1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page

1845 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Highways

estimates On vote 98. — 1845

Mr. Fraser — 1847

Mr. McGeer Hon. Mr. Lea — 1849

Mr. Cummings — 185I

Mr. Gardom — 185I

Mr. McGeer — 1852

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1853

Mr. Curtis — 1857

Mr. Chabot — 1857

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1859

Mr. Chabot — 1860

Hon. Mr. Lea — 186I

Mr. Chabot — 1862

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1862

Mr. Phillips — 1862

Hon. Mr. King — 1863

Mr. Phillips — 1864

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1865

Mr. Phillips — 1865

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1866

Mr. Phillips — 1867

Mrs. Jordan — 1867

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1872

Mrs. Jordan — 1872

The House met at 8 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS

(continued)

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

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I haven't too much to say to the

Minister here, Mr. Chairman, but I have a few things. I refer

back to last evening when I spoke. I think the Minister

answered some of the questions but not all of the questions I

asked him. I want to remind him again. I think he just

overlooked them, I hope so.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, I asked about a

Deputy Minister. There's no vote in here for a Deputy Minister.

As I understand it, at the present time there isn't a Deputy

Minister. My question is: when will there be a Deputy Minister?

I believe there are two Associate Deputy Ministers, but what

I'd really like to know is when the post of Deputy Minister is

going to be filled.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want a shot at it?

MR. FRASER: No. No way!

I think it came out today. It wasn't answered yesterday when

I brought it up last evening. But how long are decisions going

to be held up on these developments which I said probably add

up to $200 million in the province? I believe the Minister

referred to that today, but nothing was specific. In other

words, are we going to lose the whole building year of 1974 on

these different complexes, whether subdivisions for shopping

centres or residential or what? I'm not clear on just what is

meant.

Another that is vexing people in the rural area, and I

realize that the department is protecting the public purse on

this. I refer to rural roads that are built to a standard of

the Highways department by a subdivider. Then somebody comes

along and subdivides again, and the department insists if the

road is to a standard that they pave it, the existing public

road.

I might say that this is causing a lot of hard feelings in

the Interior because the department, in a lot of cases, is

asking the subdivider to pave, and if he does pave, say, a

couple of miles of road, you've got to drive on 20 miles of

public roads which are gravel.

They can't see why they have to be brought up to a paving

standard at their expense when the public roads leading to and

from are not up to that standard. I believe it is policy that

you get the subdivider to pave at their expense, and I'd just

like to hear the Minister comment on that.

I mentioned last evening again about settlement. The

Minister, I believe last evening or today, mentioned, if I'm

correct, that there were around 500 outstanding

settlements.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): I didn't say.

MR. FRASER: You didn't say that. I believe I asked last

evening how many were outstanding and actually how old they

were. I think some of them go back for years. I asked last

night: has anybody any record and inventory of these

outstanding claims of all types and whether they're

compensation for expropriated land?

There is one case I want to bring to the attention of the

department now. I don't like to deal in detail, but the delays

cause hardship to people. I refer to a farmer. Through the

negligence of the Department of Highways in the installation of

a culvert — and they admit the negligence — engineers make

mistakes too, you know, just like politicians — this farmer got

flooded out and he couldn't put his hay crop up. This happened

in 1972, and it recurred in 1973.

I don't want to get the Minister mixed up here.

The 1972 claim for loss of hay was settled for, but the

flooding occurred again in 1973. I might say, corrective

permanent action is just completed so it won't happen in 1974.

But this farmer is arguing with the claims officer of the

Department of Highways, and he had no hay crop again in 1973.

Hay went to $90 a ton and that cattle ranch has gone out of

business because he had to sell his stock.

I just wonder whether administrative people realize how

these sort of things go on because of the delay and the

hardship it causes people. This chap, as far as I know, has

gone logging for a living. I don't think that anyone in the

province wants to see this happen.

It was all established in 1972 and the same thing occurred

in 1973 because the culvert wasn't adequate. I repeat, the

culvert is fixed and it won't happen in 1974. But we haven't

got any farmer left.

I hope there are not too many like that, but that's the sad

story caused by correspondence going back and forth — the

claims department wanting proof of this and proof of that. As

far as I know, the claim hasn't been settled as of now. He was

a victim not only, of course, of the culvert but also a victim

of the high cost and shortage of hay. It's a very sad state of

affairs.

Last night I asked the Minister's policy on rental

[ Page 1846 ]

of equipment. I'm talking about owner-operator equipment. I

believe the department throughout the province tries to give

the local people the work if equipment is up to specifications

and so on. But, and I repeat, last night I don't think the

Minister answered why they enter into a signed agreement, as I

understand, on a four-week basis, and hire the man for eight

days then lay him off.

The other thing that happens on rental of equipment in some

cases, as has been brought to my attention, is that the local

operator seems to get specked right out of the job so equipment

can be brought from somewhere else. I think this is a bit of

trickery. I don't think it's going on throughout the province,

but I resent seeing equipment coming into the Interior, say,

from the coast, when equipment of comparable specifications is

available there, of course depending on that work.

The other thing that I mentioned earlier, which the Minister

didn't answer, was the third outlet from the coast, and you

certainly expanded on that today.

One thing, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, that could be

better coordinated I think, is the snow removal policy of the

department within municipal boundaries. The existing policy is

that your department ploughs the snow and the municipality has

to remove it. In other words, if it's brought to the centre of

the arterial, which in the confined municipalities is pretty

well what has to happen, the municipality has to haul it

away.

I was wondering, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, would they

consider taking the whole thing over, or turn it over to the

municipalities and pay them because there's not too good a

coordination. I don't say this critically, but the Highways

department, of necessity, goes out and ploughs heavy snow on

the arterial highways in all directions from the built-up

community. Then the town or the city does their ploughing, but

the main road to the municipality ends up in the worst

condition of all. If you can get through the main highway

through a town or city, you get onto good, free going after a

10- or 12-inch snowfall. But the coordination is poor and I

think the trouble is to do with the overall policy.

Mr. Chairman, there are varying types of votes in the

Department of Highways. I guess I should know by now, but I'd

like a comment on where the day-labour vote money comes from in

this budget before us. Then there's the district vote as well.

You were good enough to give us the White Paper yesterday on

the district vote, but I want to know what vote the day labour

comes out of. I believe it comes out of capital, but I would

like you to say that, either when we come to that vote or when

I get a reply, hopefully.

I understand a few years ago — three or four — plans were laid on through the

ferry system of the Department of Highways and a road link.... They were going

to have a ferry, I forget where it originated, but it would come to Bella Coola.

Then they'd make a decent road from Bella Coola to Williams Lake, and you'd

have a circular tour. I would like to know if the department has thrown that

plan out. Or are they still considering going ahead with it at some future time?

Traffic fatalities were mentioned and bicycling, and so on

and so forth. I'll give you an example of what happens because

of lack of funds. North and south of my home town, Quesnel, the

highway was built in the late '50s and the early '60s just like

a dike. They just pulled the dirt up from the bottom and we

have a surface road of 30 to 40 feet, no shoulders whatsoever,

and deep, deep ditches from 40 miles north and south of

Quesnel. After a lot of urging by a lot of people, including

the engineers, shouldering started on that project and ended

after about five miles had been done last year. Believe me,

shouldering is certainly the answer, but there are a lot of

miles to do yet.

It's very dangerous. As an example, there have been 14

people killed in one spot six miles south of Quesnel. I realize

you have all the reports and this driver failure and so on, but

do you know that the shouldering stopped within a mile of this

bad spot on the highway that all the local people are very

upset about.

Will we get funds to continue this shouldering? I might say

the shouldering that has taken place has not been surfaced. I

think the final answer is to continue the shouldering and then

cap the shoulder. I think you will see fatalities drop

considerably. In that area, if you check your fatalities,

you'll find that

section of road 40 miles south and 40 miles

north of Quesnel on Highway 97 has a high rate of fatalities

for the traffic density. In my opinion, without shoulders the

driver hasn't time to react. By the time they do, it's too

late; there's no shoulder to work on.

You answered me last night on equipment purchases. You were

quite correct; you were getting the specifications through the

Purchasing Commission. This was your reply. You're ending up

with the low bidder. I would go on record as supporting you if

you wouldn't buy from the low bidder, and look for quality

equipment. I don't think anybody in this province would say

otherwise. Go back and check your records of the equipment

you've got. You have all makes; you should have a record from

your mechanical department which machines are giving you the

good service and which aren't. You will find it isn't the

equipment from the low bidder in a lot of cases.

I particularly want to emphasize the fact of power graders

which are very important machines in the Interior of the

province 12 months of the year — not just for grading of gravel

roads in the summertime but for snowploughing in the winter as

well. Your

[ Page

1847 ]

snowplough trucks do a good job until you get a good heavy

fall of snow; then you have to get the power grader out to get

the road open.

I certainly agree completely to get quality equipment. I

don't think you are going to get that from the low bidder. It

applies in everything from pickups right through to bulldozers.

I think still a better study should be made.

School locations were brought up. I would like to give the

Minister my opinion. You are quite correct that school

locations have been built in the Interior right where the

arterial highways are. We've had fatalities on the famous

Barkerville Road; this winter we have had two or three school

children killed. Part of the original trouble was the fact that

somebody let the schools be constructed on the edge of a road

like that.

I think that as the Minister, you could maybe take it up

with the Minister of Education. I think the school boards of

this province should be told that in future you are not going

to allow these schools to be built near any main arteries.

Furthermore, they should be a mile or so off them, and you

should build the roads and keep them a mile or two miles back,

or whatever it is.

We've had real troubles. We've got school buses in the

wintertime in the Interior stopping on two-lane roads with five

feet on the level, 10 feet in the wind-row — and it's a real

dangerous situation. You people plough turnouts for them, but

the children run out from behind or in front of the bus into

oncoming traffic, usually logging trucks travelling at 75 miles

an hour with 100,000 pounds. They can't stop on glare ice.

Consequently, fatalities. I think the answer is to get these

school buildings located a mile back from these main roads, at

least while you are loading them and unloading them from home

so they're off the main flow of traffic.

I haven't very much more, but I would like to hear some

answers from the Minister now. Just one last question. You know

the Barkerville Road; I think they started to rebuild it in

1959. I would like the Minister to tell me tonight that 1974

will see the Barkerville Road completely rebuilt and paved and

finished in 1974. Thank you.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): My goodness me, it's

been hard to get the floor. I would like to just ask one or two

specific questions of the Minister.

I strongly support the statements of the Member from

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) last night about the

disparity of highway expenditures for the City of Vancouver and

the lower mainland area. The Member from Little Mountain is not

noted for verbosity and I think when he gets up and makes a

point in the House, Members should take account of it,

particularly the Minister. In this case I think that Member was absolutely correct and I want to support him one

hundred per cent on what he said.

I happen to come from one of those Vancouver constituencies,

Vancouver–Point Grey. It's a constituency that's a bit of a

socialist desert. I know the Member for Vancouver Centre was

once the campaign manager out there and we enjoyed having him

pay his last visit to that constituency.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, he certainly got a good Member, Mr.

Chairman; I don't know how good a constituent he is. But I want

to say that he should be up fighting like the Member from

Vancouver–Little Mountain for roads in Point Grey as well as

Vancouver Centre.

