1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1809 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Highways estimates.

On vote 98.

Mr. Wallace — 1809

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1814

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1818

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1820

Mr. Bennett — 1822

Mr. Smith — 1824

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1827

Mrs. Jordan — 1828

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1832

Mr. Curtis — 1833

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1834

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1835

Mr. Chabot — 1835

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1837

Mr. Gardom — 1838

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1838

Mr. Gardom — 1839

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1838

Mr. Gardom — 1839

Mr. Phillips — 1841

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1842

THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 1974

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I would like the

House to join me in welcoming a group of members from the

Second Burnaby Mountain Venturer Company, Boy Scouts of Canada.

They are accompanied by their adviser, Mr. Martin.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I would like the House to

join me in welcoming four very good friends of mine who are

visiting the House today. They are my eight-year-old son,

Jonathan, my 14-year-old son, Gary, and their two friends,

Nathaniel and Vanessa.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS

(continued)

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I was very interested in the

opening statement by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea)

yesterday and I would like to make some general comments before

making some specific remarks.

The Minister made it plain that the general policy of the

department at this time is to maintain extension of new

highways. He mentioned that this would not be a blacktop

government similar to the government which once existed in this

province. This government is more interested in services to

people.

I would suggest that the real challenge to government has to

be an appropriate balance of both. In our modern society you

just can't turn certain developments off and on like a tap,

particularly something such as highways where, as many Members

have pointed out, you just don't start a project this year and

finish it this year.

I think we have to take cognizance of certain realities which neither the Minister

can change nor we can change nor any government can change. I am talking particularly

about the fact that we have a population increase at the rate of 3 per cent

which is double the national average in Canada. We have had an increase of vehicles

registered of 8 per cent. I would suggest that any basic policy on highways

which pretends we can simply go on maintaining the highways we have in the face

of these figures and utilization is a little bit like King Canute trying to

hold back waves.

I am not suggesting that the Minister said he would stand

still. But I do feel that in his opening statement, and I have

listened carefully to his remarks yesterday and today, he

certainly gives the impression that maintenance of highways is

the primary goal of his department at the present time. There

is no long-range planning in regard to the extension of

existing highways or development of a new or a more extensive

pattern of highways such as the Member for South Peace River

(Mr. Phillips) was suggesting. When we drive in the summertime

we certainly know what the Hope-Princeton Highway and the

Fraser Canyon is like.

The subject of tourism has been raised and I don't think we

need to rehash the points of view expressed and the fact that

the Minister of Highways appeared to differ with the Minister

of Travel Industry (Hon. Mr. Hall). I don't personally feel

that particular difference of opinion was as deep a difference

as reported. I think both Ministers are thinking in particular

response to their own departments and, to a large measure,

that's the way it should be. This Minister has to deal with the

highway problem and the Hon. Minister of Travel Industry has to

consider his immediate responsibility.

But the fact is, whether we like it or not, this province

depends for a large part of its revenue on tourism. If you have

tourists you have vehicles, and if you have vehicles you are

going to have highways. If we are at all burying our head in

the sand and saying, "All these vehicles are a menace. There

are more accidents and more pollution and more this and more

that," we could take the same attitude in a lot of

areas. "We've got a lot of new pupils and it's a bit of a

nuisance that we have to build new classrooms or we have to

build new hospitals for the sick. It's just a pity that people

are living to an older age and getting various problems so that

we need to build hospitals."

The message coming through from the Minister is that we are

trying to hold the situation in check rather than indulging in

what I think we should be indulging, namely some long-term

planning as to how we acknowledge and face the challenge of

meeting an ever-increasing number of vehicles on our highways

because we have more people and more vehicles.

I thought the statement was very interesting that was

reported in the newspaper on March 14 this year by Mrs. Jean

Dann, who is the public relations director of the B.C. Motels,

Resorts and Trailer Parks Association, She said the tourist

dollar is the finest dollar in the world.

"It does not deplete our natural resources such as lumber

and minerals, and the only thing these people take away with

them are bills and souvenirs. There isn't a person in this

province who doesn't benefit from tourism, directly or indirectly,

even the undertaker."

[ Page 1810 ]

That's a sad reflection on the fact that we do have many

accidents.

But the main general theme I think we should be mentioning

very clearly in this debate on highways is that there are

certain facts of life we can't get away from: (1) the

population is increasing and vehicles are increasing; (2) we

have an ever-increasing wave of tourism whether or not we like

it. I don't think it's the place in this debate to discuss the

pros and cons of tourism, but I certainly feel it is vital that

we don't hide ourselves from the fact that there is an

ever-increasing demand on our highways. There's just no debate

about that.

The question then arises: to what degree is the government

looking far enough ahead in planning for this ever-increasing

demand?

To be more specific, I think it is not our first

responsibility per se to try and accommodate more tourists. In

passing, I would say that from the limited amount of driving I

do in the summertime, there is certainly room to introduce some

kind of specific standard of driving which should be made by

people pulling trailers. I don't care if they are from Oregon,

Alberta or Newfoundland trailers. This is one area that

certainly deserves some close scrutiny because the manner in

which some of these trailers are towed on our main highways

doesn't surprise me that they result in accidents.

I came across one particularly impressive accident last

summer when a trailer had fish-tailed and overturned in the

ditch. It was literally a mass of plywood, shattered into I

don't know how many pieces. I don't know how many people were

killed, but it was a most impressive sight. I'm not saying the

trailers should not be on our highways. I don't think it

matters where they come from; I hope our borders will always be

free to anybody who lives within the law of this province and

this country.

But again, I think we have to face the hard facts of life.

There are more and more trailers on our highways, particularly

in the summer, and from what I can see there is some

questionable driving indulged in by those who pull trailers. I

wonder if the Minister of Highways would perhaps discuss with

the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) the

validity or the wisdom or otherwise, of perhaps making it

mandatory that people who pull trailers have some standard of a

higher degree than just being able to drive an automobile.

One of the areas, to be a little more specific, which I

think the Minister would comment upon relates not only to

highways but to the question of the northern part of the

province. Any time I am contacted by people in the north, it

doesn't matter whether it's hospitals or education or highways,

they feel neglected.

They feel a lack of fair play in regard to the treatment granted to them as

compared to the urban areas. This was particularly brought to my attention by

the sad episode which occurred — and the Minister's well aware of it — when

a child died in Kitimat village recently.

This was the case of a four-year-old child — and it isn't

that I want to give the impression that the problem with the

highways was the only factor in this child's death. I'm not

suggesting that at all. The press reports and the letters I've

received and the phone calls that I took

part in made it quite

plain that there were other factors: the particularly severe

weather, and the fact that the child had been ill for some days

before medical assistance was sought.

Nevertheless, this child died while attempts were being made

to have the child brought to hospital. Incidentally, her

brother on the same day was finally admitted to hospital in

such a way that the ambulance had to be towed behind a highway

grader.

This situation, because it resulted in death, received

perhaps a great deal of scrutiny. To me the sad

part in being

asked to become involved was that this was by no means the

first time that problems had arisen in this particular village,

problems arising from the lack of access to the village in the

wintertime.

Regardless of the risk to life, the statements which were

subsequently made by the Kitimat teachers' association and by

the Kitimat village chief councilor, Tom Robinson, showed that

requests had been made over many years. I'm sure, Mr. Chairman,

you know all about this, and I think it's fair to say that you

worked very hard to get this situation corrected. But the fact

of the matter is that efforts had been made over a period of

many years to get this particular road upgraded.

Regardless of life the schooling of the children is

frequently interrupted, I understand. I just quote from the

January 24 Sentinel newspaper.

"Each winter the village, dependent on a single road, gets

snowed in for varying lengths of time. The school buses are

often unable to get in or out and residents who live in the village and work in Kitimat sometimes spend several

hours getting home."

Last year there was an accident on the road involving a

school bus and a cab which required that three children be

taken to hospital for observation. I don't want to belabour

this, but the interesting thing was that the Minister mentioned

that this certainly was not an isolated problem. There had been

another four-month-old child who died in the Babine reserve on

January 14 — again because there was difficulty in having the

child transported to hospital.

Now these happen both to be Indian children. It seems to me

that all through this session of the House and almost every

debate that I've taken

part in there's very good reason to

conclude that certainly the Indians in our society are getting

something less than

[ Page

1811 ]

their fair share of our provincial affluence.

We talked about it in the Health debate and their rate of

tuberculosis being six times the non-Indian. We talked about it

in the debate on education. I mentioned in my throne speech

which never even mentioned the fact that we do have Indian

people living in this province.

I think this situation regarding the highways just points up

again that if you happen to be an Indian and you live out of

sight in a northern or in a remote region, people have to die

or be killed before anything is done.

I understand that before the Kitimat village had any kind of

road, not too long ago, six people were drowned in a boating

accident.

In fairness, I'll say to the Minister at this point that I

recognize he has made the commitment to have the road upgraded.

He has also made the commitment that winter clearance of snow

will take place. But the point that certainly appears to me is

that this kind of disaster or sad loss of life has to happen

before we get action. I'm just throwing out the question: are

there other similar areas in the province where we have to wait

for the same kind of loss of life before there's action taken

to correct the highway situation?

I am thinking, for example, of Mile 28 on Highway 16 on

January 22, when seven people were killed in a snowslide. Here

again, there's credit due to the Minister. He has taken

action; he's set up a task force, and plans are underway to

hopefully prevent the same kind of thing happening on either

that part of the highway or other sections of highway which are

subject to the same kind of disasters. I just wonder if the

Minister would care to comment on the whole question of

snowslides and avalanches and the other areas. I believe the

Nelson-Creston area is subject to the same kind of dangers. And

there are other areas in the province.

I don't want to talk at great length about the

Hope-Princeton highway because my colleague from Saanich (Mr.

Curtis) has some comments to make on that. But there again, at

the site of the landslide that occurred some years ago, I

wonder what the Minister's plans are for the congestion and the

very narrow and twisting, snake-like road that goes around that

slide site, and the fact that people slow down for sightseeing…. You can't blame them for that; this is a natural

inclination. But for people who use the highway as a means

simply of getting from Hope to Princeton, the hold-up and

congestion that occurs in the summertime on that highway past

the slide area, I think, is a very serious situation. I wonder

if this isn't one particular location where a new highway….

Let's leave the scenic highway, if you want to call it that,

and devise a through highway to get around the slide site.

I wonder if the Minister, in talking about the Hope-Princeton highway, could

also tell me if anything has been done about the site eight miles east of Hope

— as I asked the Minister in the oral question period earlier on, or at the

last session of the House — where a number of people had fallen over a particular

location. It's my information that nothing specific has been done. If it has

been done, I would like to know what it is or what are in the plans. As we recall

— and the Minister is aware of this — there have been several deaths for one

reason or another through people at that site falling over or vehicles going

over.

I think we should realize, in an unfortunate sort of way,

that that particular Hope-Princeton highway provides a

tremendous basis for research in motor-vehicle accidents. I

think we should pay credit to one of the medical men in that

area who lives in Hope, who has done a fair amount of research

on his own regarding the accidents. He responds to many

motor-vehicle accidents in that area. And he has contributed

considerably to the knowledge of the technical aspects of what

happens in side-swiping and head-on collisions, the value or

otherwise of seat belts and some of the other findings as a

result of research.

