1976 Legislative Session: ist Session, 31st 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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 1976

Night Sitting

[ Page

3277 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Municipal Amendment Act, No. 2,1976 (Bill 87)

Introduction and first reading. Mr. Gibson — 3277

Public Service Act (Bill 8 1) Second reading.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3277

Mr. King — 3279

Mr. Gibson — 3279

Mr. Barrett — 3279

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3280

Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 82) Second reading.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3280

Mr. King — 3281

Committee of Supply: Department of Highways and Public Works estimates.

On vote 98.

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3281

Mr. Lea — 3282

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3282

Ms. Sanford — 3283

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3283

Mr. Gibson — 3284

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3286

Mr. Rogers — 3286

Mr. Nicolson — 3287

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3287

Mr. Wallace — 3288

Mr. King — 3290

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3291

Mr. Bawtree — 3291

Mrs. Wallace — 3293

Mr. D Arcy — 3294

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3295

Mr. Kahl — 3295

Mr. Lea — 3296

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3297

Ms. Sanford — 3298

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3299

Mr. Shelford — 3299

Mr. Hewitt — 3299

Mr. Lea — 3300

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3300

Mr. Lloyd — 3300

Mrs. Jordan — 3302

Mr. Barnes — 3302

On vote 99.

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3304

Mr. Davidson — 3304

On vote 102.

Ms. Brown — 3305

An Act to Incorporate the British Columbia Association of Colleges (Bill 51) .

Committee stage.

Report and third reading — 3306

An Act to Incorporate the Bishop of the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of New

Westminster and His Successor in Office a Corporation Sole (Bill 50) .

Committee stage.

Report and third reading — 3306

Public Service Act (Bill 81) Committee stage.

section 5.

Mr. King — 3306

Mr. Barrett — 3307

section 6.

Mr. King — 3308

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3308

section 8.

Mr. King — 3309

Amendment to

section 20.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3309

section 20 as amended.

Mr. King — 3309

section 26.

Mr. King — 3310

Amendment to

section 28.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3310

section 35.

Mr. Wallace — 3310

section 37.

Mrs. Wallace — 3311

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3311

section 57.

Mr. King — 3311

section 67.

Mr. King — 3311

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3311

Report and third reading — 3311

Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 82) Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 3.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3312

Report and third reading — 3312

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 78) .

Committee stage.

section 5.

Mr. Gibson — 3312

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 3312

Amendment to

section 6.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 3312

section 8.

Mrs. Wallace — 3313

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3313

Amendment to

section 12.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 3313

Amendment to

section 13.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 3313

Amendment to

section 16.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 3313

Amendment to

section 23.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 3313

Report and third reading — 3313

The House met at 8 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT,

NO. 2, 1976

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill intituled Municipal Act Amendment Act, 1976 (No. 2) .

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I see a bill on the order paper which says Municipal Amendment Act, 1976, but not No. 2.

MR. GIBSON: Oh. Well, I had it down as Municipal Act

Amendment Act and then I wanted to change the wording around a bit, but

I'll introduce that one, if you'd rather. I can change that wording so

it's on the notice paper, then. I ask leave.

Leave granted.

On a motion by Mr. Gibson, Bill 87, Municipal Amendment Act, No. 2,

1976, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr Speaker, I rise on a

point of non-urgent public business, but very significant private

business, and indeed on a point of order, because this happens to be

the birthday of the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr.

McGeer), with whom I may say I had a marvellous dinner, and I'd like to

wish him a very, very happy birthday on behalf of all the members.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary) Second reading of Bill 81,

Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Before beginning my remarks on this bill, I really

would like to draw the House's attention to two of the members of the Public

Service Commission seated on the floor of the House this evening: the chairman

of the commission, Mr. Richardson, and Mr. Dick Higgins, who will this evening

perhaps be seated on the floor for the last time before his retirement. As you

know, Dick Higgins joined our Public Service Commission in 1939. He has given

38 years of outstanding service to our province and I would appreciate it if

the House would recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, in reference to Bill 81, as well as Bill 82, which is on the order

paper, I want to refer you to a report made by Mr. Higgins in 1972 when he headed

a commission of inquiry in some employer-employee relations in the public

service of British Columbia. That commission recommended that the opportunity

for collective bargaining be extended to most public servants and made a number

of recommendations as to the structure for collective bargaining. Among those

was a recommendation that the Treasury Board be made the bargaining agent for

the government, and a strong recommendation that the Civil Service Commission,

as it was then called, should have no role in collective bargaining. The Higgins

Commission pointed out the essential function of a Public Service Commission

is to act as an independent body to ensure the maintenance of certain standards

in personnel administration within the public service and the role of the Public

Service Commission in applying the merit principle in recruitment.

In 1973, Mr. Speaker, the Legislative Assembly passed the Public Service Labour

Relations Act and therein granted collective bargaining rights to the public

service. However, the strong recommendation of the Higgins Commission as to

the proper bargaining agent for the government was substantially ignored. The

Public Service Commission was named as the bargaining agent for the government.

Although the Treasury Board was to have a supervisory role, the fact is that

the Public Service Commission became the employer's representative at the

bargaining table.

Thus the Public Service Commission, Mr. Speaker, was thrust into a

dual role, on the one hand being expected to act as an impartial and

independent body concerned with high standards of personnel

administration in the public service, and yet on the other hand having

to act as a very partial advocate and agent in the bargaining process,

an area in which it had little chance to develop any expertise.

This Act then, Mr. Speaker, embodies three specific recommendations. They are:

1. The bargaining agent for the government should be the Treasury

Board which should discharge its duties, as such, upon the advice of and through

an employee relations bureau which should be a special branch of the Treasury

Board, and whose chief executive officer should have the status of a deputy

minister, and should report directly to the chairman of the Treasury Board.

2. The other labour relations functions of the Public Service

Commission, as opposed to recruitment, promotion and other matters related to

the merit system and other personnel functions, should be transferred from the

[ Page

3278 ]

Public Service Commission to the Treasury Board, which, once

again, should act upon the advice of its employee relations bureau.

3. The public service grievance board, which was created by the

Public Service Act but which has never been constituted, should be constituted

under a different legislative framework and under the name public service adjudication

board. This board should act as the board of arbitration for grievances filed

by employees not covered by the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and for

grievances relating to those matters which are not negotiated under the Public

Service Labour Relations Act, with the exception of those matters failing within

the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission, and with the consent of the

parties to a collective agreement for grievances relating to the

interpretation,

application or any alleged violation of the collective agreement.

Bill 81 has been designed to give effect to those recommendations,

and is divided into four parts. The first part of the bill, which deals

with the development and maintenance of the public service and outlines

the duties and powers of the Public Service Commission, alters those

duties by confining the commission to its role as guardian of the merit

principles and matters related thereto.

Section 4 of the present Public Service Act imposes upon the Public

Service Commission duties related to labour relations and collective

bargaining. These have been removed.

Some of the commission's present duties with respect to the

organization of public service, the classification and evaluation of

positions in the public service, public service establishments and

compensation, have been transferred to the Treasury Board under

Part II

of this bill. However, in each of those areas the Public Service

Commission would retain duties where they relate to the preservation of

merit system and related matters.

The Public Service Commission would have continued responsibility

for recruitment, promotion and related personnel matters as well as

some functions with respect to training but will be relieved of its

labour relation responsibilities and, in particular, its collective

bargaining role.

Under

Part II of the bill, Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board would be

made responsible for a number of labour relations functions that

heretofore have been handled by the commission itself. The Treasury

Board, under this legislation, would discharge its responsibilities

after receiving advice and recommendations from an employee relations

bureau.

Section 54 of the bill sets out those duties of the Treasury

Board and provides for delegation of them to the government employees

relations bureau.

Provision for the establishment of the government employees relations bureau is made in sections 55 and 56.

I am sure that all members will realize that the creation of this

bureau is fundamental to the scheme of this legislation. My hope and

expectation is that the advent of the bureau will bring more expertise

and, if you like, specialization to government collective bargaining,

and by virtue of its existence will cause improvement in the operations

of the Public Service Commission in its own sphere.

The chairman of the bureau will have the status of a deputy

minister. The duties of the bureau as outlined in

section 56 include

the exercise of any power or duty delegated to it by the Treasury

Board, the conduct of research and making of inquiries respecting any

matter arising under the Public Service Act or the Public Service

Labour Relations Act, and to provide assistance and services to any

department regarding grievances that are taken before the public

service adjudication board under

Part III of this bill.

The remaining functions of the bureau are set out as well in

section

56. The bill will empower the chairman to appoint a vice-chairman and

to engage other staff for the bureau. The remaining sections in

Part II

of the bill are similar to those presently in force in the Public

Service Act, except that the Treasury Board, under the new legislation,

is given a responsibility for classifications and evaluation of

positions in the public service.

Part III of the bill establishes the public service adjudication

board which will replace the public service grievance board. The latter

body was authorized under the present legislation, and, as I said

before, that board has never been constituted.

Section 66 provides for the representative character of the board

and for its independence. Representations from government and from the

employees are to be equal, and the chairman, vice-chairman and members

will hold office for a term of three years and may not be removed

before the expiration of that term except by

an Act or resolution of

this assembly.

Section 67 of the bill sets out the duties of the public service

adjudication board which are briefly, Mr. Speaker, to deal with

grievances submitted to it by an employee or a group of employees or

agents for employees, and to act as a board of arbitration whenever

jurisdiction is conferred upon it to do so by a collective agreement as

defined in the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

As a board of arbitration it would deal with differences between the

parties of a collective agreement respecting the

interpretation,

application, operation or any alleged violation of the collective

agreement. The chairman would be empowered to establish one or more

panels of the board, and matters before the board would be referred

directly

[ Page 3279 ]

to a panel for a decision.

Whether or not the public service adjudication board will be used by

the parties to public service collective agreements will, of course,

remain to be seen. If that board is eventually called upon to perform

that type of service, then, of course, its role will be of much greater

importance to all concerned. In the meantime, the facilities of the

board will be available.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker — and you'll be pleased to hear it's in

summary, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) — this bill is intended

to disencumber the Public Service Commission of its role as bargaining

agent for the government, to transfer that responsibility to the

Treasury Board and the government employee relations bureau, and in the

result to improve the bargaining procedures and, as well, the

relationship of the Public Service Commission with both the government

and its employees in its proper role.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 81.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I am not going to encumber the House long with my remarks, so the minister won't have to disencumber me either.

I basically agree with the provisions of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Quite frankly, it is a move and a reorganization of the structure of

collective bargaining within the public service that our party was also

contemplating. I might point out that we did introduce collective

bargaining for the first time to the public service employees in the

province of British Columbia, and to organize a bargaining structure of

that magnitude, after many years of the employees labouring without the

right to bargain collectively, is no small undertaking. There were

attempts at the outset to come up with some innovative approaches in

the structure and the direction of collective bargaining. As a

consequence, through the experience we had gained, I think all factors

pointed to the direction the new government has perceived and

undertaken, presumably upon the advice of Dick Higgins and Art

Richardson and others. We certainly agree with that approach.

Now there are things in the bill, Mr. Speaker, that are of concern

to me, but I think it's more appropriate that I wait for committee

stage to raise these matters, the clause-by-clause discussion of the

bill. But in general terms and in principle we agree with the basic

reorganization which the Provincial Secretary is putting forward.