I stand to be corrected on this, but I believe

Vancouver–Point Grey probably has the lowest expenditure on

highways of any constituency in British Columbia that has roads

exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. Perhaps the Minister

could check with his Deputy and tell me if that is correct or

if it's incorrect. What other constituency is more unfortunate

than Point Grey? (Laughter.)

I took a particularly keen interest in this helicopter ride

because it struck me that when the Minister mentioned the

expense of that, I could see a whole budget for Vancouver-Point

Grey disappearing in that one journey.

Members who have been in this House for some years, and I

speak particularly of those in the Social Credit benches when

they were formerly in government, will know that I have never

been one to chevy the government about expenditures on

highways. Indeed, I have spoken about more generous

expenditures in virtually every riding in British Columbia. I

think the greatest strength of the former government was its

highway programme. If there was any sort of weakening of the

government's strong position in its senile years, it was this

lack of commitment to transportation development in British

Columbia. I said all those things despite a continual denial of

appropriate road development in Vancouver–Point Grey.

I charge, Mr. Chairman, discrimination against

Vancouver–Point Grey because there has been an opposition

Member representing that riding since almost the beginning of

time. I think it's time that Vancouver–Point Grey got a fair

deal in highways. (Laughter.) I want to tell you .

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Pardon me? No, what we want is a nice, paved

highway out to the university. I don't think this is a laughing

matter; I think it's a sign of discrimination against the

electors of

[ Page 1848 ]

Vancouver–Point Grey when people start laughing at the

Member who stands up, like every other Member does, to call for

highways in his own constituency.

We've got in Vancouver–Point Grey a city of 20,000 people.

The Second Member says 25,000 and I'm sure he's more accurate

than the First Member. Those 25,000 people are cut off from

every other access route and highway except those access routes

that go through provincial government lands. Of course, I refer

to the University of British Columbia where 25,000 people come

out every morning and 25,000 people go home every evening

through roads that are exclusively the jurisdiction of the

provincial government.

Because that city is a separate entity and serves only two

functions, that of teaching and that of research, it doesn't

have any income-producing industry. What's happened, Mr.

Chairman, and I mean this very seriously, is that funds that

have been allotted by this provincial Legislature for the

purposes of education have had to be spent on roads because the

Department of Highways has denied the constituency of

Vancouver–Point Grey its just share of highway

expenditures.

The three presidents of the universities were over here the

other day to have an interview with the Premier and the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly). I'll bet they didn't

tell the Premier and the Minister of Education that some of the

money they were asking for was money for roads. Can you

believe, Mr. Chairman, that the budget of the University of

British Columbia, which everyone here, I'll wager, before

thought was for the purposes of education, has to be spent

partly for highways because the Department of Highways has

refused to put money into the constituency of Vancouver-Point

Grey?

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) has

3,000-plus miles of roads in his constituency. I've got up and

I've spoken again and again for the need for better and more

highways in the constituency of the Cariboo. Do you know how

many miles of provincial roads there are in Vancouver-Point

Grey? There are about 14.

Now, Mr. Chairman, you would think that in all these years

the government would have seen its responsibility to that

constituency. It's as large as any other in the province, and

to hear the Member for Vancouver East talk about it, everybody

has at least two gasoline-guzzling cars. So they're paying

their share when it comes to the taxes for building roads. But

when it comes to the provincial government delivering a fair

proportion of that Highways budget to complete the access road

to the University of British Columbia, it's not there.

I don't know where the money goes. Some of it apparently went on helicopter

rides, but I think the constituency of Vancouver–Point Grey deserves an even

break. I'd like to ask the Minister of Highways whether this year we're going

to have completion of the access roads — and I mean a proper four-lane highway,

from Marine Drive. They built it half way and they quit. I don't know why they

quit at 29th Avenue.

But there should be a four-lane highway going all the way to

the University of British Columbia from the south side of

Vancouver, there should be a proper four-lane highway from 16th

Avenue going out there and there should be a proper four-lane

highway on Chancellor Boulevard.

Now that's only three access roads. One of them, in fact two

of them, are only about two miles long. The other one has about

two or three miles that's required to complete it. But failure

to do the job, Mr. Chairman, has meant that every year the

University of British Columbia has had to take desperately

needed educational money and put it into blacktop.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that other educational institutions

have not had to waste their educational money in such

ventures.

Now I'd like to mention one or two other areas to the

Minister. I think the government did a great thing and got a

tremendous amount of credit when they took down the B.C. 1

signs and put up Trans-Canada Highway. It put us right back in

the nation again. It ended a shameful part of parochialism that

was brought on the people of British Columbia by the former

government.

But by the same token I thought it was every bit as

childish, perhaps more childish, for the government to have

removed the signs saying 'Gaglardi Way' which went up to Simon

Fraser University. There were many people who disagreed with

that former Minister of Highways; I was one of them. I don't

think anybody said more critical words of that former Minister

than I did.

But he played a role in British Columbia; he was the

Minister of Highways during the greatest period of highway

building in British Columbia. That former government was

responsible for the building of Simon Fraser University and the

commitment of funds that went into the access routes to that

university. It was cheap politics that should have been beneath

the provincial government to pull that sign down and rename

that road.

Before the NDP government relinquishes office there may be

names of buildings, names of highways, recognizing

personalities in the NDP government and the contribution that

they made.

Those of us on the opposition will never agree with the

things that the government does. But I hope, whatever the

future government is, it will never be small enough to take

those highways or buildings or geographical points, whatever

they may be, and tear down the names and replace them with ones

that are more to their liking.

[ Page 1849 ]

I think the Social Credit government was wrong to tear down

Trans-Canada Highway and make it B.C. 1. But I think that the

NDP government was guilty of something much smaller when they

pulled down the sign saying 'Gaglardi Way' and renamed it...I

don't know what the name was. I hope that kind of smallness and

meanness will not become a characteristic of future

governments.

AN HON. MEMBER: They put it back.

MR. McGEER: Well, I'm glad they put it back. And if they

have, I hope that it will be properly recognized by the

media.

Now, finally, I'd like to say a word or two about the

expropriation that is contemplated for North Vancouver because

I believe....

Just a moment, Mr. Chairman. I can see you starting to wake

up and sit forward in your chair. I think this is an

opportunity for the Minister of Highways to pile into an

important aspect of his portfolio. The Minister of Highways

hasn't hesitated to trundle all over the jurisdiction of the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall). He's been right into

tourism and travel industry.

But that really hasn't been an important part of his

responsibility. The linking, however, of the Upper Levels

Highway with the Deas Island throughway, with the system that

goes up to the Fraser Valley and which eventually, I hope, will

go to Iona Island and across to Vancouver Island, is an

important part of his responsibility. Those linkages at the

present time are the Second Narrows Bridge and the First

Narrows Bridge.

But a third linkage must come. I say, Mr. Chairman, that

there have been too many crazy people in this Legislature and

in the City of Vancouver who have denied the necessity of

another bridge spanning Burrard Inlet. The best plan I ever saw

for creating this new bridge was one put up by the

Phillips-Barratt Engineering firm, which proposed a span going

across the middle of Vancouver harbour. Such a span would need

to be no longer than the span proposed for that bridge that was

to parallel the First Narrows. You could put exactly the same

span in the middle of Vancouver harbour — believe it or not.

And on the approaches to that new span, you could build two

enormous piers, one on the north side, which would tie in with

the B.C. Railway and the CNR, and one on the south side, which

would tie in with the CPR.

What you would get out of such a transit system would be a new highway, a rapid-transit

line, two new piers, one on the north side to fit in with the BCR and the CNR,

and one on the south side to fit in with the CPR. Mr. Chairman, all of this

discussion here that we've had in the Legislature about rapid transit, street

cars, ferry systems and so on, takes us back to the 1930s. The only way we're

going to project into the future of the 1970s and the 1980s is to recognize

that road transit is two-dimensional, not one-dimensional.

It is the way of the future, despite what everybody says, in

an area like the City of Vancouver. That third crossing is

going to come no matter how narrow, bigoted and backward we

are. It's only a question of where that third crossing will

come, and when.

My own view is that the third crossing should be in the

centre of Burrard Inlet, equally dispersed between the First

and Second Narrows, and that it should come as soon as

possible. It may be that it can be delayed by political

decisions. It could be delayed 10 years; it might be delayed 15

years. It could be that it's closer to the First Narrows Bridge

rather than exactly in the middle.

But come it will, and there's no point in us as a

Legislative Assembly being dragged kicking and screaming into

the future. We should recognize what is required and begin to

move towards the best solutions now.

I believe the expropriation on the part of the provincial

government, if it's going to be in the north end and south end

for a ferry system now, will be the ideal thing because it will

provide for us the base in the future upon which that mid-inlet

span could be built. So I'm in favour of the expropriation, but

perhaps for a different reason than the Municipal Affairs

Minister (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) has.

I think the Highways Minister, however, has a great

opportunity to make his name, to show that he's a beacon for

the future, by announcing his intention to get in there and

build a bridge between those two areas.

HON. MR. LEA: I have to admit that I'm touched by that

impassioned idea from that Member for 14 miles of road within

his riding. He was talking about the kind of money he and his

running partner are going to get. There are NDP ridings with

double Members who get less. That's the way we play politics;

we don't do it by who's a Member and who isn't. Why, the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) get

considerably less than those two Members. We're not going to

play politics with people's money, Mr. Chairman.

Why, Mr. Member, you and your partner are going to have

$25,000 to split between you for 14 miles of road. Ask the

Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) if that isn't a great ratio of

money, if you are going to break it down into mileage.

(Laughter.)

Now, I don't want to hear any more of that, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): We'll be here

[ Page 1850 ]

all night.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, I hope we're not here all night, Mr.

Member, and it won't be my choice.

Earlier today we were talking about what executive

assistants do for their money. Continually through this debate

I've listened to misinformation and bad research coming from

the other side. I ask them, what do their researchers do for

their money?

We look at Gaglardi Way. He said the provincial government

took down the sign. Mr. Chairman, we didn't take down the sign

and we didn't put it up, because it is not within our

jurisdiction to do that. It was the community of Burnaby that

took it down and the community of Burnaby who put it back

up.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Who muscled them?

HON. MR. LEA: Nobody muscled them to do anything. I want

that road to stand there with Mr. Gaglardi's name forever to

remind this province of one of the greatest cabinet Ministers

we ever had. Every time they go up there I want them to see the

name Gaglardi, especially young students on their way to bigger

and better education. I want them to see this. And so never

would I use my influence in any way to have that name taken

down, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, Madam Member, here you are, standing in

the Legislature asking me to spend money in your riding, asking

me to do this, asking me to do that. You say the riding has

been neglected. For all those years as a cabinet Minister you

couldn't get your own colleague to spend any money in your own

riding. Now you're after me.

Well, I'll tell you. If the need is there, we'll spend it,

because we don't play politics, Madam Member.

The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) asked about a Deputy

Minister: Do I have one? Are the facilities there to have one?

If he had followed his orders-in-council he would have seen

there has been an order-in-council passed allowing for a Deputy

Minister position within the department.

Someone else said, where would the money come from? It would

come from vote 70, salary contingencies from the Minister of

Finance. That's the proper way to do it. He asked when. I said

as soon as possible.