I know I've seen his programme of slides and his clinical

discussion on this. As the Minister knows he's a member of the

traffic and safety committee of the B.C. Medical Association. I

know that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) would be

interested to know that Dr. Ransford, who has subsequently

played a leading role in developing ambulance service, was also

one of the pioneers, you might say, on the traffic and safety

committee of the B.C. Medical Association.

People like Dr. Ransford and this other doctor in Hope,

whose name just escapes me…. I think it is a name like Ash;

is it Ash? I think that's the name. These men have taken a very

deep interest in the study of these unfortunate accidents. I

would hope that between the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke)

and the Minister of Highways we could use their experience and

their participation, perhaps, in learning some of the

preventive measures that might be developed, based on the

experience of these accidents.

I'd like to mention briefly the Island Highway and to say

that I would hope, even though the Minister is not indulging in

any widespread programme to build a new highway or to make

four-lane highways, that he could just find a little bit of

paint to at least mark the centre line.

I drive up and down the Island quite frequently and often

after dark. And really there are long stretches of that Island

Highway where in a driving rain it's impossible to see the

centre of the highway. I presume that it's something that will

likely be corrected soon.

Certainly approaching bends in the highway in driving rain

at night, you are not sure how near you are to the centre until

suddenly lights coming in the

[ Page 1812 ]

other direction come around the bend and you know very well

that you are too near the centre for comfort.

I think some of the statistics the Minister provided for the

House yesterday mention a high percentage of fatal accidents

where one or other vehicle has their wheels over the centre

line. It seems like a small point, but in terms of safe driving

and prevention of accidents, it is a very important factor.

The Minister has also talked about preventing roadside

development. He's unhappy or uneasy about the widespread

development of shopping complexes right on busy highways. I

would strongly agree with the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis)

that there are some very valid reasons for wishing to maintain

our main highways free of any great degree of industrial or

commercial development. I don't know how far back from the

highway the Minister is planning to restrict this kind of

development. In the newspaper on Sunday, January 16, the

Minister is quoted as saying that he wants to ensure that

people in general, not developers, plan the development of

highways. And the transportation systems should define where

communities are going to be.

He may not have been reported correctly, because it seems to

me that is saying that transportation comes first, and

transportation authorities will tell the people where to build

their communities. That surely isn't what the Minister means.

If that is what he means, I would suggest that's a kind of

direction which really resides in the local level, in the

municipalities and the regional districts.

As my colleague from Saanich (Mr. Curtis) pointed out, in

the ultimate analysis the Department of Highways always does

approve or disapprove any final planning for development of

facilities which relate to a highway, or which relate to an

application to alter or extend a highway. I think that this

whole issue of roadside development has to be kept in

perspective.

For example, the headline in The Province on February

14, "$100 Million Projects Stalled by Government." Now even if

this idea to restrict roadside development is very good, is the

government liable to be sued for the damage that is caused by

calling to a halt this amount of development that is already

underway? I can see the sense in trying to stop it getting out

of hand, but what about people who have already involved

themselves in expense developing such projects, now to be told

that this is no longer to be permitted by this government? I

think there is a lot to be said for orderly growth.

If you build a highway which has to connect A and B, as you say, Mr. Minister,

we don't want half of it cluttered up so that you go at 20 miles per hour for

most of the journey. I couldn't agree more with that. At the same time, from

our side of the House and from where I sit, it seems to me this again is a degree

of central government direction towards communities and municipalities, which

I think has to be approached very carefully and not in some gunshot or blanket

fashion.

I just wonder in this particular case, what about this $100

million worth of projects which are now being involved in your

decision?

On the whole question of extension of roads and new roads,

I'd like to quote a very well-known conservationist, Roderick

Haig-Brown, who, I thought, made an excellent suggestion. I'm

quoting from The Vancouver Sun , July 21, 1973, where

he's suggesting that the provincial government should attempt

to take over logging roads in north-central Vancouver Island

instead of building a new highway. It seemed a very reasonable

point of view. He said:

"If the government took over the Elk River Timber Company

and Canadian Forest Products routes and brought them up to

standards, it would solve a lot of problems.

"Logging companies have all the best routes for a highway

because they were there first, and it is their business to

choose the most economical routes. Government always gets

second best.

"These roads are used now expect during logging hours, but

they are open from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. on weekends. All you would

have to do is improve them, and say, this is it. The logging

companies would have to live with it. I know why the Socreds

didn't do it. They weren't in this kind of business, but the

NDP should be.

"Mr. Haig-Brown deplored the erratic development of the

Island Highway. He cited the example of the highway between

Courtenay and Campbell River. It runs along the waterfront for

most of the way, slicing between the ocean and a beautiful

recreation area. It should be put further back, with the

oceanfront road left as a 30-mile an hour local access

road."

This is another subject altogether, I realize, but it is

important in the development of highways. I think the

conservationist aspect should be well-remembered. These

particular suggestions of Roderick Haig-Brown may have some

obstacles or difficulties, or maybe he's simplifying the whole

thing. But I would like the Minister to react to that

suggestion.

I have one or two more just specific points on road safety,

and then I'll be finished. I read that as far as issuing

contracts for highway construction is concerned, in Alberta

they have now decided that only contractors with offices in the

province, or contractors who had previously done efficient work

in the province, should be awarded new contracts. It seems that

there were many contractors getting into the field where their

performance was less than what

[ Page 1813 ]

was required, and this measure was taken to restrict the

work to be done by contractors who either have an office in the

province or are already active in the construction of

highways.

First of all, I wonder if the Minister has any problems with

contractors not meeting their obligations. Secondly, has this

restrictive measure been given any consideration?

The report which the Minister circulated yesterday has a

mass of information and figures in it. It makes very

interesting reading, and there are many aspects that we could

debate. But there are two which I would like to raise.

One is the question of property negotiation. The Minister

mentions in the report that as of December, 1973, there were

492 negotiations being carried out, and the word

"expropriation" is never mentioned. When I think back to all

the bitter debates that we've had in this House at different

times where expropriation is involved, I would just like to ask

the Minister two questions. First of all, are there any

properties at the present time in the province the subject of

expropriation proceedings in relation to highway construction?

Secondly: is the Minister playing any part at the present time

in the developing of a statute which would cover expropriation

on its own, without having separate expropriation powers

scattered through different statutes?

That might be a question which is asking you to talk about

policy. It might be more appropriate to ask if the Minister

feels there is very good reason to try and expedite the tabling

of one single statute covering all departments on the subject

of expropriation.

The last point I would like to touch upon, Mr. Chairman, is

the extremely enlightening and rather staggering part of this

report which deals with fatal traffic accidents. When you read

this and realize that it is only dealing with the fatal

accidents, which are a percentage of the total accidents, and

that many people are badly maimed and disabled for life, but

not killed, just this one aspect of the report, I think, must

be looked at very seriously.

The Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) has already made

reference to it, but the very staggering thing is…. This, I

should say, Mr. Chairman, represented also a very desirable

degree of cooperation between the Motor Vehicle Branch, the

RCMP, and members of the Minister's department. Between

November 1, 1972, and October 31, 1973, there was an increase

of 29 per cent in fatal accidents, and an increase of about the

same number, about 29 per cent more people killed in these

accidents.

At a time when vehicles increased by 8 per cent, the fatal

accidents increased by 29 per cent, and the deaths increased by

29 per cent. And not surprisingly, it points out that the worst

day in the week is Saturday when about 25 per cent of the fatal

accidents occur.

The other eye-opening thing to me is that 80 per cent of

these fatal accidents occurred in absolutely clear, good

weather. So often we get the impression that accidents are

caused by icy roads or blinding rain — weather, in other words.

But of the 522 fatal accidents, almost 80 per cent occurred in

clear weather. I don't know whether it was dry; it said, when

road conditions were normal.

There's another fascinating statistic: less than 3 per cent

were attributed to mechanical failure. I don't mean to be

negative, but it seems to me that we are spending a pile of

money and time and energy going through testing stations trying

to make…I shouldn't say, trying to make it look as though

mechanical failure was important — it is important. But it

seems to me, Mr. Chairman, we are kind of losing sight of the

more pertinent areas of accidents, particularly fatal

accidents. When I think of all the money, the personnel and the

energy that is used putting vehicles through testing stations,

when less than 3 per cent of the fatal accidents have anything

to do with mechanical failure…. I'm not suggesting that we

shouldn't try testing vehicles, but I wonder, again, if our

priorities aren't a little out of kilter. Maybe there's a need

to spend some of the money that is spent on the testing

situation on other areas which I will mention briefly in a

moment.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Do you want to try

that argument down in Mexico?

MR. WALLACE: Well, I don't know what you mean by Mexico;

I've never been to Mexico.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I think this study must be given the

widest publicity in this province, not just for politicians'

sake. For the widest dissemination, I hope the Minister will

publish it as a separate pamphlet for public dissemination

because it is right on the bone in pointing out just where the

Department of Highways has its responsibilities.

"…responsibility for the vast majority of fatal motor vehicle accidents must be placed on the

shoulders of the careless drivers and pedestrians involved.

Analysis of available data indicated that the 'human factor'

was the probably major cause in the following areas…"

Then

it's the old story: 47 per cent of fatal accidents involved

alcohol or drugs, but mainly alcohol. Of the ones involving

alcohol, 39 per cent had a blood-alcohol in excess of .08. The

conclusion is that in all of the fatal accidents, at least 18

per cent of the drivers involved in fatal accidents were

driving beyond the .08 level. In other words they were

conclusively impaired by alcohol. Excessive speed contributed

in 20 per cent.

Here is the other point that I mentioned just a moment ago:

In 58 per cent of the fatal accidents,

[ Page 1814 ]

one car was on the wrong side of the line. There may be

reasons — one car tried to avoid another car. It seems to me

not too much of an exaggeration to emphasize that if

maintenance and upgrading of the highways is an important

element in the programme this year, I hope such highways as the

Island Highway can have its middle line painted.

These are just some of the very disturbing statistics. The

last one that I would mention is: 24 per cent of the people

died in vehicles not equipped with seatbelts.

We've had the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon.

Mr. Strachan) ask us to react. I don't need to go into all the

details, but there was a tremendous, at least I thought it was

a tremendous,

article in The Province Saturday, February

23 of this year, which looks at other countries. One of the

most interesting findings is that in Australia, where the use

of seatbelts is mandatory, the severity of car injuries dropped

greatly and the fatalities dropped by 17 per cent. So far as I

am concerned, much as I rebel at compulsion by governments or

politicians, I do feel, Mr. Chairman, that here is one area

where I would favour the compulsive use of seatbelts. Certainly

the very least we should do is to make it mandatory that every

vehicle be equipped with seatbelts.

Finally, I think it is not enough to stand aghast of these

statistics. The question we should be asking is: how do we

prevent these deaths occurring on the highways? I have

mentioned the kind of research information which has certainly

been accumulated in the Hope area.