And I want to do two things, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down. I want

to join with the Attorney-General in wishing a happy birthday to the

first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), and I trust

that he had a pleasant birthday cake. He's been advocating that the

citizens of this province eat cake for the last few months, so I hope

he was able to enjoy some today, too.

Secondly, I want to personally and on behalf of the official

opposition extend our best wishes to Dick Higgins who, I understand,

will soon be retiring from the public service. He has given many, many

years of good and valuable dedicated service to the province, and

certainly we wish him well. Finally, I want to congratulate him on his

last official speech.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): If I can resume

my feet for just 30 seconds, I want to say that I support the principle

of this bill. It's an excellent idea to separate the negotiation

function from the personnel management function, and therefore I go

along with the principle.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it's

not often that somebody who gets fired gets the opportunity of

congratulating the person who canned him on his retirement. But I

congratulate Mr. Higgins even though he did fire me some...how many

years ago was it now? Quite a few years ago.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. That's right — and Mr. Wallace. They gave me a great appeal and then they hung me.

Under this bill I have to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a

matter of a complaint that I received from civil servants who are ferry

staff members who have been almost assaulted by unhappy customers to

the point where they have had to post a sign on the ferries. There

should be some protection for civil servants from government policy. I

want to bring to the House's attention a sign that has been posted on

ferries to protect the civil servants as a direct result of government

policies and government decisions. It says: "Our catering staff are

doing their best to serve you. If you have comments, complaints or

suggestions to improve our food and quality of service, forms are

available at the chief steward's office. Please do not direct your

remarks to the crew members. They do not make any of the decisions."

Now I want to inform the House that the crew doesn't make any of the

decisions; it's the cabinet. The poor crew members have been getting

abused by customers over poor service, poor-quality food and the high

cost, and they have come to the point, Mr. Speaker, to have to protect

the civil servants from this abuse....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, it's under this bargaining Act. I think

they should bargain a clause in there to protect, them from the abuse

of government policy,

[ Page 3280 ]

Mr. Speaker. It's an important part.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I think perhaps you realize that the tack you are taking is...

MR. BARRETT: This is civil servants, not the ships. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: ...not really in order with respect to second reading on this bill, even though I permitted you to say what you wished to say.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, the staff have been abused,

and I am bringing it to the attention of the bargaining committee. They

are going to take it into cabinet. They are doing the bargaining under

this bill with cabinet; I want them to take into advice the protection

of civil servants who are being abused because of government policy.

Why else would they put this sign up? I know the cabinet never sees

this sign, because they can't afford to travel on the ferries. I

thought I'd bring it to your attention.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: File it.

MR. BARRETT: I will file it. I'll tell the civil service I brought it to your attention.

With leave, I'll table it, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it signed?

MR. BARRETT: No. The staff are frightened these days to put their name to anything because of political interference with civil servants.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is there a bug on it?

MR. BARRETT: No, there's no bug on it — just a mess there.

Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to file with it a voucher. They have

everything reduced to forms for civil servants now. You have to have a

form to complain and you have to be informed and also file a form for

your second cup of coffee. I think that should be filed too. The

government is form-crazy. Now what's happened with these forms....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it's part of the bargaining!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Well, what do you think is going on in those

ferries? People are picking them up and using them for the first cup of

coffee and are cheating the government, Mr. Speaker! (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I granted you some latitude in debating this second reading of Bill 81.

MR. BARRETT: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I'm just

pointing out, very seriously, the fact that many, many civil servants

are taking direct abuse in trying to interpret government policies, and

it's reached the point where they've had to put up signs to protect

themselves. I think that reflects quite seriously on the stupidity and

the callousness of the government's policies.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, we're very pleased to accept

the facetious notice given to us by the Leader of the Opposition. He's

suggesting that he's protecting the civil service against the abuse of

this government. Mr. Speaker, the election of this government has

protected the people of British Columbia against the abuse of that

former Premier of the province.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that there's so much agreement on the bill and I would move second reading at this point in time.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be

referred to a Committee of the Whole House and, by leave, be considered

later this evening.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, if it's by leave, it would have to be now.

The question is that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House for consideration today.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Not now — later.

MR. SPEAKER: I understand it's the intention of the House Leader to call committee on this bill a little later.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 82, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR RELATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, this bill is

[ Page 3281 ]

complementary to Bill 81, which we have just

discussed. It expressly sets up the appointment of the Treasury Board

as the bargaining agent for the government.

Since everybody understands it so well, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill 82, as the

Provincial Secretary has indicated, it's just a provision to facilitate

the main thrust of the previous bill — Bill 81. I find nothing

objectionable in this bill and our party will be supporting it.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration later today.

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC WORKS

On vote 98: minister's office, $160,236.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that's a good start.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'd just like to make a few introductory

remarks tonight, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I'd like to introduce the

good staff we have here: to my right, the Associate Deputy Minister of

Highways, Bob Harvey; on my left over here, George Giles, Deputy

Minister of Public Works; Howard Sturrock, the Deputy Minister of

Highways; Jim Dennison, the chief engineer, Department of Highways; and

Al Rhodes, the comptroller of both departments and known to all of us

as Mr. Moneybags.

I would just like to make a few opening remarks here before we get

on with the serious business of discussing these departments, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Sit down while you're ahead, Alex.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, okay, it won't be long. First of all, talking about the Department of Highways,

they have 25,000 miles of roads in the province of British Columbia —

gazetted public roads. The administration of those highways and byways

is divided into four regions — regions one, two, three and four —

located at Kamloops, Prince George, Nelson and Burnaby. The breakdown

in the inventory of roads — about 10,000 miles of the roads are paved

and the rest are in varying conditions of gravel, car parts and so on.

MR. LAUK: And you've walked every mile.

HON. MR. FRASER: No, I haven't walked every mile.

MR. LAUK: You can't drive them.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): You know what you left.

HON. MR. FRASER: We've had a lot of discussion in the province about ferries.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: The Department of Highways operates a large

ferry fleet as well as those operated by B.C. Ferries. They have 38

ferries in the system serving the interior of the province as well as

points on the Gulf Islands and the lower coast.

I have been quoted regarding highway safety. I would just like to

amplify those remarks, because I am sure it will come up tonight with

the interest everybody has in highway safety. I would like to say for

the record, Mr. Chairman, that I am in favour of the existing speed

limits — that is, at 55 miles per hour. I don't think they should be

increased. But one thing that I would like to see done in regard to the

55-mile-an-hour speed limit is that it be standardized. Quite frankly,

the staff doesn't seem to agree with that because there are reasons for

the variation of the speed limits from 45 to 55 — in the odd case, 60.

I would like to see that standardized at some speed limit rather than

three different speed limits in, say, a short period on a highway.

The other thing that I feel quite strongly about is slow drivers. I

have been quoted about this publicly, that I am in favour of speeding.

I'm not in favour of speeding but in referring to slow drivers I am

definitely in favour of enforcing the laws that are on our books now. I

refer specifically to roadhogs — people who will not get over, who want

to drive at 30 miles an hour when the speed limit is 55 miles an hour.

I would remind the committee that there is no law change required here.

Under

section 139 of the Motor-vehicle Act it prescribes that this is

an offence.

[ Page 3282 ]

I have reason to believe that this year the highway patrols will be

looking at this offence a little more than they have in the past to try

and increase the safety on the highway for the simple reason that when

we have a roadhog or roadhogs — it might be more than one vehicle —

lineups build up behind, we get frustration and we have people crossing

centre lines and double lines. We have some of our worst fatalities

caused from this type of buildup on the roads.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Explain it to the people who have never been past Hope.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I realize that there are a lot of them

who haven't been past Hope, but there is a large road mileage from Hope

and beyond in the province of British Columbia.

Just a few remarks regarding Public Works — they have several

responsibilities. The Department of Public Works is responsible for

inspection services for boiler, gas and electrical services and they

are responsible for the provision to government departments through

construction, rental, property acquisition and maintenance. Public

Works is also into zones but where the Highways department of the

province is divided up into four regions the Public Works...

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. FRASER: ...region is divided into six. I know that

everybody wants to get in on the act here. So with those few opening

remarks we will sit and listen and try to answer your questions.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Chairman, before I even....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LEA: On a point of order, before even touching upon the

Highways vote 1, along with the Attorney-General, of course, would like

to extend my best wishes to the first member for Point Grey. As I

understand it, the meal was paid for by the Premier, it was at the

Union Club, and it was crow under glass. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. LEA: No? I heard he'd been eating crow.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Wrong again!

MR. LEA: Wrong again? You ran for the resource board and you didn't make it. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm enjoying the good humour, but we are on vote number....

MR. LEA: What I want, Mr. Chairman, is to have Alec to look

me right in the eye and tell me whether he's got enough money. I mean,

really, Mr. Chairman! I sat on that side of the House as Minister of

Highways and listened to that now minister talk about not having enough

money in the Highways budget. Then we look at this. What more can you

say? It's inadequate — both for the maintenance and for the capital

projects.

The job can't be done with that kind of money. Everybody knows it.

The minister knows it, the Premier knows it, the cabinet knows it,

everybody knows it so let's not dwell on it. It's crazy. Everything's

down — even his travel budget.

I believe that there's a little bit of a hoax going on here, Mr.

Chairman. I believe that they know perfectly well that they can't

maintain the highway budget with this kind of money. I believe they're

going to use the other Act to put money into the Highways department.

MR. LAUK: Oh! Cynic!

MR. LEA: I think maybe they'll use the BCBC to slip money into the Highways department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: And that would mean deficit budgeting!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: Deficit budgeting again — you know, balancing the

books. So before we even begin, I would like to have the minister stand

and tell me whether or not there's going to be money going from the

British Columbia Building Corp. into the Department of Highways for the

construction of roads.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Stand up and say no.

MR. LAUK: Did you hear that? The Premier told the minister to stand up and say no! That's shocking! Resign!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, regarding funds that are in

here, I would say that first of all it breaks down to several sections.

I think we have adequate funds for the maintenance side. Of course,

[ Page 3283 ]

where the budget has been cut is the capital side. Cert ainly

we haven't got adequate funds to do all we would like in capital, but

the emphasis of the government was on the services-to-people

departments, and departments like Highways are separate, consequently —

I refer to the departments of Health, Human Resources and Education.

I have no knowledge, to answer your question directly, of money

coming from the new bill to come over here to Highways. As a matter of

fact, I don't think it's allowable.

MR. LAUK: Don't let them pick on you, Alex.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I was rather sorry to hear that the

minister has no knowledge of any additional funds, because as the House

well knows at this time, there's a major project in my riding which

remains unfinished. I have spoken in this House on several occasions

this year about the excellent campaign waged by the people of the

north end of the island in an attempt to get the highway finished.

I raised with the Premier one day during his estimates, Mr.

Chairman, the possibility of discussing with the federal government

some funding through DREE in order to complete the North Island

Highway. I would like to ask the minister at this time whether or not

he is aware of any discussions that are taking place at this moment and

whether or not his department would be directly involved in the attempt

to get some cost-sharing in order to award the two remaining contracts

to complete the 22 miles of road.