Arbitration. We have no outstanding cases particularly, except those of the

Libby Pondage which somehow or other managed to find their way into the Highways

department to get that land for B.C. Hydro. I don't know why that happened;

you'll have to ask some of the people in your own caucus, Mr. Member. But here

we are in the Highways department taking land for a Hydro project as the Department

of Highways. Those are the outstanding ones and we're dealing with those.

I don't think that anything really has been brought up that

hasn't been brought up before and that I've answered. The Hon.

Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) said he wasn't really

satisfied with some of the answers I gave him. Well, I don't

particularly think my answers should have to satisfy him, but

that I should answer.

Finally, I would just like to comment on one or two things

the Hon. Liberal leader said. I don't really believe he

believed the things he was saying. He knows very well, when

he's talking about the Minister's vote, that he's not really

telling what he really believes, I don't think. I hate to think

he couldn't follow the book and make it out.

He talked about $8,000 in 1972-73 fiscal year for the

Minister's office in the Department of Highways. He knows very

well that the Minister at that time held the double portfolio.

The Minister's wages came from the Provincial Secretary's vote;

the executive assistant's wages came from the Provincial

Secretary's vote. He also knows that the travelling came out of

the Provincial Secretary's vote, and he also knows that the

secretary came out of the Provincial Secretary's vote. He knows

that some of the other expenses were shared between the two

offices. So I don't think you can really compare apples with

oranges.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: That was in the year 1972-73. Don't get angry,

Mr. Member, it's your leader.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Obviously there are some people in this House

who believe they don't need their leaders, but in this party we

really do.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: I hope there are no school children in the

audience tonight. Please, I want to have a little decorum in

the House. Are there any school children, please? Let's try and

put on a good show, gentlemen.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: There's nothing wrong with school children,

Mr. Member. (Laughter.)

Obviously the vote had to come up when we changed and we

said okay. It was something the opposition asked for too. They

said, "Please don't have any more double portfolios if you can

help it."

[ Page 1851 ]

We said, "Right, we don't believe in that either."

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: No, I don't think you're going to help it by

voting, that's for sure.

What we've done is perfectly obvious. Anybody who has access

to the estimates can tell what's happened. I moved the senior

information officer position from administration into my

office. I think that only makes sense. I have to work with the

senior information officer quite closely and I did it so that

it shows up where it should show up — in my office. We're

trying to be open and honest with you, and you only

criticize.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: We are. You're trying to understand.

(Laughter.)

Now, I have another executive assistant. That's true, you

know that; I haven't denied it. I said two. I mean, that makes

sense.

We have some money now for a temporary assistant. You know

why? It was there before but now we are trying to be honest and

are putting it where it belongs — in the proper vote. And you

know that. The hon. leader of the Liberal Party knows that and

the people in the press know that. The people in the province

know that. I think for once they're very, very glad to see

estimates that have some relativity to the kind of money we are

spending. For the first time. You can criticize all you want,

but the people out there know exactly what's going on for the

first time, and you don't like it that much.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): I feel

slightly shaken because I have been supported by the First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). I have to be

very, very careful about my arguments.

I really would like to apologize for the 500,000 people who

are in the lower mainland and all the gas tax they had to pay

and the roads they use. It is very unfortunate, but there were

several red herrings mentioned.

For example, the right-of-way didn't cost you a nickel in

Vancouver. Knight Road, which was a nice commuter street, was

turned into an arterial street. It went to four lanes from two

lanes. This was a very, very quiet neighbourhood and it was

utterly destroyed by a new super-highway. I think it is adding

insult to injury, Mr. Minister, when you destroy a nice bedroom

community and then have enough nerve to make them pay for

it.

There were several other red herrings, for example, Annacis

Island. That happens to be in New Westminster and Burnaby.

I am quite willing to suggest that you'll have better

arguments with your cabinet colleagues than you did with me,

but actually I heard another little red herring — $25,000 to

the University Endowment Lands for 14 miles. How about all of

Marine Drive, which is an arterial highway to that

university?

I think that per capita grants should be given back to the

larger cities because there are more cities reaching that magic

33,000 population every day. Kamloops is going to be on the

wall next. Kelowna's going to be next. How's Prince George? Is

it going to come soon? It's not right that if you're called a

district you still get the vote, but if you're called a city at

a certain population, you don't. I still would like to press,

in spite of the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey's

support.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): It was very

interesting to hear the remarks that the Hon. Minister made in

response to my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer). The Minister said to this House that $25,000 is being

allocated for the purposes of the First Member and the Second

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. That's not the case at all, as

he well knows. The money that has been allocated, as picayune

as it is, is certainly not for us, but for the citizens of this

very great constituency, including about 25,000 people that

commute daily.

This is the greatest instant town in Canada, west of

Toronto, and you're just not properly taking care of it. To go

ahead and talk about providing $25,000 out of this budget to

furnish some reasonable degree of mobility to these people, who

are not Point Grey residents.... They come from the totality

of British Columbia, as the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr.

Nimsick) well knows. I can remember his speeches in the House

on this very point when he talked about assistance for

students. This is what we're requesting here — assistance for

these people and to be able to properly get to this particular

area.

When the Hon. Highways Minister says that this is an

allocation for the benefit of myself and the benefit of the

First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), I

absolutely reject that as just the most shameful kind of

politics that he's probably ever announced in this House. Yet

he goes ahead and he spends two-thirds of that sum — $18,000 — flitting around in a whirlybird. For what end? I don't know. He

sort of looked like a swallow trying to find Capistrano. I've

not yet received any kind of a logical answer from the Minister

apropos the questions put by some of the Social Credit Members

as to the need for that particular trip of his. But the First

Member for Point-Grey made a very very valid point. He said

that by virtue of this extremely....

Interjection.

[ Page 1852 ]

MR. GARDOM: Have I ever seen a bearded swallow? I don't

suppose I have, but maybe tonight we have.

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: There's a lot of wit in this side of the House,

Mr. Minister, but it may be escaping you somewhat.

When the Hon. Minister is prepared to spend, for just a

personal little trip, two-thirds of that sum on his own

interest, it certainly seems to me to be a pretty poor

allocation of priority, with the net result that the university

has been forced to use funds which should properly go to

education for perhaps highway purposes, and that's

exceptionally wrong.

There were a few misunderstandings this afternoon, Mr.

Chairman, between ourselves and I would like, if at all

possible, to overcome some of them. I'd like to assume first of

all that one of the responsibilities of any Minister of

Highways in the Province of British Columbia would be safety on

our highways. Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to assume

that any purposeful Minister of Highways would be in favour of

safety on our highways. Perhaps the third assumption would be

that the vehicle one would most usually find on the highway

would be a car, and except under the most very unusual

situations the car is driven by a human being. Well, to extend

this slightly, since an individual is in by far the majority of

cases the party most responsible for the cause of accidents

over mechanical problems, I think we have four basic

assumptions there. Accepting those, can I not ask...

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. GARDOM: ...and expect an answer from the Minister who

is responsible for an area which has proven to be the greatest

slaughterhouse that we have in B.C. — or in any other area in

the North American continent, for that matter, or in any part

of the world where cars are driven? And that's a highway. Can I

not expect an answer from the Hon. Minister to this question?

Is he or is he not prepared to agree that no person under the

age of 18 years should be able to drive a motor vehicle until

he or she is properly certified under a driver-training

programme approved by the superintendent of motor vehicles?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I've already ruled the Hon.

Member out of order on the same point and I would request that

he not bring the subject up again and move to another

subject.

MR. GARDOM: I think you were ruling me out of order though, Mr. Chairman,

on really a different approach to it. If you'd like me to go through those assumptions

again.... I didn't find you quarrelling with the assumptions, so assuming that

the assumptions are correct which you obviously agreed to, I think that's a

fair question to the Minister and the question has now been put, so perhaps

he could give an answer. You don't need now to rule me out of order.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I would ask as to whether or not

this Minister, who is concerned about safety in highways, is

prepared to agree that driver education must be programmed into

our high schools on September 1, 1974.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member is clearly

breaking the rules of the House. I would ask him not to raise

the subject of driver-training courses under the estimates of

the Minister of Highways. I ruled you out of order this

afternoon and you've brought the subject up again.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, yes, of course.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask you to desist from the violation

of the rules of the House.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention whatsoever of

transgressing any of the rules of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Member may not have the

intention but he's continuing to do it.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, no, no, no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would order you not to bring this up.

MR. GARDOM: I could not be doing it unintentionally, and I

have no intention of doing it — so there we've got a stalemate.

(Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member move on to another

subject?

MR. GARDOM: Yes, I certainly will. Now, since I posed both

of those questions to the Minister, and I expect to have

answers from him, thirdly I would ask him as to whether or not

he is prepared to agree that province-wide, compulsory

motor-vehicle testing must become a fact and reality in the

Province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member take his seat?

MR. McGEER: I was absolutely shocked to learn that there

were constituencies in this province receiving less money for

highways than

[ Page 1853 ]

Vancouver–Point Grey. Mind you, those constituencies didn't

have a single foot of road that was exclusively under

provincial control,

whereas Vancouver–Point Grey has, to my

knowledge, 14 miles and perhaps more. I would hate to think

that there was any constituency, whether there were provincial

highways in that constituency or not, that would receive less

money for highways than one joyride on a whirlybird.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

MR. McGEER: I would like to think that the Minister would do

a quick re-evaluation of the expenditures in Vancouver-Point

Grey and give us at least two whirlybird trips worth of

highways. It's vital. There's a city there of 20,000 people

that is filled up with automobiles paying gasoline tax every

every morning and it's emptied by automobiles paying gasoline

tax every evening. I think the people who are driving in and

out want that money spent on roads and not on whirlybird trips.

If these roads could be built — I'm talking about completion of

Marine Drive to the University of British Columbia, completion

of 16th Avenue to the University of British Columbia,

completion of proper access roads on the University of British

Columbia campus itself — then it would no longer be necessary to

take educational money and put it into blacktop.

Now surely that's not an unreasonable request after all

these years and years of patience on the part of opposition

Members from Vancouver–Point Grey. We've not asked for

excessive amounts of money. We've never even asked for a

bridge. All we've asked for is to have a few miles of road cut

through the bush so that the people wouldn't be tied up in a

traffic jam every day going back and forth to the city that is

the campus of the University of British Columbia.

Why, the Minister of Mines knows that every year I've spoken

up about the necessity to fix those highways in the east

Kootenays so that Black Angus cattle wouldn't wander on the

highways. We haven't had the Black Angus cattle speech this

year. I'm going to be disappointed if that Minister doesn't get

up and speak in favour of keeping Black Angus cattle off the

highways in the east Kootenays. Are they all fenced now? Every

Black Angus cattle is now on the range, not on the

highways.

Nevertheless, the southern trans-provincial highway still

remains a priority necessity for the provincial government. The

Champion Lakes cut-off has never been completed. The

Hope-Princeton highway should follow the Ashnola River, and

there should be that Princeton cut-off. That would save two

hours going between here and that beautiful area in the east

Kootenays.

I agree with what the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) says. We have got to

build a new access route to the Interior. In my view, it should go up that road

from Pemberton to Lillooet. We should cut new roads through an unraveled part

of British Columbia. That's what Mr. Gaglardi did when he chose the Rogers Pass.