I think the Minister of Education…and I seem to be

telling her to do everything these days, from drug education to

driving education and family life, and so on. But the fact of

the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that is where so much of it has to

begin and I would hope that the Minister of Highways would

cooperate with the Minister of Education in trying to

publicize this kind of information. I don't think there could

be too stiff a penalty for a person who is driving while

impaired. The figures are there; the results are there for all

to see. If you're drinking, nobody asks you to drive. If you're

stupid enough to drive and possibly kill somebody, and you're

found impaired, then I don't think there can be too stiff a

penalty.

I have very little sympathy with the outcries of chagrin because Autoplan has

chosen to make people pay more because they break the driving rules. Well, I

say, "tough bananas." When you read these statistics on highways, how anybody

can in any way mitigate against a heavy sentence when these people are seriously

disabling their friends in the car or vehicle, or killing people in the other

vehicle…. Then you say that it's not fair that they should be penalized in

various ways. I wonder if the penalty can ever be severe enough, certainly,

in terms of removing their driving licence.

I know penalties have become somewhat more severe in recent

years, but it would seem that these statistics speak for

themselves. When 47 per cent of fatal accidents are in some way

associated with alcohol, I'm sorry, but I just can't feel the

least bit sorry for anybody who gets nailed — either impaired

or drinking short of any degree of impairment.

The question is often raised that anybody who is impaired

has to drive because of his work or because of his occupation.

Again I say, "tough bananas." If your whole livelihood depends

on driving a car or a truck, and you get yourself in an

accident and kill somebody because you were impaired and you

were over the centre line, then you plead that you can't go to

work because you've lost your licence — I suggest you should

have thought about that before you got behind the wheel when

you were drunk.

I would just hope that with this very lucid, clear,

undeniable list of statistics which the Minister produced at a

very useful time…. I would be interested to hear what he

feels about the need for stiffer penalties.

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

have been a number of Members speak, make comments and ask

questions. I will begin by trying to answer some of the

questions and some of the comments made by the Hon. Member for

Oak Bay.

At the outset, Mr. Member, when I said that there was going

to be a greater emphasis on maintenance of the roads in this

province, I didn't mean that we are not going to go ahead with

a programme of building new roads and improving roads that we

have. I just want to change the emphasis and say that it is as

important to maintain those roads that are already in existence

before we go on building new roads.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: I'm not backtracking, Mr. Member. All you have

to do is to look at your estimate book and you will see $110

million in there for the building and improving new roads. I

don't think that's backtracking.

I will say that over the years there has been an emphasis on

building roads all over the province without taking due

consideration for those roads that are already there and

maintaining those roads for the usage of British

Columbians.

I think we have probably canvassed my views on tourism quite

a bit in these debates over my estimates, but I would like to

put the record clear. When I made my statement in Prince

George, and since then I have been talking about campers….

You know, some of the vehicles that I see travelling

[ Page 1815 ]

on our roads are unimaginable. I saw one vehicle — I guess

you could call it a camping vehicle — it had a piano in it and

a swimming pool on the roof. Now to me, that's not summer

camping.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You only saw one.

HON. MR. LEA: I only saw one! I see, Madam Member, camper

after camper after camper in this province, where they bring

everything but the kitchen sink with them. It seems to me that

if people are going to go camping they don't have to take that

equipment.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: Now, I have at no time said it would be my

preference to curb people coming in here in vehicles that are

not campers and it seems to me that when a British Columbian or

a Canadian goes to a campground to get in and he can't get in,

and it's full of non-nationals….

MRS. JORDAN: Seventy-eight per cent of the people in there

are Canadians, dumb-dumb!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh! Withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I would ask you not to withdraw.

I don't want her to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. LEA: Every time she opens her mouth we get more

votes. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I'm asking the Hon. Member for

North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) to withdraw an unparliamentary

remark.

MRS. JORDAN: I replied that he was a dumb-dumb because he

keeps talking about all the American tourists and the

foreigners that are using our campgrounds, but 78 per cent of

the users are Canadians and British Columbians and I

withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I accept the withdrawal of the

Hon. Member of the unparliamentary term. I would also just

caution the Members that we have begun to use unparliamentary

terms in addressing other Members, and I would ask them to

refer to each other as "Hon. Member" only.

HON. MR. LEA: The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) also brought up,

I think justifiably, the situation in regard to snow ploughing to remote communities

within the Province of British Columbia. There was the unfortunate fatality

that happened to the Indian child at Babine Lake. My information is that even

if there had been at that time an extensive snow ploughing programme, it would

not have solved the problem, but that's not what we're talking about.

I should also mention that that road was being maintained in

the winter through snow ploughing by federal funds, and they

arbitrarily cut it off and said they didn't have the money to

do it. Since that time I've ordered my department to clear

every road wherever there is a community, whether it's in the

north or the Interior, or wherever where there are people

living. If there's a cost-sharing benefit, because it's Indian

communities under the federal government, we'll worry about

that cost-sharing later. If they don't pay, that's up to their

conscience and not ours, so we're ploughing every road in

British Columbia right at the moment.

You also mentioned snow slides, There were seven fatalities

outside of Terrace. I would like to point out at this time that

that didn't happen on a highway. It's an unfortunate incident

but it didn't happen on a highway and the snow didn't plug the

highway. It happened at the side of the road where there was a

gas station and the residential quarters of the people who

owned that gas station and cafe. I should mention that they

built on an alluvial fan.

There's a coroner's report out now that would indicate that

there had been logging by the people that resided there, which

also was a contributing factor. But the fact remains that there

hasn't been a programme in the Province of British Columbia

over all these years in regard to snow slides and the potential

hazards that exist from snow slides. I must admit that I was

ignorant. I thought the Rogers Pass was done by the Province of

British Columbia before I became Minister. Not one cent of

provincial money went in there. That is done by the federal

government and there hasn't been any programme in this province

over all these years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dead on.

HON. MR. LEA: And now we're going to initiate a programme

after the task force brings in recommendations.

I apologize to this House and to the people of British

Columbia that I didn't grasp that situation as soon as I was

Minister, but it's one of those things. It's unfortunate that a

tragedy does have to happen before it was brought to my

attention, but I can guarantee that if it's at all possible

with funds and manpower facilities that we will try to ensure

that this never happens again within this province if we can

stop it in any way through human efforts and money.

[ Page 1816 ]

Regarding the Hope slide that you mentioned, you had another

good suggestion. I should mention that the department right now

has under design a road such as you mention. It's under design

and it won't be started this year.

You also mentioned the headline where it said the provincial

government, particularly myself, had stopped $100 million of

developments within the Province of British Columbia. That is

not really accurate, Mr. Member. Those projects that had been

okayed are still going ahead and the other project has never

had approval, and they're all lumped into that some $100

million. Even those projects that haven't had approval are

still being reviewed and being put through the process by the

department, but I will tell you that I've asked my department,

my senior approving officer to take careful scrutiny of every

application that comes in and to apply the letter of the law

when dealing with those projects. I feel that that's my

responsibility because as I mentioned before we are trying to

keep a free flow on the arterial highways.

Also, the Member for Oak Bay asked if we, as they do in the

Province of Alberta, only let contracts to in-resident

companies. We have insisted that the company involved be

registered in British Columbia and I have written to the

Attorney-General and I have asked him to come back to me with

some recommendations. I've also mentioned it to the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), so we are actively working on

possibly a new method of dealing with letting of contracts.

Personally I don't believe it's enough that they only

register in this province. I think they should be stationed

here and have a business here and provide jobs for British

Columbians, and keep that money circulating within this

province. At the same time we have to consider, I suppose,

quality of the work and how much money it's going to cost us.

We have to take all these things into consideration. If an

Alberta company bids and is the low bidder and we're satisfied

with the quality of work, it's another consideration that we

have to think about.

Also, the expropriation of property. I have been in touch

with the Attorney-General. As I mentioned before, he's now

considering that question of expropriation. As I mentioned here

earlier today, I believe that we have to consider relocation by

way of compensation as opposed to value of property.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Right now we have something like 500 property negotiations

going on. I should point out also the difference between expropriation and arbitration.

Expropriation, whether we go to arbitration or not, is still expropriation.

If we negotiate with the landowner on a price, that's still expropriation. Most

often we do come up with an agreement between the department and the property

owner. As a matter of fact, the property acquisition branch of the Department

of Highways has convinced me that normally we go over in our offer of the market

value because we have even, in an ad hoc manner, considered relocation. We usually

offer over that. Should people dispute that then they do have the option of

going to arbitration. They get to appoint an arbitrator, we appoint an arbitrator,

and if the two arbitrators cannot decide on a chairman, then it's done by the

court. So I do believe that there's a great deal of flexibility for fairness

when it gets to the arbitration stage.

One other thing that I should mention is that even though

the official opposition oftentimes refer to us as bad

administrators and bad business people, we found a boar's nest

in land acquisition and in land registration. It's even to the

point where we found in the past where one department has been

bidding against another department or a Crown agency on

property and putting the price up. That's absolutely ridiculous

- and no central agency to find out who owns what within the

province. We have under review right now to see whether we

shouldn't go to a central land acquisition branch so that there

can be some semblance of order.

If you ran a hardware store like that where would you

be?

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Be nice, Alex. You're still in British

Columbia.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Not for long.

HON. MR. LEA: Well then, cancel those roads.

The Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) also asked some

questions, but I think they pertain to his riding and he's not

here at the moment.

Interjection.h equipment to do all the centre lines that

should be and we're looking into that. Believe it or not, one

of the sillier things that happened was that the soya bean

shortage affected our painting programme. It's a base used in

the paint. It's just one of those crazy things — we couldn't

get the paint.

The Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) I think described

to us a typical example when he was speaking of the kind of

ribbon development that I think shouldn't be going on within

the provi

HON. MR. LEA: The centre line, yes. We know of it; we just

don't have enougnce and has created problems with the arterial

highways, both to the east and to the north of Prince George.

Now

[ Page

1817 ]

we're looking for bypasses in those areas for the simple

reason that we've allowed development to go on to such an

extent that….

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Maybe he voted against it, Mr. Member. Who

knows?

The Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) also talked about

schools out along that ribbon development. I've had talks with

the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and asked her to

try and get in touch with school boards and ask them, prior to

choosing a school site, to deal with those jurisdictions that

have transportation under their wing. Only too often they'll

pick a property because of its cost. Before we build the school

we should look at those transportation problems of school

children coming from an area surrounding the school and

converging on it. Too often schools have been built and then

they come to either the municipal or provincial government

transportation

section and say, "Solve the problem." I say we

shouldn't allow that problem to begin in the first place if we

can help it; it hasn't been going on in the past. Another bad

way to run a store — hardware that is.

The Member for Fort George asked about the Stellako railway

crossing. That was well underway, Mr. Member, when the CPR came

to us and said they'd like to change their plans for a double

track, which made us change our plans. But it's in for this

year.

