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)

FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1903 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Awarding of ferry construction contracts. Hon.

Mr. Strachan — 1903

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Highways estimates.

On vote 98.

Mr. Phillips — 1903

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1905

Mr. Phillips — 1905

Mrs. Jordan — 1907

Mr. Fraser — 1912

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1913

Mr. Chabot — 1914

Division on motion that the committee rise — 1916

Mr. Chabot — 1917

Mrs. Jordan — 1918

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1921

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1921

Mr. Phillips — 1921

Mr.Chabot — 1924

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1925

On vote 100.

Mr. McClelland — 1925

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1929

Mrs. Jordan — 1930

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1932

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1932

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1933

Mr. Bennett — 1933

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1933

Mr. Curtis — 1933

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1933

Mr. Bennett — 1934

Mr. Fraser — 1934

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1934

On vote 102.

Mr. Morrison — 1934

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1934

On vote 103.

Mr. Bennett — 1934

Mr. McClelland — 1934

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1935

Mr. Schroeder — 1935

On vote 105.

Mr. Curtis — 1935

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1935

Mr. Fraser — 1935

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1935

Department of Housing estimates. On vote 106.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1936

Mr. Chabot — 1937

Division on motion that the committee rise — 1937

Mr. Phillips — 1937

Division on motion that the committee rise — 1944

Mr. Phillips — 1944

Division on motion that the Chairman leave the chair — 1944

Mr. Phillips — 1944

Division on motion that the committee rise — 1945

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1945

Mr. Steves — 1947

Mrs. Jordan — 1948

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1951

Mr. Chabot — 1954

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 1956

Mr. Steves — 1957

Mrs. Webster — 1958

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1959

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1961

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1962

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1962

Mr. Gibson — 1963

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1963

Mr. Wallace — 1963

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1966

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 1967

Mr. Curtis — 1968

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1969

Mr. Fraser — 1970

Mr. Phillips — 1970

Division on motion that the Chairman leave the chair — 1980

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1980

Division on motion that the committee rise — 1980

Division on time of next sitting — 1981

Point of order

Appropriateness of preceding motion. Mr. L.A. Williams —

Mr. Speaker — 1981

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1981

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1981

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 1982

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1982

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1982

Mr. Speaker — 1982

FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, at the unanimous request

of the Special Committee on Assessment Procedures I ask leave

to move a motion which would allow the committee to sit during

the session.

Leave granted.

MR. LIDEN: I would move, Mr. Speaker, that the Special

Committee on Assessment Procedures be empowered to sit during

the sitting of the House and the Committee of the Whole

House.

Motion approved.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker,

I ask leave of the House to make a short statement regarding the awarding of

ferry contracts.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, contract awards for three

new British Columbia ferries at a total cost of $40,555,516 are

being awarded today. Burrard Dry Dock Company Limited will

build two passenger car ferries at a cost of $28,852,913 for

the pair. The price includes consideration of a 17 per cent

federal government subsidy. The third ferry, designed for

carrying commercial trailered vehicles mainly but also suitable

to campers and cars, will be built by Vancouver Shipyards

Company Ltd. at a cost of $11,702,603, also with the federal

subsidy applied.

Burrard will construct one of the car ferries at Vancouver

and one at Esquimalt in its subsidiary shipyard operation,

Yarrows Ltd. These contracts mean employment for up to 700 men

in Vancouver, and up to 350 in the Esquimalt yard over a period

of 18 months. Delivery is expected in the spring of 1976.

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. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple

of items I'd like to bring up. Last evening in the House the Hon. Member for

North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) asked the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) if

they were planning to link a number of the Gulf Islands by highways. The Minister

of Highways replied that this was a laugh — that the former Minister of Highways

had prepared such a study and that the study was available in his office and

if she would like to come and get it she was welcome to it.

Then the government took off with great gales of laughter

and pounding of their desks like a stampede of wild horses,

misleading the people of this province into thinking that there

was no such study, or if there was such a study done it was

more or less of a laughing matter and that the study was worth

absolutely nothing.

Now, I have this study in front of me. Mr. Chairman, I

believe the map provided in this study is close to the routes

that will be used by the ferries to link the Gulf Islands by

bridge to the mainland. So I'd like the Minister to tell me

what all the gales of laughter were about last night. Is this

more of his trying to...I shouldn't say mislead the House,

but just what is going on over on that side of the House? Does

the Minister of Highways not talk to the Minister of Transport

and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan)? Or is it just more

incapacity of the Minister to have a broader view of what is

going on in this province than his own department?

I was very interested this morning, Mr. Chairman, to hear

the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) tell the Legislature that

the cheapest way for the Minister of Highways to travel around

the province was in a 12-place helicopter.

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

Member that the subject of the Minister and the helicopter has

been pretty thoroughly canvassed. I would caution him, if he

intends to raise the matter again, to be sure to raise a new

point.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear you bring the

Member for Shuswap to order this morning when he was trying to

mislead the people of this province, talking about something he

knows absolutely nothing about, trying to tell the people of

this province that they should have a helicopter instead of an

automobile!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I was not in the House at the

time the Hon. Member for Shuswap was speaking. I would ask the

Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) to withdraw

the imputation that the Member for Shuswap was trying to

mislead the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, he was, Mr. Chairman! He told the

Members of this Legislature that it was

[ Page 1904 ]

cheaper for the Minister of Highways to travel in a

helicopter than it was for him to hire an automobile!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: And you didn't bring him to order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member for South Peace

River made a statement about another Hon. Member which is

unparliamentary. I'm asking the Hon. Member for South Peace

River to withdraw it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll certainly withdraw it, but I'll

just have to take into consideration that the Member for

Shuswap knows nothing about what he's talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: Either that or he's completely ignorant of the

facts. Because I want to tell you the super-colossal waste and

extravagance by the Minister of Highways is not going to be

tolerated by the taxpayers that I represent.

If he thinks he can hoodwink the people of British Columbia

and get one of his backbenchers to back him up along with the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) and the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Cocke)....

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

Hon. Member for South Peace River that any suggestion or any

imputation that another Hon. Member was trying to mislead or

hoodwink or anything of that nature is out of order. I would

ask him to withdraw that imputation.

MR. PHILLIPS: I will withdraw the imputation, Mr. Chairman,

but this mammoth expenditure on such a small trip still should

be open to debate. This is not the first instance of

squandering of the taxpayers' money by this government in the

short months they've been in office.

I think we should name that Minister the Whirlybird

Minister. He's been in a spin ever since he's been appointed to

his Ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again I would caution the Hon. Member that this subject

has been very thoroughly canvassed and I would ask him to get to his new point.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about a subject for a moment

which is very dear to my heart. I refer to a highway in the Province of British

Columbia, to a highway in the northern part of British Columbia, to a highway

that was built and paid for by United States of America between 1941 and 1944.

I refer, of course, to the Alaska Highway.

This highway was built by the American government shortly

after Pearl Harbour. It was given to Canada....

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Oh, come on.

The Yankees never gave us anything!

MR. PHILLIPS: There's that chirp, chirp, chirp again!

Where's the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley)? I sure

wish he'd fix that chirp down there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: He probably doesn't even know where the Alaska

Highway is, that chirp.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd ask the Second Member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain not to interrupt the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just ask him to leave the House. We'd never

miss him.

This highway was given to Canada by the United States. All

they were asked to do was maintain the highway and to see that

the Americans would have the same right of travel over it as

Canadians. I'm concerned, with the attitude of the Minister of

Highways that he doesn't want American campers on our highways,

that he might barricade the Alaska highway and, indeed, not

live up to the terms of that treaty that was signed with the

United States when they gave us that highway.

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

Member that the subject which he has now raised — that is, the

Minister's comments on tourism — has also been very thoroughly

canvassed. I would ask him to confine his remarks to any new

points....

MR. PHILLIPS: Not as it relates to a treaty between Canada

and the United States, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CUMMINGS: You're out of your tree!

MR. PHILLIPS: You've been out of yours for a long time!

This concerns me, Mr. Chairman, because that highway is a

very, very important link in north-south travel. As a matter of

fact, it is the only land link between the State of Alaska and

the continental United States.

I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, what the

[ Page

1905 ]

Minister feels about the upgrading of that highway, that

very important link. It has been forgotten by Ottawa for over

20 years. It's a highway that has developed, brought in and

opened up areas that have added millions and millions and

millions of dollars in taxes to Ottawa, yet it has been

forgotten by Ottawa. That highway should have been upgraded and

paved 15 years ago. In 1952, there was a start by the then

Conservative government to indeed do just that.

When Governor-General Pearkes was Minister of Defence, he

laid down a programme of upgrading and paving 50 miles of that

highway per year. On a highway that stretches 1,578 miles from

Dawson Creek to Fairbanks, Alaska, it may seem like a very

short amount of highway to be paved in one year. But had that

programme been carried forward, we would have had over 1,000

miles of that highway paved today.

This highway, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, has

more tourist potential than, indeed, does the Trans-Canada

Highway. No, not if you don't allow any Americans on it, but

our $660 million tourist industry would grow to over $1 billion

if that highway were upgraded and paved.

Mr. Chairman, I made the statement just a moment ago that

there was more tourist potential on this highway than there was

on the Trans-Canada Highway. I say this for the following

reasons: In the State of California, there are more people

living than there are in this whole Dominion of ours. The

largest majority of the people are very well-to-do, and a very

large percentage of them are either retired or semi-retired.

These people are looking for new frontiers in which to take

their vacations. They want to travel to a land that is still

unspoiled. They want to see territory and climatic conditions

and mountains and areas which they can find nowhere else in the

world.

In the State of Oregon, we have two million-plus people. In

the State of Washington, we have another three million-plus

people. This is just the west coast of the United States of

America. These people want to travel to Alaska.

Mr. Chairman, what holds them up? What are keeping those

dollars at home? Lack, Mr. Chairman, of a decent highway. This

is what is holding them up.

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that there are presently

negotiations with the federal government in a highway programme

to upgrade the highway. I understand that finally Ottawa is

willing to negotiate with the province. The position of British

Columbia has been for quite some number of years that if Ottawa

puts the highway in the condition that it should be and paves

it, the Province of British Columbia would take it over and

maintain it.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very important link. It's a very, very important

highway that cost Canada nothing to build. I'll admit that she has spent millions

of dollars in maintaining that highway since it was built.

Why can we not use some good business sense in Canada and in

British Columbia? Where are the state of negotiations on, this

very important land link?

We talk about building a new northern trans-provincial

highway across the top of the Prairies. Why don't we complete

this highway that is already there, which already has the

potential, which has already opened up industry in the northern

part of our province, and send to Ottawa millions and millions

and millions of dollars of tax money?

Were it not for the Alaska Highway, there would be very,

very little oil development in the northern part of British

Columbia. Were it not for the Alaska Highway, there would

probably be no Cassiar asbestos. Were it not for the Alaska

Highway, there would probably be no mineral development in the

Yukon Territory. Here is a highway that has more than repaid

its debt to Canada, has more than repaid its debt to the United

States of America, and now, Mr. Chairman, it's like a forgotten

cousin.