When he made that decision he asked the people of the southern part of British

Columbia, the developed areas, to be patient, but I don't think he expected

them to have to wait into the hereafter. The government now, with a Member from

the east Kootenays, a Member from the west Kootenays, a Member from Rossland-Trail,

and so many NDP Members along there you can't even count them any more, couldn't

get that highway completed.

Mr. Chairman, I am not asking that the government slow down

on that trans-provincial highway. I am not asking that they

slow down on that new access route to the Interior. All I am

asking is that they cut down on the whirlybird flights so that

we can get this little bit of pavement completed in the region

of Vancouver–Point Grey, Mr. Chairman, if that were done — I

wouldn't have to stand up in this Legislature and plead for

equal treatment. We'd be able to say: "The job's been done in

Vancouver–Point Grey. Congratulations, provincial government — now get on with the areas that haven't received attention.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to plead for a tunnel from

Terrace to Vancouver. Not yet. I am not even going to plead for

the tunnel that the former Minister of Highways (Mr. Gaglardi)

requested between Vancouver Island and the mainland. I think

that's not only futuristic, but it is something which is from

another planet.

The present budget, concentrating as it does on maintenance

rather than building, is really a denial of future needs. I

recognize all of the limitations that the provincial government

has, but there are important jobs to be done — these little

things that we can clean up. The highways in Vancouver-Point

Grey are a prime example.

Mr. Chairman, there are areas where we can save. We can save

on helicopter trips; we can save on executive assistants; we

can save on these political frills and get on with the job of

building, building, building.

All I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, is for a modest amount of

reconsideration on the part of the Minister and his staff, and

just a little building in the constituency of Vancouver-Point

Grey.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister again

congratulated himself for having answered questions, which I

don't believe he did answer — I believe he must have overlooked

them. I appreciate his comments regarding the Provincial

Secretary's department. I went to check the figures out, and I

found there is a decrease of $2,428 in the period in question

between the previous amount and

[ Page 1854 ]

the present amount. In other words, that took care of thy

travelling, the executive assistants and what not.

Still unexplained is the over $200,000 increase in the other

two Ministers' offices. I appreciate the fact that he made an

attempt to look into this, and has checked and found that there

was indeed another Minister who was able to take care of this,

and I would like him now to check the two Ministers in question

about which I asked him. It is the one area in his department

which is increasing in staff, substantially — 50 per cent over

last year, while the rest of the department is at 0.2 per

cent.

He shakes his head. I'm afraid I still have a little faith

in the figures provided in the estimate book, but perhaps your

department is as bad as that of the Minister of Education (Hon.

Mrs. Dailly), and all those figures are wrong. I am judging by

the book. If you have other information, let us know, because

there is a $200,000 increase for a saving of $2,428, which

equals out to be an enormous increase. There is no question

that it has not been explained why all this is necessary.

The next question that I raised was the Delta speed warning

system. The problem in the Minister's reply has been this. The

Minister's reply indicated that it "only slowed people down for

50 feet." He then went on to say that the department itself was

considering a similar proposal, which presumably would only

slow them down for 50 feet. Now, I don't quite know how that

can be squared with the treatment that the developers of the

Delta speed warning system received from his department.

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

Second Member for Victoria that this is now the third time, to

my recollection, that this subject has been discussed. He is

tending to become tedious and repetitious in this regard. If he

has some new points then he may re-introduce them; otherwise I

shall rule him out of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I was cut off, you see, when I was

last speaking on this, so it is not exactly repetition so much

as a continuation.

It may well be tedious to the Minister. The Minister may

feel it tedious, but again I am not going to have to read the

Bible to you, Mr. Chairman, about the need of the good Lord to

tell stories in different ways to persuade those people who are

a little dense.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I'm not quite as large around the

waist as you are, Mr. Minister, who is leaving at the present

time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would request that Hon. Members not make

personal allusions. I would ask the Hon. Members to show the proper courtesy

towards one another.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the Minister in question left the

chamber, Mr. Chairman. I am disappointed.

Nevertheless, the question of the Delta warning system is

still, I think, something which needs some sort of comment. The

police in question have approved it. The municipal engineer

felt it was a worthwhile project, worthy of consideration. I

have his letter, which I was just looking at when we adjourned

at 6 o'clock. I won't even start on it. I will simply say that

the municipal engineer in question also agreed that it was

worthwhile. Twenty school principals agreed it was

worthwhile.

The excuses given both in letters from the Minister's

department and by the Minister himself have been weak and

unconvincing. I trust that he will look at this again — he

doesn't have to make any comments on it tonight — in a more

reasonable frame of mind, after he has had a rest, and see

whether he can't come up with a little more hope for these

people and a little better evaluation of the proposals they

had.

Mr. Chairman, I asked him yesterday about Westside, an area

in Kamloops. Not to be tedious or repetitious, but to refresh

your minds, Westside was an area where the Highways department

made a number of errors in their planning. They approved a

subdivision, and the result was substantial flooding. I am not

exactly sure of the full extent of the Highways department's

responsibility — whether it was actual non-feasance or

misfeasance on their part — but the Minister's staff is well

aware of this, as I told him yesterday when they were here. I

am sure they have had an opportunity now to pick up some

information.

The fact is this. The area in question was affected by a

decision of the Department of Highways. Then the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) who is in his seat — and I

thank him for staying in this evening to listen to this — ordered amalgamation without consulting the local inhabitants.

So suddenly the City of Kamloops was burdened with the expense

of repairing the damage due to the flooding, and rectifying the

problem that led to the flooding. They find this expense a

little tough to bear, and they would like some assistance in

this regard. I would like to know whether the Minister of

Highways, whose department was a fault, apparently, according

to the reports, in the initial decisions as to how this

subdivision should be set up, is going to assist them. They

might well assist them by way of equipment or men, or actually

doing the job. It doesn't have to be by way of money. It could

easily be assistance in kind to rectify their mistakes. I

wonder whether the Minister would like to comment upon Westside

[ Page 1855 ]

Kamloops.

It is something which is important to the local people.

Their municipality is facing difficulties, thanks to other

budgetary restraints that we have talked upon, and some that we

are going to talk upon when the Minister of Municipal Affairs'

estimates are up. They feel that in the light of their

financial difficulties the added burden of picking up the

mistakes of the Highways department is a bit too much.

The next subject upon which I would like to comment is one

which is a tricky subject for this House. It is the question of

safety. Now, I am not going to talk about the driver training,

which you have indicated, Mr. Chairman, belongs under another

Minister. I was going to comment upon the report of the Motor

Vehicle Branch dealing with accidents, but I guess I can't do

that either.

But I will comment upon the statistical data produced by the

British Columbia Department of Highways, for 1973-74, which

came out under the name of the Hon. Graham R. Lea, Minister of

Highways. Is that acceptable, do you think, Mr. Chairman? Thank

you very much.

Now on B.C. highways we had 635 lives lost; that's on

provincial highways in that year. There were 828 fatalities in

total. So in other words, as we have been discussing the

estimate of the Minister's office there have probably been

somewhere between six and eight people killed in British

Columbia through traffic accidents. The magnitude of the

problem...I give you this to indicate it is really something

which is tremendous.

We've had interesting information which came out of his

report. Apparently deaths are in no way related to traffic

flow, and most occur in the evening. Why this would be I don't

know. Perhaps the Minister has some comment why that is, and

whether street lighting or highway lighting on corners and areas

where there may be difficulty would be of assistance. What are

they doing in that regard? Perhaps a lower speed limit at night

might help.

I know that he rejected the concept of a lower speed limit

when dealing with fuel conservation, but the results in the

United States are just dramatic — a 40 per cent cut in highway

fatalities, not all attributable to a cut in the speed limit,

but a good number attributable to that. I wonder whether the

Minister would like to make some comments about speed limits in

terms of fatal deaths.

The interesting thing, or one of the interesting things, in this report was

that most of the accidents occurred on the straight highway, not on curves — not

in areas where the highway was in bad condition. But 60 per cent of the fatal

accidents took place in relatively straight sections of the roadway. Another

38 per cent occurred when the vehicle went out of control on a horizontal curve.

We have a problem also here of the number — one every second day almost — as

a result of bad conditions in terms of ice or snow. I shouldn't say the result

of, but they do occur during those periods — a substantial number.

I wonder if there are any possibilities in terms of improved

road service, the use of a different compound — use of broken

glass, for example. Crushed glass, I understand, has some

potential for improving this type of surface of roads during

bad weather, particularly rainy weather. Perhaps the Minister

might comment upon that.

I was intrigued to see that so few of the fatal accidents

were the result of defective automobiles. I think that a vote

of thanks should go by all Members of the House to the people

who man the testing stations because they're clearly rejecting

a large number of cars — 40 per cent, my colleague mentioned. I

believe it's slightly less than that. Nevertheless, they're

keeping the wrecks off the road and fatal accidents

attributable to bad cars are well down.

The real question, Mr. Chairman — and here we may need your

advice pretty soon — is drug and alcohol involvement. We had 47

per cent of our fatalities alcohol related, or at least alcohol

was involved. I wonder whether the Minister of Highways, with

the staff that he has and the expertise that he has in his

department, could indicate to us in his replies whether or not

there is need for change in this area.

The British and Scandinavian countries have a much more

severe system than we do. Stockholm Airport was built by large

numbers of people serving sentence for alcohol and driving

offences. Indeed, when I was in Sweden, Mr. Chairman, you never

could tell whether a Swede's post card was really from the

south of France or from Switzerland or if he was on holiday,

because they used to send their wives off with a stack of post

cards to send back when they went to jail because of drunken

driving offences. It was a rather amusing thing. They used to

cover up the fact that they were in the clink — or, at least,

building the airport. It might be something we could try here.

The Minister may well have some useful comments on that.

We heard a great deal about drugs earlier. I think it's

interesting that the Department of Highways believes that only

two fatal accidents were because of possible impairment due to

drug use. I think that perhaps the problem of drugs in relation

to the problem of alcohol has been overstated, grossly

overstated — not to minimize the problem of drugs, but simply

perhaps to indicate that the problem of alcohol is our major

problem. And these statistics of 47 per cent of the fatal

accidents with some alcohol involvement are pretty

staggering.

Excessive speed — and here we come to the speed limit — was

the contributing factor in 20 per cent of

[ Page 1856 ]

all fatalities. The speed limits, I think, should be

re-examined from that point of view, and thus my layman's

enthusiasms for devices which tend to indicate to people that

they have exceeded the speed limit. Speed is an important

thing.

But accidents will occur despite efforts made to cut them

down. Another area that we should look at — and I trust the

Minister will comment upon this — is seat belts. Mr. Chairman, I

looked in today's paper and I saw a note from Associated Press

from Miami, Florida.

" 'Of 600 persons killed in auto accidents in Florida's Dade

County in the last three years, only nine out of 600 were

wearing seat belts,' the University of Miami researchers say.

'None of the 600 were wearing both belt and shoulder harness,'

the university said in a study. 'There's no doubt that these

figures are significant,' said Dr. William Fogarty, a civil

engineer on the university's accident analysis team. 'Our

findings are corroborated by the Australian experience,'

Fogarty said."