The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson)

asked some. Except for a couple of general questions, the

others pertain to his riding. He asked about bike paths along

highways. I know the Hon. Minister of Recreation and

Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) is very concerned about bike

paths throughout the province. I'm not averse to them. I don't

know whether it would fall under my jurisdiction; I don't see

where bicycle paths would come under Highways. We at least have

an extensive shoulder-paving programme on for those people who

do ride bicycles on highways, hoping for some degree of

safety.

Also the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano mentioned

gasoline tax and earmarking. He said he didn't agree with

earmarking funds either. I'm glad to hear that. He also asked

to have a breakdown of the gasoline tax for electoral

districts. Well, if we don't agree with it, I don't know why we

should, except for an academic exercise, find out how much is

broken down. We could do it and I wouldn't mind speaking with

him privately about that.

The low level road and Westview interchange. I'll make sure

I speak with him privately about those two.

He also talked about the First and Second Narrows Bridges

and the amount of inter-regional traffic travelling across

these bridges, and also the ratio of commuter traffic. He has

pointed out my argument really. Those inter-regional carriers

are handling approximately a total volume that is 10 per cent

inter-regional. I think he's asking if I think those two

crossings are fast coming to their saturation point. Yes, they

are, in my opinion — if we continue to use the traditional

method of transport getting back and forth across that stretch

of water.

Whether or not we continue to deal with trying to facilitate

traffic in the conventional method is one I think society as a

whole is going to have to deal with. I believe these are

matters which aren't partisan in nature. We're dealing with

transportation and, more particularly, the gigantic problem we

face in urban transport. I'm glad to say this government has

set aside a special department to deal with urban

transportation.

I forgot to bring up a point when the Hon. Member for Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace) asked about testing stations, saying that

only 3 per cent of the accidents occur because of mechanical

failure. I would suggest that figure would be a great deal

higher if we didn't have those testing stations; the testing

stations bring down that percentage to 3 per cent. If we didn't

have the testing stations it would be a great deal higher. That

argument doesn't hold much water with me. I must say that also

is not in my jurisdiction; it's under the Minister of Transport

and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan).

I see the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) is back. He

talked about highway fatality and safety programmes. As I

mentioned earlier in my estimates, I'm very much concerned with

highway safety and the number of fatalities. The Member for Oak

Bay also raised the matter of highway safety.

I should mention, though, to the Hon. Member for Chilliwack

that, even though there have been a number of fatalities east

of Chilliwack, there have been more accidents west. I don't

think one excuses the other.

This year we will begin an interchange at the junction of

No. 9 Road and 401, and eliminate the fork road intersection by

building a service road westerly to Annis Road. When our design

is finished, we'll be calling a contract to eliminate the very

poor level railway crossing just east of the Sardis

interchange. We are beginning to work on those this year.

I'd just like to finish my comments now by saying that I've

spoken to the Premier about the lack of safety programmes I

found. I have a commitment from him that I'll have full backing

of his office for any area I want to go into. He feels it will

help and I fell it will help bring about a greater degree of

safety on our highways.

[ Page 1818 ]

MR. FRASER: Never mind the Premier; what does the Minister

of Finance say?

HON. MR. LEA: Well, he's one and the same man, Mr.

Member.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): It's all very

well for the Minister to tell us that the Premier's going to

back him up, but the Minister has now been in charge of this

department for 10 months and what programme has he got for

highway safety? He's got none. To come here asking for his

estimates, saying that he's concerned about the number of

deaths on the highways and that he's going to start looking at

things, is just not good enough. When are you going to take

some positive steps to get on with the job that is your

responsibility, as submitted by you, to concern yourself with

highway safety?

I'd like to suggest to the Minister that there is one

simple, expedient thing his department can do which will help

to curb the carnage that takes place on our highway system.

Reduce the speed limit to 55 miles an hour. As a matter of

fact, he will do something else besides cutting down the number

of deaths and serious accidents on our highway by reducing the

speed; he'll also be making a major contribution towards the

conservation of energy resources which we in this country

haven't yet apparently recognized.

The headlines in the paper this morning indicated that, as a

result of the discussions that took place in Ottawa yesterday,

the citizens of British Columbia are going to pay 10 cents a

gallon more for gas. For the Minister's information, if he

doesn't know — and I suspect his staff can certainly tell him — if you reduce the speed limit from 70 to 55 and you enforce it,

you increase the efficiency of gasoline consumption by 50 per

cent. This has been clearly established in even the few short

weeks the mandatory speed limits have been reduced in the

United States.

Not only does it increase the performance of your automobile

and reduce damage, but it also eases the strains upon the

drivers of the vehicles and makes driving more of a pleasure

than it is today. You get on our arterial highways at 70 miles

an hour and you're in a constant battle all the time, motor

vehicle against motor vehicle. At 55 miles an hour, the

pressure is removed to a very great extent and people can begin

to enjoy driving in the countryside through which they pass.

That's a step this Minister could take. Reduce the speed limit

to 55 miles per hour and enforce that speed limit.

Strangely enough, in spite of all the predictions that were made at the time

the mandatory speed reduction in the United States took place that it wasn't

going to work, it has worked. People have recognized their problem and have

obeyed the law. I think we in British Columbia can also recognize the problem,

one of safety and one of energy conservation, and obey the law.

We have another penalty, however, if the law is not to be

obeyed, and this government has provided that. If you get

caught speeding now, it's worth three points. Once you get over

five, you've got a perpetual fine which you pay through the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

I would also like to address some remarks to the Minister

concerning policy that he enunciated this year for his

department, one of concerning himself more with maintenance

than of highway construction. He expressed concern about what

is happening along the arterial highways in a province such as

ours where most of the transportation corridors are found in

valleys. I agree with what the Minister says in that

respect.

What the Minister is admitting now is that the

administration of subdivision control inside and outside

municipal boundaries in the Department of Highways has not been

effective. I think the time has come to break up the Department

of Highways and take that responsibility away from that

department.

The Department of Highways has as its essential role the

planning, the development and the maintenance of highways. It's

only one aspect of life in British Columbia but unfortunately,

over the past few decades, it has assumed a role in British

Columbia far in excess of what was justified. In fact, there is

reason to suspect that the Department of Highways has become

sort of its own little government and every other department of

government and every other activity in our communities have

been obliged to dance to the tune of the Department of

Highways. And their principal method of control has been

through their approving officer.

I think it's time that it came to an end, because while the

Minister may be concerned about the tendency for communities to

expand along the routes of arterial highways, let me point out

to the Minister that the Department of Highways, in locating

its arterial highways, has taken unto itself the best land — the land best suited for the development of our communities. To

come along now in 1974 and say, "Oh, well, this is all wrong

because you are clogging up inter-regional traffic corridors

with community expansion," is not to criticize what the

communities have done but to criticize the way in which the

Department of Highways has carried out its planning

responsibilities.

Therefore, I think that we should take away this subdivision

approval responsibility from the Department of Highways. I

would like to see it placed in the Department of Municipal

Affairs, which has the responsibility both for municipalities

and for the unorganized areas. Then, when the Department of

[ Page 1819 ]

Highways wants to expand the highway network, let it go and

get approval from a department which has some other concerns

besides the development of a highway system.

The Highways department has always been king. Wherever

Highways wanted to go, no one dared stand in their way. They

come first, whether they are crossing rivers, going through

cities, towns, farmlands; wherever in this province the

Department of Highways wants to build a road, it comes first.

That's got to end.

The Minister may be concerned about how inter-regional

highways are affected by municipal growth, but I would just

like to ask the Minister if he would pause for a moment and

consider the effect which his department has upon already

existing municipalities when his department decides that they

want to drive a transportation corridor through that particular

municipal region.

The Minister would complain about the Port Mann freeway. The

Port Mann freeway was built through an already existing

municipal community — a number of them. The Upper Levels

Highway was built and is presently being expanded through two

already existing communities.

The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce

(Hon. Mr. Lauk) is going to see that Tilbury Island is going to

become a major industrial area. But that's going to result in

the Department of Highways being called upon to drive more

highways through the already existing communities of Richmond

and Delta. And they'll come first unless the rules have

changed, Mr. Chairman.

So it hasn't always worked against the interests of

Highways. Highways, themselves, have worked against the

interests of the communities of this province. This is only

going to be changed when the Department of Highways is obliged

to conform with principles which are conducive to proper

community development in the Province of British Columbia; and

it must start soon.

Mention has been made of the congestion on the two bridges

across Burrard Inlet. Well, one of those bridges was purely an

urban transportation corridor before the Government of British

Columbia purchased it in 1955 and turned it into an

inter-regional transportation corridor. This is a bridge that

the Minister and his department are going to spend something

like $12 million on over the next three or four years to bring

it up to a standard which is just below anything acceptable for

highway traffic safety.

It will be a vast improvement over what we have today — no question about that.

But even the staff in the Minister's office will admit that it does not come

up to modern standards. You have therefore moved in, Mr. Minister — not you,

but the government has moved in — through the Department of Highways and taken

away what was purely an urban transportation route and turned it into an inter-regional

one.

The Second Narrows Bridge was built as an inter-regional

traffic artery. But, here again, if you want to complain about

what communities do, having built that bridge and having upped

it to a highway system on the North Shore…. It dumped all

the traffic onto the streets of the City of Vancouver without

making any concessions whatsoever to the impact that that

inter-regional traffic was going to have upon those city

streets.

Therefore, I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that if the Minister

would care to enunciate somewhat more the policy that he sees

for highway development and the role of his department in

British Columbia, he might indicate in this changed outlook

that there is going to be some give and take with respect to

the demands that his department will make upon communities in

this province, and also the concessions that his department

will make to those communities whenever the highway system

needs to be expanded.

I didn't take from what the Minister said yesterday that he

was stopping all planning and that he was going to spend the

rest of his term in office filling potholes, because I happen

to know, Mr. Chairman, a number of the senior officials in his

department very well as a result of some experiences I have

had, and I know that they wouldn't allow the Minister to make

such a blunder.

As a matter of fact, if I might pause for a moment, I would

like to say to the Minister that his senior staff, with whom I

have had, as I say, very close contact over the past two years

in connection with work being done in my constituency, are to

be very highly commended for the job they have done with

respect to the work on the Upper Levels Highway and the two

flooding incidents which we had in West Vancouver.

They were difficult times for the members of your staff. I

commend them for the way in which they fulfilled their

responsibilities and the way in which they met with the

community in an attempt to do everything they could to

ameliorate the effect of the floods and of the disruption which

the highway construction was bringing to that community. I wish

you would extend to those members of your staff, who aren't in

the House today, my expression of appreciation in that

regard.

However, there are some lessons to be learned from what took

place with respect to the Upper Levels Highway, and this is no

reflection on your staff. Mr. Chairman, we have found during

the course of the construction of the Upper Levels Highway

expansion that while the government has been very careful in

the contracts it entered into with general contractors for

doing the work, and ensuring that those contractors have an

obligation to pay any damage that may result from the work that

they

[ Page 1820 ]

carry on, nevertheless, the experience has been that in

attempting to enforce that right against the contractors, the

citizen finds himself almost powerless.