Mr. Chairman, there are negotiations going on. I would like

the Minister to tell the House this afternoon: what are the

state of these negotiations, how are they progressing, what

will it mean to British Columbians, what will it mean to that

great land link between British Columbia and Alaska? I would

ask at this time, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister would advise

the House, so that we can all be enlightened.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): The negotiations are

coming along well and it is going to mean a great deal not only

to British Columbia but a great deal more to the area that that

Member comes from. It is coming along quite nicely.

MR. PHILLIPS: Quite well, interested — vague answers. Mr.

Chairman, the Minister wondered why he is not getting his

estimates through.

HON. MR. LEA: I didn't ask that. I'm not wondering why.

MR. PHILLIPS: The needs of the north country are urgent. The

people who live and work in that north country do so, as I

pointed out earlier in the House, under strenuous conditions.

They put up with climatic conditions and live without amenities

that the people in the lower mainland enjoy. Even the Minister

of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) stated that

the facilities in the north should be opened up.

Mr. Chairman, the Stewart-Cassiar Highway is in need of

money, is in need of upgrading.

Why, then, Mr. Chairman, did the Premier ban the Member from

Atlin (Mr. Calder) from this House? Why is the Member from

Atlin not here today?

[ Page 1906 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: Why, Mr. Chairman, isn't the Member from Atlin

here speaking for his riding?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: Why isn't the Premier here today so he can

talk to the Minister of Highways? Where is he?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just point out to the Hon. Member for

Peace River that the matter of where an MLA or a Member of this

House is is not the concern of the Minister of Highways.

I would ask him to confine his remarks to the vote that we

have before us, vote 98, and not again to refer to where other

Members may be. I would ask the Hon. Member to continue.

MR. PHILLIPS: I will certainly abide by your ruling and I

realize that the whereabouts of the Member for Atlin is not the

responsibility of the Minister of Highways.

My concern is for the people of the north.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm concerned for the people in the northern

part of this province.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Get on with your

filibuster.

MR. PHILLIPS: This is no filibuster. Mr. Chairman, why?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member confine his

remarks to the Minister's estimates or take his seat.

AN HON. MEMBER: Think it over.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why, Mr. Chairman...I must ask you this

question. Why, when a person fights for the taxpayers of this

province, does the Attorney-General and the other cabinet over

there continually accuse them...?

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

his remarks to vote 98 or take his seat.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now I'd like to talk about maybe a highway

that goes through your riding, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister of Highways has stated that the trans-north provincial highway

from the Peace River area to Prince Rupert should be upgraded to the standard

of the Trans-Canada Highway. What's he going to upgrade it with? Peanuts?

HON. MR. LEA: That's Leo's department.

MR. PHILLIPS: There's certainly not enough money in these

estimates to do very much upgrading, Mr. Chairman, and you know

it. How much money is going to be spent on that highway from

Prince George to Prince Rupert? How much money is going to be

spent in the Minister's own riding? There's a lot of that

highway in your riding, Mr. Minister, that needs upgrading — a

lot of that highway in your riding. I've been over it — not in

a helicopter, either.

HON. MR. LEA: That's not true.

MR. PHILLIPS: I drove over it in an automobile, Mr.

Chairman.

HON. MR. LEA: That's not true.

MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't helicopter over it. I was on the

surface. I could see; I drove every turn.

HON. MR. LEA: Not true, not true.

MR. PHILLIPS: I drove every turn on the highway. I was

interested in seeing the condition of that highway. I suppose I

could have used a helicopter and used more unreasonable

expenditures of the taxpayers' money.

But I'd like to know, Mr. Chairman, what he plans on doing

to upgrade the Stewart-Cassiar road? How much money is going to

be spent on the highway from Prince Rupert to Prince George?

How many bridges are going to be replaced?

I'd like to press on to another subject, Mr. Chairman, for a

moment. Last evening, or sometime during his estimates, he

stated that there was not sufficient equipment to keep the

centre lines freshly painted at all times. I'd like to ask the

Minister, Mr. Chairman, if he would give some consideration to

installing a permanent white line on many of these highways

which have been newly built and will last for some number of

years. This permanent centre line could be in the form of

cats' eyes. I find it difficult, even with super, high-powered

headlamps in my automobile, when it's dark and rainy, to see

that centre white line if it goes through an area that has any

dirt roads coming into it at all.

Conversely, when you get on a highway where cats' eyes have

been installed, these cats' eyes can be observed even in foggy

conditions. Since the province now owns the insurance

corporation and since the Department of Highways and the ICBC

should be more concerned than ever — although I know they

[ Page 1907 ]

were always concerned with cutting down on expenditures and

indeed saving human life — this is one way that I'm sure the

cost would be well worth it. I'd like the Minister to give me

his thoughts on that matter.

So I've posed a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman: one on

the Stewart-Cassiar highway, one on the Prince George-Prince

Rupert highway. I asked him a question this morning on his

policy with regard to three-lane passing, not only necessarily

on hills, but on level spots too, and a question on the use of

cats' eyes in centre lines. I'll just return to my seat while

the Minister has an opportunity to answer.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I made it clear that I'm not

prepared at this point to divulge where the negotiations are

with the federal government.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just before I sit down, I didn't mention the

federal government. But I posed four other questions, Mr.

Chairman, and I ask once again if the Minister would be

prepared to give me an answer.

Mr. Chairman, since I'm not going to get an answer on those

questions, I'll just press on to a couple of other short items

that I'd like to bring up.

I felt that in the interest of safety, people out on the

open highway should drive both day and night with their

headlights on. I do this as a matter of course because I

realize that on a dull day, or if a motorist coming towards me

is distracted by something else, he will at least see my

headlights.

HON. MR. LEA: That's not my jurisdiction.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, that's my opinion and I'd like your

opinion on it, because I feel that it is a good safety measure.

Canadian Coachways and Greyhound Bus in the States cut down

their sideswipes by some 20 per cent by driving with their

headlights on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I believe the Hon. Member is

talking about something which is under the jurisdiction of the

Motor Vehicle Branch, which is....

MR. PHILLIPS: This is Highways, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the Hon. Member talking about headlights?

MR. PHILLIPS: I drive on the highways, Mr. Chairman, and

quite often I see a sign: "Put your headlights on."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, the Hon. Member may talk about the sign

but not about the headlights.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right. I'll talk about the signs then. What I'm suggesting,

then, Mr. Chairman, is that the Minister of Highways put more signs on the highways,

and those signs should be: "Drive with your headlights on 24 hours a day in

the interest of safety; the life you save may be your own."

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you could do it like...what was that

shaving lotion? — Burmashave. You could do it in a series of

signs, you know: "Drive 24 hours".... Put it in a series of signs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Burmashave is out of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, there's one other area of the

province in which I'd like to find out the Minister's

intentions for this year, and that's with regard to the

Yellowhead highway. How many bridges are going to be replaced

on that highway this year? Is the past policy of replacing the

existing bridges going to continue?

Maybe the Minister of Highways had too much lunch, and he

can't seem to get up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member may pose questions. But the

time when these answers will be given, or if they will be

given, is at the discretion of the Minister.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Member would like

to continue, would he please continue? Otherwise, would he take

his seat and give way to someone else?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I don't know about the

Minister's lunch, but he sure sounded like a hot water

bottle.

I have some questions that I asked the Minister and he

hasn't answered them. He mentioned, first of all, that he would

file the commitments made to the City of Kelowna, the ones

accomplished and met last year and the ones that he's made in

his meeting this year. We've had a break; and I would like to

ask the Minister where that information is, because I'd

certainly like to just discuss it with him lightly during his

estimates.

I was interested in the fact that when I discussed an area

along Highway 97 at Woods Lake between Woodsdale and Oyama, and

pointed out to the Minister that it had been a long-range plan

and was an ideal plan — that this should become a roadside

park-pedestrian area — he said flatly, "No." I'd like to ask

him why he said no. I can't see what he could have against it.

I didn't ask him for a lot of money for it, and I didn't ask

him for it to happen overnight.

[ Page 1908 ]

But this is an ideal recreational area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! If the Hon. Member has

previously asked this question, I would ask her to be brief in

putting the question again.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I don't want to repeat the question. I'm

asking what his reasons are for saying no to developing a

design that could stand over the years and in which citizens

themselves could participate. Really, Mr. Chairman, we spend a

lot of taxpayers' money hauling gravel that comes over the

cliffs on that road away from the road. Why not take that

gravel and that excess rock that's sloughed off and use it as

part of the fill on one of these long-term designs? There are

areas which need to be built up that are already there. I would

like the Minister's reasons.

I would like to know the Minister's policy regarding

roadside parks in the future in British Columbia. There has

been a policy of the Highways department to develop certain

roadside parks. This I don't feel is the Minister's

responsibility specifically, but these have deteriorated. It

would seem, when one looks at the potential of enjoyment by

British Columbians around our highways, that there should be no

effort on the part of this government to slough off roadside

stops onto municipalities. There should be an increased effort,

either within the department or in cooperation with the Parks

Branch, to establish more roadside stops.

They needn't be elaborate in terms of major facilities. They

need washroom facilities at reasonable stop areas and should

keep with their environment by reflecting natural wood. The

highway picnic tables, which I'm sure you have noticed, made

out of cement and ceramic which have heavy cement bases

underneath, were basically designed and finished in the Public

Works yard in Vernon. The people enjoy using these picnic

tables, and I feel the government should establish a more

aggressive policy in this area. I hope the Minister would

comment.

There is certainly great concern on my part after travelling

across Canada and seeing what has happened in Manitoba and

Saskatchewan where the government has maintained a minor

position in the park branch in terms of major parks and has, in

essence, shunted p ark and roadside stop developments over to

the municipalities. This has resulted in a most inferior

establishment of roadside stops and parks in both those

provinces.

We in British Columbia — and I don't want to delve into parks and recreation

at this time — enjoy perhaps one of the finest Parks Branches in the world.

Our roadside stops basically have been moving in their direction. They are under

the direction of Highways and this Minister should make a concentrated effort

to make more and more attractive roadside stops in this province so that people

can enjoy themselves, can pull off the highway, and they don't get into a position

where they are forced to go from town to town. In fact, they become more town hoppers

rather than tourists enjoying our communities, our people and each other.

Just on that point, I would like to introduce two new

thoughts on this matter of tourism which haven't been canvassed

before in this relation.

Obviously the Minister doesn't seem to appreciate that one

of the major thrusts of people in North America and in many

parts of the world over the last few years is to develop a

better understanding of each other. Major problems in life are

often caused from minor irritations when people simply won't

sit down and talk to each other.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: The whole matter of tourism.... This point

hasn't been made, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I'm just cautioning the Hon.

Member that the comments of the Minister have been very

thoroughly canvassed. I would ask her that any of her remarks

should be related to his direct administrative

responsibilities.

MRS. JORDAN: They will, because he has taken it upon himself

to include very bold statements about the tourist industry. I

won't touch anything that's been canvassed before.

