister has made in this House? I'll repeat it:

"They said

Monday that the Premier had not been aware of the presentations

made to the government by Valley representatives during recent

years.

"Mr. Barrett apparently did not realize the mayors in the

Valley were as unanimous in their requests as they are."

Now, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, just what

sort of hanky panky is going on here? The Minister of Highways

stands up and says that he's ready to go as soon as the mayors

can agree. The Premier of this province, and the president of

Treasury board, says that he's never heard of the

presentations; he's not aware. Now does this Minister ever talk

to Treasury board, or is that why we're not getting the money

we should be getting for highway development?

They go on to say: "When we mentioned three-laning of some

sections of the highway, we got the impression the Premier

thought it was a sensible idea."

Instead of the Minister of Highways standing up in this

House and trying to create friction between the communities of

the Okanagan on a very difficult subject at best, this Minister

of Highways should be trying to co-ordinate some effort at his

level of administration as to where the authority is and the

money is to develop this highway.

Highway 97 was designed and built in the early 1950s to meet the then needs

and the projected needs of the Okanagan Valley into the 1960s. Those needs have

materialized and we now find ourselves in the situation where we have a highway

which is inadequate in terms of its conflict of use. It's along a lake area,

a beautiful scenic area, and the tourists want to come to the valley. We want

them to come to the valley, enjoy themselves and spend their money. They want

to see the scenery. We have commercial traffic, trucking traffic, which is in

conflict with the tourist traffic. We have the internal traffic which is not

a leisurely type of traffic. We have fruit hauling, log hauling, all sorts of

internal commercial traffic trying to compete with the tourists and the external

commercial traffic. Then we are a retirement area, so we have in pockets like

Okanagan Centre, Winfield and Oyama, areas like Ellison and Glenmore, more retired

people who wish to communicate back and forth on the highway, but drive at a

pace much different and very much in conflict with the other use of this highway.

So I would urge the Minister go get on with Highway 97, to get down to the details

of the project, consult with those in the small communities, such as Okanagan

Centre, Winfield and Oyama who are going to be affected and get this project

off the ground. We've had enough of these phony excuses. And, obviously, they

are phony when we listen to what the Premier has to say, and listen to what

the Minister has to say in this House. So cut the talk and get on with the job.

I would ask again that the Minister hold a public meeting in

the Winfield–Okanagan Centre–Oyama area, or do it through the

regional district if he chooses, to make the people aware of

the alternatives there are for this highway in dealing with its

current problems. It may be well to think in terms of a bypass

up the west side of Okanagan Lake, but the time for this

problem is now, not five years from now.

Even then, because only 15 per cent of the traffic load is

through traffic, that is not going to, if it is moved over onto

the Westside bypass, if it ever materializes, solve the problem

of this internal traffic. But let's remember, when we are

talking about internal traffic in this, area, that it's not

like a community with isolated internal traffic, but it draws

widely from around the area and that traffic is the lifeblood

of that whole area and, to a large degree, the valley.

I would again urge the Minister to put a crosswalk in

Winfield. We have a constant problem. People are trying to get

from one side of the community to the other. The schools are on

both sides of the highway. The commercial development is on

both sides of the highway. The fruit orchards are on one side

of the highway and the packing houses are on the other side of

the highway. We have an industrial development programme, an

industrial park with Hiram Walker and the plastics plant and

other plants which are on one side of the highway, and if one

examines the

[ Page 3523 ]

employment picture in this industrial park, one finds that

most of the people working there come from either Vernon or

Kelowna, so we have added pressure.

There has been one tragedy there; we don't need another. I

would urge the Minister to review the whole policy on

crosswalks and traffic lights when we get into smaller

communities. It is all very well to be proud of reducing the

speed limit to 50 miles an hour on the main highways, but where

the speed limits need to be reduced is in these small

communities — Winfield, Oyama. This is where the traffic barrels

through, this is where community life is crossing the highways,

and this is where a lot of the accidents are happening. It is

well to live by a warrant system, but I believe that warrant

system has got to be readjusted and common sense has got to

prevail for the safety of children and older people in the

area.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

I am sorry to have to take up so much time regarding highways in the North

Okanagan, but we really are having great difficulties.