I apologize, Mr. Chairman, but I don't have statistics on

Australia. But it's interesting that apparently this is

something which is a world-wide phenomenon. "Their law

requiring drivers to use belts has been followed by a big drop

in accidental deaths and injuries." And they don't even have

full compliance with the law.

Now here we have a situation where seat belts were an

important factor in saving lives. Obviously those figures could

be expanded. You could get other statistics. I won't go into

that. But seat belts do save lives. I wonder whether the

Minister of Highways, on whose roads some 650 British

Columbians wipe themselves out every year, almost two a day,

would be willing to indicate his views on compulsory seat

belts, which I personally approve of — compulsory wearing of

seat belts.

He indicates in British Columbia that 67 per cent of the

fatalities in B.C. were not using the seat belts available to

them at the time of impact, and 40 — or 9 per cent — died with

seat belts on. That's B.C. But look at the number that had the

seat belts in the car and weren't using them. Now surely we

need something further than the....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland)

asked how many died with their boots on. Probably a good

number. Some might have been wearing high heels, who knows.

But still, the fact is that compulsory use of seat belts might well have improved

the accident record on British Columbia highways. As I believe driving is not

a right but a privilege, I believe the small inconvenience and loss of personal

liberty that is involved in a compulsory scheme would prove worthwhile.

Now those are my comments on accidents except to point out

the accident rate for the young people 16 to 25: the death rate

is still climbing. It's 40 per cent of the total. That

indicates that we're going to have to do a lot of thinking,

both with respect to ICBC insurance rates and to highways, and

with respect to health and, as well, to education. Obviously

all these departments are involved.

Young people are wiping themselves out at an ever-increasing

rate. I think there's a possibility that insurance rate

adjustments, that will substantially increase the number of

young people owning cars and driving cars for which they are

solely responsible, will probably almost inevitably increase

the number of young people getting killed on our highways.

From the look of the statistics provided by the Minister of

Highways' department, I cannot see that there is any other

conclusion that can be drawn. This is something which needs

study. It's great to put in a scheme which lowers automobile

insurance to young people below the level of accident rates — in other words, a subsidized scheme for younger people. But if

it increases irresponsible driving, or if it increases the

number of cars on the road by people who have this very high

accident rate, the government equally has a responsibility to

do everything it can to cut down on the slaughter of people

under 25 which takes place on our highways of British

Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I appreciate the comments of

the Hon. Member on the report by the Minister of Highways, but

I would ask him not to stray into the jurisdiction of other

Ministers such as the Minister of Transport and

Communications.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, well, this is a difficulty, Mr.

Chairman. I'm in no way criticizing or commenting upon the ICBC

plan except to point out that it has an effect. And this

effect, namely the larger number of young people driving,

probably the larger number of young people not only owning more

cars but driving more frequently.... That's the result of the

new proposals.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point is, the Hon. Member

has a good point. But it should be discussed at the time the

Minister of Transport and Communication's estimates are being

discussed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that may well be. You know these

people kill themselves on the Minister of Highways' roads, but

somehow they're another Minister's responsibility. If I'm out

of line on that, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to stand down and

accept your decision.

Finally, may I congratulate the Minister on the

[ Page 1857 ]

Goldstream decision? He indicated that Goldstream will not

have a four-lane highway. He indicated there was never such a

proposal. I have a Victoria Times clipping of October 18

quoting a spokesman in his department saying that there was

such a proposal. But clearly the department's managed to lose

it by the time these estimates came up. I appreciate the

Minister's genuine concern for making sure that the Goldstream

area is protected and we do not simply pour more concrete and

lay more parchment in an area which simply isn't big enough for

an expansion of the highway system. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman,

just a couple of points to pick up. I know we've gone into a

great many this morning and this afternoon. I would like to

hear from the Minister with respect to interim improvements

which may be under consideration by his department on the

Trans-Canada Highway in the Fraser Canyon-Thompson

section and

also on the Highway in the Fraser Canyon-Thompson

section and

also on the Hope-Princeton Highway. Now the Minister has made

it very clear that a third major route to the Interior has to

be considered.

I'm not identifying that point at all; that has been very

thoroughly reviewed. But as I drive the Trans-Canada through

the canyons it seems to me that there are areas, Mr. Chairman,

where four-laning could be introduced to a greater extent to

permit the clearing of traffic tie-ups which occur really at

any time of year, not necessarily when all those nasty American

campers are clogging our highways.

But there are some open spaces, relatively speaking, in the

canyon portion of the Trans-Canada and I wonder to what extent

the Minister and/or his senior staff are examining the

installation of more four-lane sections for whatever distance

is considered necessary. As a layman, I have no idea, but a

mile, a half-mile, whatever it might be, would permit the

clearing of these jams, which really are very, very dangerous

and most distressing and most time-consuming.

Then, on the Hope-Princeton, an earlier speaker last evening

referred it to as "worn out." The Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) earlier today talked about the specific hazards in the

area of the great slide and at one or two cliff points.

As the Minister will recall, we discussed this privately some months ago, soon

after he was given this portfolio. I wonder if there is any long-term, year-by-year

improvement of the eastern portion of the Hope-Princeton highway which could

be undertaken in order to avoid those long and dangerous and tedious hauls down

one side of a mountain to a point where there is a very short bridge on a bend

and then the similarly tedious climb up the other side of the mountain, to be

repeated just a few miles later, and repeated a few miles after that.

Now I recognize that the installation of a very high level

bridge right across the two edges of the two mountains

concerned is impractical and would be, if not impractical,

extremely expensive. But is there not some way in which the

many turns, the many loops, particularly again on the eastern

section of the Hope-Princeton, could not be done away with on a

long-term basis?

This is not a problem that would be solved in one or two

budgetary years. But I have the feeling that nibbling away at

it, as it were, one a year, one or two a year, might really

introduce some marked improvements on that highway. After all,

Mr. Chairman, I would expect that the Hope-Princeton is going

to be with us for a long time. It's surely not going to be

closed down as and when a third route to the Interior is

opened. I would be interested in the Minister's comments on

that.

Then I have to associate myself with the comments made by

others who speak in favour of reduced speed limits. May I ask a

direct question, through you, Mr. Chairman? Has the Minister or

any of his senior people visited any of the United States where

the reduced speed limit has been in effect this winter? If not,

I would suggest that such a group should be sent forthwith to

find out — by helicopter if necessary — although surely they

would get into an automobile at some point on the route, to

experience first-hand the very beneficial effects that this

reduction has had.

It was brought about through an energy crisis. But I agree

with those who have observed previously that the benefits in

saving lives and reducing property damage and serious injuries,

which will affect individuals over many, many years, really

have to be measured in the total equation. Fifty-five is the

number that was selected in the United States. That's a number

worth discussing.

But again, Mr. Chairman, has the Minister, as the Minister

responsible for the highway system in British Columbia,

examined first-hand, or has someone for him examined the

reduced speed limits in the United States and the beneficial

effects accruing from them?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, the Minister

appears to have a very short memory, because I posed a series

of questions a little earlier today and he failed to answer any

of them. Now I'm going to repeat those questions for the

benefit of the Minister because he apparently hasn't taken note

of what I asked.

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

Member may ask the Minister a question, but....

MR. CHABOT: I have the right to ask him again,

[ Page 1858 ]

too, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: I am going to ask him again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've not ruled you out of order. I've simply

told you that he has no obligation to answer the question.

However, I will permit them, providing you keep them brief,

because they have been asked already and there would be a

tendency to become tedious and repetitious.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will abide by whatever you

say. But I do want to ask the Minister a question relative to

the helicopter which he rented in northern British Columbia at

$2,250, a day of taxpayers' money, when he has within his

estimates an allowance for travelling expenses of $7,000 for

one year, and the helicopter for a period of eight days cost

him $18,000. I want to know if this money, which he spent on a

joy-trip across the north, using $18,000 of the taxpayers'

money, will appear as an item against the allocation he has

within the Minister's salary in his estimates.

Now if it's going to appear there, Mr. Minister, then you

have over-expended your budget very seriously indeed. You've

suggested to me just a few moments ago that you are a very open

government, that you believe in honesty, truth and

straightforwardness. Now I'll ask you in all sincerity; will

this $18,000 joy-trip across the north appear against vote 98,

travelling expenses, for which there is an allocation of

$7,000?

If it won't appear there, I want to know, Mr. Minister, when

we examine the vouchers in the year 1975, just where this will

be buried. Under what vote and under what voucher will we find

the full extent of the joy-trip across the north of this

province?

I think that it's a very reasonable question I'm asking at

this time. If you believe in honesty and sincerity in

government, you will stand in your place, Mr. Minister, and

tell the people of British Columbia that you're not trying to

hide the expenses of your joy-trip across the north of this

province.

Now one other question which I put to you dealt with the

matter of the expectations, the submissions, made to you by the

various highway regional districts in the province. They

submitted to you last fall a list on a priority basis of what

they, within their regions, expect is required to properly

maintain the highways, but to stockpile gravel, do day labour,

construct new highways.

I want to know, Mr. Chairman, whether the Minister accepted the suggestions

put to him by the regional highway districts. If he didn't; if there was a cutback

— and there is a cutback, if one looks at the percentage of the allocation of

the budget of the Government of British Columbia. There's a serious cutback

on a percentage basis.

Now did you personally cut back the expectations and the

submissions submitted to you by the various regions of this

province? If you didn't make these cutbacks, were these

cutbacks made in the cabinet chamber by little Treasury, and if

this cutback was made by little Treasury, did you in turn stand

in your place before Treasury Board and ask for consideration

so that your regional districts in the province could fulfill

what they feel is necessary to maintain the highways within the

various regions?

Now if you believe in honesty and sincerity in government,

why don't you tell the facts as they are regarding this

question?

I mentioned as well, because it has been brought to my

attention, the concern of the people on the northern part of

this island. They suggested that I raise the matter on the

floor of this House of the highway from Sayward to Beaver Cove.

The reason they asked that I bring the matter on the floor of

the House is because they knew full well that their Member (Ms.

Sanford) would not stand in her place. You've led me to believe

that your priority is to highway maintenance. But does that, in

fact, mean that you no longer will build new highways in this

province?

The people in this part of the island — Sayward to Beaver

Cove — have been waiting a long time. There have been a great

number of surveys of this route. I hope the last survey is

over, that there will be some action and that there will be

some consideration, even though the Member from Comox (Ms.

Sanford) is not overly concerned about this issue.

I want to know, Mr. Minister, whether you are concerned

about the plight of those people who are so isolated in that

part of Vancouver Island.

I also ask whether you are giving any consideration to the

improvement of the road from Lillooet to Cache Creek. This

matter has been brought to my attention as well. I'm sure that

you will agree with me that there is a desperate need for

improvement of this highway between Lillooet and Cache Creek.

What do you intend doing to improve the situation in this

particular part of the province?

I don't know whether you have the notes on my request for

Highway 95. I'm not going to repeat those requests to you now,

with the hope that you have made notes, and will give me some

answers.