One of the biggest barriers to people harmony is

misunderstanding of cultural differences, misunderstanding of

people's attitudes and misunderstanding of other people's

motives. We are embarking in North America, and have been for

some time and have in British Columbia, on programmes that we

like to call cultural exchange. We're encouraging people to

meet other people from other countries, other parts of British

Columbia....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: That hasn't been mentioned before, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I just want to make a point. A

Minister may make remarks ex cathedra, that is to say outside

of his administrative responsibilities. That does not give the

Hon. Members the right to discuss that subject in the

House.

We've allowed a certain amount of latitude because this

subject is partly related to his own administrative

responsibilities. I would ask the Hon. Member to be very

careful to keep her remarks strictly relevant to his actual

administrative

[ Page 1909 ]

responsibilities.

MRS. JORDAN: I will, Mr. Chairman, but speaking of ex

cathedra, this is a problem. He closed the door on the church

of tourism — a hallowed form of communication between people

that should be nurtured, not slammed shut.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'm trying to be kind to the Hon.

Member but I would ask her to confine her remarks to the

Minister's administrative responsibilities.

MRS. JORDAN: It does relate to the Minister's

responsibilities because we need roadside parks in British

Columbia. Roadside stops come under the Minister's

administration. They are for the benefit of people and this

Minister has stated emphatically that he wants to have just the

select few people use his roadside parks.

I am trying to point out to him that we need more than ever

in these times to learn to sit and listen to people, to learn

of their ways and have them learn of our ways. This can only be

done if we increase the opportunity for informal stops and

informal talks. This takes place perhaps better than anywhere

at the end of a fishing pier, of a highway, at a roadside park

on a highway or, in fact, within the campsites in the Province

of British Columbia.

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

The spirit of tolerance.

MRS. JORDAN: How would you know, Mr. Minister? Very foreign

thought, I am sure.

Mr. Minister, we don't want a lot of Hilton-hoppers who can

afford to go to every major Hilton in the world. We want people

in British Columbia.

There is one other point I want to make in reference to the

Minister's comments in his administration. Trying to tar all

the people who have trailers and mobile homes from that

terrible, terrible country, the United States, has been...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order!

MRS. JORDAN: ...utter balderdash. People using your

highways.... What's wrong with that, Mr. Chairman? Are you

trying to stifle debate? (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: If you've been in office 18 months and you are

bored, you'd better resign.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I've repeatedly requested the Hon. Member

for North Okanagan to confine her remarks to the administrative responsibilities

of the Minister of Highways' vote 98. You've strayed away from the subject.

I would ask you one more time to confine your remarks to this vote. Otherwise,

I'll have to ask you to discontinue to speak.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't do that if I

were you; that's not a very democratic thing to do.

This Minister has talked about campers and trailers on our

highways. It is his responsibility under this vote, where we

are voting him a $110,000 vote to run his fancy office, to

provide highways for the people who use those vehicles. The

people who are using the highways from the point of view of

trailers and mobile homes are not rich people. The majority of

our visitors to British Columbia who use your highways that

you're responsible for administrating are average people who

worked hard in their lives...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: ...who have saved their money...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: ...recently sold homes...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: ...and put their money into a trailer so they

can enjoy meeting other people and using our highways.

Mr. Chairman, in using the highways....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

MRS. JORDAN: You're trying my patience, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Remain seated until I have made my

remarks.

MRS. JORDAN: I would be glad to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member is out of order on a second

point which I have made previously. Under standing order 43,

Members are not to canvass their own arguments over again or

the arguments of others. This particular point you were making

has been made now several times. Therefore, I would ask you

either to raise a new point or move on to another subject or

discontinue your speech.

[ Page 1910 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I

think I have made my point that the majority of people who have

these facilities and use our highways are average Joes.

I would like to ask the Minister, when the suggestion of a

helicopter for his department came up from the Member for

Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), if this is a policy kite being flown by

this Minister. Is there an intention in this Minister's mind to

have the Highways department purchase a helicopter?

It would be my view, Mr. Chairman, when you examine the

overall amount of use and the concerns we should have in this

province for maintaining small secondary businesses, it is far

better for the Highways department to be free to hire

helicopters from private industry in the part of the province

where they are needed, rather than the Minister to indulge....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! There was a point made that

this Chair has made previously. The subject of helicopters

generally has been very well canvassed. I would ask her to move

to a new point, not to cover old ground.

MRS. JORDAN: I didn't heat anybody say that before, but if

you feel that way, Mr. Chairman... I keep getting the feeling

you want to cut the debate short.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Why don't you go back and make more....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: I would like to go back to a matter I asked the

Minister this morning which he didn't answer in a satisfactory

manner — a question in relation to the Westside Road of

Okanagan Lake.

He mentioned that he had to study things and plan them. I

want to ask him why he was so sure at that meeting, when the

people were there and the election was on, that this could be

done "this fall," to quote him. Now he stands up in the

House and says he has to plan it; you can't make a commitment

one day and have the bulldozers out the next day.

HON. MR. LEA: A point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Minister of Highways

on a point of order.

HON. MR. LEA: You know, I've listened to that Member, Mr.

Chairman, say over and over again what I've said. You say what

you've said, not what I've said because I never said what you

said I said. Right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. LEA: You just stick to what you've said.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, if you'll just hold

yourself patient one minute, I'll read you a quote from the

people who were there. I'm not saying what you said you said....

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order. I

did not write that letter. I would ask her, if she hasn't got a

letter from me saying what I said, then she shouldn't say what

I said.

MRS. JORDAN: That's no point of order, Mr. Chairman. This

Minister committed himself, and this is the problem in this

whole debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! On the point of order.... Would

the Hon. Member be seated?

MRS. JORDAN: There was no point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. However, I would

ask the Hon. Member for North Okanagan, when she is reading,

that she identify what she is reading, either as her own or the

source that it is from.

Would the hon. Member continue?

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did read it into the

record, and I quoted where it came from. I'll try to find it

and read it into the record again, if you wish.

But the Minister's reaction right now, Mr. Chairman, is very

typical of the concern and the reason for this debate, because

he states one way and the other way and simply refuses to come

up with concrete answers. I asked him a very simple question

yesterday as to where he hired his helicopter from, and he

hasn't answered that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I understand...

MRS. JORDAN: I'm not going to introduce the subject, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: But you must understand that unless we can get

answers from this Minister...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: ...we can't possibly let him have his

vote.

[ Page 1911 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! In regard to the matter which the Hon.

Member was raising, I was not in the Chair at the time, but I

understand that the comments were made, the Minister has

denied. Therefore, I would point out that she cannot persist

with this. She must accept the denial of the Minister as the

statement of another Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: He didn't deny it when he was answering the

question, Mr. Chairman. However, I'll accept your ruling. But

I'm sure the people will be very interested to find out that he

has since denied making that statement. They will be made

aware.

Mr. Chairman, during our discussions before lunch I asked

the Minister about Ellison bypass. He responded by talking

about Allison bypass, and said that there had been no money

spent and no commitment by the former government. I did preface

my remarks, which I won't go into in detail again, by saying

that I recognized the problem and the people recognized the

problem.

Mr. Chairman, again this would point out the need to canvass

this Minister's vote very carefully: 1) He doesn't know that

Ellison bypass is Ellison bypass and not Allison bypass.

2) In his own annual report for the year 1972-73, which

includes the expenditures of the former administration, there

is in fact an expenditure, under Report of Comptroller of

Expenditures, page C197, for the District of North Okanagan of

$14,366.49, for Okanagan Landing, Eastside Road to Bench Road,

which is the Ellison bypass.

One must ask this question, Mr. Chairman. What sort of

bafflegab are we getting from this Minister? What does he know

and what doesn't he know?

On this particular point I would suggest, Mr. Minister —

recognizing the problems of that area, and recognizing the fact

that a good deal of the traffic is internal — that there was a

slow, long-term commitment to develop that road.

Mr. Chairman, there have already been people killed on that

road, and there are going to be more people killed, and it is

completely impossible to renovate the current road, or to

revamp it.

I would ask the Minister to open his mind on this thinking.

I explained to him before that the people have been extremely

patient, and I believe they will in the future if they believe

that he is aware of the problem and trying to do something

about it. But if he has a closed mind, then I think they are

going to back him into a comer, and he's going to have to do

something. It certainly would be more credit to the Minister to

do it on the basis of understanding the problem and having a

slow, progressive policy rather than waiting until he is backed

into a corner.

This brings up another subject, Mr. Chairman. Recognizing the problems that

the Highways department has in relation to their responsibilities to move vehicles

from A to B in the quickest possible manner and the safest possible manner,

I think we also must recognize that we have come to the point in our development

in British Columbia where we can't rely solely on warrants, and that some common

sense situations simply must prevail.

We have areas in this province where there are young

children crossing highways within city limits, on major

government highways, where there have been fatalities and there

are going to be more fatalities. Just because it doesn't come

up to a magical number, we go on saying the fatalities must

occur because that doesn't meet the number. I believe that this

Minister.... I would ask him to allow some common sense to

prevail in some of these decisions.

You know, Mr. Minister, a child killed or an older person

killed when 14,099 cars per hour was short of the 14,100 cars

per hour which would have given us a stop light is simply not

justified in any way, shape or form by a matter of numbers.

I think we have to educate the drivers in British Columbia

to recognize that when they are in areas where people live,

people come first. Surely, the whole problem we have in talking

about the automobile is that we've begun to feel that the

automobile should come first and not people. I suggest, in

examining needs for crosswalks for children and people,

examining needs for some of these stop-and-go lights and for

stop lights directly, and courtesy corners on major provincial

highways that lead into communities, that the Minister should

instruct his department to rely on latitude in terms of the

protection of human life and give some protection to the

pedestrian.

I don't deny the fact that children run across the road

without thought, and we should be concentrating our efforts on

educating them. But it's little comfort to see these accidents

and people hurt and maimed simply because we adhere to a number

and we adhere to a policy that is rapidly going out of

date.

I hope the Minister would answer some of those questions —

why he won't even look at the suggestion about Woods Lake, and

the other matters that I've asked him. I would also respond to

him in terms of his saying, "What did Oregon say to the

tourists?" I suggest to him that we all know that Oregon said

to the tourists, and we know the problems that Oregon is

reaping now. Their tourist industry is not a major

industry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: They've allowed themselves to become a

one-industry....

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

Member....

[ Page 1912 ]

MRS. JORDAN: But the Minister brought the subject up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I pointed out and made the

point that the Hon. Minister, when he makes statements ex

cathedra which are outside of his administrative

responsibilities, they may not necessarily be discussed under

these estimates unless they clearly relate to his

administrative responsibilities. I have cautioned the Hon.

Member on this.

MRS. JORDAN: I accept the ruling, Mr. Chairman. I would just

end by asking him to consult the people...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: ...in the tourist industry in Oregon before he

uses them as a guidepost.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member discontinue her speech,

please?

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, now that I'm here,

cool down, don't pick on me.

This morning I made some remarks when the staff was out —

I'm glad to see they are here now, from the department. I think

this has been covered before but I'm not sure.