I would like to speak to the Minister about Okanagan Landing

bypass, a road that feeds the centre of town, the community of

Okanagan Landing, and then a public provincial park. The former

administration had recognized that we had a problem, and it is

a very serious problem because the original survey is not

accurate and it certainly hasn't been adhered to as far as

development along the road is concerned. We have a heavy

tourist flow into that area over a very narrow road, people

pulling 10-, 15-, 10- and 30-foot trailers around impossible

corners, and the local community life carrying on at the same

time.

The former administration, with the cooperation of the

regional district, planned an alternate route, and this was

accepted by the regional district and by the department. While

it wasn't top priority, it was agreed that so much money should

be spent each year. This was cut off by this administration,

and we now find ourselves in the position in that area where

traffic is increasing to the point where, Mr. Minister, people

want you to either get on with the road or close the provincial

park. They are not prepared to sacrifice their children for

the lack of planning and foresight in the Highways

department.

Mr. Minister, I would urge you to either accept this bypass

and get on with the job, or speak to your colleague and close

the provincial park, because the trailers go back and forth,

back and forth, and there have been people killed on this road,

it is a bad road, and it is only suitable for internal

traffic.

I'd like to ask the Minister if Carr's Landing Road will be paved this year

at last. This is a matter of concern to these people. It hasn't been an easy

road to develop because of the lack of proper gravel, but that gravel is available.

The contract was let, and I would urge the Minister to see that it is paved

this year.

The whole matter of the oiling of our roads is of serious

concern in areas such as Trinity Valley and Creighton Valley,

because progressive road development in those areas has been

halted by the government and nothing has been done and they are

not even getting oil. I ask the Minister: does he not

understand the difficulty that these people have? There is

heavy logging traffic over gravel roads. There is tourist

traffic, but there is agricultural development....

If the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) would sit

down I could talk to the Minister of Highways.

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

case.

MRS. JORDAN: If the Chair would ask the Minister of

Education to sit down, I would appreciate it.

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

feet.

MRS. JORDAN: Blocking the view?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your view is to the Chair.

MRS. JORDAN: I find the Minister of Highways a more

acceptable view at this time.

Mr. Minister, what happens in the spring and the fall is it

is not graded? I appreciate the problems of weather, but the

dust rises and it falls on the crops. If you have a hay crop,

which we have at this time of the year, and the dust falls on

the hay crop, the cattle simply won't eat it. So the producer,

at 40 cents a bale just to have the hay baled, without

production costs, is out thousands of dollars if he's got a

crop that can't be utilized by the livestock.

We have serious problems. We don't have enough oil. It isn't

released soon enough. Other areas have been oiling but our area

has not. I would implore the Minister to expand our oil

allowance so that these roads can be kept in a condition

suitable to the demands that are being placed on them. I would

also urge the Minister to continue with the progressive road

plan for Trinity Valley, for Creighton Valley, for our Mabel

Lake roads.... The list is so numerous that I am embarrassed

to go over it. They simply have all been set aside.

What is happening is that the local people become very

frustrated. They take it out on the local highway employees.

The local highway employees have no alternative because the

money is not forthcoming. It

[ Page 3524 ]

creates unhappiness in the community and it certainly is not

the treatment that these people deserve. These logging trucks

contribute handsomely to the revenues of the province. We want

to keep people in agricultural production but the roads are

causing them problems. It just seems to be working one end

against the other, and it is quite inconsistent with

responsible highway policy.

I have a number of concerns. I must again say to the

Minister of Highways that I believe he is making a mistake on

Highway 6. That highway should be put up on the upper level. It

should be developed that way and it should link up with the

bypass around the City of Vernon.

I must again suggest that the Minister's reclassification of

27th Street through Vernon linking it with Highway 6 as a

secondary route, encouraging commercial traffic along this

route, is a grave error unless it is only a temporary step to

get that bypass up. What he has done is increase the commercial

traffic in an area that is residential, church and school. This

is completely incompatible with the surroundings.

Vernon needs a bypass. The main highway traffic from Highway

97 going into Vernon down the so-called Mission Hill is

creating tremendous problems for children getting across that

area to school and people crossing to the hospital. There is an

increase in the development of cross vehicular traffic and

pedestrian traffic. The Highways department says that it can't

put in a cross light for these people because of the grade. If

it does, then when trucks or cars are coming down the hill in

the wintertime, they will run the light through no fault of

their own, and people are liable to be hurt this way. The only

answer, Mr. Minister, is the bypass. That bypass should come in

from Lumby on the upper levels. It should be developed now and

it should roughly follow the line of the Gray Line canal.