The other question that I have relates to an issue that I raised

earlier this afternoon with the Minister of Transport and

Communications. That relates to the fact that there are now free

ferries that operate under the B.C. ferry authority between the Gulf

Islands in the southern

section — in other words, the south Gulf

Islands. I would like to know from the Minister of Highways whether or

not the ferries which operate within my riding between islands such as

Hornby and Denman, Cortes and Quadra, and Alert Bay and Sointula will

also be treated in the same way as the B.C. ferry authority vessels

which operate in the south Gulf Islands. It seems to me that we should

have some equity here, Mr. Chairman. I hope that the minister will

advise us tonight what decision has been made with respect to the free

ferries between islands.

I would also like to know, Mr. Chairman, about the review which the

minister has indicated is underway in the department with respect to

all ferry costs under his jurisdiction. And I would remind the minister

that there are a large number of free ferries that are currently

operational under his jurisdiction. It seems to me that it might be

advisable at this time to consider making them all free. Rather than

just between islands, why not make them all free under your

jurisdiction, as are the ones in various parts of the interior?

I have the whole list, and I'm not going to read out that list

tonight, but I certainly have the whole list of all of the free ferries

that are currently operating under your jurisdiction, Mr. Minister.

I would appreciate an answer to those questions.

HON. MR. FRASER: In reply to the member for Comox, I will

deal with the ferries first, and deal with the ferries in what I like

to call the north Gulf Islands operated by the Department of Highways.

I stated earlier publicly that we were reviewing the cost there and

the rates, and nothing would be announced regarding that. It would take

probably till the fall for that to happen. I think you are probably

interested in the existing situation, and just briefly, referring to

what these ferries cost, I have the most recent statements of the

operation of those ferries if you care to make a note of these: the

Thetis Island ferry, the first one, the expenditures — and I'm dealing

with the year 1974-75 which is the most current information we have, I

believe, at this time — the expenditures on the Thetis Island ferry for

that year were $379,156. The income from this ferry operation in the

same year was $23,878, for a gross operating loss of $354,277 for that

one year.

Comparing the revenue to expenses, Mr. Chairman, to the member, it

appears that it is almost free now when we have operating expenses of

$379,000 a year and revenues of $23,000.

MS. SANFORD: How do they compare to the interior ferries?

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, the interior ferries are a little bit

different situation. This government hasn't changed it but, as I see

it, these ferries serve a specific island, and a lot of the ferries in

the interior that I'm very acquainted with serve a lot of area beyond

the other side of the river that has no other way of having service.

But there are no fees charged on the interior ferries, several on the

Fraser River. As a matter of fact, I recently had the honour of

launching a new ferry on Francois Lake, which is south of Burns Lake,

about two weeks ago. They're in different parts of the province, as

well as the ones I've mentioned.

But dealing with the ferries here, I'll use two or three only as an

example. The Gabriola Island ferry, for the same fiscal year 1974-75,

had operating expenses of $656,000 and revenue of $129,000 for a net

loss in that year of $527,000-odd. I think probably the one that seems

to stand out the most regarding operating losses in comparison to

revenues is the Cortes Island ferry. The operating cost of that Cortes

Island ferry in 1974-75 was $709,933 and the income from the fares

collected was $62,000, making a gross loss on that ferry operation of

$647,000-odd.

[ Page 3284 ]

That is probably the largest gap between revenue and expenses as far as the ferries are concerned.

So as you can see, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, these

ferries are all losing heavily. I don't think it is the intention of

the government to certainly see them break even or anything like that,

but what has really transpired in the last two or three years, as near

as I can find the background, is that the operating expenses have just

spiralled out of sight because of increased salaries and increased fuel

costs and overall operating costs.

I recall the member for Comox taking up the subject of going after

DREE money when the Premier's estimates were up. Yes, certainly we'll

go after DREE money. As a matter of fact, the staff are after that now.

We already are involved with DREE money for what we call the northern

road system, but Ottawa isn't very friendly when it comes to money

either. In the last couple of years, the prior government was able to

get $5 million to share in northern road construction on a 50-50 basis.

Today, with some roads costing $1 million a mile to construct, I

imagine you can realize how small this is, but we are trying to get

more. We have been told by Ottawa that there isn't much hope, because

they don't want to put any more money into the DREE programme than the

$5 million they have put in in the last two years.

The roads where this money has been going in the past are Highway 16

between Prince George and Prince Rupert, the northern roads into the

Atlin riding and so on in that part of the province. But as I say,

we'll keep on trying to get more money.

Getting back to the last part of the north Island Highway, I think

the public should know that.... I just forget the mileage that's

constructed or under contract, but I believe it's somewhere in the area

of 30 miles or in that vicinity — I could be wrong — but the point I

want to bring out is that $30 million has already been spent this year

on that

section of road. The impression is around that nothing is going

on, and I would like to say here tonight, Mr. Chairman, and to the

members, that that

section of road is getting more money than any other

road in the province of British Columbia right as of today and for the

balance of this year.

I believe some $6 million is estimated to be paid in progress

payments, and there is money in the budget to look after that. But the

problem is that there is no money to close the 22-mile gap that is

there and not under contract. This is a problem and I hope that

sometime in the not-too-distant future the money will show up and we

can do something about it. But I think that particularly the north

Island people should know that the last 22-mile gap to close is

estimated to cost $22 million — $1 million per mile.

We, the government, are aware that this gap must be closed but it's

a question of funding at the present time. As I say, they already are

well-funded; there's no project-stopping and there will be $5 million,

probably $6 million, of progress payment, so the next problem is to

find money to.... It is the department's opinion that the last 22 miles

of this road be called in two separate tender calls. I might add that

in this $22 million estimate, there are also some bridges to be built

on already-constructed road. So we have to go back to get the whole

road usable by going where there's been road construction to build

bridges to close these gaps.

I just want to say before I sit down that I'd like to congratulate

the people of north Vancouver Island for their carrot campaign and all

the rest of the campaigns they've put on, They've done an excellent job

and I think maybe I should congratulate their MLA as well. The

committee will be pleased to know that as the Minister of Highways I've

had 1,700 letters just from this one

section of British Columbia on

this one road. Thank you.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, as we continue our annual

travelogue of the province I would like to direct the minister's

attention to the riding of North Vancouver-Capilano, and attempt to

convince him that North Vancouver-Capilano needs some money spent on

highways or, in the alternate, point out to him that there's a Social

Credit riding on one side and on the other, and they need a good

connection between them. I don't really mind the motive for which he

builds the road.

First of all, I'll speak about the Upper Levels Highway, and I'll

start out by complimenting the department on its responsiveness to a

problem we had with parking there last year when there was a suggestion

that highly important parking should be moved from in front of some

people's houses. It was possible to have a meeting with North Vancouver

city council, and, due to the flexibility of the department, iron that

problem out without losing much of the traffic flow along the highway.

I congratulate them for that.

Now on the upper levels in my riding, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman, are two of the busiest level crossings on the Trans-Canada

Highway anywhere in Canada. The rest of the upper levels, as you know,

is a grade-separated situation. In the original design of the Upper

Levels Highway in North Vancouver there were to be grade separations at

Westview and Lonsdale, and there still should be some day because most

of the land is there and acquired. I hope the Highways department hangs

on to it and keeps its eye on that objective of getting those grade

separations.

I recognize that they are going to cost some millions of dollars,

but in the interim I ask the minister: can we finally have the

long-awaited improvements to the level crossings there? They

[ Page 3285 ]

aren't big things, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman — the

plans are drawn. It's a couple of extra left-turn lanes at each

intersection — really, as I say, minor things. They've been discussed

with the city and it's a relatively minor item that I very much hope

that we can see in next year's budget. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman,

and you, Mr. Minister, that it is urgently supported by the city

council and by the residents of that area.

Incidentally, when the residents of that area look next door and see

the literally millions of dollars that have been spent on the upgrading

of the Upper Levels out to Horseshoe Bay, which I don't begrudge for

one moment — it's a good thing to have done — but there should be just

a little spent on upgrading these level crossings used by thousands of

vehicles a day.

Mr. Chairman, the next point I have to make is with respect to the

lower levels road — and again, congratulations to the department for

commissioning a study done by Phillips Barratt on this road, and

submitted under a letter of transmittal last October 31. The study

shows the road very clearly to be urgent. I'll just quote one and

one-half sentences out of here: "The forecasted traffic volumes which

would want to use the available limited east-west facilities will

outstrip the capacity of those facilities in the case of the Upper

Levels Highway by about 1985 and has already outstripped the

traffic-carrying capacity of Marine Drive and 3rd Street. As a

consequence of these factors, it is felt that the need for an

additional east-west facility is urgent."

Mr. Chairman, that additional facility is the so-called lower levels

road. There's a very strong provincial component in this because it

will be an intermunicipal connection between West Vancouver, the

district of North Vancouver, the city of North Vancouver, because it

will provide access to the new ferry terminal which will be going to

service probably next January, according to the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) this morning — that ferry service being a

provincial responsibility and made much more useful to the North Shore

if there's a feeder route in the terms of this kind of a lower level

road.

This kind of lower level road also makes it possible for the

provincial government to avoid the day when they will have to spend

even more money on upgrading the Lions Gate Bridge or putting in a

third crossing, because the ferry system will take some of the pressure

off that. The new lower levels road will also allow traffic between

North and West Vancouver to bypass those Lions Gate Bridge queues. It's

a tremendously important project, Mr. Minister. Cost-sharing is

justified and required. The cost is estimated by Phillips Barratt at

some $20 million, which is a lot of money, but tens of thousands of

people every day would use it. At the cost per user, when you consider

it would be a cost-sharing proposition, it's very justified and, as

your own survey pointed out, urgent.

The final point relates to the Lions Gate Bridge....

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Hey, that's my riding.

MR. GIBSON: One end of that is your riding, Mr. Member. I'll speak about my end of the bridge.

HON. MR. McGEER: Which half do you want?

MR. GIBSON: What are the plans for further work on this

bridge, Mr. Minister? You may recall the original announcement said

that it was going to be completed by mid-1977. Well, here we are

mid-1976 and so far, as far as I know, apart from the work done on the

north causeway which was very well done and a little bit of an

engineering triumph even though it was costly, nothing has been done

except wind-tunnel tests on what might be done on the main span and the

south causeway. I would like to ask the minister if he can tell us what

timing he foresees there, what he foresees as cost and if the

engineering problems related to somehow expanding those sections in the

centre span — which will be a very tricky business — have been overcome

yet.

Finally, on the Lions Gate Bridge, Mr. Chairman — I don't know if

you remember personally — there always used to be a flag flying from

the middle of the Lions Gate Bridge back in the days when the National

Harbours Board used to run their lookout there. Since they have

abandoned it, that flag is down. There has been some correspondence

with the Department of Highways which has felt that, as a question of

manpower, it's not possible to keep that flag flying. They feel that

the National Harbours Board could have done it in their day but if they

were not there any more, it just can't be done.

AN HON. MEMBER: John Diefenbaker.

MR. GIBSON: Now, Mr. Chairman, there are two possibilities.

If it's really a question of manpower, you can keep the flag lighted

and keep it flying all the time. That's quite legal and proper to keep

a flag of our country and a flag of our province, too, flying there in

the centre of that bridge lighted day and night. That's a very proper

thing to do.