In view of the cutting back on capital, the Minister says

there won't be that much construction going on this year, or

maintenance. Well, the emphasis is on an increase in

maintenance.

Have passing lanes been discussed? I think that's here,

either under maintenance or the capital. Is there any provision

within the budget for passing lanes? Our highways are

congested. I've heard the Trans-Canada and Highway 97.... I

think that as an intermediate solution we could get a lot of

relief by building more passing lanes. I might say they have

been built in the past, but not as fast as the traffic

increases.

I was wondering if the Minister would comment. Have they got

any programmes laid on? On what roads do they intend to

emphasize passing lanes?

I know the other item that was mentioned here is the

painting of centre lines and so on. I believe I heard somebody

say they had a problem with paint, or something. I want to tell

you that as far as safety on the highways is concerned, the

centre line is very important. They're all gone now, pretty

well, in the Interior, from the wintertime.

I can't understand whether it's the shortage of paint or the shortage of the

type of paint they require. I don't think they got their full centre-line painting

programme done last year, so it makes it important they get cracking on it this

year. I'd like to hear what the Minister has to say about it.

One other thing: routes. I have been told — and I'd like the

Minister to comment — that we've got trouble in the Fraser

Canyon at Jackass Mountain. For the information of the House,

Jackass Mountain is about 165 miles east of Vancouver in the

Fraser Canyon, and it's quite a cliff. I've rolled over it a

couple of times so I talk with authority about it. I understand

it's very unstable and I was wondering if this is correct.

There's porous rock back for four or five miles — is this

correct? Is there some danger there and what is the department

going to do about it?

If any part of that mountain starts to move, we'll have a

calamity in this province in view of the fact that it will

clean out the CNR and probably even put a plug in the Fraser

River for a while, it's such a large mountain. I have heard

this and I'd like to know if there's any basis in fact to this.

It was my information that the Highways department is looking

for another route. They've gone back quite a ways and they find

the rock is unstable all the way in that area. Of course, it

leads us back to the fact of another route from the coast which

has been discussed earlier.

Another thing I'd like to bring out is on large paving

contracts. I've witnessed some large paving contracts in the

last two or three years. I'm not referring to the Department of

Highways paving now; I'm referring to the ones let to tender.

They do a lovely job, and then the oil starts to work from the

bottom to the top and you get a slippery and very unsafe

condition. I understand from engineers that this is caused by

putting too much oil in the mix. It works its way back from the

base of the gravel up through the surface.

There's the

section of the road on Highway 97 that was done

in 1972. I don't want to name the contractor, but it's from

mile 142 to mile 150. The Highways department at this stage do

what they call a burn job to get the oil off. Lord help you if

you happen to hit that piece of pavement when it's raining

because it's just like driving on soap. There were a lot of

accidents.

But anyway, this occurred and then sand and so on was

applied after the burning to get to a rough surface.

The contractor on these hot-mix contracts has supervision, I

assume, from the Highways department on the quality of material

he's putting into this plant mix. It seems to me somebody has

made an error. We're all human; we all make errors. I have no

idea what that job cost somebody, but I would like to know who

pays for it. Does the contractor pay for that error or is the

public of the province paying for that error?

I would say in this particular

section they've gone and done

extensive work two years in a row to try and stop this oil from

working to the top. For all I know they may have to do it

again. I've further been

[ Page 1913 ]

told that if it doesn't stop this year, they will have to

tear the whole thing up and redo the whole job, never mind the

cost of building the base that, in the case of this contract,

was $1 million for that eight miles more or less. The hot-mix

contract alone was $600,000 after the base was built.

I want to know who is paying for all these repairs after

somebody has made an error. As I say, I think there are

responsible parties watching the contractor when they're mixing

the hot mix and I would think that is the responsible party. If

that's the case, I suppose the department has to pay the bill.

I would like to hear the Minister's comments about it.

The worst part of it all is that two years in a row on this

particular stretch on the main highway, it's a very, very

dangerous situation for the travelling public. When does it

become the most dangerous? At the height of the tourist season

every year because of the lovely weather, the heat brings the

oil out. So when we have the roads plugged with tourists, we

have this dangerous condition existing, particularly in the

months of July and August each year.

There's another thing that hasn't been aired here today —

and I think I've mentioned it every year. I resent the fact

that your department does work for the Lands department on

development of Crown subdivisions. I think that Lands

department has got enough expertise to call their own tenders

and put it out to the private sector. The reason I don't like

it is that, during the busy time of the year when the Highways

department are in there doing this work, all the local roads in

that area are neglected. I realize they do a good job; I'm not

criticizing the work they do. But I think the Highways

department has got plenty to do looking after the roads they

have.

It's been going on for years and I have been saying it every

year. Believe me, you ought to be in the Cariboo riding when

they have got the equipment all tied up — front-end loaders,

bulldozers, graders, dump trucks — on a Crown subdivision.

The story I get on it is the Lands department says: "Well,

we don't know how to build roads." That's a bunch of guff, Mr.

Chairman. They've got engineers galore and town planners. Even

the Minister of Lands (Hon. R.A. Williams) is a town planner

and I know they can get engineers to draw specs and let the

private sector bid on these jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: He wants to be Premier too.

MR. FRASER: The point is this poor old Highways department

has got its hands full looking after the responsibilities

they've got without subcontracting to another government

department.

On that subject I also resent the fact that the Highways department is a garbage

collector. I'll never buy that at all. Again, they're using dump trucks. Certainly

these jobs have got to be done, but I wish that the Minister would take this

up with his colleague, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr.

Radford). If we have to have garbage collection from roadsides, why isn't the

parks department doing it? Again, relieving equipment every day in the Interior,

there's at least two trucks out of each detachment in each Interior town that

go out every day and do nothing but pick up garbage from the garbage containers.

I think those trucks could be put to better use by hauling gravel and so on

than hauling garbage and fooling around like that.

This is the last thing I'd like to mention to the Minister.

It was brought to my attention in the last few days that the

snowpack in this province is now worse than it was in 1897 when

we had the worst flood we've ever had in the history of British

Columbia. I understand the government is going to get a report

on Monday, April 1, that will show this. On top of that, Mr.

Chairman, it's still snowing.

I think we have trouble ahead, as you well know, and it will

depend entirely on how the weather is in the month of April. I

think we've got a serious problem ahead if we have a cool April

and we don't get runoff and so on. But that's what exists at

the present time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. FRASER: I'm leading up to this. In view of this, the

Highways department always gets involved when we have a

calamity; they are always the ones who are caught. This is my

last question, Mr. Chairman. Is the Highways department doing

anything about preventive measures, particularly in places like

Kamloops and the lower Fraser Valley? When the calamity comes,

it's always your department, Mr. Minister, that is called on to

bail people out. I would like to hear your comments on that.

Thank you.

HON. MR. LEA: I'd like to thank the Hon. Member for Cariboo

for drawing to my attention the situation with land

subdivisions. I'm sure that, wherever possible, the regional

highways people do try to put priority to that work which

should be done for highways, although you can't keep track of

everything. Maybe what you say does happen. I'll look into

that. My jurisdiction is highways and I tend to think like you

do that that's the first priority for the equipment, especially

in those seasons where work is to be done.

The Highways department picking up garbage. I'm told by my

departmental officials that the only garbage we do pick up is

from the roadside rest stops that other Members have asked us

to put more in. I think that is fair; I wouldn't stop that. I

think those roadside rest stops have to be kept clean and that,

if we put them in, we're responsible for the

[ Page 1914 ]

maintenance of them. I believe that hauling garbage with

highway equipment would be a legitimate use. Maybe we need more

vehicles to do it, but I think it's a legitimate use.

In regard to the asphalt mix that you were talking about and

the oil coming up to the surface: there are highway inspectors

on even when it's a private contract that has been let and the

private contractor is doing the actual work. But I'm told that

it's practically an impossibility to be dead-on all of the time

because you're working with different kinds and different

coarseness of soil throughout the province. So all you can do

is put all of your experience and all of your knowledge

together and try to come up with the proper mix of oil and all

of the other ingredients that go into the soil and hope that it

works out.

So I don't think you can really say the blame can be put

anywhere. It's an inexact kind of science, if you can call it

science, and it happens from time to time. As you know, we've

had to burn that

section of highway that you're talking about.

If that doesn't work and we can't do it that way, I suppose

we'll just have to go in and do it again.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, I don't see any choice. We're certainly

not going to leave a spot that's going to be dangerous from the

Highways' point of view.

There was one other topic you brought up — flooding. Well, I

suppose the Highways department is called upon to act any time

there is a tragedy, and I suppose it's because we're everywhere

in the province and we have equipment and we have manpower

throughout the province. Oftentimes we're called upon by

municipalities, by regional districts and by other

departments.

Also you'll notice, I'm sure, Hon. Members, that you don't

see that in my vote anywhere, but throughout the year from time

to time, invariably, the Highways department is called upon to

do work that isn't really under its jurisdiction. But there is

a need and it has to be done. I would hope that the task force

that we've put on to look at slides, and in particular the snow

areas within the province, through the geo-technical division

of the Department of Highways.... I've given them broad scope

in which to work and report back.

I would hope that they will come back with recommendations

that are broad in scope, because I've left that flexibility

there. Believe me, they're a good, well-trained, conscientious

group that are going into this task force including, of course,

the chairman, Dudley Godfrey, who's been with the Department of

Highways for a number of years and is retiring in June.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: And he's a skier. He has graciously allowed

himself to be kept on with the department while this task force

is doing its work, not as an employee but as a special

consultant to the department after his retirement.

I'd like to say now that I think, for a man and his wife who

have looked forward for a great many years to retirement and

going about their own plans.... I think that all Members of

this House should thank Mr. Godfrey for doing this for the

people of British Columbia.

I would hope, Mr. Member, that we do get more information

and that we are better able to tell after this task force comes

in and that we have an ongoing check on what's happening with

snow in the province, and mud slides and that sort of thing. I

would hope for a better way and a better warning system so that

we can better deal with those problems before they happen. I

again thank you for bringing those points to my attention.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Just one that you didn't answer. Is there any

problem with Jackass Mountain?

HON. MR. LEA: No, not primarily that I'm aware of, or that

my department's aware of. I don't know if that's one of the

areas that you're going to ask me to rename, but other than

that, no. I'll have the geo-technical people check into

this.

MR. FRASER: Thank you.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Just a very few words. I

find it rather difficult on a Friday afternoon to speak about

highways after we've been discussing highways for some

considerable time. In view of the fact that we spent $44,000 to

amend the standing orders of this House, and it suggested that

a Member shouldn't have to sit on a Friday afternoon, that they

should have the opportunity of visiting their constituencies in

this province....

I happen to be one of the Members coming from a far-flung

area of this province and I feel that I have a responsibility,

not only to attend to business in this House, but I have a

responsibility from time to time to visit those people that I

represent. This opportunity has been denied to me by this

arbitrary government.

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

seated?

MR. CHABOT: All right, Mr. Chairman, if you insist. This

arbitrary government!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you remain seated until

[ Page 1915 ]

I've made my comments?