Vernon's bypass should go on the upper level of the east side

mountain. I know of no other solution. I know that this is an

acceptable solution to the regional district and the regional

planners and it is an acceptable solution internally to the

Highways staff. What it needs is the Minister to get on with

the job.

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

up your remarks.

MRS. JORDAN: I have a lot of correspondence about highways.

To sum up, the main points are that our highway crews need more

money, more authority. It gets so that I have to get on the

bandwagon and then we get something done. That is wrong. It

should be the regional highway engineer who is taking care of

the roads and meeting the people's needs. People shouldn't be

resorting to their MLAs.

As a last point, Mr. Minister, I find it very disappointing

that your estimates for the North Okanagan highway district are

not available and will not be available until after your

estimates have been discussed in this House.

Mr. Minister, it is now the middle of June and our highway

work should be well underway. You only have four months in this

area. Your estimates have not been approved and allotted in

total. We haven't got our student component hired, The last

count I got was that we only had four students hired for the

summer. I would like the Minister to comment on this. The North

Okanagan needs highway attention just to maintain its pace, but

we would also like to go ahead. It is not forthcoming from this

department and this Minister at this time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I would like to ask a number

of quick questions. One deals with the Cayoosh-Jaffery forestry

access road. Briefly, this is a case where a company is

responsible for a couple of miles of road. It is in the

Lillooet area — Cayoosh-Jaffery road. The buck is being passed

between the Forestry department and Highways departments on

this. The private company concerned finds itself providing a

road essentially for public use. They would like to know if the

Highways department will get going on this so we can make sure

that Wald & North Enterprises, which is the company that

owns the grader and uses this grader virtually exclusively on

this road, not be required to constantly keep a public road

open.

I have some notes here. There is a two-mile stretch from the

end of pavement to the gate on the private road. Much of the

two miles is a steep grade, full of switchbacks, and the entire

two miles is surfaced with gravel. The road runs from Lillooet

to Pemberton. The Minister knows what a valuable road this

could be in cutting off congestion through Vancouver, Valley

and canyon areas. It's used extensively by the public and it's

apparently maintained by nobody but Mr. Flemming of Wald &

North Enterprises.

The people in forestry state that forestry had been

upgrading portions of the road with the idea of turning it over

to the Department of Highways. Why the forestry people have to

upgrade it before you people get hold of it, is something I

don't understand. But, unfortunately, the work stopped and the

equipment has been removed from the Lillooet area by the

forestry people. Mr. Leerly of forestry engineering stated that

he doesn't know exactly how much is still the responsibility of

forestry, which is fair enough.

Mr. McCarthy in the Department of Highways stated that

they're not authorized to maintain the road beyond the end of

pavement — the two mile stretch in there. I would like to know

why the Highways department cannot take this over from

[ Page

3525 ]

forestry, and whether we can get this thing properly dealt

with in the public interest.

So I will leave that with the Minister. Perhaps he has not

got the information at his fingertips; perhaps he would like to

reply to me by letter. It is an important problem. What is

boils down to is that the highway is unmaintained because

neither your department or forestry will take responsibility

for it. The private individual concerned is caught in between

in a bind of providing a road, to a very large extent, for the

public. He has about 20 employees a day, during working days,

going over it. I am sure the Minister would like to give me

some information on that.

The second quick question is on the Savona steel ball mill.

The Minister knows about this. It's a case where the company,

Noranda — or I should say Quebec Iron Foundries, a subsidiary

of Noranda — wishes to build a steel ball mill at

Savona.

The regional district likes the idea, the people wanted to

go ahead — it would provide jobs. But the whole programme

foundered on the question of highway access. The Highways

department said that the firm could not get access unless they

put in about $1 million worth of road, involving an overpass.

This made the plan uneconomic from the point of view of Noranda

and Quebec Iron Foundries. I would like to know whether the

Minister could inform me whether his department is still in

touch with Noranda, whether there is still a possibility of the

Highways department getting that road built and getting it

built by the public rather than by the company so that we can

get these new and very valuable jobs into that area.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to go at a whole string of

questions. Perhaps those two could be quickly answered and I

could come back with more.