If you would rather raise and lower the flag I suggest to you, Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that there are patrol cars going

over that bridge every day. About 6 o'clock in the morning every

morning it should be possible to stop a patrol car with the red light

flashing, just for a moment, and nip out and raise the flag, and do the

same thing later on at night. I ask the minister to look at that very

[ Page 3286 ]

closely because it is one of those things. It is a symbol of our

country and a symbol of our province and it was a prominent location. I

would ask the minister to look at that.

HON. MR. FRASER: In reply to the member for North

Vancouver-Capilano, we certainly will look into the flag. My deputy

here says it's the first he's heard of it. I agree with you. I don't

see why it can't be reinstalled if that's what you say. I think it's a

good idea and that won't make or break us.

MR. KING: Is there a budget for that?

HON. MR. FRASER: Going back to the Lions Gate Bridge, as you

know, we have some current information on that which might be

interesting. It takes just a minute. The north viaduct — on May 15, 1974

a contract was awarded to Canron Ltd. of Vancouver for $6,973,000 for

the following work on the 2,000-ft. north viaduct: remove existing

deteriorated deck, floor system replaced with new, painting of the

viaduct's steelwork, installation of new electrical facilities,

installation of telephone cable facilities. Work on this contract is

nearing completion with only minor work and about 40 per cent of the

painting outstanding. So that

part is pretty well cleaned up.

Where do we go from here? This is from the bridge engineer:

"The suspension span design work is underway on the

proposed modification to the 2,778-ft. suspension bridge. These

modifications range from essential maintenance only of the existing

facility to widening the roadway to match that of the viaduct and

placing the sidewalk outside of the suspended cables. Wind-tunnel tests

have been carried out on the latter proposal and a detailed report is

in preparation. At this time the findings appear to confirm that the

proposed solution is stable in the wind.

"The consultant is currently preparing a submission

outlining various alternates for the modification and anticipates this

will be received by the department by mid-July. Costs range from $2

million for essential maintenance to about $20 million for the complete

modification. Tenders could be called," — and I repeat, could be

called — "in the spring of 1977 with the bulk of the work being carried

out in 1978."

So I hope that answers in a little bit of detail regarding the Lions Gate Bridge. No final decisions have been made.

Regarding the lower level road, in answer to the member for North

Vancouver-Capilano, the lower level road on the North Shore in my

information is.... I might say that on the subject of municipal

councils, I think I have met every municipal council in British

Columbia since I have been Highways minister and I appreciate seeing

them. Councils from the North Shore I have met. But it is my

understanding, regarding the lower-level road, that there is no

argument between the municipalities themselves.

MR. GIBSON: There is in North Vancouver.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, I don't believe there is, for instance, with West Vancouver. It's our understanding that is where that matter is at.

Regarding the Upper Levels Highway and Lonsdale, when we get the money that is high priority. It's in the next programme.

MR. GIBSON: The same with Westview as well?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, the same with Westview.

MR. GIBSON: It's in the next programme, did you say?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Chairman, I think

there are about 150 yards of highway from the Department of Highways in

our constituency. There is one point that I would like to make which

has been bothering me for many years. Now that I have a position in

this House I would like to bring it up. Every summer, in the heat of

the summer, people drive by and they've got studded snowtires on. Those

studded tires do damage to the roads all over the province in every

single constituency. They are ripping up roads paid for by all the

taxpayers.

I have spoken to the motor-vehicle branch and they agree with me,

but they need a little pressure from the Department of Highways to be

reminded that it is the lazy drivers of this province who refuse to

take off their studded snowtires. There was a set of studded snowtires

on Sunday which drove down the street in front of my house and it

prompted me to bring this up at this time.

I would like to suggest that you ask the motor-vehicle branch to

institute a system of progressive fines — $20 in May, $40 in June and

all the way up. That way we can ensure that in the middle of September

a fresh set of studded tires don't go down every street in the city of

Vancouver and every highway in the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Great!

[ Page 3287 ]

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): It's hard to restrain oneself after listening about flags....

AN HON. MEMBER: Try!

MR. NICOLSON: I am not going to talk about avalanche hazards

on the Kootenay Skyway and some other things, but I am trying to narrow

it down to a few very select points but....

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: That's my second point. My first point, Mr.

Chairman, is that on the southern trans-provincial, Highway 3, there is

a

section of road which will lead to considerable shortening of that

highway and improvement. It would shorten the distance between

Castlegar and Salmo, I would imagine, probably in excess of 25 miles. I

would say that as far as the southern trans-provincial is concerned it

might not shorten it quite that much because it would be, of course,

the take-off point from Nancy Greene Lake, travelling down through

Rossland and such.

I haven't quite worked this out, but this is a tremendous

improvement on the southern trans-provincial. It is about two-thirds

completed and I read in your report — which is under the name of the

Hon. Alex V. Fraser, Minister of Highways and Public Works, 1975-76 —

it says: "Project 2902: Champion Creek to Meadow Siding, 6.57 miles.

Tenders have been called on this final

section of the previously noted

leg. Work should commence early this year." To the best of my

information work has not commenced.

I would like to know from the minister when it would commence, because if the minister would realize that....

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Am I out of order talking about highways, Mr. Chairman?

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: If you could imagine a

section of road that is

about two-thirds complete, a very good standard of gravelled subsurface

— and, of course, people can wait for paving....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: It's a very important and very contentious

thing in the riding because going back even to the 1950s there were

some promises to build this. It was linked very intimately with the

approval of the Selkirk College site at Castlegar and the referendum

approval which was given in soliciting the support of the people of

Salmo. It was said that it would be completed before the Selkirk

College. Well, Selkirk College has been in operation for many, many

years but the road link is not completed. It is completed save for 6.57

miles. I would like to stress to the minister that there is great

urgency here. It is indicated in this report that work should commence

early in the year.

The second thing which I would like to bring to the minister's

attention is the Taghum Bridge. Of course, there were some discussions

about location of the Taghum Bridge. Work actually might have

commenced, but the decision was made to go ahead with the original

location of the bridge. I know that design has been done. I would like

to have some information from the minister as to the timing and

priority of that bridge with which I am sure his staff are quite

familiar.

I would refrain from talking about such things as avalanche hazards

on the Kootenay Skyway and such because I would like the minister to

give a response on these two points which I think are uppermost in the

minds of the people in Nelson-Creston.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I'd like to answer particularly the last member for Nelson-Creston.

The Taghum Bridge — I recall reading about that. The prior

administration called the contract for the Taghum Bridge and then

cancelled it, I believe, because of community involvement and not

wanting the bridge located where it was. The only thing I have had to

do about the Taghum Bridge is settle with the contractor who had been

awarded the contract, and we had to settle with him for doing no work.

As far as the Taghum Bridge is concerned now, it has not been under

consideration to move ahead on it in another location or even in the

scrapped location. That is where that is.

Regarding the southern trans-provincial-Kaslo-Castlegar-Salmo and

specifically the Champion Creek-Meadow Siding

section of that road, I

believe it's called, I would like to inform the committee, Mr.

Chairman, that tenders were called on this

section during the election

campaign last year, and it snowed so hard during the election campaign

all over British Columbia, including this area, that the bidders

couldn't see the job to bid it so the tender calls were cancelled. And

that's where that job is. The tender call was up and cancelled because

the bidders couldn't examine the site for bidding and it has not been

put back up.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister is acting in

a rather petulant manner on these things. I've discussed these matters

with him outside

[ Page 3288 ]

of the House — it's not that I've attempted to embarrass anyone, but

the minister has inadvertently misled the House in saying that the

contract was cancelled.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. NICOLSON: There were some contracts let for site

preparation. I think if the minister would like to inform the House

more completely, the amount involved is not a multi-million dollar

project that was cancelled, but some aspects of it. I believe that the

compensation might be in the order of $30,000 or $70,000, but certainly

not millions and millions of dollars.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Okay, so it was your predecessor, and if you

want to continue in the shoes of Phil Gaglardi in not carrying out a

promise made by the Social Credit government, a promise made by Wes

Black in Salmo — Wes Black actually did finally get off the mark and

the project was started and the tenders, were let just at that time —

if you want to take this as a political thing, go right ahead.

I remind that minister that I didn't treat his riding as a political

kind of a tool — we opened up senior citizens' housing. I thought that

I'd enjoyed some deal of mutual self-respect between me and the

minister, but if that's the way that the minister wants to treat this.

I can only say that I'm shocked and I'm disappointed in his attitude.

I'll certainly have to report this to the people of Nelson-Creston.

I just asked him when he expects to work will go ahead on this

project which was promised years ago by Phil Gaglardi, finally put to

tender by Wes Black just before Social Credit was voted out of office,

continued in all good faith in states by our government, and now you've

got a road that's two-thirds complete. It was initiated by a Social

Credit government, and you come in here and try and be political — you

of all people. I'm shocked!

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, just want to respond to the member for Nelson-Creston. I am sorry he is so upset.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before I recognize the minister,

I'd like to remind the member for Nelson-Creston that we are discussing

the administration and the department of this minister, not necessarily

the minister prior or the minister in years gone by. So, really, the

line of debate was out of order.

HON. MR. FRASER: Just a short comment back to the member for

Nelson-Creston regarding the remarks I made. I believe they were facts;

this tender call on this

section was called during the election

campaign. I hope you don't feel I misinformed the House, or was being

political — that's a fact of life. But the stage it is at now...it is

on a priority; when we have funds it would be one of the projects that

would go — the

section Champion Creek-Meadow Siding.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Contrary to the frequent jokes

that Oak Bay has no highway, Mr. Chairman, there are certain provincial

problems and greater Victoria problems that need to be voiced.

Having read Neale Adams tonight in the Vancouver Sun , I feel

a little bit like General Custer — somewhat surrounded. The main

problem in the greater Victoria area is twofold, Mr. Chairman, and I'll

be very quick in dealing with them — talking about the Blanshard Street

extension and the widening of the Trans-Canada Highway, alongside which

a new third hospital is to be developed.

I just want very quickly to point out that the more things change,

the more they stay the same in this chamber. The first clipping is from

the Victoria Daily Times of April, 1958, and it's headed: "Widening

Proposal for Blanshard Street." 1958!

I'll skip ahead three years and the next headline is the Times, April, 1961: "Blanshard Street Extension Urged by City MLA."

This deserves just one little quote, Mr. Chairman. It says, and this

is quoting the Victoria Social Credit MLA, J. Donald Smith: "I think

the government should take a second look...."

AN HON. MEMBER: Take a second look!

MR. WALLACE: The Social Credit government was taking a second

look in 1961, Mr. Chairman. He pointed out: "The extension and widening

of the Pat Bay Highway is a complementary service to the government

ferry system unless the government should stretch a point to help the

city. Mr. Skillings said he intended to take up the matter with

Highways minister P.A. Gaglardi." Ghosts of the past, Mr. Chairman,

ghosts of the past.

Then we skip ahead to May, 1961: "Blanshard Street Bombshell Appalls

the City — B.C. Experts. Nervous Engineers Eye the Patricia Bay Road

Plan." It says: "A secretly appalled city engineering staff maintained

stiff upper lips in reaction to Friday's bombshell plan to scrap the $1

million Blanshard Street extension."