MR. CHABOT: Oh, I always will, Mr. Chairman, You don't have to tell

me that. I've been here before.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just like to remind the Hon. Member of

standing order 61(2), which says that all remarks in the

estimates in Committee of Supply "must be strictly relevant to

the item or clause under consideration." We are considering

vote 98 and I would ask the Member not to comment about the

rules of the House or about kinds of sittings, but rather to

confine his remarks to the administrative responsibilities of

this Minister.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much your

pointing out to me the relevancy of my discussion, relative to

the standing orders of this House, because what I am talking

about is the standing orders of this House which you are trying

to point out to me that I should observe. I'm asking your

government, Mr. Chairman, to observe the rules and regulations

of this House as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: That is that Members of this House have the

opportunity to go to their constituencies to represent their

people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: What is this? A closure?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a dictatorship.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Inasmuch as the Hon. Member has nothing to

offer in regard to vote 98....

MR. CHABOT: Oh, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please!

MR. CHABOT: You don't have the right to rule as to what I

have to offer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, you're being dictatorial in

suggesting that I have nothing to offer. What do you think you

are — God or somebody?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

MR. CHABOT: What is this Godless society we have today?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm prepared to allow the Hon. Member to speak

if he speaks in a manner relevant to this vote. However, twice

he has risen to his feet and has not been relevant to this vote

and I assumed he had nothing to say, so I asked him to

discontinue his speech. If the Hon. Member has a point to make

relevant to the vote, he may proceed.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will speak

to this vote, but I find it exceedingly difficult when I see

only 10 Members of the 38 Members of the socialist horde in the

House. They've probably gone to their constituencies; they're

probably having coffee in the coffee shop. I find it extremely

difficult to speak in this House when only 10 out of the 38....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please! Will the Hon. Member be seated?

The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

lnterjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order! I'm recognizing the Hon.

Member for Langley.

Interjection.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I'm standing on a point of

order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would both Members be seated?

The Hon. Member for Columbia River, having been twice warned

and asked to make his remarks relative to vote 98, has refused

twice. The Chair cannot any more tolerate that kind of conduct

and I'm asking the Member to discontinue his speech. I

recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I just rose on a point of

order. I'd like to have you tell us on what authority you have

the right to ask any Member to discontinue his speech when he's

speaking to the estimates of the Highways Minister and intends

to speak some more to those estimates. I don't believe you have

that authority.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want a 15-minute

[ Page 1916 ]

adjournment while you look it up?

AN HON. MEMBER: We should have a recess while you look it

up.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, don't give it to him.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to meet again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'm dealing with the point of

order.

Standing order 43:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the

attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of

a Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition,

either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other

Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his

speech."

That is what I have done.

I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order raised by the Member for

Langley.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: On that same point, Mr. Chairman, you've

raised the point of standing orders which deals with

tediousness or repetition, and there was no tediousness or

repetition (Laughter) in regard to the comments that were being

made by that Member.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McCLELLAND: Your own ruling is not competent to the

situation as it arose in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The point was made not on the

words of tedious repetition, but rather on...

MR. McCLELLAND: It was. You read it out yourself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...the words "irrelevance" which is contained

in the same standing order.

MR. McCLELLAND: You'd better read it again because....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Twice the Member has requested to make his

remarks relevant. He continued to be irrelevant. It's very

clear what the standing order says; and I've asked the Hon.

Member to discontinue his speech.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member for Columbia

River be seated unless he has a point of order or a motion to

make?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, what is this — closure or

something? What a bunch of nonsense! Point of order. I move the

committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is in order. The motion is that the

committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

Chabot

McClelland

Williams, L.A.

Bennett

Morrison

Gardom

Jordan

Schroeder

Gibson

Fraser

Anderson, D.A.

Wallace

Phillips

Curtis

NAYS — 31

Hall

Cummings

Skelly

Macdonald

Levi

Gabelmann

Barrett

Lorimer

Lockstead

Dailly

Williams, R.A.

Rolston

Strachan

Cocke

Anderson, G.H.

Nimsick

King

Barnes

Stupich

Lea

Steves

Hartley

Young

Kelly

Nunweiler

Radford

Webster

Sanford

Lauk

Liden

Nicolson

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, would you please report that the division

took place in committee and ask for a recording in the Journals of the House?

MR. McCLELLAND: A point of order, again, Mr. Chairman, I

wanted to get a ruling from the Chair on this matter of

persistence, because the ruling that you quoted to me wasn't 61

either, it was 43, I believe. It has to do with a Member who

persists in irrelevance.

I'd like to get your ruling on what constitutes persistence

because you asked the Member on only

[ Page 1917 ]

two occasions. I recall many other occasions in the House,

on both sides of the House, of the Chairman being asked to rule

a Member out of order — 67 times on one occasion. So, what is

persistence? I think it's necessary for us to know in order

that we may debate intelligently in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, standing order No.

61(2) says:

"Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly

relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

Standing order No. 43 says:

"Mr. Speaker or Mr. Chairman, after having called the

attention of the House or of the committee to the conduct of a

Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition,

either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other

Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his

speech."

Now, the point was that the Hon. Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot) was twice warned that his remarks were irrelevant

and that he should make his remarks relevant to the vote under

consideration. He, on the third time of having taken his feet,

continued to be irrelevant and I asked him to discontinue his

speech.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, no, Mr. Chairman! It was the second

time. All we want to know is: two times, is that persistence?

Now, is that the rule of this House from now on? It wasn't the

third time, Mr. Chairman, it was the second time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I made the ruling on the

grounds of him being twice warned. And the third time, he was

then irrelevant again. If they don't agree with the ruling,

they can challenge the ruling.

MR. McCLELLAND: I wouldn't want to challenge the ruling but

I think it's very important that we know in which direction

we're going in this House. Is that the criteria under which

we're to operate from now on? Is two times persistence, in your

view and in the view of this House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no set number of times, Hon. Member,

on the point of order. It's a matter of determining whether the

Member is intending to make any remarks relevant to the

vote.

MR. McCLELLAND: Then it becomes the whim of the Chairman to

decide persistence. Is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know what he's going to say the

third time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair doesn't make a decision on a whim,

but rather on an opinion. It's the opinion of the Chair that

the Member was persisting in irrelevance. If the Member does

not agree with the ruling, his recourse is to challenge the

ruling.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! There's no one on the floor who

has been recognized.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On the point of order, Mr.

Chairman. I appreciate the fact that you are trying to clarify

this point. I think it's important. I've been ruled out of

order for...as the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. Gardom) once said — on the grounds that once one

Member had mentioned it, other Members could not inform their

constituents of their views. I think, Mr. Chairman, on rule 43,

"...If the Member still continues to speak, the Chairman

shall report him to the House," it's not a question of

appealing to have the House uphold your ruling. It's a question

of you reporting to the Speaker, which is what the last part of

43 says.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! That is only a recourse in

which the discussion of the Chairman appears to be necessary. I

don't consider it necessary at this time. However, the

Chairman, having a soft heart and sometimes a soft head, I am

going to....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we cannot accept such an

insult of that nature to our Chairman. I think you should

withdraw at once.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chairman is prepared to give the Member

for Columbia River a chance to see whether he will be

irrelevant this time. I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River if he is prepared to be relevant to the vote.

MR. CHABOT: If I may be permitted a little bit of latitude,

Mr. Chairman, to...which is probably not relevant, but I

think....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! If the Hon. Member wishes to make

another point, would he please make it on a point of order.

MR. CHABOT: I want to take this opportunity to welcome the

Premier of British Columbia back to the province from his

campaign trail in Nova Scotia.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: I've never been one to praise his administrative

abilities, but I'm very happy to see him

[ Page 1918 ]

back in British Columbia, and back in the Legislature,

because he probably can stop this drifting and this lack of

direction which has been displayed by the government in the

last few days and during....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Member to speak to the

vote or else take his seat.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, you're awfully testy. I know you

want to be in your riding this afternoon, just as I do too.

That's where we rightfully belong. But we're here because of

the lack of direction of that government over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: That's why we're discussing the estimates of the

Minister of Highways this afternoon, speaking on the

administrative responsibilities of the Minister of

Highways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member be seated?

MR. CHABOT: Oh, sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I relented; I had a soft heart

and a soft head and I gave him a further chance. He abused it.

I am not going to recognize him again. Would the Hon. Member be

seated? Order! Would the Hon. Member for Columbia River be

seated?

MR. CHABOT: On what ruling, Mr. Chairman, do you insist I be

seated? I was talking about the responsibilities of the

Minister of Highways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated? Be seated!

Order! Be seated!

MR. CHABOT: Are you a commie, too?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I feel it's not necessary to

comment on the last remark. However, I made a ruling. I was

prepared to give the Hon. Member a further chance; he abused

it. I'm not going to give him that chance again.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I've never in my life — and I've

been here for a long time — seen such a dictatorial attitude

displayed by the Chairman of this House that you're presently

displaying at this time. Never in my history! You were a

Minister of the gospel at one time; you must have some charity

in your heart....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated? Would the

Hon. Member remain seated?

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): What is that rule, Mr.

Chairman, that says he must stay in his seat?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again I will read the rules for the benefit of

the Member for Victoria. Standing order 61 clearly says:

"Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly

relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

Standing order 43 clearly says:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the

attention of the House or of the committee to the conduct of a

Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition,

either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other

Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech..." This

ruling of the Chairman applies only to this vote. "...and if the Member

still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker shall

name him, or, if in committee, the Chairman shall report him to

the House."

The Chairman may simply ask him to discontinue his speech.

If the Hon. Member continues to speak and doesn't obey my

ruling, then of course I must call the Speaker of the

House.

MR. PHILLIPS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I must ask you

to withdraw the vicious attack on the Chairman that you made

here this afternoon. I don't think the Chairman has a soft

head; it's the Premier who has the soft head. I ask you to

withdraw that vicious attack on the Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Shall vote 98 pass?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I have some more information I

would like to introduce into the debate in reference to a

comment made by the Hon. Minister of Highways when we were

talking about the Allison bypass at Okanagan Landing. He

implied the former government had not spent any money and I

proved to him that they had. He also said he had not cancelled

the project; it had been cancelled by the former

administration.

I took the liberty of phoning my office in Vernon where this

file is housed in detail. I have the following note: "March 29,

1974: Re Okanagan Landing bypass." It's Mr. Miard's letter,

outlining reasons why this project no longer has priority, was

dated last year, 1973, and simply stated that this sort of

project had no priority.

The point here is that the Minister has displayed a good

deal of evidence that he doesn't know what's

[ Page 1919 ]

going on in his department. He has shown little evidence

that he's willing to listen to other points in the question. He

inadvertently, I believe, did not tell this Member the truth in

his statement this morning.

I would place before the Minister, who is leaving the House

at the moment, a strong appeal to use judgment in this case, to

recognize the dangers to the people living in this area, and to

correct his error of this morning by authorizing a progressive

programme to build this road. I hope the Minister will comment

on that when he returns to the House.