HON. MR. LEA: First of all, dealing with the Hon. Member for

North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). I listened carefully and intently

to both her complaints and her constructive suggestions. Those

complaints and suggestions will, of course, be part of input

when deciding decisions within the Department of Highways,

particularly those areas concerning her own riding. As far as

the jobs that are going to be done this year, of course, she

will be notified, along with all Members of the House.

Highway 97, I admit, is a real problem; it's one we

inherited. I guess that doesn't make any difference at this

point; it's a problem we have to deal with. I may have been

quoted incorrectly, but at no time did I say that the mayors

couldn't make up their minds what they wanted to do.

MRS. JORDAN: Internal policy is the problem.

HON. MR. LEA: Dealing with questions asked by the Hon. Second Member

for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) — the Cayoosh Pass Road is rather a complex

set of circumstances. For instance, we are paying the money and forestry is

building the road. I think this year we're putting in $200,000. I think possibly

the best way to handle it is the way that the Hon. Member suggested — that we

do write you a letter with all the details. If there's anything further you'd

like to follow up on, we could be in touch with each other on that.

The Savona industrial development is an area that we also

would like to see go ahead in terms of jobs and that sort of

thing. But it's at a very difficult place in the highway. I'm

sure the Hon. Member is aware that as you come down the long

hill and across the bridge, it's directly to the right just as

you cross the bridge. We are suggesting that if there's going

to be development on that side of the road — I guess it would

be the south side of Savona — then obviously we're going to

have more and more and more of the road completely bisecting

the community of Savona. So, hopefully, as we allow development

on that south side, there will be an adequate overpass of

traffic system that will mean it won't create a bottleneck

situation in Savona for the highway traffic.

We have been working with the developer, trying to work out

a solution so that it isn't too costly to him and doesn't stop

the development from going in, and, at the same time, allows a

good traffic flow through there.

We are also having a look at another area there where a

person wants to do a rather good-sized subdivision for

residential property, and again we are looking at how we are

going to get that traffic across the highway into the main

centre of Salmon Arm without creating a bottleneck.

So we are working with both of those and, as I understand

it, there is ongoing discussion with the developer. I can say,

though, looking at the alternatives, that the solution probably

won't be cheap in terms of dollars, but even then possibly we

can look at the kind of jobs that are going to be created and

whether or not government should provide some incentive to the

developer.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I thank the Minister for his information.

I would like to go over personally with him the whole question

of the road area in Lillooet, and the Salmon Arm matter I feel

I could take up with him again by mail.

The Minister has been accused, in his last appearance before

this committee, of "using smear tactics for political

purposes." I assume it refers to him, but it appears that some

people, namely the Minister, who will stoop to any lengths to

attempt to attempt to discredit another Member of this House.

Now these are very serious charges and I want the Minister to

answer one or two questions about what

[ Page 3526 ]

he said on Gellatly Road.

I want him to answer whether or not in fact, not as claimed

by him in his statement, but as claimed by others, the Gellatly

Road construction was actually built by the Highways department

and not built by a private company to which the Highways

department rented equipment at rates somewhere approximating a

quarter of the commercial.

In other words, did they build the road themselves and then

bill back the company? I think that is fairly important. I

would like him to track down an invoice dated March 19, 1968,

for $1,481. Who signed it, who did it go to, and was there,

indeed, a second Highways department agreement in the whole

Gellatly Road matter, as well as the first?

I would like to ask him whether or not the fill he talked

about came from Highways people or a Highways programme

elsewhere, or whether it came from a private developer, because

the fill made an important difference in cost to that road and

it is claimed that it came from a private developer.

One other matter. It has been stated that this smear attack

by the Minister on another Member of this House was on a Member

who had nothing to do with the company, Scottish Cove Holdings.

I would like the Minister to check and find out whether indeed

at the time that this series of fortuitous circumstances was

occurring any present Member of this House was a member of that

company. I would like him to check and find out whether or not

the annual report for 1968, dated September 116, was in fact

signed by one W.R. Bennett as a director of that company, and

whether or not later on a request went to the company's office

asking that the name of the directors be amended and that the

name of the director who signed that be taken off the records

of directors for that particular year, as well as other

years.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Retroactive legislation, as the Member

for Oak Bay mentions.