Then a little later in 1961....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, it is so important to sort of just point out

[ Page 3289 ]

the very fascinating and tortuous and convoluted history of the

Blanshard Street extension. When they finally build it, I hope it isn't

as convoluted as the history of the whole thing.

But the Blanshard Street extension on May 31, 1961 — the next

headline says: "Blanshard Extension Wins Approval Again." Then we go to

September, 1963. The headline says: "Blanshard Extension Vital to City

Survival." This is a real gem, Mr. Chairman. It says: "Victoria's

controversial Blanshard Street extension project will be needed by the

fall of 1963 at the latest if the downtown business

section of the city

is to remain healthy, Alderman Geoffrey Edgelow said yesterday."

Then we skip ahead two or three years, Mr. Chairman, way up to 1966,

and the headline says: "Gaglardi in the Dark on Freeway Plan. Highways

minister P.A. Gaglardi said this morning he hasn't a clue where the

freeway will finally run or how long it will be before the location is

chosen."

The next headline is quite a few years later, in February, 1972. The

headline says: "Blanshard Street Plan May Be at a Dead End."

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Good headline writers in those days, Scott.

MR. WALLACE: The clipping says, Mr. Chairman — this is

February, 1972: "The proposed Blanshard Street extension, a political

controversy for more than 10 years, may soon get the final death blow.

The latest and most serious threat to eventual completion of the

project is a decision by Saanich to sell the 1.4-acre parcel of land

situated on the proposed extension's right-of-way."

Then, Mr. Chairman, the very fascinating and historical part of the saga is October 11, 1972: "Blanshard Artery Scuttled."

HON. MR. BENNETT: Who said that?

MR. WALLACE: Oh, the Premier will be very interested, because

that was the present Minister of Housing, who was then mayor of

Saanich, who said that. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: You had to ask, Bill!

MR. WALLACE: And the clipping reads as follows, Mr. Chairman

— it becomes more exciting all the time: "An unnamed grey eminence with

influence over ex-Premier Bennett was blamed Tuesday by Mayor High

Curtis for stamping 'no exit' on the controversial Blanshard Street

arterial through Saanich. Mr. Curtis said the Highways department under

Bennett, as Finance minister, had been inconsistent in granting or

denying approval to development plans within the scope of the route."

MR. KING: How do you feel, talking about your dad like that?

MR. WALLACE: "Curtis said, 'Obviously there was some grey

eminence who had the ear of the former Premier with respect to this

route, who could get to him and tell him of the difficulties, the

excess cost, the impracticability of the route. And I'm quite sure I

know who this was, and so do you,' Curtis said."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was it?

MR. WALLACE: Well, the quote says that we all know who the grey eminence was.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ron Worley?

MR. WALLACE: February, 1973, Mr. Chairman — I'll be as quick

as I can. I don't want to bore the House. "Blanshard Extension Boosted

by Socred MLA."

HON. MR. BENNETT: Jim Gorst?

MR. WALLACE: Oh, no. This was one of yours, Mr. Premier. This was Newell Morrison, no less.

AN HON. MEMBER: Newell?

AN HON. MEMBER: In 1973?

MR. WALLACE: Very interesting, the way the Victoria MLAs for

decades almost have been espousing their solid support of the Blanshard

Street extension, but it never gets built. On this occasion Newell

Morrison stated — and this is February, 1973: "Immediate solutions are

required to the traffic problems of Victoria."

Just a minute ago I mentioned we had to find them by 1963; now we've

got Newell Morrison saying they've got to be found by 1973. And he

says: "'Immediate solutions are required to the traffic problems of

Victoria, many of them created by the large provincial civil service

staff,' Newell Morrison said Tuesday. Morrison, speaking in the throne

debate...." et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

MR. LAUK: Attacking the civil service.

MR. WALLACE: Then in May of 1973: "Highways minister Robert

Strachan said the cost estimates would be prepared before he met with

Mayor Curtis" — that's the now Minister of Housing and Municipal

Affairs, Mr. Chairman — "to discuss the extension."

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Robert who?

[ Page 3290 ]

MR. WALLACE: "Strachan said he was optimistic a solution

would be found to the Blanshard street problem, known as the freeway

that ends nowhere." Then, under the brilliant leadership of the NDP,

the next headline, in July, 1973, reads: "Blanshard Goes Underground."

(Laughter.) No further comment on that one, Mr. Chairman.

To be fair, I have to quote: "An 800-ft. tunnel..." (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Hartley Dent.

MR. WALLACE: "...beneath the parking lot at Town and Country

(Laughter) will be built by the provincial government to link the

Trans-Canada Highway with an extended Blanshard Street, Highways

minister Graham Lea said today." (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Resign! Resign!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Have you got any quotes from the member for Oak Bay?

MR. WALLACE: Moving right along, February, 1976: "Blanshard

Extension Still Planned" — planned, mind you, just planned. "Plans for

the proposed Blanshard Street extension and the widening of the

Trans-Canada Highway are still going ahead in spite of the change of

government. A senior Highways official" — I'm just wondering, Mr.

Chairman, if that senior official might wish to take a bow at this

stage. (Laughter.) — "confirmed today that Highways minister Alex

Fraser had authorized continuation of the designs. 'We still hope to

let some of the contracts this year,' said Mr. Fraser, adding that

this would depend on the amount of money allocated in the budget."

That was February, 1976, and then comes the familiar scuttled

headline: "Two Roads Plans Cancelled." April, 1976: "Victoria and

Saanich officials reacted with amazement" — they obviously hadn't been

reading a newspaper for the last 15 years (Laughter) — "Thursday to

Highways minister Alex Fraser's announcement that the Blanshard Street

extension and the Trans-Canada highway widening had once again been

shelved. 'I'm very surprised,' said Victoria alderman William Tindall"

— and he hadn't been reading the papers either for the last 15 years —

"' I'm very disappointed,' said Saanich Mayor Ed Lum. The minister

said, 'no money has been allocated to the two projects,' and he didn't

even know whether money would be set aside in the 1977-78 budget."

Work on the Blanshard street extension was to begin this fall after nearly 13 years of setbacks.

Napoleon outside Moscow didn't have the kind of problems you guys

are having finishing the Blanshard highway. There are a few more

clippings and finally a pathetic comment in the editorial of The Daily

Colonist of May 1, 1976, which mentions that Victoria is a motorists'

nightmare with its peculiar pattern of roads: "It has long been one of

the most difficult cities for driving, much more so than metropolitan

Vancouver which, even at that, leaves much to be desired."

So, Mr. Chairman, in the hope that humour sometimes gets the message

through, I'm suggesting that from 1958 to 1976 is quite a chunk out of

anybody's life, and with the undoubted status of the capital city of

the province of British Columbia, its importance as a tourist centre,

and its own economic development and survival, would the minister

please reconsider taking the matter to Treasury Board? Since it is

obvious that the Premier is in good humour tonight, and since I left

out many of the quotes which could have been much more cutting and

biting, would the minister please get on with the Blanshard Street

extension?

MR. LAUK: Is that a threat?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Oak Bay, he'll be happy to know that it's still under continuing study. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: That I should live that long, Alex!

MR. KING: Now that the member for Oak Bay has softened up the

minister, I hope that the few minor problems I have can be dispensed

with quickly and expeditiously.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the minister a question with respect

to the proposed Mica Creek highway dam planned for the Revelstoke

Canyon. The result will be flooding of approximately 56 miles of

highway between the city of Revelstoke and Mica Creek. This properly,

in my view, should be a cost charged to the hydro development, as it

should have been when the now-existing location road was built.

However, being in the House in 1969 when the project was underway, I

recall that the Highways department did stand some of the cost of the

replacement road to Mica Creek at that time.

I would like the minister to comment on whether or not the Highways

department is going to be saddled with the cost of reconstruction of

this 56 miles of highway that will once again be flooded, apparently,

because of the inadequate planning and projections of B.C. Hydro in

replacing the road in the first instance. I think it's an interesting

question. I don't think any members of this House want to see money

diverted from the normal purposes of

[ Page 3291 ]

maintenance and construction of existing highway grids to bail out B.C. Hydro and to bail out the Columbia River Treaty.

There are two other points I have to raise just briefly, Mr.

Chairman. I would like the minister to give me some information, if he

would, with respect to the highway that is planned on the east side of

Trout Lake. This was a study that was undertaken and some public

hearings were held by the department up in that particular area of

Nakusp-Kaslo.

The main problem is the unique spawning grounds of the rainbow trout

in the world, I understand. The spawning area, which is extremely

sensitive, is now crossed by the existing highway bridge which is

outdated and has extreme load restrictions, placed upon it. It is

necessary to relocate. After the public hearings the feeling of the

people in the area and, I believe, the agreement of the engineering

branch of the department indicated that the highway should be relocated

on the other side of the lake and completely away from these sensitive

spawning grounds. I would like some confirmation from the minister that

he and his department are still committed to that plan.

Thirdly and finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like some indication from

the minister on when he anticipates finally letting the contract for

eliminating that last stretch of single highway known as Cape Horn

Bluffs, between the village of Silverton and the village of Slocan.

It's the link between the southern trans-provincial highway and the

Trans-Canada highway at Revelstoke. It's an extremely high area

overlooking Slocan Lake — a couple of thousand feet — and it's a

beautiful area attracting a lot of tourists.

But let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, when the tourists show up on that

stretch, pulling their campers and boats, and they have to traverse

that single lane around that cliff and gaze down into a lake almost

directly below them, some 2,000 feet, it's a thrill that they don't

particularly want to encounter again, so it usually results in them

departing that area of the country and not coming back.

The point is that the highway is in first-class shape from both

ends, with good ferry connections at the north end. So not only from

the safety point of view but from the point of view of bringing the

road up to standard and developing the tourist industry in that area, I

hope the minister will consider letting the final contract that's

necessary to eliminate that one last bottleneck. I appreciate that

there are some engineering problems as to whether or not it should be

tunnelled, whether it should be blasted or whatever, but I would

certainly appreciate some information from the minister in that respect.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the member for

Revelstoke-Slocan, and going from back to front: the Cape Horn Bluff —

I think you were referring to that area — I understand from the

department people that there are still engineering problems as to

whether it should be a tunnel or whether a very risky rock cut should

be made. That decision hasn't been made, and if it was, it was not

scheduled in funds to be spent this year. But even if the funds were

available, as I understand it, it's still an engineering problem and

they haven't made the decisions on that.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. FRASER: I might say that to eliminate this bad

bridge in the east Trout Lake area — is that the area? — yes, we're

committed to the plan not to replace the bridge. That course of action

will be followed.

Getting back to the relocation of the Mica Creek road for Hydro, the

department advised me that Hydro has had discussions with them about

the relocation and asked them to do the design work. I would like,

through the Chairman to the House, to assure you that where I believe

the Highways department on the original road did pay some $6 million....

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: It's $6 million, I understand from the

comptroller. The position on this one will be that it will be at total

cost to B.C. Hydro.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take

up too much time of the House this evening. I would like to point out

to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that we've heard a lot of

discussion here this evening about flying flags on the bridges,

extending some little path we have out here in the village somewhere

and putting some passing lanes in North Vancouver.

My riding has many hundreds of miles of roads in it and a lot of

them, or most of them, are required to get out the raw materials of

this province which are needed to be removed in order to pay for all

these other things that these people are demanding. So I think in this

instance the highways in my riding should take very, very high

priority. I would like to point out some of the needs we have in our

riding — the riding of Shuswap.

MR. WALLACE: I think you're being political.

MR. BAWTREE: Mr. Chairman, we're moving more timber around

that riding all the time. At one time many years ago we used to send a

lot of our logs

[ Page 3292 ]

down the east side of the mountains into the Arrow Lakes — this is

our pulp wood and our low-grade material — and it was a relatively

short haul. Then we used to float it down the lake to Celgar. But then,

of course, this was one of these nasty free-enterprise ripoff companies

that was there at the time.

Then things changed and that benevolent company was changed — the

ownership was changed to a very benevolent ownership and, of course,

they would do anything at all to help out the small people of this

province. They just quit buying our pulp logs altogether, so we had to

haul them an extra 50 miles. This has created some extra loading on

your highways, Mr. Minister, and this has to be corrected because we

are now beating up the highways to a much greater extent than we did in

the past. Not only do we have to haul our raw material a great deal

farther; we have to haul the chips all the way up to Kamloops, which we

didn't do before — another 90 miles.

I noticed the other day that the hon. member for Alberni (Mr.

Skelly) was telling us that there was a great deal of wood in this

province, that there was no shortage of veneer logs or saw logs. I can

assure you that that isn't the case at all because we're moving saw

logs and veneer logs in my riding hundreds of miles. I forecast that in

the very near future we will lose anywhere up to 20 per cent of the

sawmills in the interior of this province because there isn't enough

wood available. In the meantime, because of the scrounging that's going

on, we're beating up the highways all over the place, hauling logs

hither and yon.

Another thing that is having some impact on the highways, Mr.

Minister, as you are well aware, is the fact that — in spite of what

that intrepid logger from Point Grey, the first member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Macdonald), had to say the other day — we are cleaning up the

forests to a very great degree; we are still utilizing our wood right

down to four-inch tops and this sort of thing. There is very little

waste going on in our forests today. This means that we have to have a

great deal more trucks going over our highways and beating up the roads.

I was very happy to hear, Mr. Minister, some of your comments in

your opening remarks about your speed limits, your slow drivers and one

thing or another. In my area tourism is one of the bigger industries as

well, and I would urge you to look at our highway system to see whether

you really think it is adequate, in the riding of Shuswap, for the

tourist industry. I think we have to provide a great deal more passing

lanes and paving of the shoulders in order to get the slow drivers off

to the side of the road so they don't impede the traffic on our

highways. I certainly agree with you that we need a great deal more

control over the slow-moving traffic on our systems, but we have to

construct our highways in such a 'way that they can get off.

Another thing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the

minister is that I think I agree with him that we've got far too many

variations in our speed limits around this province; too many people

are watching everywhere else except the traffic they should be

watching. They're not watching the road; they are watching the signs on

the road, or to see whether there's somebody with a radar trap sitting

off in the weeds somewhere. They're not paying attention. I think we

could get away from some of this if we had a fairly consistent speed

limit in our province. I think the speed limit should be as high as

possible, as consistent with the construction and the kind of road we

are driving on, because the cost of moving goods and services in this

province is dependent on the time it takes. Every time we reduce the

speed limit by 10 per cent we increase the cost of moving goods by very

nearly an equal amount.

Earlier on in the day, Mr. Minister, we had some discussion about

the ferries and the subsidies that were going to be required. I'd just

like to point out that the people in the interior of this province

would be very happy if we could only get on a mileage basis the kind of

subsidies that the ferries are getting on a mileage basis in this area.

You wouldn't hear us complaining about roads at all, because we could

all have good roads in the interior of the province if we were getting

that kind of money spent.

I have one or two specific points, Mr. Minister, that I would like

to bring to your attention, and that is the bridge at Enderby. It is

required in order to get the raw material out for at least five mills

in my riding, and it has some serious restrictions on it now. There is

no other reasonable access for this raw material and for the lumber. It

has been slated for reconstruction for quite a few years now and in the

last year or two we did have a new deck put on it, but the

underpinnings and what's underneath it are in very, very serious

condition. That, I understand, is going to cost around $1 million, but

that's a very small amount compared to some of the things that have

been going on in the Upper Levels Highway and that sort of thing. Mabel

Lake Road is another one that has been of a continuing nature and still

hasn't been finished after 15 years. It's been going on just about as

long as some of the roads in Victoria here.

We have a great many small problem areas in my riding but the other

major one that needs to have some resolution before too long is

Highway 97 along the Mara Lake area, because it is a very narrow piece

of road. It's all mixed up with tourists and it's just about impossible

to drive logging trucks on that road in the summertime very safely. It

may be safe for the logging trucks, but it sure isn't too safe for the

tourists. On one side is a rock bluff and on the other side is the

lake, so they really don't have too much choice. If you could get on

with these particular

[ Page 3293 ]

minor projects in my area just about immediately, Mr. Minister, I would be most happy and so would my constituents.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I want to change just

briefly from Highways and talk a little bit about the minister's other

capacity of Public Works. I just have one point I want to make in that

particular area and that is with regard to access to this particular

building for people in wheelchairs.

I had a constituent come into my office in a wheelchair the other

day and he had had some very great difficulty finding a way to get into

the building. Now I understand there is a ramp away around at the back

which is usable by wheelchairs, and then, of course, you can use the

elevator. But I would suggest, as a very first simple step, some kind

of notice posted at the front door that would indicate to handicapped

people that there was a route in and some marking of the path in order

to get around to that access door would be a very reasonable thing to

do. I would like to urge that, as a next step, a ramp be provided on

one of the side entrances as soon as possible to give that kind of

access into this building for people in wheelchairs.

Now to return to the Department of Highways — first of all, I would

like to talk about the Thetis Island ferry; and you notice, Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I say Thetis Island ferry, because

that is what that ferry is called even though it serves two islands. It

serves Thetis and it serves Kuper Island.

Now Kuper Island, as you may be aware, has a native population, and

somehow we have neglected to include the name Kuper Island in that

particular ferry. We have now a ramp provided for cars to land.

Previously it was simply a foot landing, but now cars can land. I would

suggest, Mr. Minister, that the inclusion of the words Kuper Island in

that ferry name would be a very reasonable and fair thing to do, to

make the Thetis-Kuper Islands rather than have it known simply as the

Thetis Island ferry.

The minister and others have mentioned the business of slow-speed

drivers. I certainly agree that this is a hazard on the highway, but I

would like to point out to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that in the case

of the Island Highway, which I have occasion to drive much more

frequently than I would prefer, there is a 50-mile maximum speed limit.

Now it was indicated very recently in the paper that though the maximum

speed had been reduced to 50 miles, the accident rate and the

fatalities on the Island Highway, contrary to the general trend where

the maximum speed has been reduced, has not decreased.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I would suggest that as I drive that highway with a reasonable

compliance to the posted speed, I am continuously passed and passed and

passed again by people going far in excess of the posted speed. If we

are going to use our police force to stop slow drivers and start a

system to penalize slow drivers, I would suggest that that should come

second, Mr. Minister, and that the prime enforcement area be in the

fast drivers.

The reason that the accident rate has not reduced on that Island

Highway is simply because the maximum speed limit is not being

enforced. People are still driving that highway at 70 and 80 miles an

hour even though the posted speed is 50. I know that the police have

only a limited amount of time, they can't catch everyone, they can't

always be there, but I would suggest that this is an area we should

concentrate on before we start looking at the slow drivers.

Mr. Minister, every constituency has its road and Cowichan-Malahat

is no exception. The road that I want to speak about specifically is a

road with which I'm sure you are familiar, because we've had some

correspondence on it. I would like to thank the minister for his

cooperation in always being sure that I receive copies of any of the

correspondence that he sends out to any of my constituents regarding a

road. I really appreciate this courtesy and I'm very pleased to

compliment him on doing that. He's been very good at that.

The road in question that I want to talk about tonight is the

Shawnigan Lake Road. That road, Mr. Minister, is serving an area that's

not only a summer resort area, but that area, instead of doubling, as

most areas have been doing over a 10-year period, has tripled in

population over the last 10 years. That road was a very nice winding

trail 20 years ago, but today it's a hazard, Mr. Minister. I have your

letter here which indicates that you think the cost of re-paving would

run in the vicinity of $120,000. I suggest, Mt. Minister, that without

some work done on that road, we're going to be looking at the loss of

human life, because that road is a hazard.

I have here a series of pictures. It's 3.8 miles of road. I have a

series of snapshots here which I'm going to send across the floor to

the minister. These are taken at periods of about one-tenth of a mile

apart, just to indicate the continuing nature of the holes and the

incredibly bad condition of this road.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Aren't you going to show the rest of us?

MRS. WALLACE: No, they're too small for everyone to see, but

I'm going to send them across to the minister. I'd ask him to have a

really serious look at that road. I have travelled that road. I don't

know if the minister has or not, but I'd be glad to take him if he'd

like to go. I'll take him on that trip. It's a

[ Page 3294 ]

hazardous trip, but I'll drive carefully. At any excess speed on

that road you're thrown into those holes. It's really a dangerous road,

Mr. Minister. I would think that $120,000 is a small price to save

lives. Without some paving and some attention to that road there is

going to be a fatal accident there, and it could well occur this summer

when the summer traffic is as extensive as it will be.

MR. C. DARCY (Rossland-Trail): I'm not going to talk about

speed limits or flags or projects, because I know about the projects

that the Treasury Board hasn't given the minister any money for anyway,

so even though he may be sympathetic to my requests, nothing much is

going to happen.

What I want to talk about, though, is land use in this province. I'm

going to soften the minister and his officials up just a little by

saying that it is my observation after four years that no department

comes anywhere close to the Department of Highways in having a good

knowledge of what is really happening in this province in each

individual community. The people in the Department of Highways, because

they're responsible for roads and because they have to anticipate needs

and new bridges and widenings and because they have legislated

themselves into the position of approving subdivisions in most of the

province, know a great deal about land use and what's going on. The

only department that even comes close to them, I would say, is possibly

the Department of Housing, which is relatively a new department, but

certainly the Department of Highways is far more familiar with what is

going on in this province than are departments like Municipal Affairs

or Economic Development, which should be the ones that know what's

going on.

Having said that, I think the minister and certainly some of his

officials would be very well aware that we have some major problems in

terms of land development in various parts of the interior,

particularly those that have very narrow valleys and steep

mountainsides near them. We are in a situation where in the bottoms of

the valleys our development is virtually frozen by either or both

municipal bylaws and the Land Commission regulations and we are in a

situation where the sides of the hills, which in some cases are

suitable for commercial or economic development, are effectively frozen

because the Department of Highways will not approve any subdivisions or

economic development near the highways because they say they want to

save the highway from excessive traffic.

Now this may be a responsible attitude, Mr. Minister, through you,

Mr. Chairman. The approving officer may have all the best reasons for

taking this approach, but the fact is I do believe that if the

Department of Highways is going to legislate itself into this position

and take the responsibility for this kind of disapproval — or take the

power for this kind of disapproval — they also have some responsibility

to show the way as to how regional districts and municipalities,

particularly in the interior, although I believe it is a problem in

various parts of the coast as well, can avoid the situation of having

constant economic, residential, commercial and industrial development

pressure on some of the best bottom lands, pressures which I believe

can only inevitably result in some poor planning decisions because

there really is no other choice out of it.

So I would hope that the minister and his department would have a

good look at this, use their knowledge, use their legislative power to

exercise some flexibility and look on applications in their own right

so that they don't simply turn down proposals that are far away from

agricultural land and far away from residential incursions, and be able

to make some rational decisions which are going to perhaps allow some

alleviation of the kinds of development pressures which we have seen in

the lower mainland and other heavily urbanized parts of the province.

The second point I want to make, Mr. Minister, is also involving

approvals of a slightly different nature. This is the question of

approvals of property below the level of reservoirs in this province.

This is also the responsibility of your department. It may seem an

absurdity — it certainly did to me, to many members of this House and

certainly to the public — to know that there has never been a legal

survey for subdivision purposes run along any artificial reservoir that

has even been created in this province. I am including the Stave Lake

reservoir, which I believe was flooded in 1912. It has never happened.

It is partly the problem of the utility companies and B.C. Hydro,

partly the fault of the lands branch, but mostly, I submit, Mr.

Chairman, it is the responsibility of the Department of Highways.

We have the absurd situation on the Arrow Lake where if you want to

locate a cornerpost on a piece of property at high water you've either

got to run a gravity line or send a frogman out there in a wetsuit 40

feet below the surface to try and find out where your property ends,

because as far as the Department of Highways is concerned, that

property goes down to 1,402 elevation even though the water is at 1,446

and has been for a number of years and will continue to be so. The

situation is exactly the same in the Duncan reservoir, the Mica

reservoir, Williston Lake and any other artificial reservoir in this

province.

I don't have any fast solutions for getting out of this situation. I

do know that the former member for Boundary-Similkameen, Mr. Richter,

had a similar problem some time ago involving the lower Okanagan River

after it was contained in an irrigation flume which was resolved by a

special Act. Perhaps we need a number of special Acts. Certainly, Mr.

Minister, I

[ Page 3295 ]

would hope that you in consultation with British Columbia Hydro and

in consultation with the department of Lands would set to work on

proposals for resolving this problem because I think it's long overdue.

So with that in mind and with the very strong request that we have a

good look at some kind of flexibility in subdivision proposals away

from the Land Commission restrictions and away from municipal

restrictions and away from residential restrictions that are absolutely

necessary if we are going to relieve development pressure on some of

the more important bottom lands in the interior, if the minister would

pay some attention to that, I think that it would be a great,

progressive step for the province.

HON. MR. FRASER: I would like to answer a few of the members,

Mr. Chairman. First of all, I appreciate the remarks of the member for

Rossland-Trail. I overlooked mentioning that fact in my opening remarks

— in other words, the approving function of the Department of Highways,

the planning division. I might tell you, Mr. Chairman, and the members

that it is probably the most controversial

section of the Department of

Highways. They are constantly being criticized for their rejections of

subdivisions but nobody ever says how many were approved. The only ones

we ever hear from are the ones rejected. As an example, in 1975 the

department processed 3,500 ordinary subdivisions and 857

controlled-access subdivisions. That is more than 4,359 subdivisions —

plans, not lots — so you know how many lots it is. But it is a big and

important function.

I might say that the Department of Highways since I've been minister

was concerned about it. They always have been. Just recently the

government has set up a senior staff committee to bring in other

departments. By senior staff I mean deputy minister level of the

departments of Environment, Municipal Affairs, Housing and Highways to

grapple with all the problems that are here and to make recommendations

to a committee of cabinet. I hope that they will be able to report

sometime in August on what they see as the problems and get an

inter-tie with other departments and recommend how we set that up. So

that is where we are on land use and where we are going in the

immediate future.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) brought forth the

Shawnigan Lake Road. We will certainly take another look at that, Madam

Member. I recall the correspondence on it; I appreciate the pictures.

We will bring to the attention of the enforcement people the speed limits on the Island Highway.

Regarding the Kuper Island-Thetis Island ferry, I don't see anything wrong

with adding the name Kuper to the name Thetis and we'll see that that is

done.

MR. LEA: Do you have enough money for the paint?

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, yes, I think we have enough money for the paint, Mr. Member.

Your first remark, which was under Public Works, I appreciate very

much on the access to this building for wheelchair people. I have a

relative who is permanently in a wheelchair and I've had the same

experience in this building. They certainly should have more signs up.

We'll have that done, and there are plans in the final renovation of

this building for permanent access for wheelchairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Supplementary. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member.... There's no supplementary on estimates, Hon. Member.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: I just wanted to assure the minister and his

staff, Mr. Chairman, that I did not mean to cast any aspersions on the

people in the planning or approving department. I think they do an

excellent job, and when they turn something down they do it for all the

best reasons. I just wanted to make the point, which the minister has

picked up, that they need to go a lot further than that because they

have the expertise and they can provide a great deal of help to local

authorities.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): I realize that members in the

House are anxious to get on in anticipation of finishing tomorrow,

however, I think it's a good time to hold the Minister of Highways to

ransom here.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say first of all to the staff of the

minister that I do appreciate the considerations and the help I've been

given for my constituency. In particular I want to thank Mr. Harper,

district engineer, and also Mr. Harvey, who has been of considerable

assistance to me.

I rise to speak about one part of my constituency that much

information was given on this evening — the on-again, off-again

four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway and the Blanshard Street

exchange. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that although the hon. member

for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) gave a good speech and everyone was in a

jovial mood, for the many people who live in the western community the

lack of four-laning on the Trans-Canada Highway is no joke. Mr.

Chairman, it is something they must face two and three times a day when

they use that road, and it is something that the

[ Page 3296 ]

minister must address himself to.

The Trans-Canada Highway is the major link between Victoria and

up-Island. It has a great deal of traffic that has increased

considerably over the past four or five years. The hon. Pothole Pete,

or the hon. desk-thumper over there, should know that and should have

done something about it when he was Minister of Highways.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He did — he flew over it in his helicopter. (Laughter.)

MR. KAHL: He probably flew over it with a helicopter, but

that's about all. It is the major link with the western community, a

community that has grown in size from approximately 10,000 in 1969-70

to over 40,000, probably 50,000, today.

The Thetis Lake interchange where the highway was widened — Highway

1A — and linked up with the Trans-Canada brings a great deal of

traffic and links up with all of the traffic coming from up-Island onto

the Trans-Canada Highway. Quite frankly, Mr. Minister, it is an

impossible situation. I wouldn't stand in my place tonight and tell the

members of this House why you probably bought a house in the city of

Victoria rather than the western community. I wouldn't tell them that.

I want to say that the traffic count in 1971 on Highway 1A and the

Trans-Canada combined was probably in the neighbourhood of some 20,000

cars. Today I would suspect it's closer to 75,000 or 80,000 cars. That

highway, while it's had some paving done to the shoulders and some

repaving done to the top, has not had any extension in lanes. It's

still a two-lane highway, and that must change. Somehow, some way, Mr.

Minister, the finances for that project must be found. The seven miles

of traffic that back up each morning to come into the city must be

reduced considerably, and that can be done with the four-laning of the

Trans-Canada and the Blanshard Street interchange.

I cannot overemphasize the importance of this project. I have had hundreds of letters on this and many, many phone calls.

MR. LEA: I'll bet you have.

MR. KAHL: Frankly, if we could do that little project, they would stop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, it's ironic that if that member who

has just finished speaking had been voted in as a Social Credit member,

and the NDP had been voted in as government, he wouldn't have had to

make that speech for the simple reason that that job was going ahead.

And when the minister tells you there isn't any money, he's right — all

you have to do is take a look at his budget; there is no money. But

it's a matter of priority how that minister chooses to spend that

money, and he chose to spend money somewhere else and not in your

riding, so don't forget that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you do it?

MR. LEA: Because the design was just completed and it was being let. So let's not confuse the issue.

Just before I took my seat, Mr. Chairman, I'd asked the minister

whether there was going to be money going from the British Columbia

Building Corp. into Highways. The Premier turned around and told him to

stand up and say no. But that, I don't believe, is necessarily the way

it's going to be. I believe that what they hope to do was put this bill

through the House, then take money, through borrowing, from that bill

and spend it on capital projects within the Highways department. That

was the plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: They'd deny it.

MR. LEA: Then they would say: "Well, we interpret the bill as

being able to do that. We didn't mention it in the House; we thought it

was okay and it makes sense to us." Now I want the minister, when he

stands up, to tell us — and he wouldn't do that when he first stood up —

that there will not be one cent of money from the British Columbia

Building Corp. spent on capital work projects within the Department of

Highways. And I don't mean building buildings; I mean constructing

roads. I want the minister to assure us of that so we will know for

sure whether or not there is another deficit-finance bill in front of

us for Highways. I think maybe that's what it is all about, because

everyone knows that you cannot do any amount of work with the kind of

money he's gotten from cabinet and from the Treasury Board.

Now there's another question I would like to ask the minister. I

would like to ask him: does he have any idea who Norman Sharpe is — any

idea whatsoever?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Who Norman Sharpe is — I want to know whether you know

the man, whether you've ever heard of him or whether he works for you.

If he works for you, what does he do? I believe that he does not work

for you, but that he works for the Premier as a bodyguard and

chauffeur. Those are his duties: bodyguard and chauffeur to the Premier.

When he was first taken on by order-in-council that is what the

order-in-council said — he's going to be an executive assistant to the

Premier. Then the press said that the Premier has a chauffeur and he's

paying him $13,000 a year. Then the Premier came

[ Page 3297 ]

back and said: "Oh, let's transfer him to old Alex over there in the

Public Works department, and then we'll use him as a bodyguard and

chauffeur but it won't look so bad." But when members of the NDP staff

checked with the security people, they said he works out of the

Premier's office and, as far as they know, he's a chauffeur.

AN HON. MEMBER: You made that point in question period.

MR. LEA: No, all I did was ask the minister during question

period what Mr. Sharpe's duties were, and he said he'd be back. He

hasn't been back. This is his chance to tell us exactly what Norman

Sharpe does — whether they've tried to do through the back door what

they were politically afraid to do through the front door, and that's

hire a bodyguard and chauffeur for the Premier.

Now the minister also talked earlier about the maintenance vote,

saying that it is more. He knows that's not true; it is less. There's

about $5 million more on the books, and almost $4 million of that is

for the ferries — for ferry maintenance repairs and operations. About

$4 million of it — that's up about that. But knowing the inflationary

spiral that most of the supplies are costing the department, including

labour and the new contracts, if he has this kind of money in the

maintenance vote it means he is going to be doing less maintenance this

year than he did last.

So it is not in fact true that there is going to be emphasis on

maintenance within the Highways department with this kind of budget,

because it is down in the real kind of value that you can get for the

dollars, and it's up about $2 million in real dollars over last year.

There is no way he can do a proper job of maintenance with that budget.

Now one other question, and this is one that I don't know the answer

to, but I'd like to ask the minister anyway, because it has been

brought to my attention by a constituent of his that a Mr. Wes Biller

had not been granted an access permit for a neighbourhood pub at Dragon

Lake near Quesnel. But since the minister has assumed that office, the

permit has gone through. The letter further points out to me that Les

Buller is a bagman for the Social Credit in that riding, and is

president of the Socred Cariboo constituency.

I would like the minister to tell me whether in fact it is true that

Mr. Buller did get his access permit after he was minister, and whether

he indeed had anything to do personally with the granting of that. Or

was it done through the department in a regular manner? I'm not

accusing the minister of anything; the letter was sent to me, and I'm

asking the minister to clear that up.

So, really, two questions: is there going to be one cent from the

B.C. Building Corp. spent on capital work projects in the Department of

Highways? Who is Norman Sharpe? What are his duties? Three questions

actually, then — did he personally have anything to do with Les Buller

getting his access to the highway? As the letter points out, maybe it

would appear that there is a conflict of interest as the person is the

president of the Social Credit Cariboo constituency.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll go from back to front again to answer

the member for Prince Rupert. Regarding Mr. Buller, I am aware of this

but I had nothing to do with it. It was just department routine. I

really think it was rezone; it wasn't access that was involved. But it

was routinely handled through the department. I had no personal

involvement with it at all.

You were questioning the fact that I said earlier that there's more

money for maintenance than there was last year. I didn't emphasize how

much more. It's very little. But I think the point, too, that I would

like to make here, Mr. Chairman, to the member is that it is certainly

more money than was spent in the 1975-76 year. There is more money

voted this year than was actually spent to March 31, 1976. That's what I

tried to say, and, hopefully, there is adequate money because it is

more — again not very much. I think there is $7 million or $8 million

in the budget more than was actually spent in 1975-76.

Regarding Norm Sharpe, he is on the staff of Public Works and he

works with Joe Ball, the officer in charge of security of the building.

He helps administratively and occasionally drives the Premier.

Answering on reverse here, your first question last, I have never

heard of what the member mentions here, that any scheme was afoot to

take money from the B.C. Building Corp. for highways expenditures. I

had already answered that. There are no plans to do that, and I said

that wouldn't be done when we started tonight.

MR. LEA: It's clearer that that. You said you didn't think it

was going to be done or could be done. I believe that if I hadn't

mentioned it tonight, there would have been money from that bill that

set up the British Columbia Building Corp. going in. So I just wanted

to have that clear.

MR: CHAIRMAN: As the hon. minister has mentioned, he said there wouldn't be.

MR. LEA: I would like to know then on the answer regarding

Norman Sharpe.... He was hired by order-in-council and, as I said, as

executive assistant to the Premier and later transferred to the

Minister of Public Works as his administrative assistant. Now we learn

that he is not an

[ Page 3298 ]

administrative assistant but that he actually works for the head of security and that he is sometime chauffeur for the Premier.

So I want to know why he was hired in such a manner. Why was he

hired by order-in-council? Why was he hired as an administrative

assistant to the minister? Why is he not working for the minister?

Instead he is working for the Premier. When the security people were

asked they said, oh, he works down in the Premier's office. Where does

he sit? Where does he hang out?

I mean, why was he put through an order-in-council, Mr. Minister,

through you, Mr. Chairman? You're the person who took that

order-in-council to cabinet, I suppose. Or it may have come from the

Provincial Secretary, but surely you would have been informed that it

was going to be there. Did you know Norman Sharpe before? Then why did

you hire him? Did the Premier tell you to? And if the Premier told you

to, why? He was already hired to do the job he is doing now.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're right.

MR. LEA: So why was all that order-in-council stuff going on

that he was transferred over to you? Was that to make it appear to the

people of this province that the Premier did not have a chauffeur when

in fact he does have a chauffeur? I don't mind the Premier having a

chauffeur, but just let us know whether he has one or whether he hasn't

and put the personnel under the right vote.

It would seem to me that if he is the Premier's chauffeur, then put

another order-in-council through and say this is the Premier's

chauffeur. He has a chauffeur. People would accept that or not accept

it, but at least it's above board rather than trying to sneak him

through as an administrative assistant to the Minister of Public Works

and then putting him in with security and chauffeuring.

I think it needs a bit more explanation than that's what he is. How

did it all come about? How did Norman Sharpe end up on your staff and

you don't even know what he's doing really? You didn't know when I

asked you the question in question period.

HON. MR. FRASER: I will try and clear this up again. As I

said, Norm Sharpe, yes, he was hired by order-in-council and he is

working with Joe Ball as an administrative assistant and occasionally

he drives the Premier. Why was he hired by order-in-council? It was our

information that he had special knowledge in security and that's why he

was engaged by order-in-council.

MR. LEA: Had Mr. Sharpe, prior to being hired by

order-in-council, ever worked with the Social Credit Party in a

political way? Or was his name dragged out of a hat? Where did Norman

Sharpe come from that he's got all, these qualifications? How did the

cabinet find out about Norman Sharpe? Was he around before? I mean, he

was hired in a political way to do a political job for the Premier — on

order-in-council.

Then he was hired by you, under order-in-council, Mr. Chairman, the

Minister of Highways, to do a political job by order-in-council, but

buried. The people of this province were led to believe by those

orders-in-council that he no longer worked for the Premier, when he

does in fact.

I think this is the time to really confess and let us know exactly

what went on. Why did we need that other order-in-council? He's making

the same kind of money. The order-in-council payment is the same. Same

kind of money, doing the same job, but transferred from the Premier's

office over to the Minister of Public Works office — it's nothing but a

sham.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my thanks

to the minister for his answers to my questions posed earlier this

evening, but I would like to question the minister a bit further with

respect to the possibility of DREE funding. I would like to inform the

minister that I spoke this morning by telephone to the federal member

of parliament in Ottawa for Comox-Alberni, who indicated to me that

discussions were already underway between the provincial government and

the federal government with respect to the possibility of a subsidiary

agreement for special funding for the completion of those two contracts.

Now the minister indicated tonight that he would attempt to get more

money and they certainly would pursue it, but he gave no indications

that discussions were, in fact, underway. I'm wondering perhaps if

discussions could be underway between the representatives of the

Premier's office rather than the Department of Highways. If so, would

you not be aware of any discussions that are taking place at this time?

The second question, Mr. Chairman, relates to the ferries under the

jurisdiction of the Minister of Highways which operate between islands

within my riding. I just ask this question very specifically to the

minister. If it is fair for the Gulf Islands in the lower gulf to be

serviced by a free ferry service between the islands, is it not then

fair that islanders in the north end of the Island should be afforded

the same opportunity so they can travel free between islands? If it's

fair for one, it seems to me that it must be fair for another. Even

though the whole thing, as you pointed out, is under review, it seems

to me that you can bring in that equity at this time. I wonder if the

minister would be prepared to comment on those two items again.

[ Page 3299 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: Briefly, Mr. Chairman, to the member for

Comox, these south Gulf Islands — I know that there are certain ferries

where it looks as if they travel free, but I understand from the

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) that they had

originally paid at another ferry before they got to a ferry for an

inner island. We have a different situation up there on the north Gulf

Islands as I see it. As I pointed out, they pay a mere pittance now,

really, compared to the operating costs of those ferries.

I want to say here that I'm sorry if I misinformed the member and

the Chairman, but I meant to say when I was talking about DREE that

discussions were going on and they've just recently started. Regarding

them participating because of the Premier's.... I was aware of that at

the senior staff level. That's where the discussions are taking place.

I don't think we should change it at this point.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Chairman, I'm just going to

make a few brief points. I would like to point out first of all that

the total budget for the Department of Highways is greater than the

total budget of all departments when I first came to this Legislature.

I would further point out that even though the Highways department at

that time got under $40 million, there's no question they would be able

to build, and did build, more roads with that $40 million than it will

be possible to build with the $321 million in total this year. There's

no question that with the increased costs there was far more mileage

built at that time.

I think there should be, and listening to the discussion tonight,

far more emphasis placed on highways in this province, because with the

unemployment we have in the north country and the idle equipment,

certainly one of the better ways to put those people to work is

building highways.

We heard a great deal a few months ago about what the federal

government was going to do for the highways in the north country. There

were headlines in practically every paper in British Columbia, and

apparently no one really took it seriously in the press to inquire how

many miles of highway it would really build. The figure mentioned was a

$5 million federal scheme — a real big deal. But really it's nothing at

all when you consider the federal programme is spread over the roads

between Terrace and Prince Rupert, Kitwanga and the Nass Valley,

Stewart-Cassiar and also the Hart Highway. Five million dollars, Mr.

Chairman — you wouldn't even know it was there.

Interjection.

MR. SHELFORD: Not even the Alaska Highway, that's correct.

When you consider that it costs over $1 million a mile for that highway

between Terrace and Prince Rupert, as the member for Prince Rupert (Mr.

Lea) well knows, it means nothing as far as this federal programme is

concerned. But I would hope someone in government will set the federal

government straight that their programme is mere peanuts. It's nothing

more than peanuts.

If this province is to grow, and I'm quite convinced it will,

certainly the expansion will have to take place in the northern part of

this province. I believe recreation will be the No. 1 industry in the

very near future. A system of roads in that north country is a must

before we can get to the various northern lakes and rivers. I say to

the hon. member of Revelstoke — unfortunately he isn't here — that the

type of fish he catches in his country we use for bait in the north.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Chairman, the

comments that were made by the member from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

probably could relate somewhat to the area which I come from in the

city of Penticton. The Penticton bypass has been discussed and debated

for a number of years and goes back into the early 1950s. Due to the

fact that the Indian cut-off land has created a problem in our area, we

have what we call an alternate route. The previous administration had

the route surveyed and the plans drawn, and that is where the problem

lies, Mr. Chairman: it has not been proceeded with.

I would just like to bring it to the attention of the Minister of

Highways that the time is right now for that alternate route to

proceed. The population of the city of Penticton is in excess of 22,000

people. We have development there now, along the area where we need

this road, of housing, schools and shopping centres. This alternate

route, Mr. Chairman, would complete the grid system that is most

important to have a free flow of traffic around and through the city of

Penticton, and it is a very important part of the city of Penticton's

community plan. The alternate route would provide for a truck bypass

and it certainly would reduce accidents and traffic tie-ups on the main

street of Penticton which, of course, right now is designated as

Highway 97. In order to proceed north to Kelowna there have to be left

turns made on the main street. When you have transport trucks and

logging trucks going through town you can see the problem that's

created when a left turn is tried in the middle of the summertime.

Mr. Chairman, in the summertime, of course, we do have the tourist

traffic. I'm sure everybody in this House probably at some point in

time or other has gone through the city of Penticton on their way

through to holidays in the interior. In the summertime the traffic is

getting beyond control. It has created serious problems for the

residents and for the tourists during the summer months.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the minister has a

[ Page 3300 ]

problem of money, but I would ask that he give consideration to this

when the money becomes available, for two reasons. One is the movement

of traffic through the Penticton area so it can flow freely up Highway

97, but primarily, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, the

concern I feel greatly relates to safety: safety of the motorists and

safety of the individual on the main street of Penticton, which is

designated as a highway at the present time. During the summer months

it is very critical and for that reason I would ask the minister

seriously to consider this programme of the alternate route through

Penticton.