I do want to raise one question in which there was a fair

amount of controversy at the time, and that's on the Pat Bay

Highway and the divider that goes down the middle. There were a

lot of people, at the time that it was installed, who suggested

that it was a deathtrap — not that there would be head-on

collisions, because this stops this type of accident. But I

wonder if the Minister can tell the House whether it has proven

to be a safety factor in the

[ Page

1859 ]

travel on this highway or whether there have been accidents

caused by people hitting this divider abutment. How many

accidents have been caused, not necessarily by the divider,

but by the divider being there?

One other point that I'm concerned about is the highway from

Williams Lake to Bella Coola. Here is a marvelous opportunity

for you, Mr. Minister, to open it up to the motoring public. I

know you're against the tourists, especially those tourists

coming from the United States. But there are many British

Columbians that would love to have the opportunity to travel

that scenic route through the Chilcotin to Bella Coola. Here's

an opportunity for you, Mr. Minister, to make a name for

yourself. Do something constructive; build this highway to the

Pacific — a new route to the Pacific Ocean. Not only will it be

of tremendous importance to that $660 million industry you have

in this province, but it will help those people from Bella

Coola and small communities between Bella Coola and Williams

Lake in having a reasonable access. These people have pioneered

this isolated part of British Columbia, and the least they can

expect from government is an access into the hinterland of

British Columbia. I'm wondering, if you have this matter on

your agenda, whether there is going to be some improvement this

year on this highway route. If so, to what extent are you going

to improve this highway length of 300 miles?

One other point, Mr. Chairman, is that we haven't heard the

Minister state the programme which has been enunciated by his

predecessor, and that is that great ferry route between Powell

River and Bella Coola.

I know, Mr. Chairman, that you're going to your mike with

the anticipation that ferries does not come under this

Minister. But this particular ferry, Mr. Chairman, comes under

the purview of the Minister of Highways.

I wonder whether the Minister is going to tell us whether

the highway ferry between Powell River and Bella Coola county

will be instituted this year. These people, again, have been

waiting a long time for this kind of transportation link.

What is the status and what do you intend to do on Highway

40I? Do you propose any further improvements on 40I? From

Rosedale on to Hope, this is a highway that needs improvement.

I realize it is complicated and costly to expand and widen this

highway route, but I wonder what programme you have under the

dollars that have been allocated to your department.

You haven't indicated, to any degree at all, what you intend

doing, specifically, with the...

AN HON. MEMBER: Just a moment, I'll get my estimates.

MR. CHABOT: ...$194 million within the estimates of the

Department of Highways. I think you have a responsibility

before you're given your salary here, Mr. Minister, to tell us

some specifics as to where you intend spending this tremendous

allocation of taxpayers' dollars.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, I rise

with a good deal of reluctance. My reluctance is to discuss

another Minister's portfolio just for a second, because of the

accusations that are thrown across the floor at that Minister

for having done a good job.

He's a Minister with a $200 million vote and a $200 million

obligation, with an expenditure — a minor expenditure by

comparison — to get around the province like I did last year. I

had 18 months to do it and he had 10. It was an expenditure

that took him and his officials, and his MLAs, and even the

Socred MLAs, as unappreciative as they are, into their areas to

have a look at the highways so that he can come prepared into

this House to answer questions. He is asked impossible

questions by the opposition, questions that they don't want him

to answer.

Mr. Chairman, he answered the questions. I've sat here for

the last six sittings listening to this Minister answering

questions. He answered them reasonably well, Mr. Chairman.

That former Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot), who never

answered a question in his life, gets up, pompous as he is, and

always has been, Mr. Chairman. I just can't understand it.

Mr. Chairman, you get answers and you don't like the

answers; you get honesty and you don't like the honesty.

He could have made you wait until 1975 to find out how much

his worthwhile trip cost. Instead of that, he stands up in the

House and answers that kind of question. Then what happens?

Rail and rant. Is there no pleasing this opposition? There will

never be pleasing this opposition....

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): It's a waste of the

taxpayers' money!

HON. MR. COCKE: You have wasted the taxpayers' money like

nobody else in this House. Never before has so much been said

and never before in history has there been so little content in

this House.

Mr. Chairman, the bitterness of the former Minister of

Labour (Mr. Chabot) and his vindictiveness. It is so evident....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Minister

of Health not to make personal accusations.

[ Page 1860 ]

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, I'll refrain from it in future. But I

would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it has been the honesty of

this Minister in declaring instantly the price of moving around

from place to place, taking his officials and some MLAs into

their constituencies to have a look at what's going on. I have

every confidence in this Minister of Highways, because he knows

what's going on, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, that was a pretty weak defence

from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) on behalf of his

colleague, the Minister of Highways.

lnterjection.

MR. CHABOT: It's pathetic! Why don't you go up and have a

coffee and stop wasting the time of this House? I asked simple

questions of that Minister of Highways, and he hasn't answered

one question yet.

I'm sorry. I apologize. He did answer one. He told me how

many taxpayers' dollars he wasted on that joyride across the

north. He did answer that. But he didn't answer any of the

other questions I put to him relative to the administrative

responsibilities that he has in his department. I asked him

some specific questions that the former Minister of Highways

had no hesitation in answering. Why do you hesitate? What have

you got to hide?

I have a responsibility to stand here, Mr. Chairman, and ask

specific questions of that Minister as to what he intends doing

with $194 million that has been allocated in his department. On

behalf of the people I represent, I've asked him specific

questions in which last year, under a former Minister, I got

some answers. And from this Minister all I get is silence.

Mr. Minister, do you have something to hide? Why don't you

answer some reasonable, simple questions that are put to

you?

I asked what he proposed to do about the Sayward to Beaver

Cove highway or the projected highway. Does he intend doing

something about that highway this year? If not, when? Isn't

that a simple question, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Lorimer)? It's so simple even you can understand it.

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

Member that specific questions can be put under the other

votes.

MR. CHABOT: They can be put under this vote, too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has tolerated a certain amount of

latitude in the Minister's vote, but strictly speaking some of

these questions should be asked under the specific votes. I'm

sure if the Hon.Member waited until these votes were called, he might get

answers to these questions.

MR. CHABOT: This is an overview of the general

responsibilities of the Minister and the administration of his

department, and I think it's only fair. I'll speak in broad,

general terms, Mr. Chairman, if you object to me speaking

specifically.

I want to know what the Minister proposes to do on the

question of highways within my constituency. I asked him the

question before, and there were simple questions. I asked

whether there was any programme this coming year for the

improvement of Highway 95 South from Golden for a distance of

15 miles. The highway is breaking up very badly. It was a

highway that was put in under the former government, about six

years ago. As a pulvi-mix asphalt on the highway, there's a

need at this time for the Minister to give some consideration

to putting a hot-mix asphalt on the highway. I'm wondering

whether this is part of his programme, whether this is part of

the submission sent to him by the regional engineer from

Nelson, whether he put this as a priority — priority A, B or C — and whether the Minister has crossed it off, because it

happens to be within my constituency.

Are you opposed to my constituency? Is that what you have,

Mr. Minister? Is that the reason why you are not willing to

answer questions dealing with highways in my area? I'm not

asking for very much, Mr. Minister. I suggested to you in the

last report that I have for '72-'73 that on the Westside road

you've spent $1133. All I ask is that you spend the equivalent

on the Westside road as you spent on your helicopter trip

through the north of British Columbia — $18,000 — and then you

would probably never hear from me again about the Westside

road, because it would do the job that is required. Is that

being unreasonable, Mr. Minister, when you have a budget of

$194 million? I'm appealing to you for a small allocation of

$18,000. Do you consider that unreasonable? I certainly

don't.

I suggested to you that on the southern part of Highway 95

between Skookumchuck and Wasathere is a serious bottleneck.

Within a distance of half a mile there are two level railway

crossings plus one single-lane bridge on an arterial highway,

Highway 95. I suggested that some action should be taken by

your department to reroute, and I understand the surveys are

all finished to reroute the highway by the construction of a

new bridge because the bridge that is there now is not worth

repairing and the bypass would eliminate these two dangerous

level railway crossings. It is not that costly an undertaking.

It won't take a substantial portion of your budget. It's a

reasonable request.

We've been waiting in the Kootenays, Mr. Chairman — we've

been waiting a long time. No

[ Page 1861 ]

wonder there is alienation in that part of this province

against this government. And it was there against the former

government as well. However, I think that because of certain

actions of this government it is far more pronounced today than

it ever was before. These people feel isolated from British

Columbia because of the lack of consideration they've been

given.

These people don't ask for much. They want a few, simple

things. They want a few parks, they want a few roads. They

don't always insist that the roads be paved. They want a few

gravel roads as well. They want gravel on the dust on some of

the trails. Is that unreasonable for those people to ask for? I

suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that this is not unreasonable. I

suggest that you give some consideration to the people in the

Kootenays, not only within my constituency, but in my

neighbouring constituency of Kootenay.

The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

Nimsick) agrees that there is a time that you must stand up and

fight for the Kootenays, because they have been neglected for

too long. We are asking you, Mr. Minister, tonight to stand in

your place and tell us what you intend doing for the people of

the Kootenays, who feel more alienated tonight than they ever

have in the history of this province. They want some

consideration. They want some of the — I was going to say the

finer things of life, but that is not true — they want the

government to take them into consideration in the overall

programme.

What I'm appealing to you to do, Mr. Minister, is to answer

some questions. Tell us what your programme is for the

Kootenays, so that I can tell the people that this government

cares.

You made a great deal of the fact that you suggested that

your government is open, Mr. Minister. Prove to me and prove to

the people of the Kootenays that this is an open government.

The only way you can do that, Mr. Chairman, is by telling us

what your programme is for highways in the Kootenay, and tell

us what you intend doing in the Kootenays in the current fiscal

year.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Chairman, you know I'll be the first

to admit that I'm not infallible. I had an argument with my

colleagues prior to coming in to my estimates. I differed with

them. I told them I thought we had been handling the estimates

all wrong. I said if I'm open, if I'm honest, if I give them

information with which to ask questions they'll respond in a

reasonable way. And I must admit that now I feel that I was

wrong. That's why I've been sitting listening for some time

this evening without getting up because I realize that no

matter what I say in this House it is not going to satisfy the

opposition, because they are not looking for information.

As a matter of fact, I have some suspicion that there is an

effort being made so that maybe the Housing vote won't be on

Friday but will be on Monday, because there will be no Liberals

here on Friday to discuss the Housing, and they want to be

here. Well, so be it.

Some of the specific questions you asked, Mr. Member,

through you, Mr. Chairman — first of all I would like to deal

with some of the areas that aren't within your constituency but

you still raised.

You raised the Sayward to Woss Camp — northern Island

Highway. I think it is public knowledge what is going on. There

are two contracts being let in that area. It is a new highway,

it is virgin area. We are building highways in there. But we

aren't going to build them, or at least I made up my mind I

wasn't going to build them until I put an environmental study

in there and found out the best way to go through there without

causing damage to a very delicate area of this province.

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

I've had the word come back to me from that environmental

group that there is a safe way to go through; that is the route

I am following. In some cases I will have to put in a highway

that won't be as high speed as maybe some people would like,

but at least it is the way to go, in my opinion, where we won't

cause environmental damage. For the first time the Minister of

Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) and myself have

put together a working team of our staff people, so that there

is coordination and consultation between the two groups in

looking for new routes. That wasn't done before. It is being

done now.

We also bring in outside people so we can have another

opinion, so that we don't make a mistake. Because as I said

earlier, once a highway is in, it is a very permanent feature.