Another matter I wish to discuss and further enlighten the

Minister on is in relation to the new City of Kelowna. The

Minister stated that he would answer my questions by filing

answers and agreements with the House. I would like him to do

this this afternoon. Again, I would ask if he is prepared to.

We did have the lunch break in between and it's necessary to

have these figures to discuss it with him.

I want to ask him some more points, if he's going to answer

on the basis of my questions, which I didn't go into before. I

would like him to state whether or not it is within his

thoughts as administrator of this department to carry through

with the programme for Black Rock Road into the Allison

district. It's ready for paving and this is one of the requests

that was put to the highway engineer. I am speaking about this

in principle, Mr. Chairman, because it involves this principle

where confusion exists between the new City of Kelowna, the

regional highway engineer and the people. It's because of lack

of direction from this Minister.

I'm glad to see you back, Mr. Minister. It would be nice if

some of the Members of your party were back too.

This is in regard to Black Rock Road which is ready for

paving and should have been paved in 1973. It's a difficult

road because, like the others I am going to mention, these

roads have multi-use. The crucial use is the fact that fruit

growers are hauling their fruit across this road.

As the Minister I'm sure is well aware, the apples, the

peaches and the pears come off into bulk bins, they're loaded

onto trucks and they're taken to the packing house. They're

graded at the entrance of the packing house, not in the

orchard. If they have to be driven over rough, pot-holey roads,

then this bruises the fruit as they burnp against each other.

This directly reduces the income to the producers who live on

this road.

I'm sure you would want to know that this was a commitment; it was not made

last year. It's one of the areas where the people and the Member for North Okanagan

are getting a completely circular treatment between the involved jurisdictions

because of the lack of direction from the Minister. I would like to have a commitment

from him this afternoon that this circular treatment will stop and that this

road will be paved this year. It must be done soon in order so they can get

their produce across this fall. I'm sure the Minister is aware of the unrest

and the problems involved in this industry.

Another matter involved in this confusion, which exists

because of the lack of the Minister's administration, is Arab,

Appaloosa and Pinto Road. Again, the highway engineer when

questioned about this says: "They lie in the North Okanagan

Electoral District and are now within the boundaries of the new

City of Kelowna." He says that with a little work these roads

would be ready for paving.

These are part of the commitment and responsibility of this

government when it approached the City of Kelowna and drew up

its final agreement on this shotgun marriage. It simply is not

good enough for the highway engineer to tell the people that

it's in another electoral district when, in fact, it's within

the original highway district which is under this engineer's

jurisdiction. I would urge the Minister to please look up these

roads. Again, they are involved in the transporting of fruit

produce for producers who are having an extremely difficult

time at the best of times and anticipate an even more difficult

time this coming year.

So please, Mr. Minister, see that those roads are brought up

to snuff and paved. This fits right in with your improvement

and maintenance programme; there's no new construction needed.

I hope the Minister will stand up when I finish speaking and

give the Member for North Okanagan some direction in this

area.

I would like to ask the Minister his policy in relation to

the Monashee Highway which travels basically from Nakusp or

Edgewood to the Okanagan. This highway is used extensively for

transporting of freight and is becoming a much more active

tourist route in light of the road that is finished from

Revelstoke to Galena Bay. I see that the Minister has put some

funds down for the road from Galena Bay down to Nakusp, and it

is a case of which comes first, the chicken or the egg. But the

road must be upgraded. People in Lumby want it made very clear

that they don't want the highway moving out of there. They feel

concern about the amount of logging traffic that is using this

road. We are spending a great deal of money on an old saw when

it comes to maintenance on this road.

There should be, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, a

policy and I would hope that the Minister would agree to this,

of gradually improving, upgrading, widening this road over the

next few years. I would ask him for a commitment in that area

as far as his policy is concerned.

We have another question in relation to the Kootenay roads,

and that is: what is the Minister's policy in regard to the

request of having an alternate

[ Page 1920 ]

highway leading either to Nakusp or to Edgewood and

travelling down the east or west side of the Lower Arrow Lakes

to the Kootenay core?

This is a matter of great interest to the people of that

area. It was a road that was under discussion at the change of

administration, and it was one that a decision would be made on

in a year or two in light of the need to settle the banks in

the Lower Arrow Lakes due to the rising of the water. I would

ask the Minister what his policy is in that area.

There is considerable concern, Mr. Minister, through you,

Mr. Chairman, in relation to the Minister's policy regarding

the area of Lumby and Cherryville. In these areas we have a

vast network of gravel roads which are used for logging,

tourism and local communications. There has always been a

progressive programme of upgrading these roads and this was

virtually halted this year, Mr. Chairman.

I was thinking about this at lunchtime, and felt that I had

not been correct in recognizing the fact that this Minister

took over his duties after last year's budget was prepared. So

I certainly don't feel inclined to hold him responsible, but I

would advise him that through this absolute neglect last year,

which was a very dry year, these roads, which are difficult to

maintain at the best of times, have deteriorated

dramatically.

Mr. Minister, when I look at the budget for the North

Okanagan in total for this year, it is an appalling situation.

We had approximately $600,000 last year, and we have

approximately $600,000 this year. So in light of the fact that

last year was an extremely low year, with work not carried out

that should have been carried out, just on a routine basis, and

virtually no new work initiated, we have a whole year's lag

plus a budget that doesn't even reflect the inflationary costs.

So in fact the North Okanagan, after a year of neglect, which,

as I mentioned, I do not attribute directly to this Minister

but to the budgeting of the former Minister, now the Hon.

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan),

we have a decreased budget.

In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, the increase in tourism and

the increase in population growth and the increase in the

logging industry using those roads is more than double what it

was.

I would ask the Minister, for example, with Creighton Valley

Road, if he is aware that while it is not an arterial road, it

is a road that is bringing in a tremendous amount of revenue to

the province through logging, which has increased there

dramatically in the last year. At the same time, there has been

a considerable build-up of population due to people moving in

to the area.

Again, Mr. Chairman, you would be interested to know that this build-up of

population is largely involved in agricultural production. We have a tremendous

problem with conflict of use because they are largely crop producers — hay,

wheat — and with the logging trucks using the roads, with the deterioration

of the roads, which are gravel, there is an increase in the amount of dust and

this destroys the value of the hay crop and the field crop, because cattle and

small animals simply will just not eat dusty hay. Nor in fact can horses eat

it, because they are subject to a lot of illnesses that are caused by dusty,

bulky foods.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Minister in regard to

Creighton Valley if he is prepared to not only maintain a

progressive upgrading programme but to update the gap that was

created by last year.

Also, in speaking of Creighton Valley, I would remind the

Minister that the combined Crown Zellerbach-Weyerhaeuser

operation in the area has resulted in a need and a concerted

effort on the part of the companies and the people in the area

to situate a log scale in that area at the Rawlings Lake Road

and Highway 6, as it joins the Mabel Lake Road. If the Minister

would agree to this establishment and the upgrading of this

road, it would funnel a great deal of traffic through this area

that is dispersed into other areas and causing problems.

As far as Trinity Valley is concerned, Mr. Minister, this is

a road connecting Lumby area with the Enderby area, and is of

interest, I am sure, to the Hon. Member from Shuswap (Mr.

Lewis). The first 10 miles from the Lumby end was a good gravel

road and was well-maintained and kept in good condition by the

Department of Highways. But this again has deteriorated through

lack of funds and attention last year and will need to be

upgraded from last year's standard as well as needing more

money to maintain it this year and hopefully continue on our

progressive programme of improvement.

I would just remind the Minister that the area at the base

of this going to Ashton Creek from the Highways department is

in deplorable condition at this time. This is not because of

the winter heaves and frost, but because of the neglect last

year.

It is really not fair, Mr. Chairman, when one examines these

roads to ask for paving of all of them. The people realize

this, but it is also equally unfair to not maintain a

progressive plan of upgrading. This would fall into the

Minister's description of what he wants to make his priorities

this year.

Also it is very unfair to the individual people who have

small logging companies, small logging trucks, trucking firms,

who have to haul their logs over these roads. These trucks cost

$40,000, $50,000 or $75,000 apiece, as I am sure the Hon.

Chairman knows. These aren't great companies, either; these are

individual families who scrape and put their neck on the line,

mortgage their homes to buy these trucks. If they have to drive

them over roads that aren't kept up to a reasonable standard,

it is not the Highways department that pays, and it is not the

public of

[ Page 1921 ]

British Columbia that pays. It is the poor little guy who

pays because he has to maintain his trucks. If he gets a broken

axle or ruptured shock absorbers then he has to tie up his

truck for a period of time. It cuts out his income, he has to

pay the cost and also it devalues his truck.

With this growing increase in logging, which is being done

to a large degree for the hauling by independent haulers in our

area, I would urge the Minister to put in a weighscale, to

upgrade and extend a progressive programme in Creighton Valley

and the same in Trinity Valley. Trinity Valley is the one that

is causing a lot of bitterness to the small loggers.

Perhaps the Minister will comment on those particular points

and then I will have some more questions to ask him.

HON. MR. LEA: When we get to the proper votes — 100 and 101 — maybe she will repeat those questions and I will answer them

at that time.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I think that this is a

matter of administrative responsibility. I inquired of the

Minister yesterday in regard to the limited access to Cypress

Bowl. Will it be strictly reserved for the recreational use

within the Bowl or on the mountain, or will it be available for

access to other lands or subdivisions?

HON. MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Chairman, to the Hon. Member, it is

a confusing situation, I admit. It is not a Department of

Highways road; it is a Department of Recreation and

Conservation road that they are paying for, and we are doing

the work on that road.

I talked with the Hon. Minister of Recreation and

Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) the other day, and it becomes

even more confusing because it is still under the jurisdiction

of the Department of Lands. I have called a meeting of both the

other Ministers and myself and our staff. As soon as we get

through with these estimates we'll be getting together and

dealing with them, coming to some conclusions immediately as to

what the situation is.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am just concerned with the Minister's own

riding because in that riding of this — last year, according to

the report of the comptroller, on day labour for roads project

2422, Yellowhead Highway 16, which includes under the day

labour vote, weed spraying, shouldering and sundry locations,

there was only an amount of $11,265.93 spent. Now, Mr.

Chairman, that's close to $7,000 less than the Minister spent

on his famous whirlybird trip.

Under that same vote for the Queen Charlotte City-Masset Highway 33, weed spraying

and sea protection, sundry locations, only $8,000 was spent, Mr. Chairman. And

that's $10,000 less than he spent on that famous helicopter trip of his.

All through his estimates many of the votes spent in his

area are much less money than he spent on one helicopter trip.

I wonder how many other ridings are going to have to go without

their day labour vote in order that the Minister of Highways

can go on more helicopter trips in the next year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member knows that this

subject of the helicopter trip has been thoroughly canvassed. I

would ask him not to continue to discuss that subject. It has

already been discussed at great length. The Chair has been very

tolerant, and I would ask him to move to a new subject.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, has it been discussed in

relation to expenditures in the Minister's own riding?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Chair has been very

lenient, Hon. Member, in allowing Members to discuss matters

which should be brought up under vote 101 and vote 100 and not

under vote 98. If the Hon. Member wishes to discuss specifics

of highway maintenance, or bridge construction, highway

construction, and so on, he should bring these up under votes

100 and 101. The Chair has been tolerant but I would ask you

please not to abuse that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the

other Members of the government who are from the north because

they are not in the chamber this Friday afternoon after we've

had three sessions every day this week. The Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett) is not in the House this afternoon, Mr.