The unfortunate matter is the signature occurred on what is

purported to be the annual report of the company, and

presumably it must be a forgery, because apparently the Member

in question was not a director of the company at that time. So

was there a forgery in the annual report as filed?

These are questions which must come to light, because the Member should be

protected if, indeed, he was not a director at that time and had nothing at

all to do with the matter in question. So I think that should be checked out.

After all, if he was a director and did sign it, any subsequent latter sent

to the companies branch indicating that the name should be different sounds

rather hollow and phony in the light of the signature on the annual report.

I would like the Minister to answer a number of questions on

his statement of last Thursday. He stated that the first

fortunate thing for the subdivider was when the department

decided to relocate the road. On whose signature was this

decision made? Who was it made by? What is the documentation of

the "department's decision" from the Minister's statement?

The second matter — and I would like to find out whose

signature was involved here — was the other development up the

lake. Now was that a private one? Was it a public one?

Did the material come from the Highways people free of

charge, as was indicated, or was it actually from another

private outfit? Again, it would be interesting for the Minister

to check that out because that's been denied. His statement in

the House has been denied. The report of his officials has been

denied.

I wonder whether the Minister could indicate who agreed —

I'm quoting the Minister's statement: "The department agreed to

rent to him its equipment without any cost for transportation."

Who made that agreement? Whose signature was involved?

I'd like the Minister on another question to give me other

examples where a similar situation occurred, if this was normal

practice at the time and not something special. Well, let's see

what other occasions there were when equipment was made

available without charge for transportation and where this was

made at something approaching one-sixth to one-quarter of the

otherwise commercial cost. I want to exclude in this instance,

naturally, any case of snow-removing or things of that nature

in road construction. I think the Minister should answer

that.

I think that the Minister should answer as to why the

department...and I'm quoting again from the Blues of last

week: "The department also undertook to supply asphalt to mix

into the road mix pavement and that the granting of the

material be obtained free of charge." I wonder whose signature

authorized that or whether it was all done without any

signatures or anything of that nature. So I think that the

Minister, in the light of the accusation that the Minister is

simply indulging in political attacks and in the light of the

accusation that some people.... Quoting now the Province

newspaper of last Friday: "Some people will stoop to any

lengths in an attempt to discredit me personally, or the party."

I think, in the interest of fair play in this House, the

Minister should start answering some of those questions. If

indeed there was no connection and nothing was known about this

matter, as was indicated by the questioning outside the House,

well, it's a very different thing than if, in fact, as appears

to be the case with what is alleged to be the company annual

report, a Member of this House was a director

[ Page

3527 ]

at that time.

Letters later on amending the company records, or at least

the records of the company at the company's office,

retroactively don't particularly stand up if signatures on

annual reports are valid.

So those are some questions to the Minister. I think they

are particularly important. This Minister was accused today

again of taking a very partisan and political approach. I think

that the Minister should, in fact, clear his name and

straighten out the record here.

Further, Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister should take a

look at Hansard and check out the Hansard statements of his

colleagues in this affair, and check on whether they are

accurate or not, because once more, this is a sorry performance

if it's indeed nothing more than a politically motivated attack

on fabricated material within the department against a Member

of this House.

The present Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams) stated that, "I ran into a range of

problems" — talking about this Gellatly road, in the Hansard

here. "I ran into a range of problems. I first took the matter

up with the lands branch. I'd like to say first that I do not

think that the lands branch is basically involved in a matter

such as this. It's a matter for the Highways department."

That was the statement of the Hon. Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources, speaking then as an opposition MLA

in 1971. He states again: "It's clear that the responsible

cabinet Minister throughout all of this was the former Minister

of Highways, the Member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Gaglardi)."

He talks in that about the Highways department. He talked

about the need to have a Highways department that "not have one

access policy for its friends and one for its enemies." I do

believe that the statements made by the Hon. Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources when in opposition, where he stated

that there was a file on this whole matter which he was denied

access to, should be looked into. I'll quote Hansard once more,

February 19, 1971.