I have also made recommendations to the Minister of Recreation

and Conservation, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and to the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) that when we put that highway

through we are going to be very careful on access, because that

is the big thing, going through there in that delicate area.

The highway, we have found a way to get it through there

without what we feel would do damage to the environment. At the

same time we have to be very careful of the kind of activity we

allow in that very delicate ecological area once that highway

is through.

The Hon. Member also said that he was sure the Member for

Comox (Ms. Sanford) wouldn't stand up in this House and ask

about it. I guess she wouldn't; she knows all about it. She has

been a great fighter for this for a long while — she has been

pressuring me. Everyone in her area knows about it. It is

surprising

[ Page 1862 ]

to me that anyone from up there had to write and ask you

what is going on. In my opinion everyone up there knows.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: There is no use putting it off with frivolity.

The fact of the matter is that people there do know.

You asked about the Cache Creek to Lillooet highway, in

someone else's riding. Also the Hon. Minister of Public Works

(Hon. Mr. Hartley) whose riding that's within knows exactly

what's going on, and so do the people.

Now, getting to your area — you asked about Westside Road.

You said you had $1,000 there last year. This year there is

$50,000 allocated for that road.

You know, the disappointing part that I have found in these

estimates of Highways which we have been discussing, is the

very fact that taking senior staff people and MLAs, no matter

what party they belong to, the regional highway engineers,

district highway managers — wherever we went, talking with

local groups.... We advertised the fact in the newspapers

before we arrived that we would be there, where to write, how

to talk with us. Every place we went we met with every

interested group. We met with people who didn't belong to

groups, the ordinary citizen who had problems with highways

could come and see us, and talk not only with me as the

Minister, but with my senior people and the regional engineers.

It was the first time that the Minister, senior staff people

from Victoria, senior staff people from the regions, and the

senior staff people from the district were there all at once,

along with the local representative who had been elected by

them, so that they could have a discussion of that kind with

everyone concerned.

I don't feel it was $18,000 wasted, and neither do the

people we talked to. I believe that it was money well spent. I

am going to be going into other areas of this province in the

same manner to talk to people in all areas so that I can become

better acquainted and give those people a good chance to air

their problems with all of us at once. We're going to them for

a change, asking them about their problems, allowing them to

give us some suggestions.

It is the first time it has happened. I am not ashamed of

it. I don't think the people in British Columbia are ashamed of

it, and only time will tell. I believe at the next election

they will say, "Yes, that is the way we want to do things these

days. We want to talk with people, have a discussion, not

orders coming down from Victoria."

I suppose there is only one phrase that I can use to describe what I feel the

discussion has been here for the last few days by the opposition. Not all Members

— the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), the Member for Saanich and the Islands

(Mr. Curtis), the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams),

the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) — but the rest I would describe as Members

who have delusions of adequacy. Delusions of adequacy, Mr. Member. That, to

me, is what it is all about.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I want to say how much I

appreciate the Minister answering three of my questions. There

were a couple of other brief ones that I put to him which he

didn't comment on. That was the

section of Highway 95 just

south of Golden, the 15-mile section, as well as that situation

near Skookumchuck. Maybe I am asking too much to expect

consideration of paving shoulders on the extension of Highway

95. On those two particular points, the 15 miles south of

Golden and the Skookumchuck-Wasa situation — the two level

crossings and the single-lane bridge — I am wondering if the

Minister has the information to convey to me. If he doesn't

have it right now, and wants to check with his senior staff,

maybe they'll come up with some favourable consideration. Maybe

the Minister will answer me after someone else speaks.

HON. MR. LEA: I would just like to say that the suggestions

and the information about Expo at Spokane, and the possible

added use of that highway, I found a worthwhile comment. I will

say that we know the shoulders there are becoming something

that we have to look at. The highway itself we also realize is

an area we have to look at.

The other matters that you raised: there has been no

decision on the Wasa situation because there is not consensus

within that area as to what should be done. I would welcome

your coming to see me later and we will talk about. I would

welcome that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks I would

like to make if I can keep the tears back long enough.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, if the Minister can't run his own department

and be responsible for what he does, he should resign,

forthwith. He had better learn that in this Legislature the

opposition fights for the rights of the taxpayers, regardless

of how long it takes. If the Minister can't stand that, then,

as I say, he had better resign. If the Minister makes mistakes,

or doesn't answer, he doesn't do the things that the opposition

feels he should do, it is our responsibility to advise the

Minister accordingly.

When the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) stands on the

floor of this Legislature and comes to the defence of the

Minister, and tells us how honest he is and what a great guy he

is, it is a pretty weak defence, in my estimation — particularly when he tells this Hon. Member that he wasted the

time of this House during discussion on Bill 42.

[ Page 1863 ]

I know what he was talking about, Mr. Chairman. Telling me

that I wasted the time of this House! I want to tell you, Mr.

Chairman, some of the predictions I made during Bill 42, when I

said that communist regime over there was going to do certain

things, will go down in history as the greatest predictions

ever made in this Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: When I said they were going to confiscate

land, when I said they were going to tax you off your land,

that is coming into being.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Could you keep your remarks to the

Minister's vote, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure, Mr. Chairman. It's all right for a

Minister of the Crown to get up and talk about anything under

the sun, but as soon as a Member of the opposition does it,

well, that old iron heel comes down, the mallet comes down.

Closure! If you are going to be fair, Mr. Chairman, be

fair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member, on a point of order.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, I would

ask that the Member withdraw the accusation that this is a

communist administration.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll withdraw that, Mr. Chairman. Time will

prove that I am right, and that's all that is necessary.

The Minister of Highways is very, very touchy about this

$18,000 helicopter trek. And well he should be because he made

a mistake hiring a 12-seat helicopter to go visit the highways

in the north.

How in heaven's name is he going to ride on the highways to

see what they are like when he is joy riding over them in a

great big 12-seat Sikorsky helicopter? You made a mistake, Mr.

Minister. Why don't you stand up and admit it? — instead of

flowering it off and saying this is 1974.

And he says he is going to take some helicopter trips. Where

is it in your estimates then? Where are you going to go with a

$7,000 travel allowance? How many days are you going to spend

in a helicopter at $2,000 a day, Mr. Minister? Are you meaning

to tell me in this Legislature this evening that he is going to

take more helicopter trips? If he is going to do it again, why

doesn't he put it in his estimates?

No wonder it is taking so long to get this estimate through.

If this is the kind of hogwash we are having, we might as well

not even have estimates.

We in the opposition are after the truth; we want to know

where you are going to spend your money and we want a true

estimate. I'll tell you that the Minister has proved to me here tonight that this estimate

for his travel allowance isn't worth the paper it's written on

if he tells me he's going to take more helicopter trips next

year at $2,000 a day.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I want to tell you, I'm not jealous at

all. All we want is the truth. Here's a Minister who last year

spent $18,000 of the taxpayers' money on one single trip.

Do you realize that's only $2,000 less than the entire

estimates for the Premier's travel in a year, and he plans on

going to Japan. The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) is going to Japan and his travel

estimate is $7,000. Yet the Minister of Highways who is going

to helicopter around the province has travel estimates of only

$7,000. How do you expect me to swallow all that, Mr. Chairman?

Do I look that gullible? I want to know where in these

estimates the Minister put the money that he's going to take

these future helicopter trips with.

I think it's ironic, as I said in the very beginning, that

the Minister of Highways uses a helicopter to go look at roads.

There are airplanes; he could have flown into the area of the

Peace River country and got a bus. They have 8 and 12 passenger

vehicles you can rent to drive over the highways. Did he need a

12-place helicopter at $2,000 a day? Of course not.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) says the Minister of

Highways is being honest. Oh, he's being so honest it hurts!

He's not going to be honest. I want the Minister of Highways to

tell me where in his estimates is the money for those future

helicopter trips.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 98 pass?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Chairman, vote 98 shall not pass until

I get an answer to this very, very important question.

HON. MR. KING: I rise tonight with a bit of unusual feeling.

I have to give some support and some comfort to the...

MR. PHILLIPS: You're the second Minister to defend him.

HON. MR. KING: ...Social Credit opposition on that side of

the House because I can really understand their feeling and

have some sympathy for it.

They seem highly suspicious; they seem unwilling to accept

statements put forward by the Minister of Highways. In fact,

that's symptomatic of their whole approach throughout this

session. I think we have to be somewhat understanding why they

take that

[ Page 1864 ]

position.

I can remember some outstanding names over the years. I can

remember in the 1950s when controversies developed over highway

contracts. I can remember searching the court record, as a

matter of fact, in my own hometown of Revelstoke and reading

the testimony of such people as Lymburner, Thornton and Mr.

Thompson.

I can recall a highly unusual situation where the Minister

of Highways of that day did not even deal with the contractors

who were employed to do the work on the highway. Rather, there

was a middle man whom he met and discussed these contracts with

in church. Under those circumstances, perhaps it's

understandable that that opposition is very suspicious and

unwilling to trust the word of a cabinet Minister in this

administration. It would seem that the record of the Highways

Minister under the former Social Credit government was

certainly highly suspect.

I think it's a bit shabby that we have this kind of harangue

day in and day out, night in and night out on questions that

are not a valid issue of highway construction policy in this

province.

MR. CHABOT: Smear.

HON. MR. KING: Not smear, Mr. Member for Columbia River, but

a matter of court record. Not innuendo, a matter of court

record that can be produced. That is the record. It's not a

matter of innuendo and refusal to accept statements of Members

in this House, which has been the characteristic of that

opposition all through this session. I think it's pretty

shocking.

The people of this province deserve a good, critical

opposition, by all means, and a fair analysis of the estimates

of each department. But surely it should be based on something

that is a worthwhile public consideration, not silly and

frivolous questions of whether or not the Minister justified

the expenses of travelling around to inspect highways in a

helicopter. I can't remember too much time spent discussing

whether or not trips home on the government jet for church

functions were justifiable or not, but surely tours of

inspection for valid matters within one's department are

unquestionably proper with any Minister's responsibilities.

If the opposition wants to deal in that way, perhaps we

should analyse why they feel that way and feel some sympathy

for them. It's the sins of the father being visited upon the

son and we can understand their emotions.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there was a second Minister's defence,

Mr. Chairman — and what did he say? Absolutely nothing. He

tried to dig down in the past to justify the present. I want to

tell you, I wasn't here in 1952. I'm here and it's 1974. The

Minister of Highways spent $18,000 on a helicopter trip last summer and

he tells me he is going to take more helicopter trips. If

there's anything that you can't understand about that, Mr.

Minister of Labour, you need a pair of glasses. That helicopter

trip cost $18,000 and the Minister has clearly stated twice — not once but twice — in this Legislature that he's clearly

going to take more helicopter trips this year.

I am asking a very simple question: where in the Department

of Highways estimates for the fiscal year 1974-75 is the money

allocated for these helicopter trips? Is there anything

underhanded or unique or shadowy or cloudy about a

straightforward, simple question like that? Even your backbench

understands it. Where is it in the estimates?