Chairman. He came in for a moment and then stepped outside.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to

make his remarks relevant to the Minister's vote — that is,

vote 98. The Hon. Member may continue.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For just a few

moments I'd like to discuss the Department of Highways gravel

requirements for the coming year, because the gravel pit is,

under the terms of mining legislation, considered a mine. As I

drive around the province I view some gravel pits that have

been left by the Department of Highways in an un-restored

state. I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, what the

department's attitude is towards these strip mines that they

are creating here in the province.

I realize in the north that this is a very, very important

subject because there is a great shortage of gravel,

particularly in the Peace River area. I realize that sometimes

this gravel has to be hauled from river

[ Page 1922 ]

beds in the wintertime, but there are other gravel pits. I

would like the Minister to explain to me what his intentions

are with regard to restoring these gravel pits. Is he going to

make some man-made lakes out of some of them? Are they going to

be pushed and leveled off and grass planted so that the

aesthetic value of the land will at least be close to what it

was?

Maybe, Mr. Chairman, the Minister would take the time to

advise the House, and while he is at it, I wish he would answer

my previous question on the expenditures and what he is going

to do on the Stewart-Cassiar Highway.

This vote is all lumped together. It's day labour and

construction and we really don't know exactly how it is going

to be broken down. He has the administrative responsibility to

answer the taxpayers of this province, because all of us are

taxpayers of this province, not just the missing Member for

Atlin (Mr. Calder), Mr. Chairman. Where is the Member for

Atlin, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to

keep his remarks strictly relevant to the vote before us. The

matter of other Members of this assembly is not concerned in

the administrative responsibility of this Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I'll certainly

abide by your ruling. But the Member for Atlin isn't here this

afternoon and a lot of the other people....

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

flouting the rules and I would ask you to confine your remarks

to the administrative responsibility of the Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Stewart-Cassiar road

does go through the Member for Atlin's (Mr. Calder'

s) riding.

What concerns me is the fact that he's not here this afternoon.

Is that why the Minister of Highways will not tell me what is

going on in his riding? Mr. Chairman, I want to go into the

Member's riding and tell them what's going to happen in their

riding, because the riding is not being very well represented

in this Legislature this year.

I have brought up several questions pertinent to the

Minister's responsibilities. I asked him about safety on the

highways with regard to installing cat's-eyes as permanent

centre lines. I have had no response from the Minister, Mr.

Chairman. I have had no response from the Minister with regard

to the Prince George–Prince Rupert Highway.

I realize that it's Friday afternoon. I realize that we have had three sessions

nearly all week and maybe the Minister of Highways is tired. I've cancelled

my plane reservations to go to my riding this weekend, Mr. Chairman. I am quite

prepared to stay here and fight for the taxpayers of this province — 24 hours

a day, if necessary! I hate to see this government with such a big, crushing

majority trying to push this little opposition around with a dictatorial attitude.

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

the vote?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I would love to return to the vote and I

would also love some answers, Mr. Chairman, from the Minister

of Highways. I would love some answers.

We have in our area a ferry. That ferry crosses the Peace

River at Clayhurst — the only means of communication within

about 60 miles for those people to get across that mighty Peace

River. That ferry has been there since those pioneers went into

that Clayhurst area there in 1918 or 1919 after the First World

War. They went in there to pioneer and to work and to develop

that area. The Minister of Housing's (Hon. Mr. Nicolson'

s) wife

is from that area — from an old pioneering family, Mr.

Chairman. They went in there, partly isolated, and now that we

have controlled flow on the Peace River, the costs of

constructing a bridge would be only about one-third of what it

was when we were having those big, tremendous spring floods.

This was before the mighty Peace River power dam, which has

controlled the flow of water.

The problem is this, Mr. Chairman. Prior to a controlled

flow of water on the Peace River, we used to be able to go down

there in the fall of the year when the weather got below

freezing and build an ice bridge. Unless there was a

tremendously long chinook and warm spell, which we get in that

area, we could build that ice bridge and those pioneering

families that are in there opening up the entire area could

rely on using that ice bridge for the entire winter season. But

now, Mr. Chairman, even though we have a controlled flow, the

water comes from behind the dam and it's warmer and it takes us

much longer to get that ice bridge in there.

So these pioneering farmers on that great agricultural area

are never really sure from one week to the next whether they

are going to be able to use the access or the ice bridge across

the river. It's time to give consideration to putting in a

permanent bridge across the river.

If the Minister of Highways is aware that within a few years

there is going to be a dam constructed across that Peace River

close to that area, the top of which could be used as a highway

bridge, the Minister should tell us. But is he speaking to the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams) who is a director of B.C. Hydro? Is he speaking to

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) who is a

director of Hydro?

Mr. Chairman, I would just like some answers from

[ Page 1923 ]

the Minister of Highways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I see no one on their feet.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you had better turn around.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Is the Hon. Member for Columbia

River (Mr. Chabot) rising on a point of order?

MR. CHABOT: (Mike not on.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I recognize the Hon. Member for

Columbia River on a point of order.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for

turning the mike on. You did quote standing order 61 to me, not

in its entirety but in bits and pieces. You're attempting to

censure me and attempting to suggest that the Member for

Columbia River should not have the opportunity of speaking.

I want to suggest to you, on my point of order, that you did

not read all the pertinent subsections of

section 61. The third

one is the most important one, prior to declaring closure

against a Member of this House. Subsection (3) says:

"The Chairman shall maintain order in the Committee of the

Whole House, deciding all questions of order subject to an

appeal to the House without the committee rising; but disorder

in a committee can only be censured by the House on receiving a

report thereof. Words used in committee to be reported to the

House must be taken down in writing."

I would suggest you only used those bits and pieces which

you felt were relevant to deny the Member for Columbia River

the opportunity of having his free speech in this assembly. I

find this most despicable and disgraceful because never, in the

11 years I have been a Member of this assembly, has anyone ever

attempted to silence me. I've attempted to abide, from time to

time... (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please!

MR. CHABOT: ...by the rules of this assembly.

The people who have elected me on four successive elections

have asked me to come here and speak on their behalf. You are

suggesting now, by using irrelevant and half-baked conclusions,

that I should be denied the right and the opportunity to

express the views of the people who have elected me to come

down here and speak for them. That, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to

you is intolerable as far as I'm concerned.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Premier, I'm not attempting to abuse the

Chair. All I want is an opportunity to speak on behalf of the

people who have elected me to come here and speak. That's what

they want me to do; they want me to express their point of

view. I'm being told now by the Chairman of this House, who is

a Member on the government side, that I'm not going to be given

the opportunity to speak. I think that's intolerable in this

House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please! On the point of order. Would the

Hon. Member be seated? Under standing order 61(2) it says,

"Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly

relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

On the basis of the fact that your remarks were not

relevant, I referred to standing order 43. Standing order 43

says that if a Member persists in irrelevance, then the Chair

has the discretionary power provided in the standing order to

ask the Member to discontinue his speech — which is what I did.

If the Hon Member feels his free speech is being taken from

him, he may appeal my ruling to the House.

Also, he may rise on a point of order and promise that he

will be relevant and ask for the reconsideration by the

Chairman. I would be prepared to consider such a

reconsideration if I can be assured that the Hon. Member will

be relevant.

MR. CHABOT: On the point of order you are making. You have

pointed out to me that on two occasions I was not being

relevant to the discussions on vote 98 at this time. I'm not

going to deny there's a possibility that I was probably off

vote 98. But for you to anticipate that the next time I rise in

my place I'm going to be off vote 98 I think is anticipating

the wrong thing. Certainly, I think that in your

responsibilities as Chairman of this assembly, after a Member

has been what you consider irrelevant in the topic under

discussion, which is vote 98, you should allow someone else to

speak.

If that same Member whom you considered had been irrelevant

rises in his place, you should not anticipate that again he's

not going to be abiding by the rules of the House.

If you do otherwise, Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest that

you are being most unfair and you are anticipating what the

Member might have to say in this assembly. I don't think that's

good manners on the part of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, standing order 43

clearly gives the Chairman discretionary power. If he feels, in

the judgment of the Chairman, that the Hon. Member is going to

be relevant, then of course he can allow him to speak again.

This power is simply given because the Chairman must have the

power.

[ Page 1924 ]

I'm relatively easy to get along with and I'm prepared to

give the Hon. Member for Columbia River a further chance to see

whether he can be relevant to vote 98.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You haven't

been in this House as long as I have, but I'm sure you realize

the Member for Columbia River is not that difficult to get

along with. Even the Premier agrees with that point of

view.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: However, I would ask the Hon. Member for

Columbia River to get to his remarks under the estimates just

as quickly as he can.

MR. CHABOT: I will, Mr. Chairman. I'm one of slow speech,

and I apologize for that. I don't speak rapidly but I do try to

express myself in the best way possible under the

circumstances, having been educated in another language. But I

language today. My leader is telling me to speak in French but

I don't think that would be very fair. I'm not one to abuse the

rules of the House.

I do not want to ask a few questions to the Minister

regarding vote 98. I don't want to be accused of being

repetitious, but it's going to be a little bit difficult. I

wanted to know what the government is going to do about the

ferry between Powell River and Bella Coola last night. It's

really the triangle situation; Port Hardy is included and so

forth. I have a few other things.

You want to answer that one?

HON. MR. LEA: Yes.

MR. CHABOT: But I have a few others. I'm a brief speaker.

You know that, Mr. Chairman. You want to answer that one right

now? Oh, just a moment, is the Premier...?

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

Minister decide who is going to speak next.

MR. CHABOT: Do you want to answer that one, and then I'll

get up and ask another?

HON. MR. LEA: I want to save you a lot of trouble, Mr.

Member. I just want to tell you that is not under my

jurisdiction.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Now you're out of order

again.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, well, censure me, I guess. I asked a question, as I

said before....

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

Columbia River continue with his second point?

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much. I'm a little concerned and

I want to be convinced again that the Minister stated correctly

when he said Westside Road between Invermere and Fairmont Hot

Springs would receive $50,000 for highway improvement this

year. What really confused me, made me hesitate and led me to

believe it might be some mistake was some erroneous information

given to the House regarding the fee for vehicles going through

national parks. I did contact the national park and I was told

there is no suggestion that this fee will be removed from

national parks. I hope the information I was given a little

earlier about the $50,000 for Westside Road is accurate. I just

want confirmation of that.

We have a bill before the House called the Metric

Conversion Act . I believe the Minister is a progressive,

straightforward-looking type Minister. I'm wondering whether

he's giving some consideration to the conversion of miles. When

a sign says "Radium Hot Springs — 10 miles," will he

relate that into kilometers?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I feel that the proper time to

bring that matter up would be the consideration of the bill.

However, if the Minister does wish to make a brief answer....