I think, Mr. Chairman, whenever the Department of Highways

again involves itself in work within an existing community

where there will be construction taking place through built-up

areas, that in addition to obliging the contractor to be

responsible for damage, the department should ensure that an

organization is established to which the individual citizen can

report damage and have speedy, fair resolution of that

problem.

The experience in West Vancouver has been that when the

Department of Highways learns of a situation, they say — as

they are entitled to say — that the contractor has the

responsibility. Then you go after the contractor, Mr. Minister;

eventually you end up with the contractor's insurance company;

eventually someone will come and look at your property, and

eventually you'll get a letter saying: "We don't think the

damage was caused by the contractor." There the citizen is

after weeks and sometimes months of procrastination and delay,

faced with a denial of responsibility.

By this time the opportunity that the citizen had to

establish any connecting link between activities taking place

on the highway and the damage that that person had sustained to

their property is virtually lost. Only if they have from the

outset taken the time and the money to engage the professional

people required to make the connection between the event in the

construction and the damage, then and then only, have they got

any chance of fighting the contractor.

I think it is not fair to the citizens to be placed in this

position because, after all, they had nothing to do with the

contract. As well, Mr. Chairman, it gives the Department of

Highways a bad name that the Department of Highways doesn't

deserve. I speak, as I say, from two years of close connection

with these problems.

There is one other matter of principle. I hope to deal with

some specific highway problems a little later, but there is one

matter of principle that concerns me, and I mentioned it to the

Minister last year. It arises out of the approval

responsibility that the department has. The Minister will

recall my raising with him the question of the stability of

what is known as the Barrier at Garibaldi.

The Department of Highways took the position, because of

engineering advice they had, that the geological structure of

the Barrier was unstable, and therefore a subdivision shouldn't

be approved. This was then tested in the Supreme Court of

British Columbia and the Hon. Mr. Justice Berger supported the

position of the Department of Highways. Since that time,

nothing has been done.

My concern is this, Mr. Chairman: if the Barrier is so

unstable — and I don't argue whether it is or not — as to

prevent any further subdivision of land in that area, then what

is the department going to do with respect to those citizens

who already live in that particular area? What is it going to

do for the safety of those who pass along Highway 99 through

that same area of instability — those people who use the PGE,

which travels through that same area? And what does the

government intend to do with respect to the safety of the major

hydro-electric transmission lines which pass through that same

area of instability?

It's of serious consequence to those people who live at

Garibaldi. They have the Department of Highways officials

making a decision. They have that decision confirmed following

a trial of the matter before a supreme court judge, and they

wonder what sort of peril faces them.

I would like to know from the Minister whether or not the

department proposes to take steps to cure the instability, or

will it relocate the people who live at Garibaldi, or,

alternatively, is the Department of Highways prepared to

undertake a further technical geological examination of the

Barrier to establish once and for all whether the conflicting

opinions which were voiced in the supreme court trial are still

to be found to support instability?

It seems to me we can't leave this sword of Damocles hanging

over the heads of the people who live in Garibaldi. Either the

government has to assume that the decision of its own engineer

is right and move the people out of Garibaldi, or take steps to

correct the fault.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll deal with the points

as they were brought up by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). He first of all dealt with

highway safety and made a suggestion that it would be a good

measure of highway safety to drop the speed limit to 55. Also

he pointed out that might be a conservation step in terms of

non-replenishable resources.

I dispute his figure of 50 per cent saving in fuel.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Oh, I see. Oh, I misunderstood you. In most

parts of the province the speed limit is 60; it's only 70 in

one or two areas on the freeway. So we would, in effect, be

dropping the greater percentage of the province down five miles

an hour. I don't know whether that would be that great a saving

in fuel. I don't think it would be very much.

He pointed out that in areas where it had been tried, like

in the United States, people had accepted their responsibility

and dropped down. It's been suggested to me that possibly when

the fuel shortage was on, they became very responsible in those

terms.

[ Page 1821 ]

But once the fuel is allowed to go out again in a free flow,

again they will go over that speed limit. I tend to agree with

that.

I think there are other measures that could be taken that

would be more effective. I mentioned on a television programme

that I thought we should be probably going to smaller cars,

less horsepower, as a more effective way of cutting down.

I mentioned at that time that I'd been told by federal

people from MOT that the only car manufacturer who had met all

the pollution control requirements and standards and hadn't

lost horsepower, or the efficiency of fuel burning, had been

Datsun. At that time I said that if they are the only ones who

have met it, and obviously other car manufacturers can meet it,

maybe people should be saying to the manufacturers, "Unless you

meet those requirements we're going to buy Datsuns." Let the

other car manufacturers take up their responsibility.

I'm looking in my department to see whether it would be

feasible from now on to order smaller vehicles for a great many

of the employees that use vehicles in their daily work, because

sometimes I think we do waste. We become traditionalized and

follow the conventional wisdom without questioning what we're

doing. Some Member said, "Well, you drive a big car." I drive a

Chev.

But the fact of the matter is I didn't suggest that people

should cast their present cars to one side and go out and buy a

small one. I'm suggesting that when the time comes to choose

another car — if they're going to trade in — or when people who

haven't a car are going to buy one, maybe they should be

thinking of cars with less horsepower and therefore less

consumption of fuel.

Also you might look at other ways. This isn't in my

department, but I know other areas have done it: they have

licence by horsepower. Where you have more horsepower, it costs

more money. I'm not saying it should be done. I think it should

be examined to see how it works out in other areas. They did it

in England for a while, I know, and are maybe still doing

it.

Also the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound talked

about subdivision: who the subdivision jurisdiction should come

under — Department of Highways or Municipal Affairs. Believe

me, if there's a headache within my department it is in dealing

with subdivision. But at the same time, if the Municipal

Affairs department were handling all the subdivisions in the

province, then I suggest to you that the same thing may happen

as you have said did happen in the Highways department.

I admit that our main concern when looking at subdivision is

the highway system — no doubt about that. At the same time, I'm

also a little concerned, if it were done by Municipal Affairs

department, that there wouldn't be enough consideration given

to the

Highways department. Believe me, I've talked with the

Minister of Municipal Affairs about it, and we haven't come to

a conclusion. But it is a real problem of trying to keep a

balance of priorities between the highways system and those

areas where people want to set up their residences along

highways.

To me, one of the biggest problems we face in British

Columbia today is transportation in all its ramifications, both

in the rural areas and in the urban areas. It's enlightening to

hear the difference of opinion in regard to highways between

those Members who represent city ridings and those who

represent rural. They are completely opposed, most often. But I

do think people know that it's a situation that is out of hand

in British Columbia and one that we're going to have to come to

grips with, especially in urban transportation areas.

Also he talked about contractor claims and about the

approving officer when dealing with subdivisions. As he pointed

out to me one day, he has never in his career had a complaint

from anybody he approved — and he approved lots.

But you know, if you go to the approving officer and say, "I

want this subdivision approved. I want this shopping centre

approved," and he says, "No," he can give you all

sorts of good reasons in the world, and you still don't buy it

because you want it. It is pretty hard to convince someone who

is emotionally caught up in this project that possibly for the

benefit of public good it shouldn't go ahead.

I've recently sent a letter out from the department to all

the regional districts and all the municipal bodies reminding

them of the procedure that should be followed under the law

when making zoning changes, or allowing building permits, if

they are within a half-mile either side of an arterial

highway.

What has happened in the past is sometimes because people

don't know — that's most the case often, I suppose. But

sometimes it's a ploy; they'll go ahead, they'll do the

project. They will go to the community, say to get a rise going

in the community by saying that we need this project. And all

of a sudden there it is — before my department even finds out

about it. Then they come and say, "How about approval?" and it

puts the senior approving officer in a very difficult position.

Is he going to say no to a project that is a fait accompli?

Sometimes he's had to. Not very often.

As I said, I sent out a letter reminding them of what the

orderly process should be in terms of building projects,

building permits and that sort of thing, because this happens

all the time.

There's a great deal of pressure on regional district

officials, and on municipal officials, from developers to get

their projects done. I'm not saying it's wrong or it's right.

It's their project; they want to push it through. They're going

and pressuring their elected officials. And that's right. I'm

not saying there's

[ Page 1822 ]

anything wrong with it, but they are under that pressure at

all times when these developers are trying to get their project

approved.

On the other hand, the municipal people are looking at the

tax base. I don't blame them for that either. They're saying

they have to get a bigger tax base. They want money to supply

amenities of their citizens within the municipal

boundaries.

On contractor claims: I meant that it's probably a lengthier

process than people like. I don't have any ready ideas on how

to cut that process down. It has to be adjudicated. There has

to be an adjudicator. Again I point out that not always are the

people who make the claims correct. If you turn one down,

they're angry, and they are going to come to you, Mr. Member,

and you're going to have to take another look at it; see

whether you feel it's just, follow it through, and see the

procedures…. But they are not always proper claims that

should be paid.

Rubble Creek: I agree with you. I make a commitment to you

right now that I will devote a lot of my time in the immediate

future to dealing with this problem and getting an answer for

those people. I agree they must be under some strain not

knowing what the outcome is going to be. My department

recommended, as you know, that there be no more development

there because of some possible danger. They didn't feel there

was an imminent danger. Wherever you live in a valley in B.C.,

there is a danger. Nobody from my geo-technical department has

been able to convince me that can be remedied, whatever danger

is there. But I make a commitment to you now that I will give

it my immediate and full attention, and get back to you on

that. I feel that they do deserve an answer.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I

was very pleased to hear the Minister mention that he wasn't

cutting off all new highway construction, because I believe

what we need is a balance of maintenance, planning and

construction. From the impression that was created by his

earlier remarks, I think it set a lot of minds at ease.

I would like to discuss some of the major highway links in

British Columbia, and some of the projects that have been

suggested — some of them even suggested by this Minister. First

of all, the major inland routes we've got now are the

Hope-Princeton Highway and the Fraser Canyon, the Trans-Canada

Highway. One route that we've talked about as alternative or

supplemental to those two routes is the Coquihalla Pass.

We've got the Hope-Princeton Highway, and it was mentioned earlier by the Member

for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that certain sections of the Hope-Princeton, particularly

the slide areas, need reconstruction. But there are many areas on that Hope-Princeton

that need to be re-engineered. It's a 1940s highway and although there has been

upgrading, it still needs re-engineering in many areas, and it's not to highway

standards.

I think the high amount of traffic that we have going from

the lower mainland through into the Interior, through the

Okanagan and possibly on to the north, up into the Cariboo, or

on to the Rogers Pass, the Yellowhead…. I find that a very

difficult highway to travel, and in the summer it is clogged.

It is a very slow and a very dangerous highway, and I think

upgrading and re-engineering in many sections is important.

I'd like to remind the Minister of his commitment of last

year, and it is a quote out of the paper. It says: "Highways

Minister Graham Lea announced last month that plans for the

route which runs through the Coquihalla Pass from Hope to

Merritt and up Highway 5 to Kamloops are underway."

This route has been discussed for some years as an extra

route to the Interior to relieve the pressure on the Fraser

Canyon and on the Hope-Princeton. Particularly if the

Hope-Princeton is going to undergo some massive rebuilding, a

major route should be there to ease the pressure while the

rebuilding is going on.