The only thing I see in the estimates for travelling by the

Minister is a sum of $7,000. As I have pointed out before, the

entire travel budget of the Premier is $20,000. The entire

travel budget of the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) is $7,000. Both of these gentlemen

are not just going to the Peace River area, not just within the

province; the Premier will probably go to Ottawa three or four

times and also to Japan. The entire travel estimate

expenditures is $20,000. The Minister of Highways spent $18,000

on one eight-day trip and he has clearly stated — and I'll say

it again — twice that he's going to take more trips this

year.

Please, Mr. Minister, just tell me where — I don't think I

am blind — in your departmental estimates is the money for

these helicopter trips. A straight, simple question. All I ask,

Mr. Chairman, is a straight, simple answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 98 pass?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I couldn't ask a more simple

question. All I want is a simple answer from the Minister, and

I think I am entitled to it without the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Cocke) getting up, and without the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. King) getting up and giving a big harangue about the

Minister being honest. No, I am not going out in the hallway;

I'm going to stay right in here until I get an answer.

MR. FRASER: It's not safe in the hallway around here.

MR. PHILLIPS: Where is it? Could I ask a simpler question?

We are discussing the Minister's office, and his expenditure of

$110,000, of which $7,000 is allocated for travel. No, I

couldn't put it any more concisely. Where is the money for the

helicopter trips?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Say it once

more.

[ Page 1865 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll say it once more, Mr.

Attorney-General. You shouldn't be frivolous about it, not at

all. There's the Attorney-General.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't care who went on the trip. I wasn't on

the trip and I don't think it was necessary.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what I said.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not mad at all. I'm not mad. It's your

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) and your Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. King) who seem to be mad. All I am asking is a

simple, straightforward question of the Attorney-General. What

is in his estimates this year for travel? Seven thousand

dollars. You'll probably be off to Ottawa and all over the

country. Okay, we're going to get an answer.

HON. MR. LEA: I shouldn't have to do this, but I will.

Before I say that, I'd like to say that there was a Member of

the opposition and that's good. I should also point out that I

had my office phone the home of the Member for South Peace

River (Mr. Phillips)...

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't care if you had the whole government....

HON. MR. LEA: ...and I have a letter back...

MR. PHILLIPS: I want an answer.

HON. MR. LEA: ...from that Member saying how sorry he was

that he wouldn't be there to come along. He'd be in New

Brunswick visiting his folks. He said he was sorry that he

couldn't be along and wished me the best.

Well, there's nothing wrong with that, and there's nothing

wrong with the Minister of Highways and his senior staff and

the MLAs travelling throughout this province to talk with

people, to listen, and to try and better the road system

throughout this province.

Now, where are the charges? That, of course, doesn't come

under the personal vote of the Minister. It comes where it

should come under the maintenance vote under vote 100. That's

where it comes, and it's the proper place for it. When public

accounts come along you will be able to check it all out.

I'm surprised that these estimates from the very beginning, not only mine but

for the whole government, have not been treated as estimates. What does "estimate"

mean? It means we are going to make an estimation of how much money we are going

to spend. How much money we have spent should be under the perusal of a committee

which you chair, Mr. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser): public accounts. And so

it does. That's the way it's done under the British parliamentary system wherever

the British parliamentary system works. It's done that way here.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

HON. MR. COCKE: Except when they were here.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, yes. As the Minister of Health says,

except when they were here; it wasn't done then. That's where

it is going to be. You have your answer, Mr. Member for South

Peace River. You know that was the proper answer and you knew

that before you asked.

MR. PHILLIPS: I fail to see it under vote 100, which is

"Roads, Bridges, Ferries, Wharves and Tunnels — Maintenance and

Operation, Repairs, Snow and Ice Removal." Under that we have,

and I'll read it: "Salaries, maintenance staff: $2,152,074.

Expenses (including seasonal, steady, daily rate, and casual

staff): $67,800,000.

What kind of a snow job am I getting here? It's all

salaries; every bit of it — the entire $69,952,074 — is for

salaries. How can he justify taking out of that maybe $20,000

or $30,000 for a helicopter trip? Maybe they've changed things

over there. I thought that travel was for travel. What is the

$7,000 under the Minister's vote?

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

Member for South Peace River that the estimates we are

considering are for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, and

this helicopter trip took place in the current fiscal year.

Therefore, these estimates would not obviously contain any item....

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, you've just come in. Had you

been listening you would have understood what I was talking

about. I'm talking about the proposed helicopter trips the

Minister has been telling me he is going to take in the next

fiscal year. All I've asked is where in his estimates is the

money for the proposed helicopter trips.

HON. MR. LEA: And I told you.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think the Minister is trying to give me a

snow job. As a matter of fact, I know he's trying to give me a

snow job. He told me he's going to take out of salaries — and

that's exactly what it is — for day labour.... Oh, the Minister

doesn't want to answer.

[ Page 1866 ]

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you know, Mr. Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Cocke), that answer was not entirely truthful. It was not

and you know it. What do you think I am? Stupid or

something?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I hope you had a lot of fun with

that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Members to

refrain from making personal imputations against one another.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. COCKE: I withdraw that remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would also ask the Hon. Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips) to withdraw any imputation that the

statements made by the Hon. Minister of Highways were

untruthful.

MR. PHILLIPS: I really don't know what else to think because

no one is going to tell me that helicopter trips which are

going to be taken next year are going to come out of a salary

vote. Now, listen; let's be reasonable. If the Minister has

made a mistake in saying that he is going to take more

helicopter trips and forgot to put it in his estimates, I'll

accept that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: But I don't think it's fair that the Minister

of Highways should stand on his feet in this Legislature and

try and give me a snow job like that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The choice of words you made is a more

appropriate choice in that respect and I would ask the Hon.

Member to continue.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I would like the Minister to stand in

this Legislature and tell me where the money is going to come

from. Don't try and stand up and give me a snow job that he's

going to take it out of a salary vote.

Listen. We are all supposed to be honourable Members in this

Legislature. That's right. Don't tell me, Mr. Minister of

Health, that you back up that statement the Minister of

Highways just tried to give me. Do you back it up? Oh, you do.

One lies and the other backs it. No, I withdraw that, Mr.

Chairman.

I want the truth. I want the truth, the simple truth and

nothing but the truth. If the Minister of Highways made a

mistake, let him stand up and tell me he made a mistake. But I

won't buy a snow job like that; I can't buy a snow job like

that.

How much in this complete vote of $69,952,000, which is the day labour vote

for "Roads, Bridges, Ferries, Wharves, Tunnels — Maintenance and Operation Repairs,

Snow and Ice Removal," is for helicopter trips?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We are on vote 98. I would ask

the Hon. Member to ask questions relevant to vote 98.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, if I could see into travel expenditures

the expected expenditures for helicopter trips. The Minister

has said it's under this vote. I can't leave vote 98 until I am

assured how much money is in this other vote for these

helicopter trips. I think it's in the wrong vote, Mr. Chairman.

And I'll merely ask a simple question for the Minister to tell

me: Of that $69,952,074, how much of it is for helicopter

trips?

HON. MR. LEA: I think this is really getting silly. I was

not the only person on that trip; I had senior staff....

MR. PHILLIPS: That has nothing to do with it. I asked you a

simple question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. LEA: I had MLAs with me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. LEA: I had staff from the region with me. If you

will look at vote 100, you will see it says: "Maintenance and

Operation." If you don't call that part of the operation....

If you will look there, Mr. Member, you won't find toilet paper

either, and I can assure you right now we are going to be

buying some. Are you going to be saying that that's not right?

We are going to be buying a number of things out of this vote

and then public accounts will come along. You are able as

legislators to take us to account for what we have spent under

that vote. It's simple; it's parliamentary. It'd done wherever

the British parliamentary system works and it's done here.

For a man who belonged to the same party as the previous

government — they had their aircraft in that vote. They didn't

have the British parliamentary sense to put a vote like that

separately where it should have been.

You know that vote is the proper vote in my opinion. It's

the proper vote according to one of my senior staff members who

has been with this government for a great many years and has

been in this House in estimates for 17 years. Are you doubting

my word that that's where it's supposed to go when I have the

advice of people who have been around and know what this is all

about and tell me

[ Page 1867 ]

that that's the right vote? I don't think you are going to

do that. It is the correct place for it. That's where it was

and that's it.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...previous helicopter trips by the Minister

of the Department of Highways, to my knowledge. All right, I'll....

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll show you in public accounts....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, you can buy a lot of toilet

paper for $18,000. Why then, Mr. Chairman, does the Minister

have a travel expense allowance under his salary if he's going

to do his travelling under vote 100? Simple question. Tell me.

Why do you have it in there at all? Is that strictly for travel

out of town? Are you going to mislead the province, the people

of this province...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, just let me finish. Are you

going to mislead the people of this province? Any normal

citizen would assume that that $69,952,074 is for road

maintenance, bridges, wharves and tunnels, maintenance and

operation repairs, snow and ice removal. No ordinary citizen

who reads the public accounts of British Columbia would think

that the Minister...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: ...would take $20,000, $30,000 out of repairs

to bridges to go helicoptering around the province.

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

if he is not going to obey the Chair ?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, certainly I'll obey the Chair.

What do you want me to do?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member

whether he is making the accusation against the Minister of

Highways that he is misleading the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not making any accusations, Mr. Chairman.

I'm merely asking him a simple question. I feel, unless he can prove to

me otherwise — if this is a misleading vote, if there are such things

as helicopter trips in it — when it clearly states that it's for

maintenance of roads, bridges, ferries, wharves and tunnels,

maintenance and operation repairs, snow and ice removal.... It doesn't

say anything about travelling around the province in a helicopter. Not

one word of it.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I can see that if some of the senior

staff have to go around the province in an ordinary automobile,

which they are provided with — and that should be covered under

"motor vehicles purchase of equipment...."

HON. MR. LEA: No, it's not. Same vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...vehicle damage claims." Same vote.

HON. MR. LEA: That's right.

MR. PHILLIPS: But it doesn't mean that the Minister of

Highways is going to go helicoptering around the province.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, it does.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it doesn't.

Well, I'll have to tell the people of this province that if

they don't get repairs to their bridges, to their roads, to

their ferries, to their wharves, to their tunnels, the money

has probably gone for a joyride for the Minister of Highways to

go helicoptering around the province.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll stay away from the Freudian conversation

that the Minister introduced for obvious reasons. I'll refer

for a moment to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) who got

up in quiet indignation and said that...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: ...he has great faith in the Minister of

Highways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member for

North Okanagan to treat the Hon. Minister of Highways as an

Hon. Member of the House and not to make....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Minister of Highways

on a point of order.

HON. MR. LEA: You know, I'm just a country boy. I don't know

what Freudian means; would the Member explain that to me?

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm just a little country

girl making my way in this...

[ Page 1868 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. JORDAN: ...cold, cruel, political world. And all I can

say is, you just come out to the little farmyard with me and

I'll tell you what the Freudian slip was.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, now I know what it means, Mr. Chairman,

I am insulted. (Laughter.)

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I don't know what you do on your farm,

Mr. Minister, but...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: ...we put in fence posts; we build...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon...?

MRS. JORDAN: ...ditches; we harvest the crop.

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

the Minister's vote, please?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I'd be glad to, Mr. Chairman, because

there are a lot of questions that we feel must be answered. I

would like to refer to the comments by the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Cocke) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King),

because they were brough