MR. CHABOT: Okay. Maybe I'm premature in that particular

request, but I thought the Minister might be interested in

being the first in British Columbia to adopt a forward-looking

conversion scale — and that's without discussing the bill, Mr.

Chairman.

You're awfully touchy, Mr. Chairman. You're watching me

awfully closely as if I'm going to stray from vote 98. I'm not

about to do it after almost being censured by you just a few

moments ago. There's no way that I would dare deviate from what

we're presently discussing.

Now the Minister has discussed just a few moments ago the

question of a snowslide survey crew and I have his press

release here. It's to protect the motoring public against the

potential of an avalanche. Some of the people in my

constituency were a little concerned, Mr. Minister, a little

while ago when you were talking about this particular situation — about what kind of action you were proposing to take.

When they heard that you'd be shooting bullets up into the

potential slide areas, they wondered what you were talking

about. They are accustomed to howitzers being used in the

Rogers Pass and they wondered what new method had been devised

by the

[ Page 1925 ]

Department of Highways by using bullets instead of

shells.

I'm wondering, Mr. Minister, whether you have had any

consultation with the crew that's been in the Rogers Pass for

10 years, who have a tremendous amount of experience. I'm

wondering if you are drawing upon the talent and the experience

which has been generated by this crew which has done a very

effective and responsible job in the Rogers Pass.

I don't know whether you've consulted them, but if you

haven't I suggest that you do, because I'm sure they could give

you a tremendous amount of assistance in protecting the

motoring public in the province.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 98 pass?

MR. CHABOT: I hadn't quite sat down, Mr. Chairman. I'm just

wondering if the Minister would comment just briefly on those

three subjects.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all I'd like to

comment on the statement that I made earlier about the tolls in

parks being removed. After that, one of the Social Credit

Members said he phoned the park and they said they hadn't been

removed. I said that my staff had assured me that they had been

removed; and we've double-checked. Tolls in parks were removed

midnight, July 25, 1973. This covers all through-commercial

traffic. If goods are delivered or picked up in parks, the toll

still applies. B.C. was concerned with the through traffic

affecting our shipping costs, and that has been removed. So in

some ways, Mr. Member, both of us were correct.

One other point: you asked whether we had consulted with the

people from the Rogers Pass who have been responsible for

avalanche control. The man who designed that, the man in

charge, is on the committee.

MR. CHABOT: The $50,000 is still in place?

HON. MR. LEA: Oh, yes.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you.

Vote 98 approved.

Vote 99: general administration, $5,324,608 — approved.

On vote 100: maintenance and operation, $69,952,074.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of items I'd like to

discuss under this vote with the Minister. Some of them I referred to him at

an earlier date by letter in December, but I've had no answer from the Minister

yet. I thought I'd bring some of these items up now and get some comments from

him.

First of all, I notice in the Highways department report

that the Cloverdale by-pass is as far as it can go now.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Why?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Is the Hon. Member talking

about the capital expenditure?

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, the maintenance and operation of

roads, bridges, ferries, wharves and tunnels.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's vote 101.

MR. McCLELLAND: Okay, I'll wait till the next one.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, maybe the Minister of Highways

would advise me how much of this vote is going for helicopter

trips.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: This is vote 100 and I was told last evening

and this morning that this would be the vote to discuss it. Now

that we're under this vote I would hope that the Minister would

tell me how much money he anticipates to be spent by him on

whirlybirding around the province.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'll be spending out of that

vote for helicopter trips just as much money as it takes to

service this province properly.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd like the Minister to be on the job.

Let him get out there and do the work for you fellows.

Vote 100 approved.

On vote 101: capital construction, $110 million.

MR. McCLELLAND: The item that I related to the Minister was

the Cloverdale bypass which, according to the Highways

department report, had been held up because of further

negotiation. I'd like the Minister to tell us whether that

negotiation has been completed and whether the extension is

going ahead on the bypass.

[ Page 1926 ]

I raised an item some time ago, too, Mr. Chairman, with the

Highways department in connection with No. 10 Highway. Between

about 180th Street and 186th Street on the No. 10 Highway

there's an urgent need for a passing lane on that hill. I

recognize, too, Mr. Chairman, that it's a very difficult

engineering problem because of the nature of the houses which

are back from the road. But looking at that highway, it would

seem to me that there's enough maneuverability in the area to

attempt to develop a passing lane without too much disruption

of those old houses which are along the side of the road.

Now I was told last year, Mr. Chairman, that that item was

in fact a No. 2 priority with the Department of Highways. Yet

nothing seems to have been done there. I wonder if the Minister

would advise the House and myself whether or not it has any

priority with this government.

It's in one of the most rapidly growing parts of British

Columbia, and a serious traffic problem is developing. It's

also the nature of that area that that road is used by a number

of farm vehicles and heavily loaded trucks. Because of that,

those trucks and those farm vehicles can't negotiate that hill

at very high speeds. So it's necessary that something be done

about that before it becomes an insoluble problem.

In connection too, Mr. Chairman, with another bypass on the

Fraser Highway around Langley city.... Now I recognize the

Minister's comments, of course, about the difficulties which

arise when development is allowed to happen alongside of

inter-regional or interprovincial highways. Nevertheless, it's

been historical in British Columbia that that's where the

developments happen.

We see now developments in the City of Langley, for

instance, which began, not in the last 20 or 30 or 40 years,

but 100 years ago when that area was a stopping place for

travelers who were coming out by stagecoach. The town developed

around that stopping place. We can't now say all of a sudden,

"Well, let's get rid of all the development that's there," because it's there already and it's being compounded by

such other Acts of government as the Land Commission

Act .

So the development is already there, and there will be more

development forced into that area because of the restrictions

by the Land Commission Act in other areas. Here we have

the development, we have a major provincial highway going

through the centre of that development, and it's an intolerable

situation.

The people of Langley would love to have that road

declassified, given to the City of Langley, because it isn't

anything more today than a city road. It's a city street

through a major, bustling city, regardless of the fact that it

is designated a provincial highway.

The Department of Highways then must develop an alternative system for its

highway system. It's partially developed now in a bypass situation, but the

bypass doesn't go anywhere. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that when the Department

of Highways has jurisdiction of roads which are in urban areas, then the Department

of Highways must take the lead in developing highways which are compatible with

the urban needs.

That's not happening in many areas and I include Langley

city as one of those areas where it isn't happening.

In the five-year period which covered the last census, Mr.

Chairman, the City of Langley experienced a growth in excess of

84 per cent. That's 84 per cent in five years. We are now

experiencing in the City of Langley a growth rate of something

in the order of 15 per cent per year. That's an incredible

growth rate, and it's causing incredible problems, as the

Minister can imagine, Mr. Chairman.

It's one of the further reasons why I would like to have the

Minister and his staff come by car to Langley city and have a

meeting with our people and talk about the needs of that

constituency as soon as this House rises.

AN HON. MEMBER: In June!

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, June, you know; that's all right. Mr.

Chairman, I also understand the dilemma that we find ourselves

in because of a lack of being able to cope with the rapid

growth in an area, we find ourselves with insufficient internal

highway needs, internal traffic dispersal. So, we also need, I

know, to develop those internal corridors and traffic patterns

in conjunction with the Department of Highways who must make

provision as quickly as possible for a bypass around Langley

city. I wouldn't expect the Department to do that until some

alternatives are also available within the City of Langley.

I ask again that the Minister offer the expertise of his

department to try and help the City of Langley solve some of

its internal problems as well. We don't want any orders from

Victoria, but we do want the opportunity to have the expertise

of the officials in your department. We want them to come out

and sit down with the City of Langley, and say that they'll

give us a bypass, but first we have to make arrangements to do

this, and this, and this, and this, and this, so that,

internally, our traffic problems can be solved as well.

I recognize that as a policy of the Department of Highways,

and I think it's a good one, but I think we've got to get

cracking on it right now. Get out to the City of Langley, for

instance, and sit down there and do something not a year from

today, but today or tomorrow — as quickly as possible.

It's a need that can't wait because the Fraser highway,

Highway 1, which comes through the City

[ Page 1927 ]

of Langley now is creating unbelievably chaotic traffic

conditions in that city. Even today — I think the latest survey

showed that about 18 per cent of the vehicles which travel on

that highway are attempting to travel right through the City of

Langley to get to some other point. That's a pretty significant

figure, and if we could get rid of that 18 per cent in the City

of Langley many of our traffic problems would be on their way

to being solved.

The Glover Road which goes from Langley city to Fort Langley

is another road which requires some attention from the

Department of Highways. It's in excellent shape from Langley

city to the No. 10 bypass, but once you get by there, the

condition of the road deteriorates somewhat.

Because Fort Langley is the second most-visited national

historic site in Canada, that road is attracting more and more

vehicles each summer. I understand the Minister's aversion to

tourists. Nevertheless that attraction is there; they get there

by road. There are no other connections with it, so everybody

who goes to that facility goes by road whether it be in public

passenger services or private passenger automobiles. And that

road needs to be looked at by the Department of Highways.

Mr. Chairman, I mentioned this to the Minister on a number

of other occasions by letter. There's also a need for the

Department of Highways to consider taking the lead again in

developing covered ditches along the Glover Road because that's

in the centre of a major and busy city, also in an area of both

attractive commercial use and attractive residential use. It's

an area which the people in the city would like to see

redeveloped where the residential use isn't quite as

attractive.

It would seem to me that here's an area where the Department

of Highways can take the lead and develop the necessities of an

urban area. Covered ditches in that kind of attractive

surrounding would seem to me to be a necessity. Also from the

point of view of safety there is a need for covered ditches

along that whole area.

The Minister has indicated that he will answer it. Okay,

we'll continue.

I'd like, then, to get the Minister's comments about the day

labour on Highway 13 which is north of the Fraser highway. And

I will compliment the Highways department on the road south of

the highway, it's an excellent job. I know there's some day

labour going into the highway north. I'd like to know if that's

going to be completed this year.

Also a particularly vexing problem, Mr. Chairman, comes with the freeway at

Clearbrook. I won't get much support on this one from the officials in the Highways

department, I don't believe. But I think there has to be a second look given

to the on-ramp to the freeway at Clearbrook Road, an on-ramp going west. Now,

there's an off-ramp at that highway, but no on-ramp. It creates an incredibly

confusing situation for people who are visiting the Clearbrook Town Centre,

and especially now with the Clearbrook Town Centre developing as the Minister

and his officials are aware, into another pretty extensive town centre with

new shopping facilities in that area. It's logical that more people are going

to visit the town centre. When they come off the freeway on an off-ramp into

the Clearbrook Town Centre, it's pretty logical for them to think they can drive

back the same way they came in and get back onto the freeway again. But they

may never get out of Matsqui if they do that because they'll be driving around

forever because there's no way back onto the freeway from that area.

I understand that the Department of Highways owns a

considerable amount of land in that area. And the engineering

been done for an on-ramp I'm told, so it wouldn't be much of a

matter to do it if the Highways department was of the opinion

that they could.

I know too, Mr. Chairman, that the Highways department has

insisted in the past on closing down the other entr