I told him (that's the Deputy Minister of Highways) yesterday

about a few matters I wanted to discuss, one the Kamloops bypass and, two, Gellatly

Road at Westbank. When I went there this morning I asked for the file on Gellatly

Road. The Deputy Minister agreed that there was a file here in Victoria on that

matter, but he refused to give me the file or let me see the file. Again, I

was told that I could not see that file unless the Minister himself approved.

Again, Mr. Speaker, my quarrel is not with the civil servant. It's the cabinet

Ministers and this government which give these kind of orders.

Well, the government has changed, the Minister has changed

and that file would undoubtedly either clear this Minister of

improper use of internal documents within his department for political motivated gain, or

indeed indicate what the facts are in this matter. The Gellatly

Road has been passed off as something in the past, something

irrelevant.

But when I see that the Minister is accused of misusing

public information, public documents, and public servants as

well, for political purposes and I don't think we can totally

ignore it. There are questions which now must be answered. And

we can start with the one of the company's report in the

company's department, which he may not have at hand. Mr.

Chairman, there are only seven minutes left; I'm going to sit

down now to get at least some comment from the Minister.

Perhaps we'll have to continue this discussion.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I am a little distressed with

the turn of events that's taken place since I read the report

into the records of this House. For one thing, I would like to

have it on the record that beyond a doubt I did not know, the

other day when I made that report to this House, that the Hon.

Member for South Okanagan had ever been a director of that

company. I didn't know that. I've not looked at the records of

the Companies Act which the Hon. Member has described this

morning.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: I have no knowledge of that, except from

hearsay from a reporter who volunteered that information to me

this morning. The second time I heard it was when you brought

it to my attention now, in the House.

I at no time accused the Hon. Member for South Okanagan of

anything in this House; I didn't mention his name. I didn't

mention his name outside this House. All I did was read into

the record, in this House, a report from a senior official of

my department — a report that was done, I think, in October,

1973 in regard to Gellatly Road. Because of the remarks that

have been made outside this House, that I have overstepped my

bounds in using public information, over the weekend I have

asked that my department do a check into all the details

surrounding the Gellatly Road situation.

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

too?

HON. MR. LEA: I will ask for all information available, just

to check and make sure that Members of this House have all the

information that's available to me or to anyone else. When that

information is compiled, I'll make it available to this

House.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, just one or two quick questions.

Some months ago a statement was

[ Page 3528 ]

made in the North West Territories about British Columbia

dragging its heels on completing a road which crosses the

boundary between northern B.C. and the North West

Territories.

Without going into all the details or reading from the

report, the basic thrust of the suggestion is that presently

all the material being shipped in for the development of the

Mackenzie Valley pipeline is coming from Alberta because we

don't have a road between Port Simpson and Fort Nelson. I

gather that the North West Territories' government is

developing at least part of the proposed highway in their own

jurisdiction, but there are 120 miles in northern British

Columbia which needs to be developed.

As I say, there's quite a well-documented

article in the

Vancouver Sun on March 8, 1975. We don't have time to go into

details now, but I wonder if the Minister could say where that

120 miles of highway construction in northern B.C. Is at the

present time. Does the government view it as holding the

economic potential that the

article outlined? It said that the

boost to the economy of British Columbia in jobs,

transportation and so on, could be worth many millions of

dollars. I wonder if it is as vital as suggested, and where the

planning is at the moment.

I just want to add another note. I've had further letters

from people concerned about the Fort Langley ferry. I know the

Minister promised to look into it, and that was only a week or

so ago. But it's quite obvious, from the correspondence I'm

getting, that it is a very inefficient ferry. The kind of thing

that I'm getting — in letters is that there are time lags, times

when the ferry does not operate because of fog, there are long

pauses for coffee breaks, and the ship is continually snagging

fishnets...we need a more reliable service. These are some of

the comments that people are expressing, and the question about

a bridge is again asked. I know the Minister said that the

department had looked at the cost of a bridge, and felt that

the cost was unjustified, or would be unjustified. But many of

the people living in this area.... This other gentleman who

writes to me, I'll just quote quickly: "On Monday of this week

I had to cross over from Fort Langley to Albion on business,

and as usual, I waited three hours for the ferry." Now if

people are waiting three hours to take a five-minute trip, it

seems pretty.... I would be pretty frustrated, too. I don't

know how often this happens, but, as I say, I'm getting

letters.