As you know, Mr. Minister, the Coquihalla Pass would save

about 60 miles on the trip from Hope to Merritt. Then it would

have a chance of branching off to Kamloops, or being an

alternate route to the Okanagan, which I'll deal with later

because we have some very specific highway problems on Highway

97. It is a fairly easy route to build because it is on a high

plateau.

If I could just look at some of the articles that have been

written about the many caravans that have gone year after year

through the Coquihalla, they describe very well the type of

terrain and what is needed to construct this highway and what

preliminary engineering your department has put into it.

Preliminary surveys show that the highway should not be

built along the last 15 miles of the Coquihalla, but should

take the next valley to the north which parallels Boston Bar

Creek to Hope. And the Boston Bar Creek route has a flat valley

bottom with a gradual incline, and there would be only one

difficult area at the summit.

This appears to be a fairly easy route to build and also by

moving it over one valley, we wouldn't run into the problem of

disturbing the steelhead fishing in the Coquihalla River, which

has had some difficulty for many years and major highway

construction could interfere with it.

With the surveys that your department has done, and the fact

that this is existing now as a driveable route, I believe that

the public should be told if indeed there is a timetable for

bringing this up to highway standards — whether they are going

[ Page 1823 ]

remove it from the private road status; whether we will have

this third alternative route into the Interior; and whether it

will be built compatibly with the major rebuilding of the

Hope-Princeton Highway.

That traffic which funnels into the Okanagan is particularly

hazardous. And in the summer when that famous tourist traffic,

which the Minister talks about, is prevalent in B.C. we have

many trouble spots on Highway 97. I believe that the

development of the Coquihalla Pass, along with an alternate

Okanagan Valley bypass, would eventually eliminate all of the

problems that are happening in the Okanagan now. I'm sure the

Minister is aware of them because the complaints I get all say

"copy to the Minister," or the hundreds of letters I get

are copies of letters that the Minister has received. They're

from my constituents and they are from the communities within

the Okanagan, and all of them have trouble spots on 97.

I think the government, Mr. Chairman, through you to the

Minister, should take a look at utilizing some of the studies

that have already been made about a high-level west side route,

consider a complete Okanagan bypass, and perhaps in conjunction

with Coquihalla, as a tie-in to the Coquihalla for solving some

of the major Interior traffic problems that we now face.

I would just like to point out that the Okanagan and Highway

97, which is I guess the only Pan-American route there is

running right from South America on up through California and

up to Alaska connecting with the Cariboo Highway, carries a

large amount of traffic most times of the year, particularly in

those summer periods.

They've got problems in the Penticton area, and I know the

bypass. I would like to ask the Minister the situation on the

Penticton bypass as it exists now. I know there's a problem

with negotiations with the Indian band there. But right now

there's a tremendous bottleneck in the City of Penticton where

all traffic is diverted right through the heart of the city.

It's hazardous; it is inconvenient for the traveler, and it is

not good highway management.

Further on as we get down through the valley this very

narrow highway is going through a densely populated valley. We

have problems in Summerland. We have particular problems in the

Westbank area where the highway runs through the centre of what

is a commercial area, and through the major school zones in a

population area of about 10,000 people.

I think in conjunction with the long-term planning I'm

asking the Minister to make on an Okanagan bypass, that we are

going to have to look at bypassing these communities. And I

agree with him in his suggestion that all these bypasses and

new highways should be no-access. They should be travel routes

only.

The history of the Okanagan was that the communities built up along the only

trail that went through the narrow valley. The only route in created a lot of

the problems. That's how our cities grew. The only possible way in and out was

through Highway 97. In rectifying the problem we don't have to run into the

same sort of conditions that have made it hazardous: multiple accesses and farm

vehicles coming right out of the farms onto the highway. That's part of our

problem.

We are trying to maintain the Okanagan as an

agriculturally-based area because of the need for agricultural

products, but also to maintain the aesthetics. Yet, in

conjunction with this, we have a lot of farm vehicles which all

use this highway as they have for years traditionally. One of

the major sources of traffic accidents are these farm vehicles

coming on using the highway for two or three miles and turning

off into another area. We have to find some way to get these

vehicles off the major route through until we solve the major

bypass problem.

We have a problem through the City of Kelowna right now

where the city is negotiating with the department. The traffic

runs right through the centre of the city, and they're dealing

with outlets and one-way streets. I'd like the Minister to

bring me up to date on what's happening in that area and what

we're doing to solve the congestion through the heart of the

City of Kelowna.

Going further on Highway 97 north, we have a major problem

in the Winfield area where, again, the highway runs right

through the built-up area, right near schools. In the last

years there have been traffic fatalities concerning small

children. It is of concern to the residents. I'm sure we have

to consider a bypass around that community.

Highway 97 problems go all the way up. This road happens to

run through a series of valleys as it goes beyond the Okanagan.

I feel we have to find a major diversion route to take the

through traffic out of the Okanagan and divert it past for

trucks and for vehicles which do not necessarily have to go

through every community. It's a major problem the people feel

strongly about because it's hazardous and there have been

traffic fatalities.

I'd like to mention the problems we're having with Highway

33, the highway that runs through Beaverdale and Rock Creek and

over to the Kootenays from the Okanagan. This is a good

secondary highway, but there's a problem with two extremely

dangerous bridges. This problem has existed for quite a few

years but it has been accelerated now due to a major winter

accident. One of the bridges has been completely wiped out by a

soft-drink truck and now we have even more hazardous

conditions.

This route is being travelled more and more not only by

recreational people going to the ski mountains in the winter

but by commercial traffic through to the Kootenays. It has also

become a very

[ Page 1824 ]

scenic tourist route, a route of unspoiled country through

miles of no buildings, no habitation, beautiful scenery and

many pleasant places for the tourists and citizens of B.C. to

stop and get back to nature.

I feel there's been a lot of difficulty with those two

bridges. I would ask the Minister if he could give me some

assurance this is being looked into.

Highways are there not just for communities or for political

purposes, as the Minister said. They are there to serve people;

they are there to move people; they are there to move goods to

and from people. I feel we must have this type of planning,

even if it's long-term, showing the possibilities of where

these routes can go to solve these problems today, along with

making the immediate decisions on these particularly hazardous

areas. I would like to hear your response to this.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I sat and listened to

the debate of the estimates of the Minister of Highways. For a

while I thought perhaps it was going to take me as long to get

involved in saying a few words in these estimates as it has

sometimes taken the Department of Highways to solve some of my

problems in the North Peace. But it is interesting to get

involved.

Earlier today, the Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips) in

his address said something to the Minister of Highways about

him being unimaginative, I believe: no new programmes, no new

ideas, and so on. I think that was a little unkind and a little

unjust because I can think of one programme the Minister has

introduced since his appointment that is imaginative and

certainly an improvement on some of the things in the past.

If we reflect back prior to his tenure, we can recall a

certain Minister of Highways who used to like to test the roads

with a car. He sometimes tested out the curves at 80 miles an

hour, I was told, just to see if the car could perform properly

at that speed. That was before the Lear jet, of course. After

the advent of the Lear jet we had for a period of time a

Highways Minister who flew rapidly into every constituency in

the province. As a matter of fact, he invented the "flit in,

flit out and fly past," process into almost every

constituency throughout the Province of British Columbia. The

only problem was that he was trying to review highways at about

450 knots at 20,000 feet. And really, it's not the best way to

look at a highway problem in British Columbia.

I'd like to suggest that the new Minister of Highways didn't take long to refine

that programme. Just a short time in office and he came up with the idea of

an elevated overview of the highway. An elevated overview if I may explain it

to you, is to rent a Sikorsky helicopter. You don't fly at 450 knots; you fly

at 150 knots at 1,500 feet. It still doesn't solve the highway problem. Unfortunately,

it doesn't matter whether you're 1,500 feet above the ground or 20,000; it still

is a little difficult to analyse the road problems.

Perhaps he decided by doing that he was going to save a lot

of wear and tear on himself. Some of the highways in the

province do have a few potholes in them. Some of them, although

the Minister may not believe this, are still gravel.

Anyway, I welcome the fact that the Minister did visit the

North Peace and for a few hours viewed from 1,500 feet the wide

expanse of road in that particular part of the country. I think

he probably realized for the first time after visiting the

Peace that it is a very large country and we have a great

number of miles of road — as a matter of fact, second only to

the constituency of Cariboo with respect to the number of miles

of road which happen to be maintained in the Province of

British Columbia.

We have problems which are peculiar to our area as compared

to other areas of the province. Soil conditions are different;

road construction conditions are quite different from the lower

mainland or from the areas where we have a lot of mountain

terrain and rock that we have to contend with.

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

I'd like to spend a few moments talking about the Minister's

policy concerning the funds in his budget. He has indicated

that most of the money will go towards maintenance and very

little towards new construction.

I'd like to suggest that that policy is really unworkable,

I'd like to say why. I don't deny that we need a tremendous

amount of construction and reconstruction throughout every

constituency in the province — mine more than any others

perhaps and to a great extent — because the roads do wear out.

But remember, Mr. Minister, that the roads there were built to

service people. If it wasn't for the fact that the roads were

being used to a greater extent than ever before, they wouldn't

wear out. But they are wearing out; the grade 1s getting worn

down; the gravel is disappearing.

Some years ago we worked out a plan for the North Peace area

to not only maintain and upgrade the existing road system but

to specify on a priority basis those roads which would have to

be paved. That programme was started and it's been continued

each year to the great benefit of the people who live there and

have to use roads on a day-to-day basis.

I would suggest to the Minister that in setting up any road

programme, there are roads that can be maintained as a gravel

road indefinitely if they're kept in good shape. But there are

many roads, because of the density in traffic and an increasing

density, that will never be maintained regardless how much

equipment you put on those roads if they are

[ Page 1825 ]

to stay as gravel roads. These roads must be paved in order

to maintain the traffic. For instance, there are roads in my

area which we call main market roads, that you could put

maintenance equipment on seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

They're gravel roads, fortunately some of them are paved now.

But you would never be able to maintain those roads in a gravel

condition, in a good condition, regardless of the amount of

equipment you put on them. The gravel washes out too fast; the

soil conditions are such that you just can't maintain them.

I think your problem is two-fold, Mr. Minister. Certainly,

you need funds and money to increase the maintenance vote for

each of the constituencies to allow the district engineers to

do a better job of maintaining the roads under their

jurisdiction. But we also have to look at many areas of the

province, including the central Interior sections, the

northwest and the northeast, and determine what roads will be

the main market roads in the area and what roads will be the

main arterial highways. These must be paved because it's the

only way that you'll be able to maintain those roads in decent

shape for the public to travel on for any length of time.

I'd like to know, as the Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips) wanted to know, something about the reasons for

reducing the number of homes and farms that you service with

snowplough during the winter months. In referring to 1972-73

report, and looking at it by region, I see that the greatest

expense by far, of course, occurred in region 4, and I think

that's reasonable when you look at the topography of the area

and the amount of snowfall in those areas.

The total cost of snow removal in region 4 amounted that

year to $5.5 million. Then we get to such places as region 1

and the total cost of snow removal was less than $1 million.

This is natural when you consider the terrain and the amount of

snowfall we have in some parts of the province.

I do not disagree with the idea that the Minister should

spend most of the funds available to maintain the road system

in every constituency in a good condition during the winter

months. And to the credit of the Department of Highways, I

think this has been done in the last number of years. Very,

very seldom, even in most trying conditions, do I receive a

phone call from somebody saying that the main roads have not

been ploughed within a reasonable length of time.

But unfortunately, ploughing the main roads, and making it

possible for a farmer to get to the main road if he lives a

quarter of a mile from it, is something quite different. In

conditions of heavy snowfall, or blizzard conditions, it

doesn't matter if it's only a few hundred feet or a quarter of

a mile or a mile that he lives from the main travelled road

that is being maintained. If he can't get to it with his

vehicle, he just can't get in and out.

I'd like to suggest to the Minister that the people who work

in the oil industry in the north have solved this problem to a

great degree for the roads which they maintain separately from

the highway system. There are hundreds of miles of these roads

maintained out to battery and well locations scattered

throughout the North Peace area. They hire local equipment — mainly local farmers who have large tractors with snowploughs

on them to maintain and plough the roads that are not part of

the British Columbia highway system.

It does two things. It provides employment for those farmers

who do have the equipment available in the wintertime and give

them some extra cash. And it maintains the roads in a usable

condition.

I don't suggest that the Minister of Highways should divert

the equipment that he presently has in any given constituency

to plough driveways because if they're ploughing driveways,

they can't maintain and open up the main highways. But I do

believe he should investigate the manner in which this problem

has been solved by a number of the service companies in the

Fort St. John area. When I say service companies, I mean those

companies servicing the oil patch, particularly. They maintain

their roads, as I understand it, at quite a reasonable cost

through an arrangement in different strategic areas with

farmers who have large tractors available and are prepared to

keep them in running order throughout the winter months.

I'd also like to bring to the attention of the Minister of

Highways the fact that the oil industry seems to be able to

maintain and build new roads for a great deal less money than

we seem to pay through the Department of Highways for the same

type of construction and the same type of work.

I realize that the standards they use are sometimes not the

standards that the Department of Highways would approve. The

right-of-way may not be wide enough, the amount of brushing and

clearing that's done may not be exactly what the Department of

Highways would approve. But I would think it would be a good

idea for the Minister of Highways and his staff to consult with

the people who are building roads other than roads under the

jurisdiction of the Department of Highways because when I

checked with them and then asked our district engineer what he

has to pay out to build a like piece of road, his cost seems to

run 25 to 30 per cent higher, if not more.

I know the oil industry make great use of the local

construction firms. I know most of that work is done on an

hourly basis. It's not contract work as a rule. They hire men

and put their own supervisory crew on and send their Cats,

equipment and dozers to build roads for them. And they seem to

have done a pretty good job, considering the fact that the

weather conditions are the same whether the Department of

[ Page 1826 ]

Highways builds the road or somebody working on a contract

for Texaco or Union Oil built the road. I do think that's an

area that bears investigation by the Department of

Highways.

I'd also like to know what happened to the highway programme

initiated by the previous government to construct the road from

Fort Nelson to Fort Simpson. After many years and a lot of

negotiations, we finally got the programme off the rails and

built that

section of highway from the Alaska Highway and

immediately north of Fort Nelson to the river, a distance of

about 35 miles, It was built under contract and supervised by

the Department of Highways. The road, as I understand, is good.

Surprisingly, the construction encountered in that area was not

nearly as tough as the Department of Highways first assumed it

would be. It made good progress as far as the river.

Then unfortunately, we ran out of funds. Since that time,

there's just been nothing available to advance that programme

beyond where it stopped last year. I know the provincial

government would like to see some federal participation,

probably through DREE or something of this nature. Let's get

back on the rails again, Mr. Minister, and continue that road

because it is important in the overall development of not only

northeastern British Columbia but that area that lies beyond

our border, right from Fort Simpson through to Inuvik.

In the next few years, regardless of whether a pipeline is

built or not, there will be a tremendous amount of interest and

commerce conducted in that particular part of the country. And

as has been mentioned by other MLAs in this House, the material

will either go through Alberta and that direction up to Fort

Simpson and then by boat or by road to the Arctic, or it will

come through British Columbia by B.C. Railway as far as Fort

Nelson, and then on to the Arctic.

I would hope that road will not be used as a political

football and now that we have a start on the construction it

will be continued on a regular basis until we get to the border

between ourselves and the Territories.

I'd like the Minister also to comment on the plans for the

Alaska Highway. At the present time, the jurisdiction and

maintenance of the Alaska Highway from Mile 0 at Dawson Creek

to Mile 83 is under the jurisdiction of the provincial

government. Beyond that point it's a federal jurisdiction and a

federal responsibility.

There are two things that trouble me concerning both the portion that the provincial

government is responsible for and the portion of road beyond Mile 83. Between

Dawson Creek and Mile 83, the federal government some years ago paid the entire

costs of paving that

section of the highway, but the pavement is beginning to

wear out. In many places we have failures now starting to show up, particularly

in the

section between Dawson Creek and Fort St. John. And discounting the hills,

which have a habit of sliding out on us, something still must be done on the

remainder of that

section particularly. Otherwise we are going to lose the benefit

of the paved highway before long.

Now, some work was done on that particular

section and there

was a sort of recapping process — not a recapping but a flush

coat — and some gravel put on top. It really didn't work out

too well. I think now is the time we must consider a programme

of recapping of that particular

section of highway in order to

maintain it anywhere near a reasonable standard.

The federal government is presently upgrading a part of the

highway and straightening out a lot of that

section of the

Alaska Highway between Mile 83 and Fort Nelson. They are

embarking upon a programme of replacing all the bridges — or

most of the bridges — and gravelling that

section of the

highway.

I would like the Minister to indicate, if he would, what the

plans are between the Department of Highways in this province

and the federal government regarding the takeover of that

section or sections of highway — whatever might be going on

between Mile 83 and Fort Nelson. Certainly you should request

and demand that the federal government pay the costs of

bringing that up to a good standard before it's taken over by

the Province of British Columbia. This has been in the mill for

some time now and I would like to know if we are closer to a

solution of that problem than we were a year ago.

I suggested to the Minister that his programme of

maintenance is a good idea but that we still need money to

upgrade and improve the main market roads in many areas of the

province, including the Peace River area.

There are a number of matters I would like to comment on

further when we get into specific votes, but I would ask the

Minister if he would comment on one specific programme that has

been in the mill now for some time, and that is the two

arterial highways that bisect the Town of Fort St. John. I know

the Minister is well aware of the programme that I am talking

about in respect to a cooperative programme between the Town

of Fort St. John and the Department of Highways for

reconstruction of those two particular roads. Will that

programme get off the ground this year and will it be called

all in one tender, so that even though the work may be spread

over more than one year, the complete tender for a complete

programme can be called all at one time? I would like the

Minister to comment on that, if he would, when he again gets to

his feet.

There are many other matters that I would like to discuss

with the Minister but I believe some of these

[ Page

1827 ]

can be taken up, Mr. Chairman, in the individual votes as we

come to them.

HON. MR. LEA: I would like to deal with some of the specific

items that have been raised by both the Member for South

Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) and North Peace River (Mr. Smith).

The Member for North Peace River asked about the access

roads — both the north and south access roads — into the Town

of Fort St. John from Alaska Highway. We have approved both of

those for this year and we have written to the city asking if

they are ready to put up their share. As you know, they are

secondary roads and if the city is willing, we are going ahead

this year on both of those roads.

The Alaska Highway. We are not dealing with the Alaska

Highway in isolation from the rest of the northern package. We

are at present negotiating with the federal government for the

upgrading of the entire northern highway system, which includes

the Alaska Highway system. We are in negotiations now and at

this point I don't think it would be opportune for me to say

what those negotiations are doing right at this moment because

they are delicate. It will be out soon and as a northern MLA

you will be one of the first to know.

MR. SMITH: Is this all part of it?

HON. MR. LEA: All part of it. The Fort Simpson–Fort Nelson

road is part of it but I can't tell you where we are on that

road. I have made abundantly clear what the provincial stand on

that road is. We are willing to put money, time, anything to

bring that road in as soon as we can get an agreement from the

federal government when they are going to reach their part of

the border.

It's ironic that you should mention that you don't want us

to use it as a political football because the federal

government sometime ago had already committed moneys to going

in to build their share of that road down to the border. They

pulled that money out again when they couldn't reach an

agreement with the former administration. I think you know

that, Mr. Member.

I have gone to see the Hon. Jean Chretien and we have come

to an agreement. He's asked me for a year to switch his

priorities back to that road. I think that because it was the

province's bungling in the first place that caused him to shift

his money out that it's only fair at this time, even though it

wasn't our administration, that we do give him a year to shift

his spending priorities back there, which he has said that he

is willing to do. I think we set a four-year target date for

that road — a year to allow the federal government to get back

in with their money….

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: We will meet that at any time that they can

get there. We've given that commitment.

Oil company roads. It's rather difficult to compare apples

and lemons. What standard do they build their roads to? Do they

build them cheaper? I would suggest that probably they use

those roads as part of their business expenses when they are

filling out their income tax.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: No? Well maybe we should use that price to

find out how much they pay for the building of those roads. I

think it's a rather nebulous area we are dealing with. I am

sure that you, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, wouldn't

want to see us building roads within the province that were not

up to the standards set for other areas of the province. So we

want to build them to standard. I think there is some

discrepancy between their standards and the standards the

Department of Highway has set for British Columbia.

Twice during my estimates I've gotten up, as the Member for

South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) has acknowledged — maybe you

weren't in the House. I didn't say we were going to discontinue

improving roads and building new roads. I said there had been a

change in emphasis — a better ratio. I feel that we have to put

a different ratio on that part that's called maintenance. I

think that especially in the North Peace River they would

welcome that. The farmers do welcome that.

In closing my remarks on the comments made by the Member for

North Peace River (Mr. Smith), he said that when I was there on

the helicopter trip, on which you accompanied me, Mr. Member….

I was glad to have you, Mr. Member.

MR. SMITH: I was only on part of it.

HON. MR. LEA: Glad to have you along. Did we go fishing, by

the way?

MR. SMITH: No.

HON. MR. LEA: Would you tell the Member for South Peace

River (Mr. Phillips) and the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan) we didn't go? Bad research. Caught a few snags.

The Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) has raised the

matter of new inland routes into the Interior. I thought it

would be raised again, so I have left it to this point in the

estimates. Yes, we have been searching out new routes. The

Coquihalla, as the Member mentioned, at this point looks like

the most favourable. No matter where you go trying to get a

route through there, you are going to run into snow

[ Page 1828 ]

and run into problems. To assume that you are going to find

a route in the Province of British Columbia to take you from

the coast to the Interior that doesn't have problems with snow

I think is fallacy. You can't do it. It will save mileage into

the Okanagan and into the Interior of British Columbia.

Again you're right. The time has come when we have to

seriously look at simply not choosing a route but beginning

construction. As I said, at this point looking over all of the

routes available to us, the Coquihalla does look to be the best

at this point. We will be making a decision soon, after we have

all the information gathered and the data analyzed.

Also, Mr. Chairman, the Member for South Okanagan asked

about the two bridges that he has concern for on Highway 33.

Both those bridges will be done this year.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, it'll be done.

You asked about the Winfield road. We can't come to an

agreement with the regional district on that but we're still

negotiating with them.

Now, the Kelowna Couplet. Again we can't come to an

agreement with the municipal council on the Kelowna Couplet. We

want the Couplet. If I did hear your view on it, I can't

recall.

The council feels that we should enlarge Harvey Avenue. It

seems to me there would be an awful lot of social dislocation

and an awful lot of expense. You did mention that probably some

of that problem would be alleviated by going to the west-side

route by a bypass route through the Okanagan.

We are currently studying the different routes that would be

available up the west side. Those studies are not completed

yet. We agree that when the studies are complete as to

routings, we have to go to work on that, although I wouldn't

want to build up too much hope that it's going to alleviate all

of the problems that are being experienced along the present

Highway 97.

Although, as I mentioned earlier, it is one of the problem

areas through the Okanagan — the Highway 97 in the province — most of that traffic, as I believe you agree with me, is

locally generated. I'm not blaming anyone; it's always nice…20/20 hindsight is nice, but we've done a lot of things in this

province that today don't look that well. If we knew then what

we know now we wouldn't do it that way in terms of access and

in terms of highway building.

So we have a problem there. Let's look at the future. We have to solve it,

and we're looking at bypass areas. I appreciate your remarks about keeping new

highways, new bypass routes, new alternative routes, clear for through traffic.

I believe it's the only way we can maintain an interior carrier system throughout

the province. I appreciate your support on that.

MRS. JORDAN: I have problems with my voice, but it's not

that bad.

I might just as well carry on with the North Okanagan, or

the Okanagan Highway, since the Minister has made reference to

it. I think he is beginning to become aware of the problems

there. He's quite right when I speak in terms of the area that

I represent, which is from within the City of Kelowna, Reid's

Comer, south of Swan Lake towards Armstrong.

I would just point out to the Minister that he'll find very

little strip development, or ribbon development, along that

area. We've kept the area from Oyama to Vernon virtually clear

of any type of development. So I just don't want him to get his

halo on too tight. There have been a lot of people concerned

and we've exhibited sound planning in that respect.

Also there's not much ribbon development along the north

area to Armstrong. The Highways department has been very

helpful in this and it hasn't always been easy — certainly for

our regional engineer who was tarred with being

anti-development and anti-everything. But he was quite right

and he certainly had the support of the MLAs.

But the problem in that. highway between Reid's Corner and

Vernon is, as the Minister says, largely internally generated.

It's not even really a matter of volume on a year-round basis

but it's the conflicts of interest that are using that highway.

You have little old ladies in tennis shoes; you have farmers;

you have young people: Sunday drivers; you have internal

trucking; you have airport transportation; and then you have

commercial transportation between the two areas.

I hope the Minister is listening…

HON. MR. LEA: Oh, yes.

MRS. JORDAN: …because I want a public hearing, and that's

what I'm leading up to.

Mr. Minister, whatever you do in the way of a bypass, it

isn't going to solve that internal problem. I recognize that

some of the people are reluctant to accept the fact that it is

largely an internal problem, and there are going to have to be

some changes made.

I have always made my position clear in the former

administration, to the former Minister and to you, Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that I recognize that not

everybody can be happy with the solution. But I do insist in

meeting the commitment that I gave to the people long before

the last election, and which my government, or our government,

was going to adhere to: that when the alternate route was sited

and there were reasonable discussions and points in favour and

against each one, these would be brought to public hearing

within this small area.

[ Page 1829 ]

Mr. Minister, I believe that that must be done. I would like

a commitment from you today — and you've had ample time to

think about it — that this will be done. This is an area that

is agriculture and some tourism. Their land is frozen. They've

had the tooth whipped out of their mouth in the extension of

the City of Kelowna, with the new boundaries.

Now the department, with all due respect, is talking about

putting a lovely Douglas Street in the middle of the community

of Winfield and, Mr. Minister, they don't want a Douglas

Street. You talk about social disruption. That whole community,

good, bad or indifferent, revolves around that main

section of

what is now the highway; everything is plugged into that

area.

There's no way that I can offer you support, Mr. Minister,

through you, Mr. Chairman, if you make an arbitrary decision. I

acknowledge that the major centres have very strong views on

this and it was a long time before they would even support our

efforts to have a representative from that area in the

discussions. But thanks to Mayor Bennett of Kelowna, this was

done and, if nothing else, at least the people are having a

feeling that they have some say and some understanding of

what's going on.

But there must be feedback. In being aware of the three

possible sites, none of them is ideal for various reasons: one,

because we're going to have to go through agricultural land,

and the other because it's going to split the heart out of the

community.

I wonder, Mr. Minister, if it really isn't possible to

consider going further up on the side of the mountain on the

east side of Winfield — I am just trying to think of my

directions, anyway, it's the first site that bypasses Winfield

on the upper side — instead of going halfway up the

mountainside. If they went right to the top, perhaps this would

lead to less disruption of the agricultural land.

There's a large area in there of relatively unused land.

It's lovely land. It's very picturesque. In recognizing that

there has to be an internal problem — which the people don't

want to accept, quite frankly, as the Minister is aware — I

just feel that the least disruptive of all the alternatives

would be if it could be moved up higher and disrupt less

orchard land.

I would fully concur that there should be absolutely no

access to that highway at all. It's strictly a high-speed

traffic area. There would, of course, have to be turn-offs,

allowing the people to get to the centre and down into Winfield — and the same at Oyama — and then develop Highway 97, as it is

now, as a scenic route.

Just on the subject, Mr. Minister, it's long been my dream that over the years

we develop the whole area along Woods Lake as a pedestrian area. We have done

some tree planting, and in spite of the fact that some of the people steal the

trees, we've maintained several.

There should be a plan drawn up. I believe this was under

discussion at the change of administration — a long-range plan.

It can involve a lot of people. It can be a memorial area if

people have relatives they want to remember who are deceased — birth dates to celebrate. Why not let them do it not by sending

flowers, but by making a contribution in the form of a tree, or

a rock, or a picnic bench, to what would eventually be a

pedestrian-cyclist picnic area along that beautiful lake? I

hope the Minister will comment on that.

Regarding the highway itself, Mr. Minister, I would like you

to look at the possibility of moving one alternative higher up

the side of the mountain, and I would like from you a

commitment of a public meeting in which all the facts can be

put before the people so that, while you may not win all around

the bush, at least they've had their chance to have their

say.

The other thing that I would just bring up in reference to

any alternate route of the coast is that the North Okanagan is

in the throes of establishing itself as a stable community, and

we hope that any Westside cut-off that takes place would give

consideration to proper access and signing to the North

Okanagan area so that we maintain our hub position as a

distribution centre in the area of commerce.

I asked this last year of the other Minister. And I

understand he's going to enter into dialogue with the native

Indian bands of British Columbia regarding commercial signs on

Indian property. We have a very stringent rule, brought into

British Columbia by the former administration, which prohibits

commercial signs on highways. It certainly is a regulation I

adhere to and which I think has much public support, but it

does put a discriminatory aspect on it, and also it defeats its

purpose in unsightliness. You're driving along a lovely scenic

highway and suddenly you're smack-bang into a reserve area and

there are highway advertising signs "Nickel Nielton Need a

Knuckle."

I think there are many things that the native people want to

involve themselves in in relation to government, and one of

your bargaining points, Mr. Minister, is that those signs come

down.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams) made the comment that the Minister should reduce

speed limits in British Columbia and I would like to oppose

this. There are very few areas in British Columbia where the

speed limit is 70 miles an hour, and certainly the Port Mann

freeway is one. There are few areas in the north…and to my

knowledge that's the only place in British Columbia.

The rest of the areas in British Columbia are 60 miles an

hour or lower, and 55 miles an hour at night. If we are

seriously concerned about saving fuel, I

[ Page 1830 ]

suggest the Minister join Mayor Art Phillips in a

concentrated effort to get the people in West Vancouver, and

other parts of Vancouver, who drive one monster to work with

one person in it, to cut down.

It is far easier for them in terms of time and energy to hop

a transit bus than it is for people who live in Prince George

or Fort St. John or the Okanagan or the Kootenays or the east

Kootenays to cut their time considerably, especially in the

months when traffic is light, as they would have to with a

five-miles-an-hour reduction. So I would urge the Minister to

use restraint in that area. I've no objection in the

summertime, when the roads are crowded.

But I've been led to believe, if I understand correctly, by

many of the safety engineers that inhibiting the speed limit is

not necessarily a safety factor. Frequently it backs up traffic

and people become impatient and they break the new speed limit,

and they also cause accidents.

The other thing I think should be said, Mr. Minister — and I

would have thought with all your outspoken statements that you

might have said it — that is, we have this schizophrenic

attitude right across Canada. We're talking about a new

lifestyle; getting the most out of life; a new approach to

life; slowing down. Where are we going in such a hurry?

But, my gosh, when it comes to taking half-an-hour more to

get to Vancouver, or 10 minutes more to get from Vernon to

Kelowna, or half-an-hour more to get from Terrace to Prince

George, then everybody gets up in arms. Surely it's time we, as

a society in British Columbia, put our efforts where our mouths are and recognize

that there are only certain times in the year when our highways

are crowded. It's a time of high accident rates, and a good

deal of those accidents are not caused by speed limits but by

impatient drivers.

We, as drivers in British Columbia, have got the attitude

that because we've had good roads and we haven't had too much

traffic, it's our God-given right to step in our car and become

demons and streak to the next community at our speed without

considering anyone else.

I don't mean to slam the people of British Columbia. I

really think that when most of us stop and think about it, if

we're serious about wanting new lifestyles and not getting our

coronaries at young ages, certainly allotting our time in terms

of transportation and where we're going is part of it. If we

want to enjoy the monetary benefits of the tourist industry,

then let's not blast them off the road just because they happen

to be doing a little sightseeing. I would hope the Minister's

term of not building new roads but maintaining roads includes a

very steady progressive programme of passing lanes, and

expanding lanes where necessary throughout the province.

We should have scenic lanes and we should have through-traffic lanes so that

visitors who come to our province, or families who are travelling on their holidays,

can enjoy what they came to see, if they are visitors, and what they should

see if they are British Columbians, and that is the scenery. They should have

the right to pull off the road and examine certain spots where they can enjoy

natural beauty.

I would also, because it comes in part under the Minister of

Highways and the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon.

Mr. Radford), suggest that I recognize the problem of tourists

and their lack of consideration, in many instances, of the

preservation of our environment when it comes to disposing of

garbage. Probably nobody's had a more sad experience than we

have in the Okanagan. But nonetheless, I hope that we wouldn't

get like the Province of Ontario where there is almost

virtually nowhere that people can pull off the road unle