The other issue concerns citizens in north Vancouver Island.

I'm sure the Minister of Highways remembers the correspondence

we've had, or that he has had, with a gentleman — I won't

mention his name — who lives in Port Alice. He documents the

fact that it takes him 15 hours and 45 minutes to get to

Vancouver, by the time he waits for the ferry.

I know the Minister is not responsible for the Nanaimo-Vancouver ferry but

there are letters on the Minister's desk from this gentleman. I'm sure he probably

well remembers who I am talking about. He is talking in particular about the

highway from northern Vancouver Island that connects with Sayward. He understands

that contracts have been let by the Department of Highways but he is unhappy

that progress is so slow.

In addition to the highway problem he is asking if the

Minister will discuss with the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) the concept mentioned many

times in this House that northern island residents be given

some kind of preferential consideration on the

Nanaimo-Vancouver ferry. I know this is not this Minister's

jurisdiction, but there is an interrelated problem here of the

highways getting from northern Vancouver Island to Nanaimo and

then waiting three or four hours in Nanaimo to get on the

ferry. It does seem to me that that is not an unreasonable

request.

The last little point I have been asked to raise is from

another person living in the Fort Langley area who asked if I

would inquire about the widening of the Lougheed Highway at

Haney where you go past Valleyfair Shopping Centre. Again, this

is apparently a local issue that people have been asking about

for some time. They want an answer and maybe the Minister could

comment on it.

HON. MR. LEA: In dealing with the Fort Nelson-Fort Simpson

road that the Hon. Member raised, my policy on that has been

that whenever the federal government.... And it is federal

government, not the North West Territories. It is directly

under the jurisdiction of the federal Minister of Northern

Development, Hon. Judd Buchanan.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: I went to Ottawa and saw the Hon. Jean

Chretien when he held that portfolio. I told him of British

Columbia's desire to have that link completed. He appeared to

me to be of the same mind and said that previous to that, when

the Social Credit government was in, the federal government has

been desirous of completing that stretch of road, and they

allocated funds down there. In his office in Ottawa, he told me

that they could not get anywhere with the former Premier who

would not have anything to do with that stretch of road. He

would make no commitments, no promises and he wouldn't even

talk about it.

They felt that it was rather silly of them to leave that

money allocated for that stretch of road if British Columbia

was not going to budge one inch under the former Premier. They

took that money out for the Mackenzie Highway. When I spoke

with the Minister, I said that we didn't have that same

[ Page 3529 ]

attitude. We thought it would be of help to British Columbia

and to the north particularly if we could complete that piece

of road.

He asked me at that time to give him some time to turn

around their appropriation of money. He asked for a year,

because he said he couldn't pull back at that time. That was

about a year ago. At that time we were looking at a four-year

completion date. Since that time we have been running into a

bit of trouble with the federal government in terms of what

kind of money they are going to spend in the north.

The provincial government policy is that whenever the

federal government meets their end to that border, we will be

there to meet them. It is really up to the federal people. We

will meet that obligation. We will meet them at that border

whenever they decide to be there.

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

now?

HON. MR. LEA: We have done some work. At the same time we

are doing a socio-economic impact study in that area. There has

been some work done but we would like to see it refined. I

don't think that the benefits are going to be as far-sweeping

as the chamber of commerce in the northeastern part of the

province want, but we do feel that there is going to be some

benefit both in revenue for the BCR if the Mackenzie pipeline

goes ahead and just for the general forest industry. So we are

looking at that and we are willing to meet the federal deadline

at any time they decide.

On the Albion ferry, as I said the other day, I will have an

operational review done of that ferry based on a number of

things you have brought up in other areas.

On the Sayward to Woss road on the northern part of

Vancouver Island we have, I feel, been doing a great deal of

work in that area. It has taken a lot of the budget. There have

been contracts let. One is from Woss Camp to Nimpkish for

$1,300,000. One is from Sayward to Keta Summit for $3 million;

Keta Summit to the Eve River for another $2.5 million; and

another $50,000 from Sayward to Keta Summit. About $7 million

of contracts have been let in the last couple of years. We feel

that we are doing about all we can at this point. We are

looking at other contracts possibly in the fall.

MR. WALLACE: What about the ferries?

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

Minister who is responsible.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:04 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada