1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 1974

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1873 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Drug Addiction Rehabilitation Act, 1974 (Bill 99). Mr.

Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 1873

Hospital Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 79). Hon. Mr. Cocke.

Introduction and first reading — 1873

Committee of Supply: Department of Highways estimates.

On vote 98.

Mr. McClelland — 1873

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1879

Mr. Smith — 1880

Mr. McClelland — 1880

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1881

Mr. McClelland — 1881

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1882

Mr. McClelland — 1883

Mr. Gardom — 1883

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1883

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1884

Mr. Gardom — 1884

Mr. Fraser — 1885

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1887

Mr. Fraser — 1888

Mr. McClelland — 1888

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1889

Mrs. Jordan — 1891

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1897

Mr. Lewis — 1898

Mr. McClelland — 1899

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1899

Mr. Phillips — 1899

Mr. Schroeder — 1899

Mr. Morrison — 1900

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1900

Mr. Morrison — 1901

FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 1974

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

DRUG ADDICTION

REHABILITATION ACT, 1974

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 99, Drug Addiction

Rehabilitation Act, 1974, introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

HOSPITAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Cocke presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Hospital Amendment

Act, 1974.

Bill 79 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS

(continued)

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

MR. R. H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I rise on this

vote for the first time, not having had the opportunity to

speak on the Highways estimates before. I want to take this

opportunity to mention a few things. And I can't resist the

impulse, Mr. Chairman, to respond to some of the comments made

in the House last night under this estimate — and particularly

those comments made by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King)

who wondered in the House last evening why some of the Members

on this side of the House wouldn't accept the statements of the

Minister.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it's pretty obvious why we

won't accept some of the statements of the Ministers of this

government when you consider the record of the Ministers of

this government — when you consider, Mr. Chairman...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order!

MR. McCLELLAND: ...that the Minister of Agriculture has been accused

of lying by the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis)....

Interjections.

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

seated?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: When the Chair wishes to make a point, it's

requested that the Hon. Member...Order! Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald) withdraw the imputation that the Hon.

Member for Langley lied?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Attorney-General

stand in his place and withdraw the remark?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now the point to the Hon. Member for Langley

is that when the Chair is seeking to make a point, it is

necessary that the Hon. Member be silent.

I would ask the Hon. Member for Langley, when he is

discussing these estimates, to keep his remarks strictly

relevant to this Minister and not bring in the actions or the

other comments about other Ministers of this House, but rather

stay strictly to this Minister. Would the Hon. Member

continue?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I seek only to respond to

comments that were made in these estimates last evening by

other Members of this House, You allowed them complete latitude

in speaking about things far beyond the estimates of the

Highways Minister.

I just suggest that there are very good reasons why we won't

accept baldly the statements made by the Minister of Highways.

Those reasons are based on the record of some of the other

Ministers of this government and some of the other Members of

this government.

We can't accept those statements without some kind of

back-up proof with them. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. King) last evening talked at length about things that

the former government had done, and used those examples to

attempt to destroy the credibility of the opposition.

[ Page 1874 ]

I just wish to read briefly, Mr. Chairman, from a Supreme

Court case in which Justice Anderson said,

"The sad part of this case is that the true facts were not

printed for the purpose of showing, for example, that Dowding

was willing to unfairly attack others by means of innuendo and insinuation, and that Williams was simply not telling

the truth."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: Now, Mr. Chairman, that's why we can't

accept those statements of those Ministers on that side of the

House. That's why.

AN HON. MEMBER: A supreme court judge.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is deliberately

flouting the rules of the House.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order. I called him to order

previously.... Order, please! I called the Hon. Member for

Langley to order on the very point which he then raised. That

was that he was not to read into the record or to make comments

on the conduct of other Ministers when he's considering the

estimates of the Minister of Highways. Direct your comments to

this Minister's estimates under vote 98.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will accept your

ruling, and I would expect that you'll make the same ruling for

other Members of this House from now on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member is allowed to rise on a point

of order at any time if he feels that the rules are not being

followed.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I just made that comment that I hope

you will treat everyone in this House the same.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak for a moment about

subdivision approvals. The Minister of Highways has suggested

at other points in this debate that subdivision approvals are

just a sort of an adjunct to his department, that they aren't

very important.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that they take up far too much time

in his department. His department at times becomes a zoning

department, and some of the members of his department are

almost zoning tsars in British Columbia.

I notice in the report from the Highways department that in 1973 the Highways

approving office dealt with almost 19,000 subdivision questions. It's hardly

an insignificant part of the duties of the Highways department. I would suggest,

too, that on many occasions the Minister of Highways is getting bad advice about

these subdivision approvals from someone.

I would suggest as well, Mr. Chairman, that he must begin to

get more local input into these subdivision approvals, because

it's obvious that no one takes into consideration what is

actually happening at the local level when they're considering

the subdivision approvals.

I can recall a couple of occasions in the city of Langley

for instance where a building on the Fraser Highway was

substantially complete and the tenants were about to move in

when they got an order from the Highways department that that

rezoning couldn't take place because it didn't meet with the

Highways department criteria. That was after the building was

almost ready to be moved into.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Why were they building

before it was zoned?

MR. McCLELLAND: They had all the approvals from the city of

Langley. They went ahead on the basis that they had all the

necessary approvals they needed from the local government, whom

they trusted, you see. They trusted the local government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, what's wrong now, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Minister of Highways not

to interrupt.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, it's his fault, is it?

These people had all the legislation they felt was necessary

and the city of Langley told them they were allowed to go

ahead. In fact, they hadn't had any objections from the

Highways department. But the Highways department woke up one

morning, found they didn't understand what was going on and

wanted to put a halt to this zoning. That was after several

months; in fact, almost a year later. The building was

substantially completed.

I think there was another case in 100 Mile House where a

building was ready to be moved into and the Highways department

all of a sudden woke up and said, "Oh, we can't give you the

necessary approvals to start building."

I'm suggesting that those people in that department who are

charged with subdivision approvals don't know what's happening

at the local level. That's why we have so much difficulty in

this province with subdivision approvals which are

[ Page 1875 ]

directly controlled by the Highways department. The Minister

last night suggested perhaps he wouldn't mind having that kind

of thing removed from his department, and I say Amen to that.

Let's get it out of that department as quickly as possible.

I recall another occasion where a person in Delta had

applied for a highways access to a golf course. The reply came

back from the Highways department that, no, they couldn't have

that highway access but you can use this so-and-so road to get

into the golf course. When we went down and looked at it,

climbed in a car and attempted to get anywhere near that place,

we couldn't even find that road. There was no such road; it had

no beginning, it had no end, and it had no middle. It took us

five miles to get into the golf course after we had driven by

it from a major British Columbia highway. The Highways

department didn't even know that road didn't exist.

What I'm trying to say is that there isn't any local

knowledge in the Highways department office, and they're making

bad decisions based on bad advice. It's not good enough because

they're holding up important developments in this province and

they're also creating serious problems especially with regard

to accesses and local development because of that bad

advice.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: I wonder if the Public Works Minister (Hon.

Mr. Hartley) could fix that noise down there. Chirp, chirp.

Would you call that whatever-it-is to order, Mr. Chairman; I'm

having difficulty concentrating.

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

Member standing order 17(2) which says: "When a Member is

speaking, no Member shall pass between him and the Chair nor

interrupt him except to raise a point of order." I would ask

the Hon. Members not to interrupt the person who has the

floor.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In response to the Minister's comments that there should

never be any development along arterial highways, it doesn't

really matter if you take development and move it inside of a

town centre or wherever it's being suggested to be moved. The

highway is going to be used anyway, and probably just as

heavily regardless of where you place that development.

I agree that there shouldn't be major shopping centre developments and major

hotels along the connectors which are meant to move people inter-region ally.

But, nevertheless, there can be some kinds of development which are compatible

with those highways and which don't create any more use than they would if that

development was put somewhere else. I say it's a bit of a cop-out just to say,

"Well, because we haven't handled it correctly in the past we won't allow any

development of any kind."

Rather than just standing still and halting everything, we

should get some planning going, decide what kind of uses can be

compatible with those inter-regional highways, and use them to

their best advantage. Don't just say we won't do anything. Of

course, the only way you won't make any mistakes is if you

never do anything, but you don't get anything done either.

Let's get some planning going and find some uses that are

compatible with those inter-regional highways. It isn't

necessary that nothing go on in those areas.

The Minister's comments about tourism leave me somewhat

aghast. I don't understand why he would make those kind of

comments considering that we live in a province which bases its

livelihood to a large degree on a pollution-free industry like

tourism.

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

Member that the subject of the Minister's comments on tourism

has been canvassed at length and virtually every point has been

made. But if the Hon. Member has a new point to make, we would

be glad to entertain it.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, you're very itchy this

morning. I intend to make a couple of new points and I haven't

canvassed this subject at all. I want to comment that the

Minister is in danger of jeopardizing a very important industry

to British Columbia. His comments in the paper the other

morning of tourists not contributing anything to this economy,

of them bringing their own gas has.... For crying out loud,

this conjures up some kind of picture of a camper rolling down

the road with 45-gallon drums of gasoline strapped to the top

of the roof of the camper. It's incredible!

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

Member, when I made the cautionary riding that this subject had

been canvassed at length, under standing order 43, the point is

made that speeches tend to become tediously repetitious when

the arguments that have been used previously by the same person

or by other persons in a debate are repeated. I'm just

cautioning the Member to try to introduce new points rather

than repeating arguments that have already been made.

MR. McCLELLAND: Would you point out to me in Hansard

where anyone mentioned the comments made by the Minister about

bringing their own gasoline into the province? I'd appreciate

that so I don't go over that point again. I don't think it's

been

[ Page 1876 ]

mentioned, Mr. Chairman; it's a new point. I don't think you

can find it in Hansard or anywhere else. If you'll allow

me to continue, we'll get through this much more quickly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member may continue if he's speaking

on a new point.

MR. McCLELLAND: The comment made about the campers and

tourists bringing in their own gasoline is just incredible

because they don't bring in their own gasoline and they don't

bring in large supplies of food, moose meat strapped on top of

the camper, picnic lunches which will last for seven months.

It's just incredible, Mr. Chairman. Those people come into our

province because they love our province as we do; they want to

visit us because we've said to them in ads in newspapers all

over the country, come and see us. The travel Minister (Hon.

Mr. Hall) says come and see us. We want them to come and see

us. They spend their money in this country; they leave their

money here. They're good citizens; they're good neighbours;

they're good visitors. They don't litter the countryside.

They're just fine people whom we like to see in this country

and we want them to come. I hope every Member in this House

except the Highways Minister will stand up and say that

visitors to Canada and British Columbia are most welcome.

If we follow the example laid down by the Highways Minister,

I can tell you that half of the roadside gasoline stations,

cafes and motels would be out of business in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That particular point has been

raised by other Members.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister also made the comment in one of

his press releases not too long ago that we mustn't allow

uninhibited tourism. That's a strange statement. That's the

kindest I can be. The Minister may look like a fuzzy bear, but

he's acting like an ostrich. You've got to get your head out of

the ground. We want tourists in this province; we expect we'll

get them. We want to plan — "plan" is the operative word — so

that we can look after them like good hosts, as you've pointed

out.

One of the greatest opportunities for Canadians came when the Rogers Pass Highway

was originally opened because it allowed Canadians from all parts of this country

to come and visit with us in British Columbia. It allowed us to go and visit

with other parts of Canada on a more easy basis than we had ever known before.

Because of the ruggedness of the travel opportunities in the past, we didn't

see many visitors in British Columbia from Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Ontario.

Lots from Alberta, I suppose, because it was much closer. But we didn't really

see as many licence plates on the vehicles from other parts of Canada as we

did from the United States before the Rogers Pass was opened.

But following that we began to see that Canadians were

taking advantage of their country and intermingling between the

provinces and it was because of the opening of that highway.

That invitation was sent out to other Canadians to come and

visit British Columbia — whether they come by car or by camper

or by car and trailer or by bicycle or whatever. But we

certainly don't want to be put into the position today, Mr.

Chairman, of saying to those other Canadians: "Well, it's been

fun, folks, but don't come back."

I don't want to see British Columbia get into that kind of

position.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister commented, I think, in response

to the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan)...and this is

just a bit of an aside about road reports. I wanted to comment

that the Highways department, at least on the lower mainland — and that is the only area with which I am familiar — should be

commended for the manner in which they are handling road

reports today, because I know that the lower mainland radio

stations have complete access to taped road reports every

morning, and it's very helpful.

I can remember, as the Minister pointed out in the House, I

think yesterday, that there was a time when a radio newsroom

just simply couldn't get any information from the Highways

department about road conditions. But today that's not true,

and it hasn't been for a couple of years, I think.

Now people who are travelling from the lower mainland to

upcountry can simply turn on their radio at a given time or

pick up the phone and phone a number and they can find out what

the conditions are — pretty well up to date — all over the

province. I think that's an excellent addition to the services

provided by the Highways department.

I wonder if the Minister might comment, Mr. Chairman, on

what the department is doing, if anything, with its limited

resources, its limited funds and its limited responsibility — since a lot of things seem to have been taken out of the

Highways department jurisdiction — about research into new

highway materials, new highway building materials.

It seems to me that in this country we've not changed our

methods in decades. We're still using exactly the same material

on our highways. You hear and read about discoveries which are

made in other parts of the world with regard to new materials

for making highways both easier to drive on and safer to drive

on. I just wonder what we are doing in that regard.

I know, too, Mr. Chairman, that there are people locally in

British Columbia who hold patents on new methods of highway

construction — new materials for

[ Page

1877 ]

highway construction. I wonder whether or not the Highways

department actively seeks these people out to come and talk

with them about new ideas because, obviously, there can be

better ways. There can be surfaces which are.... You know, we

talk about safety belts and the use of safety belts, Mr.

Chairman. Why not the use of perhaps better materials on the

roads to make sure they are as safe as possible? What is the

Highways department doing about that?

The other thing that the Minister mentioned was: "Let's all

buy Datsuns so we can save gasoline." Why talk about that kind

of method of moving a person from one kind of a car to

another?

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

Member that this subject has been canvassed several times;

therefore, I would ask him again, if he has a new point, to

raise it. Otherwise, move to another subject.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, be fair. Allow me to continue

until I make my new point and if I don't make it, then call me

to order.

Well, the Chairman is so touchy this morning. I don't

know what's wrong because I am going to make a new point. You

know, by listening to me in this House over the years, that I

wouldn't be repetitious or repeat subjects which have been well

canvassed. You know that, Mr. Chairman, and you should trust

me. (Laughter.)

The thing the Minister should be doing, rather than trying

to move people from one type of car to another type of car, is

to convince people to stay out of their cars.

You know, we talk about the third crossing of Burrard Inlet;

we complain about how those two crossings are jammed up. Yet if

we parked our car down in front of that bridge at 8 o'clock in

the morning or at 8:30, we would see, coming across that

bridge, daddy in his car heading to work; momma in her car

heading to shopping; junior in his car heading to university — three and four cars, Mr. Chairman, out of each family coining

across the bridge with one person in them.

What we've got to convince people to do is to double up. If

they want to use their car, if they must use their car, well,

why take all of those cars across the bridge? It isn't a matter

of using a smaller car; it's a matter of better utilization of

the vehicles. If we trade in 10 Chevrolets for 10 or 15 Datsuns — and we will need 15 because the large families can't use the

smaller cars — then where have we saved anything? We haven't

saved anything. We've compounded the problem, that's all we've

done.

So what we need to do is to start some kind of a programme.

Why don't we be the first in North America to really start a

programme which will attempt to discourage people from using

their car's? We'd go down in history as a bold and imaginative

government, That's part of the responsibilities of the Highways

department.

So to get them to utilize their vehicles better, you don't

tell them to buy Datsuns. You get them to utilize the vehicles

on a better basis. And we'll make even the car dealers richer,

Mr. Chairman, because people will use their vehicles in a

better manner.

I want to mention just briefly the level crossings on

Highway 401. I kind of get the idea that Highway 401 is a

schizophrenic road. It doesn't know what it is. It doesn't know

whether it's a freeway or a local access road. If it were

really a freeway, it wouldn't have any level crossings. If it

didn't have any level crossings, we'd be saving a lot of lives,

Mr. Chairman. I hope you won't rule me out of order for talking

about the lives of our automobile passengers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I was just going to make the point

again that this matter has been canvassed by at least two other

Members.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, it has been mentioned once in

this debate. It happens to be of great concern to my

constituency as well, because my people travel down that 401 to

Chilliwack and farther, and they want to be sure that that road

is maintained in as safe a manner as possible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would assume that the Hon.

Member has read the answers of the Minister of Highways on the

questions that were put previously; so I assume he is making a

new point.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I am just expanding on the

point that we need action as quickly as possible to make sure

that level crossings are eliminated from freeways.

There are also a number of roads in the lower mainland which

should be reclassified.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I don't know whether you call it down

or up. Which way? — sideways, maybe. The point is that we need

extra arterial highways which will help to ease many of the

traffic problems which are now existent in the lower

mainland.

There are some excellent roads already existing. I can think

of 16th Avenue in Langley, for instance, which almost traverses

the entire lower mainland from White Rock east. That road is

already there. There are north-south roads which are already

there, and in pretty fair shape, which the Highways department

could easily reclassify and develop into major inter-regional

roads, It's necessary for us to establish some new

[ Page 1878 ]

inter-regional roads pretty quickly before we strangle in

our own automobile traffic on the lower mainland. I realize,

too, that that isn't possible without some pretty significant

development of local traffic corridors and collectors and

connectors. I realize as well that the local authorities on

some occasions are falling down in that respect.

The Minister has also said that his department will be

available to help out with that local planning. Perhaps I could

ask him now, Mr. Chairman, if he would be willing to give us a

commitment that he would come out to Langley with me as soon as

the session is over and sit down and have a look at the road

system in Langley and know....

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: In a helicopter? Is that what you said? Yes.

Well, I don't know — sometime. Mid-June? — that's fine.

But I would like to get the Minister to come out with me and

I will talk to him privately about it. It is necessary that we

get the input from the Highways department to help those local

communities to do the kind of planning which will fit in later,

Mr. Chairman, with new inter-regional roads, because there

isn't any sense in planning in separation from each other. It

must be a coordinated effort. The other thing that it would do, of course, is that if

those officials from the Highways department get down into our

community — by car, I hope, or bus — they'll understand more

completely what's happening on the ground in areas like Langley

so they don't make those bad subdivision decisions; so they

don't make those bad planning decisions; so they don't make

those bad decisions about traffic lights and other matters

which are directly related to the Highways department.

It's important, Mr. Chairman, that the local communities get

the help, the encouragement and the active involvement of the

Highways department, not in their office in Victoria, but on

the road down in the communities.

I could never understand the former government's attitude to

bridges on the Fraser River. I could never figure out why we

started with a bridge at the far end of the river and worked

down, while the population was working that way. We started the

population work from Vancouver East, but the bridges worked

from Hope west. I could never understand that kind of thinking,

and I don't understand it to this day. Nevertheless, it's

there. The bridges are there and they're not serving the

population.

Even the new Mission Bridge isn't really where it should be; it should be down

in Langley, at Fort Langley-Albion, because that's where the people are. What's

the point of putting bridges in where there are no people? There are no people

in the Mission area; the people are in Langley and in Haney and in Surrey. They're

coming by droves into that area.

The Minister knows very well that in Langley we had a 15 per

cent population increase last year — 15 per cent in Langley

last year. I've mentioned in the House before that of the total

school population increase in British Columbia last year, 35

per cent was in Langley School District. The people are in

Langley and they're not being served by the Highways

department.

I expect that we wouldn't be able to convince the Highways

department to build another bridge over the Fraser at Fort

Langley right now. I hope they'll consider it for the future,

but they could help a great deal by establishing a new bridge

at Annacis Island — a crossing there. I was looking through the

Highways department reports and I found an item for a survey of

something like $684. I forget the exact figure, but I don't

know what kind of a survey could be done for $684. I'd

appreciate it if the Minister would enlighten us about....

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, maybe it is a survey to see whether a

survey is necessary to find out if there should be a bridge

over there.

I know that we'd be vitally interested in finding out

exactly what the Highways department plans are in relation to a

crossing at Annacis Island. I know the municipality of Delta

would sure like to know what's going on and whether or not the

Highways department is going to consult the municipality of

Delta in any of its plans for a new crossing, rather than going

off on its own like the Municipal Affairs Minister (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer) does, and making his own plans without ever consulting

with anybody else. We'd like to know what's happening

there.

I'd like to talk about the other crossing at Fort Langley

during the estimates later on in the vote, but I just wanted to

say that there doesn't seem to be much sense, or hasn't been

much sense, to the planning of crossings of the Fraser River in

the past. With that I'm admitting that there were some mistakes

made in the past. You don't have to bring that up to me, Mr.

Chairman, through you to the Minister, because we know very

well that the planning wasn't as good as it should have been

with regard to those crossings.

The only other thing that I want to speak about before we

get into the other estimates has to do with roadside

development and landscaping. I brought up a problem — I guess

you could call it a problem — sometime ago to the Highways

department before this Minister took office about a little

service that the Highways department could have rendered to

people who are using commuter buses. Those people are taking

cars off the roads and they're happy to use

[ Page 1879 ]

those commuter buses because the commuter buses are probably

the most economical and judicial use of the province's highways

that anybody has so far come up with.

Their use is expanding. The people who have established

these commuter services have taken the lead away from the

government. Because the government refused to act, they said:

"Okay, we'll do it on our own." They have, in communities all

over the lower mainland, established these commuter services

from as far away as Chilliwack now. People going to work in

Vancouver every day from Chilliwack are using commuter buses.

They're making wide use of our highways and they're very happy

with the service that they're getting.

I wonder, too, sometimes whether or not they might be better

off using those buses rather than turning their commuter

services over to the provincial government, because once they

do that they probably won't get the same kind of service that

they get under their own management. Nevertheless, they are

doing it, and they're happy with it.

There are a couple of little things that they'd like to see

done. I mentioned this a long time ago, and I don't believe

it's been done yet. It has to do with developing steps up the

side of the embankments at the overpasses on the 401 freeway so

that those people, as they get out of their commuter buses,

don't have to scramble up the side of the banks in snow and bad

weather, but will have an area whereby they can walk up. Old

ladies, old gentlemen, people who are infirm in one way or

another who use those buses have very great difficulty getting

off the highway up to wherever their cars might be parked.

There are only a few areas where it would, be necessary — at

the major overpasses from Surrey to Chilliwack, perhaps.

It could be an excellent opportunity to use some of that $25

million that the Labour Minister (Hon. Mr. King) is making

available for summer employment for youth. Let's put them to

work doing that kind of thing. You'd probably only make a very

few people happy, but you might start getting hikers using

those entrances or exits, and you might encourage all kinds of

things. You'll make a few people happy and I think they'd be

forever grateful to you.

The other thing with regard to roadside development and

landscaping has to do again with the 401 freeway. Some years

ago a former Member of this House who is now deceased, Harold

Merilees, came up with an idea to plant daffodils and evergreen

trees along the median of the 401 freeway just to generally

beautify that area. I realize that that programme ran into some

difficulty because of vandals, more than anything, and people

who couldn't resist the opportunity to come and dig up those

daffodils and trees which had been planted.

Nevertheless, a lot of them are still left there. In the

spring of the year it's a beautiful sight to drive down the 401

highway and see those daffodils in bloom. It's truly a

beautiful sight.

I'd like to see this government expand on that programme

with perhaps flowering shrubs, other kinds of flowers — annuals, perhaps — and really beautify the medians of our

highways so that we don't have to go through that endless,

boring drive which also causes accidents, because there's

nothing more dangerous than that kind of highway hypnosis that

falls on people because they have nothing to break the monotony

of their drive. Freeways lend themselves to that highway

hypnosis far more than other kinds of arterial roads because of

their nature. So I think that the Highways Minister would also

make himself very popular with the people of British Columbia

and our tourists if he would expand on the programme to

beautify the highways of this province.

It might not even be a bad idea if the Highways Minister

considered naming a portion of the 401 freeway Merilees Way or

something like that in honour of a Member who served well in

this House and has since passed away, but who left something

for the people of British Columbia with his idea which he had

to advance almost totally by himself, not really in opposition

to anyone, but certainly he had to advance it because there was

no recognition for the idea. Everybody thought it was a kooky

idea, but they don't think so today when they drive down that

401 freeway and see those daffodils in bloom in the

springtime.

So perhaps the Minister would show his appreciation by maybe

making the suggestion to cabinet that a portion of that road be

renamed Merilees Way, and also remember that Member even in a

more substantial way by expanding and using some of that $25

million that the Labour Minister has for the summer employment

of students to get out in our highways and not just stand

around and direct traffic, but plant living, growing things on

our highways. You'll be remembered forever, Mr. Minister of

Highways, and the people of British Columbia will thank you for

it.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask leave of the

House so that we could go over to the Empress Hotel and carry

on this debate with the rest of the Liberal Members.

(Laughter.) I notice the leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) is in the

House now, but I suppose the other Members are still snoozing

away doing the people's business. I don't imagine that'll be

reported to the press, though.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't imagine you're in order, either.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, I think I am, Mr. Member.

[ Page 1880 ]

I'm talking about the business of this House.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Is the Premier up in

Sydney yet?

HON. MR. LEA: Oh, you can rest assured he's up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Minister

to discuss his estimates.

HON. MR. LEA: There were a number of good points raised by

the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) and a number of points

that, of course, I probably take a little exception to.

I would like to begin with, the last point that he raised

about naming a highway after the late MLA, Harold Merilees.

I'll take that under consideration. I think it's a good

suggestion.

I think he made a worthwhile contribution to this province.

This government will not only name highways or any other thing

after only members of this party, but for people who have

contributed to the province — whether they be in this House, or

outside the House — no matter what party they are in. But we

will probably do that after the Member or after the citizen has

passed on, and we will do it for someone else rather than do it

for ourselves while we are still alive.

Now you raised a point about subdivisions and whether or not

the civil servants within this province over the years have

been doing a worthwhile and a competent job in regard to the

administration of subdivisions under my jurisdiction. I believe

that those civil servants over the years have done a good job

against odds that were almost insurmountable to deal with.

It is difficult enough to do that kind of job under rules

that are set down and policies that are set down and are

adhered to by a Minister. But if a Minister doesn't adhere to

those rules or by those policies, indeed it must be a difficult

job. I take my hat off to the civil servants for the job they

have done over the years. I must say, though, that during this

session of the Legislature there has been, in my opinion, a

constant attack on the civil servants in this province by the

opposition.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): What about Dr. Foulkes?

HON. MR. LEA: Dr. Foulkes is not a civil servant.

Now I'm saying that there has been a constant attack — and I think that it

is almost in petulance, Mr. Chairman — by the official opposition. It seems

to me that there is petulance because those civil servants in this province

are working for the people of this province; they don't work for any one party.

And because they are working for this party now, because we are in government,

it seems to bother the official opposition.

Civil servants work for the people of the province and not

for any particular party. I don't see why that should bother

the official opposition.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member state his

point of order?

MR, SMITH: The point of order is this: the Hon. Minister is

maligning the opposition in imputing motives to the opposition

that are entirely improper. No one on this side of the House in

the official opposition has suggested that we are unhappy with

the civil servants of this province. We have not in any way

impugned the civil service, and I think that the Minister

should withdraw that suggestion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On a point of order, I would

request that the Hon. Minister would clarify....

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): We're unhappy about that

whole bunch over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister

to clarify his remarks so that there is no suggestion of an

imputation of improper motives on the part of the opposition

Members.

HON. MR. LEA: I didn't say that there were improper motives;

I said that there had been constant criticism of the civil

service by the official opposition all through this

session.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Langley on a point of

order.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, that's not good enough from

that Minister. He must withdraw the imputation that we have

been criticizing the civil servants. We have been criticizing

the administration of the department which rests in the hands

of the Minister. That has nothing to do with the civil

servants, who, we agree, have done tremendous jobs in this

province — sometimes under impossible odds.

We expect to be able to continue to do that unless that

Minister politicizes the civil service, as is suggested by so

many socialist reports which we have had before this House. I

suggest that the Minister must withdraw these imputations.

[ Page 1881 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, I would request again

that the Hon. Minister accept the fact that Hon. Members, when

they are criticizing a department, are in fact, criticizing the

administration. Therefore, if there is any imputation in that

that they are not criticizing his administration, but rather

criticizing individual civil servants, I think that he should

withdraw the remark.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that when

you criticize a special position, like the senior approving

officer has been criticized, you are not just criticizing the

administration. I think they are doing a good job.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think that all Members on

both sides of the House accept that all civil servants are

doing a good job. I think the main point is that there isn't

any feeling on either side that the opposition Members are

doing anything except criticizing the administration of the

Minister's office and of his department.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Chairman...

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask him to withdraw any imputation of

criticism of those civil servants.

HON. MR. LEA: ...I just feel that it is the obligation of

Ministers of the Crown to defend the civil servants.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Right on. Why don't you

do that?

MR. McCLELLAND: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would simply ask the Hon. Minister to

withdraw any imputation that might have been contained in his

remarks that the opposition Members were attacking civil

servants.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I can't withdraw what I didn't

say.

MR. McCLELLAND: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Langley on a point of

order.

MR. McCLELLAND: I won't accept anything less than a

withdrawal from that Minister. It isn't up to the Minister to

defend the civil servants; it is up to the Minister to defend

his administration of his department if there is any defence to

be done, and that is as far as it should go. Mr. Chairman, the

Minister must withdraw if we are to get on with business of

this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I'm simply asking the Minister to make

the statement to the committee that if there was any suggestion

in his remarks imputing improper motives to the opposition, in

that they were criticizing civil servants directly and not his

administration, he should withdraw that remark.

HON. MR. LEA: Oh, there wasn't Mr. Chairman.

MR. McCLELLAND: There was.

HON. MR. LEA: There wasn't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, that Minister stood in his

place and said that the opposition was continually criticizing

the civil service. I demand that he withdraw that

statement.

HON. MR. LEA: Getting on to some of the other remarks that

were made by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), Mr.

Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Minister be seated for a

moment?

To the Hon. Minister, on the point of order that has been

made, I think that the main point is a clarification to the

opposition. It's not necessarily the fact that you were saying

that you didn't or did do something. I would ask the Hon.

Minister if, in his next remarks, he would simply clarify the

fact that he accepts the fact that the opposition were not

acting improperly in what they were doing — that they were

criticizing his administration. That's all I'm asking.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Chairman, I surely will make that

point clearly. I'm sure that they didn't mean to criticize the

civil service. It may have appeared that way to me, that's all.

So, if there's been any misunderstanding, I hope that it is

cleared up now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Minister continue?

HON. MR. LEA: Now, subdivisions...where did we leave

off?

MRS. JORDAN: You're all mixed up.

HON. MR. LEA: Okay, we were talking about subdivisions. You

know, this is the very point I made last night in this House:

that some municipalities, some regional districts, will go

ahead and allow a building to be built when the zoning has not

been

[ Page 1882 ]

changed to allow that. Then, after the building has been

built, they do come to the Highways department and ask for

access to the highway.

That's exactly the kind of thing that we should try to avoid — not only the Department of Highways but the municipalities

involved. As I mentioned last night, I have sent letters out to

all municipalities and to all regional districts just to remind

them — possibly there are new people on those regional

districts or municipalities — so they will know that there is

the proper procedure to follow.

There's one other point that I really would like to clear

up, because I do think that the Member for Langley did leave

the flavour in the House that I had made statements about

people from other provinces travelling to this province as

visitors and as tourists. At no time did I ever mention that

other Canadians should be prohibited in any way from travelling

into the Province of British Columbia. I would just like to get

that on the record.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'd ask Hon. Members not to

speak from their seats.

HON. MR. LEA: She always does!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Minister continue, please?

HON. MR. LEA: Now the Member did bring up also the

reclassification of some municipal roads. I think that's a good

point. But I would be more susceptible to the requests from

municipalities to reclassify roads if I could get together with

those municipalities and decide that there was going to be no

access to those roads once they are arterial highways and into

a regional carrier.

The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) pointed out the 401

and made a good point, I think. He wants it to be saved for

people to travel on. I suggest that the more access allowed to

high-speed, inter-regional carriers, the more chance there is

for accidents. I think that's a known fact.

You can't have it both ways, Mr. Chairman. You have to have

limited and very limited access to that inter-regional carrier:

only feeder streets coming in and not every Tom, Dick and Harry

having an access to the highway.

So I would be susceptible to the request as long as I could

get some sort of guarantee back that the municipality from

there on would not pressure me or my department to allow access

to those arterial highways. I think we would be willing to pick

up a bigger share of the cost tinder those tenders.

Oh, one other thing on subdivisions and requests for access to highways: it

has been mentioned that there's been a lot of trouble getting approval for subdivisions

and for access to highways. Well, the facts don't bear that statement out, Mr.

Member. Before the Agricultural Land Development Act passed, the actual final

disapprovals were less than 2 per cent, and the initial approvals — that's the

first time that someone applies — were 50 per cent, and in the final analysis

the approvals were 98 per cent. I don't really call that being difficult with

regional districts and municipalities and the general public. I think that that's

a good and a fine record of the senior approving officer and his staff.

The people who work in my department in regard to approvals

have to follow the Acts of this House. After the

Agricultural Land Development Act was passed in this

House, the disapprovals have amounted to 35 per cent, but we

are bound by the Act of this House, and it's a good Act, I

suggest. So I'd just like to have those facts on record that

there hasn't been haphazard dealings with the public; we've

acted within the department in a responsible way.

New materials for highways. The Member suggested that there

haven't been new materials used for highways in decades. My

memory goes back one or two decades and it seems to me I recall

mostly dirt roads in this province. Now we're using

pavement.

At the same time I'd like to point out to the Member that

we're constantly doing research. I'd like to add, too, that

it's no halo to me, but this department has over the years been

a forerunner within Departments of Highways throughout North

America in research. I'd also like to say that the department

are members of the Roads and Transportation Association, which

does a lot of fine work into research. Not only do we get a lot

of good ideas and a lot of good suggestions, but we do make

those suggestions to them, too. Also the department is a member

of the Highway Research Board of the United States of America.

New methods and new material are constantly under research by

the Department of Highways. I don't think that anyone in the

province could say that from a technical point of view the Department of Highways in British Columbia, in terms of the

actual building of roads, can take second seat to any

Department of Highways within this country or within North

America.

The Member also mentioned getting more people out of their

cars. I think we should. He mentioned one family with the

father travelling across the bridge into town, the mother

coming along in another car and another person in that family

possibly heading off to university in another car. I certainly

agree that that is one of the areas in which we should be

going, but it is only one. It's a good suggestion. As a matter

of fact, some of the people that are in the traffic area of the

department suggested to me that if we could get two people in

every car within the greater urban area of Vancouver, we would

literally solve most of

[ Page 1883 ]

our traffic problems for possibly the next five to 10 years.

That's really something to think about. If we can get two

people in every car, then we'd have a lot of our problems

licked for some time and it would give us some breathing space

to address ourselves to the great transportation problems that

we have to face within this province at the present time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lions Gate Bridge?

HON. MR. LEA: Lions Gate Bridge and the Second Narrows

Bridge will probably pack all the traffic that we could put in

there for the next five years at least, and we'd have a

breathing space to look at third crossings and to give the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) a chance to

assess more thoroughly what he has to do. He's been given an

impossible task to solve a situation which was allowed to

deteriorate over the years. I think he's doing a commendable

job in that respect, but it's a very difficult job. I

appreciate the suggestion.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: It's the same all over the world, although I

think possibly we've been a little slower in this province to

address ourselves to the situation. I do think that many of the

suggestions made by the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland) were good suggestions.

MR. McCLELLAND: On the point of research, I appreciate the

Minister's comments about research, but instead of giving us

these dull, dry Highways reports, why don't you tell the people

of B.C. about what research is going on from time to time? We

can then go and expand on it to other people. Let's hear about

the research that's going on, because I wasn't aware that there

was any. I'm glad to hear there is, but it would be nice to

know about it. That's the point I was making.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman,

yesterday I received pretty intemperate treatment both from the

Minister and, with all respect, from the Chair when I was

attempting to discuss safe driving in the Province of British

Columbia. It was the position taken by the Minister that it did

not come under his jurisdiction and that I was out of order,

and it was also the position taken by you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! There were two points in which it was

ruled out of order. One was that it is not under his

jurisdiction; the other point was that it was a matter of

legislation and therefore out of order in estimates.

MR. GARDOM: No, I asked him what his programmes were and I

wasn't referring to specific legislation. I did mention an

amendment to the Act and asked him whether or not he would

support it. You ruled that question out of order. But I can

certainly ask him what his programmes are.

Mr. Chairman, this, I'm sure, will be of considerable

interest to you, just to show how germane my remarks were and

how wrong your ruling was, and how wrong the Minister of

Highways was when he attempted to stifle debate. I find,

mirabile dictu, Mr. Chairman, 11 pages in his report dealing

with the cause of fatal accidents and safe driving. I'd like to

read to you some of the very interesting information from the

report of the Minister of Highways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The fact that these statistics

are contained in the Minister's report does not necessarily

make them relevant to these estimates.

MR. GARDOM: If they are not relevant to the Minister's

estimates, they're certainly not going to come in in the report

of any other Minister of this House. We have 11 pages here

under the heading of the Minister of Highways. Are you

suggesting to me that I cannot refer to these documents? If I

can't refer to them, Mr. Chairman, he's got to delete them from

his report; it's as simple as that.

It says here: "For the ninth consecutive year...." We

seem to have nine years of precedent which you're ignoring, Mr.

Chairman, because for the ninth consecutive year, referring to

the Department of Highways, "the department continued to

analyse reports of these fatal accidents...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The point, Hon. Member, is that it's a

matter of appropriateness for the right time to consider

something. If statistics are contained within this report, it's

appropriate to refer to them when you're considering the

Minister's estimates before us. However, if some of the

statistics are more relevant to another Minister's estimates,

then it would be appropriate to bring those statistics up at

that time. However, they can be referred to incidentally,

providing you're dealing with this Minister's estimates.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On a point of order, which

perhaps can settle this argument once and for all, the fact is

that public moneys voted last year to the Department of

Highways have been used to compile statistics and used to print

documents. We assume from the Minister's estimates that this

year public moneys voted under the Department of Highways

estimates will also be used to do precisely the same thing. So

I would think that the statistics of

[ Page 1884 ]

last year are very germane because they involve public funds

expended upon the estimates of the Department of Highways last

year, and also being expended under the Department of Highways

estimates for this year.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): On a

point of order, I would draw to the attention of Members of the House that there

are a number of other votes where this matter is referred to directly. Vote

239, $600,000 "highway safety and promotion," happens to be in another department,

and the records are brought together by the Motor Vehicle Branch, which is also

another vote.

MR. GARDOM: The funds that were spent for this report were

spent by the Minister of Highways, unless the Minister of

Highways is going to deny that fact.

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

that the production of the report certainly is a responsibility

and was a responsibility of this Minister. The action of

producing that report certainly could be discussed and

statistics in it referred to, but any substantial discussion of

points in it should be appropriately relevant to the department

and also there should be no discussion of anything that's a

matter of legislation.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, since the Minister has seen fit to

publish 12 pages of report, the material of which I would say

was garnered at considerable public expense, and since the

Minister has seen fit to include this report within the aegis

of this department, which is obviously the correct place to

have it be, I can refer to the report. I'm going to read some

excerpts from it. I see that for nine consecutive years, Mr.

Chairman, the Department of Highways says that it has continued

to analyse reports of fatal accidents. It says in this one

that:

"fatal accidents on provincial highways accounted for 75 per

cent of the province-wide fatal accidents and 77 per cent of the fatalities."

Next is a very, very disturbing statistic which I wish the

Minister to comment upon. It says:

"The present study period therefore indicated an increase of

117 or 29 per cent in fatal accidents, and an increase of 141 or 29 per cent

in the number killed,"

whereas motor-vehicle registrations — and this, I'm sure,

will amaze everyone in the House — only increased 8 per cent. So during this

period we find fatal accidents up 29 per cent and registrations up only 8 per

cent.

It also says that "79 per cent of those killed were 50 years of age or younger

and 40 per cent were between the ages of 16 and 25 years." Within a nine-year

period we find 40 per cent of the people who were killed in traffic accidents

falling within that age bracket. This means an increase in the former group

of 5 per cent, and an increase of 2 per cent in the latter.

Also it mentions, Mr. Chairman, that Fridays and Saturdays

accounted for 43 per cent of the fatal accidents. It says

further that 72 per cent of fatal traffic accidents occurred on

rural highways. It states this on page 52:

"As in previous years, reports showed that responsibility

for the vast majority of fatal motor accidents must be placed

on the shoulders of the careless drivers and pedestrians

involved."

Those are the questions I wish to put to the Minister. What

is he doing to see that we have safety driving measures in the

Province of B.C.?

On drug and alcohol involvement, it says that 47 per cent of

the 522 fatal accidents reported by the police indicate that

alcohol was consumed. It talks about excessive speed. It talks

about the wrong side of the road. It talks about seat belts. It

talks about illness and fatigue.

The conclusions seem to be these on pages 53 and 54 of the

report of the Hon. Minister of Highways, which he does not wish

to answer questions about. It says this:

"1. Although the number of motor vehicles registered in the

province increased by only 8 per cent over the previous study

period, both the number of fatal motor vehicle accidents and

fatalities increased by almost 29 per cent. This indicates" — under the aegis of this Minister, under his

responsibility, Mr. Chairman — "a return to the upward trend which was temporarily reversed

by a 6 per cent decrease in the previous study."

So the Minister has got a bad situation on his hands, and

I'm asking him to comment upon that. It says in point 2 on page

54:

"2. The percentages of those killed in the two age

groups, 50 or younger and 16 to 25, increased from 74 per cent

to 79 per cent and 38 per cent to 40 per cent

respectively."

It carries on:

"3. Although alcohol impairment showed a slight percentage

decrease when compared to the previous study period, it

continued to be a major problem. Impaired drivers and/or

pedestrians...were involved in 18 per cent of the total fatal

accidents and there was some alcohol involvement in 47 per

cent."

The last point it makes is:

"4. Of the 431 fatalities where information on seat belt

use was both available and applicable, 102 or 24 per cent died

in vehicles

[ Page 1885 ]

not equipped with seat belts."

So I'm going to once again, Mr. Chairman, ask the Hon.

Minister of Highways if he is proposing any programmes to keep

the drunken driver off the road. I'm once again going to ask

him whether or not he's in favour of a province-wide compulsory

motor-vehicle testing. I'm once again going to ask him whether

or not he's in favour of driver education in all of our high

schools. Once again I'm going to ask him if he's in favour of

programming the defensive driving course through the Province

of British Columbia. And I'm going to ask him, finally, Mr.

Chairman, what his position is concerning the seat belt

question. Does he intend to see that this is imposed

mandatory in the province or not?

Now, Mr. Chairman, if those questions are out of order...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. GARDOM: ...this Minister should not be the Minister of

Highways. He should resign.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention

of the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey that I do

appreciate the fact that he kept his remarks brief, but vote

239 under the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon.

Mr. Strachan), Motor Vehicle Branch, item 047 — "highway safety

promotion and research, $600,000" — would clearly be the place

where such a discussion or debate should take place.

MR. FRASER: I've had a few things to say on this Minister's

vote over the last couple of days, but I have tried to stay at

the policy level of the government and the department. I now

want to deal with the policies again of the department as they

apply to the riding of Cariboo.

I get a great kick, Mr. Chairman, out of hearing these MLAs

here who are experts on highways, particularly the ones from

Vancouver–Point Grey. They have 14 miles of public roads. Real

big deal!

As an example, in the riding of Cariboo there are 3,800

miles of public roads. I'd like to put that in light as far as

the Cariboo is concerned — 3,800 miles of public roads and 90

per cent of them are gravel, full of potholes and broken

springs and tires and so on, and 10 per cent of them paved.

Nobody can tell me about highways because we have every type of

problem in the riding.

As far as ridings are concerned in the province, we have 48 ridings and the

Cariboo road mileage has the largest, at 3,800 miles. The next one even close,

by riding, is North Peace River with 1,900 miles, and the average for the province

is about 800 miles. So don't think for one minute that Highways isn't important

as far as the Cariboo is concerned. It is almost as important as Education and

Health in the priority of government, and that's why I mentioned the other day

the priority of the money for Highways being so low in this budget we are looking

at.

By the way, the citizens of the Cariboo don't want all their

roads paved, by any means. They just want to see progress. The

rate of progress in the last few years in the Cariboo of

rebuilding and paving averages about 10 miles a year, and we

have around 3,400 miles to go, so 340 years from now the roads

will all be at the paved standard. As I repeat, they don't want

all their roads paved, but they want to see better maintenance.

That's why I'm zeroing in on the equipment side and the

department people and so on — to emphasize that.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I'm happy with the portion

of the budget that shows a substantial increase in the Highways

department for maintenance. That is certainly in the right

direction.

There is something I would like to ask the Minister that is

a cause of concern I think, all over the province, not only in

the Cariboo. I would like him to make a note and when his staff

are back I'd like to know what their standards for right-of-way

are. I've heard different stories. In other words,300 feet

they want for right-of-way,200 feet for right-of-way, and so

on and so forth. I'd like to know which is correct.

I realize that you have to have certainly a wide

right-of-way when you're dealing with a freeway situation, or

even an arterial situation, but I'm also referring to secondary

roads, and I repeat the width of the right-of-way that their

policy is on all types of public roads, because as a member,

Mr. Chairman, last year of that municipal committee of the

Legislature, we toured the Gulf Islands out here.

Here we find where subdivision approval is given by the

Department of Highways, they are demanding rights-of-way of 66

feet and so on of roads a mile or two in length, and they end

nowhere. It seems to me that those requirements are certainly

just too much. They are occupying too much land. Of course they

go in and clear the right-of-way off and devastate this

width.

I don't think that's necessary, and it seems to me while

we're on that tour, the Minister announced that they were going

to relax, for areas like this, the right-of-way requirements.

I'd like to just hear from the Minister if the regulations have

been changed or what actually has taken place.

There's one point, getting back to local matters. Highway

97, in the riding of Cariboo, is a distance of some 260 miles.

There's been a lot of upgrading of Highway 97 and the Cariboo

people are a lot happier with it than they were a few years

ago. There's some work yet to go, and there's one bad place

still left, traffic-hazard wise, and I would like the Minister

to comment. I think he's been approached on this, and I'm

referring to the BCR overpass on the Clinton Hill.

[ Page 1886 ]

There are continuous accidents there, bad accidents. What is

really wrong there, from the layman's standpoint, is the

alignment. I'm not suggesting a new overpass of the railroad — I don't think that's necessary — but if proper realignment was

to take place, I think it would cut down. But what's been

happening actually is that the vehicles, particularly the

southbound vehicles, with strangers are coming down, admittedly

probably going fast. It's well signed. You've got these bright

things in it, but you know what people are like driving. They

run into the concrete abutments and they stop pretty

suddenly.

It is out of line. There is no question about it. The

engineers would have to say what the problem is. I hope they

don't say they have to relocate the overpass, but what I'm

saying is: we've got a bad hazard there, and maybe a small

amount of money might be eliminated, and I mention that because

it is on a main arterial, Highway 97.

We were talking earlier in the debate about staff and the

civil service. I want to say that from my experience with the

Highways department for 20 years in my municipal life and

provincial life, dealing with different personnel in that

department, I consider that department one of the best with one

of the best, most efficient staffs of any government

department. They do a wonderful job under trying conditions and

they should be congratulated.

Yes, we all get mad at the senior approving officer because

people tell me they didn't even know they had to have a

building permit, let alone whether it's zoned or not. Of course

when an authority comes along and says it's illegal, naturally

they don't like it. But in most cases, it's ignorance that gets

people into trouble; they should inquire what the law is.

I think more public information should come out of the

Highways department. I don't know how you do it, whether you

have a PR man or what. It was mentioned earlier by the Member

for Langley (Mr. McClelland) that in research, who knows what

the Highways department is researching? That's correct; very

few know what's going on, and I think a public relations

department would help a lot.

On another subject, Mr. Chairman, I'd like the Minister to

make a note. And I'm glad to see the Minister of Public Works

(Hon. Mr. Hartley) is in his chair.

Again you're dealing with a staff. To upgrade the tools they have to work with,

which we're all trying to do through equipment purchases and so on, and better

working conditions.... I'm referring to the men who actually do the work in

the Highways department. We have places in my riding, the Cariboo, right today

with five feet of snow on the ground, and they have no building whatsoever to

put their equipment in — trucks, pickups, graders and bulldozers. I've never

run it down, but I believe, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, you requisition the

Minister of Public Works and he seems to take anywhere up to a year just to

draft a plan for a garage. Then he turns around when that's gone by and says

that they are out of money and can't call a tender. I want to tell you again,

as far as the efficiency of the department is concerned, it would be greatly

improved if we could get more maintenance buildings.

There are two places in Cariboo right today where those men

went to work this morning at 8 o'clock in five feet of snow,

and all the department equipment is out in the open. I refer to

Bridge Lake and Likely. These are the conditions they go out to

work in in the morning at 7 o'clock; it's 40 below zero, their

vehicle has been sitting there, they can't even start it.

Everybody's on the telephone — where's the snowplough and

what's going on here? I'm saying it is terribly costly to park

this stuff out, as we say in the Cariboo, in the swamps.

They're not under any....

I think there's a convention going on here, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Members to

take their seats, please.

MR. FRASER: Well, at least you can't accuse us of having

secret meetings. (Laughter.) No more open and public place than

this.

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: In the last couple of years, for your

information, Mr. Minister, one maintenance building has been

put up. These two places are in an area where, again as we say

in the Cariboo, they have nine months of winter and three

months of bad sleighing. I refer to Bridge Lake and Likely

where you have a detachment crew.

I think they're costing $150,000 a building, and that would

be saved in operation in the department, in my opinion, in a

couple of years. If they do get a bulldozer going, they tow the

grader and they tow the dump trucks while they're tearing the

axles and the transmissions out. It's very costly and losing

hours and hours where they could be doing proper work. I would

like you to make note of these two particular areas in my

riding which are badly in need of buildings of some type. I

don't think they have to be fancy buildings, but you do have a

standard.

There is a breakdown from the Minister of Highways back to

the Minister of Public Works in this. I suggest that you should

get on top of that and find out how he's delaying these things

and why. I don't think it's done on purpose, but again from one

department to another, red tape, red tape, red tape.

Consequently it ends up with the citizen not getting the

service he's paying for or deserves.

I have letters of all kinds there, but I just want to read

an excerpt from some citizens at Bridge Lake. I

[ Page 1887 ]

don't necessarily agree but I'm telling you these people

have been there all their lives and regarding Bridge Lake they

say:

"The boundaries of Bridge Lake the highway crew should be

shortened. With the pavement extending out to Horse Lake, it should certainly

shortened"

— he is referring to pavement a further way down the road —

"...a heavy equipment inspector to test all personnel

from time to time, or go into an area and instruct local men in

the use of equipment.

"... planning of a little more

initiative to provide a credible job to the people who are being

served.

"The hiring from time to time for a road-building crew" — as the forestry do — "experts

in their field to do the best possible job in the shortest

period of time at the best price. And, of course, we want more

equipment."

That's an observation from a citizen in a remote area. The

Highways department is their lifeline, really, Mr.

Minister.

I'd like to comment on something else, Mr. Chairman — roadwork and when they do it. The department has a paving

branch. They do their own paving, and on the larger jobs they

call tenders. All of the arterials it seems they do by tender,

but a lot of the secondary rural roads, when they decide to cap

them, their own paving branch does it. Their timing, Mr.

Chairman, to the Minister, is just terrible in regard to

climatic conditions. They come into the interior and the north

part of the province, and I'm referring to the Highways

department crews, in the fall of the year when the weather is

starting to change, raining and so on. Of course, they can't

pave. They do put it on what we call graded cold mix, and the

next year it has to be all graded off because they didn't have

the right weather conditions.

It's a small problem, but the department must know that if

they go into that part of the Interior and the north of the

province with their crews, they could do a good job if they get

the weather. They will find they always get good weather in

May, June and July. After that, they're running on their luck

on weather. It is costing the public a lot of money, and apart

from that, a lack of a surfaced road.

As an example, last year they were in the Cariboo in October

and they had to leave without getting hardly anything done

because the weather changed on them. What I'm saying is why

can't they

schedule these crews and their own crews for a

better time of the year, when the weather is more stable?

I'm just about through, Mr. Chairman. I want to give you a comment about the

student programme which I believe applies to this Department of Highways. It

was on last year and is going to be repeated this year. I think this is a good

programme, but I want to relate a few things that happened last year, as related

to the students hired by the Highways department.

These are young people from high school and university.

They're very anxious to have this work in clearing

rights-of-way and so on. But they just ran helter-skelter all

over, knocking down trees and shrubs. It was not the students'

fault, it was the lack of proper supervision. I would say this

year, Mr. Minister, you should make sure when these students

are hired that they put somebody in charge of them who knows

what they're supposed to do and he stays with them.

I had all kinds of complaints when they were slashing

rights-of-way last year. They even went onto private property

because there was nobody there to show them where the highway

right-of-way boundaries were. It made the citizens really mad

about the whole deal, and it was actually a lack of

supervision. I took it up with the district engineer in charge.

He said, "Well, we just haven't got these people. We make spot

checks on them every three hours or so, and lay out the work."

But really, there's got to be someone there all the time. We

would improve on the programme a lot if we had better

supervision. I think the students would appreciate it. I can

assure you that citizens would appreciate it because it would

show that they would get a lot more value for their money than

they did last year.

I just touched on some subjects here, Mr. Chairman, to the

Minister, and I'd really like to get some answers on a

few of those things. In other words, the rights-of-way widths

that are required for the different types of roads. I

particularly would like to know if any maintenance buildings

are scheduled. I think he'll find they are, but he'll find them

bogged down and lost in that Minister's department, the

Department of Public Works. I look forward to hearing the

Minister's comments.

HON. MR. LEA: Commenting on points raised by the Hon. Member

for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), I take notice of the number of miles

you do have in your riding compared to even other rural

ridings. You do have problems other people do not have.

The right-of-way. You said I had made some rulings and they

varied from the past, and that's true to a certain degree. In

the Gulf Islands, for instance, we were taking and clearing 66

feet of right-of-way. My department officials assure me if we

don't take that 66 feet we'll be in trouble later on. So I want

to hedge my bets, so to speak. What I've said now is that we'll

take the 66-feet right-of-way for the time being, but we won't

clear it. We'll try and leave these roads in a more pristine

nature and, if we do need it later on, then it's there. If we

don't need it later on, we can turn it back to the private

owners of the

[ Page 1888 ]

property.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

HON. MR. LEA: In some of the northern areas in the Interior

where we get snow, if we do not take the required amount of

right-of-way, we find that in the springtime, especially on

some of the side roads that are not paved, the sun can't get in

there and dry those roads up in the spring. We just feel it's

better at this point to take that 66 feet of right-of-way. On

paved roads, the ice doesn't go off them and we feel it's a

real hazard to the travelling public. I'm not convinced that in

those areas we should go below the 66 feet.

The only other area where we do take more right-of-way than

that is within municipalities where we feel there's going to be

need for more lanes of traffic in the future. We will take 80

or 100 feet, and most of the municipalities do that also. Again

I suppose, until we come up with a different mode of

transportation, that's the direction that by necessity we're

going to have to take.

But first the good news, Mr. Member. Your cattle underpass

near Quesnel is in for this year — $ 10,000 to build that

underpass.

Highway 97. The British Columbia Railway overpass on Clinton

Hill. I agree with you, and I'm going to give that special

consideration. I know the area you mentioned. I should also

mention that it's a bad spot for black ice and is a danger

point. We're going be looking after that and I appreciate you

bringing that up.

The maintenance buildings. The fact that the drivers and the

operators have to go out and dicker with that equipment at

40-below weather is a problem and something I'm sure many

people in the south don't fully understand or appreciate. I

will say I've had good cooperation from the Minister of Public

Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley). I know he has gone to Treasury Board

and battled on my behalf and on the workers' behalf to get some

maintenance buildings in northern ridings where there is a

great deal of snow and inclement weather. It's a priority.

We're going to look at those before we look at the sunny

Okanagan or the lower mainland. I think we have to deal with

them in that priority. Maintenance buildings in the north and

in the Interior where there's a lot of snow are going to take

priority with the department.

MR. FRASER: I realize the staff wasn't here, but back on right-of-way

and what you are requiring. What is the minimum you are requiring now for rights-of-way

for where the freeway is on Highway 97? I understand, for instance, it jumped

from 200 to 300 feet, but you mentioned 60 to 80 feet. I realize you're referring

to a secondary road, I'd like to know each width of right-of-way you want for

each classification of road.

HON. MR. LEA: Okay, I'll get that information for you. It

doesn't have to be here, I don't think.

MR. McCLELLAND: I just want to make a couple of comments

about some of the discussion which took place and was reported

in the report on the Western Economic Opportunities Conference

in November, 1973. It mentions in here and it's been mentioned

by other Members that there is a statement: "British Columbia

mentioned the desire for an east-west highway through the

north." I wonder if there was only the mention made of that

highway. Is the department actively seeking consultation with

Ottawa to get that highway going?

There was also a mention in there about removing the tolls

in national parks. I wonder if the department is negotiating

with Ottawa again on this basis? It seems to me that we pay

enough taxes without having to pay tolls as well through our

national parks. I realize, too, that it isn't jurisdiction of

this Highways department, but it could be a matter of

consultation and negotiation in this department.

The other thing I wanted to mention from this report is

again with the highways from the north. It says:

"There is a growing recognition in western Canada of the need to develop a strong highway access to

support the future development of northern resources that will

benefit Canada as a whole.

"As a first step toward the provision of one of the major determinates of northern development, the

western provinces propose a road system commencing in Winnipeg,

running through Saskatchewan and Alberta to Dawson Creek,

British Columbia, and on to Prince Rupert to connect with the

vast markets of the Pacific Rim countries. Prince Rupert is an

advantageous shipping port...."

It goes on to talk about

the reasons for that need.

I just wonder, given the fact that the Minister has said

he's offering us a purely maintenance budget, where can we

reconcile that maintenance budget with the need which has been

clearly demonstrated all across Canada for that kind of a road

network serving northern development in British Columbia?

Surely there must be far more than a maintenance budget in

order to develop that kind of a road network.

If, for instance, we're going to lose another year in

getting transportation links to the north, even the planning of

those transportation links, then we're in trouble with regard

to any kind of development in the north. The need has been

clearly delineated in this economic conference. How do we

reconcile that maintenance budget with the need which has been

so clearly demonstrated?

[ Page 1889 ]

HON. MR. LEA: At my insistence, at the Western Economic

Opportunities Conference in Calgary, I'm proud to say the tolls

in parks have been taken off since then.

MR. McCLELLAND: Good.

HON. MR. LEA: The northern highway which was also a point I

raised at the conference in Calgary, is something we've been

actively working on. I might add that the three western

provinces, including the Conservative Province of Alberta, have

backed me up. They can see it would be of benefit to those

provinces to have more and better access from prairie to

tidewater. In economic terms and in social terms, it's a thing

I think we all desire in western Canada.

I might add that when I said I'm going to put more emphasis

on maintenance, I didn't mean I was going to de-emphasize the

kind of road improvements and construction we need in British

Columbia to take us ahead into the 1970s.

MR. McCLELLAND: Where is the money? The budget clearly is a

maintenance budget. Is there any money in it for that kind of

thing?

HON. MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Member, there is $110 million there

for new construction and improvements to roads. I wouldn't call

that nothing.

MR. McCLELLAND: Where is that $110 million for new

construction?

HON. MR. LEA: It's vote 101.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Last evening the Minister

referred to a 1966 report on bridging the islands. I have the

report here in front of me. I think he left the impression with

the House that the former government had intended to follow up

that report and actually do some of the things which were in

that report.

I want to make it abundantly clear that that report was

completely rejected. The former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) had

said publicly there was no intention of using that report and

of bridging the islands. That report was circulated to all the

then MLAs: and it was unanimously turned down by all of them.

As a matter of fact, the end result of that report was the

10-acre freeze which was then placed on the islands. I think

that conclusively proves the intention of the former government

not to make the Gulf Islands into a highway link.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'd like to remind the Member that

you're dealing with vote 98 which is the estimates of the

Minister of Highways.

MR. MORRISON: That's exactly what I'm coming to.

HON. MR. LEA: I'll answer that, Mr. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm concerned that you deal with what's

on the table now.

MR. MORRISON: Well, don't rush me.

The Minister now says they are going to build a ferry

terminal on the east end of Gabriola Island and that they will

have a road highway linked up from Gabriola Island on to the

mainland through Mudge Island. As a matter of fact, that is

part of the route which is shown on this particular map, a

route which they are trying to say on one hand they have no

intention of doing, and on the other hand the other Ministers

are saying publicly that, "There's the route." There it is

right on the map if you want to see it.

Therefore, as I say, it's this government making the plans

to bridge the islands, not the former government. There has

been no consultation made, as far as I can find out, with the

Nanaimo Regional District or the Greater Vancouver Regional

District for this proposal. Frankly, I think what he was trying

to say last night is incorrect and I'd like him to bring that

record straight.

HON. MR. LEA: I didn't leave that inference in the House

that the past government intended to do it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: Madam Member asked me whether there were plans

within the Highways department of that nature. I said there

were. They weren't originated with this administration and

that's what I state clearly now. I did not say the former

Premier had given any thought at all to following those

plans.

I would also like to say that in terms of the Gabriola plans

you referred to, there has been no firm decision made by this

government. No Minister has said there has been.

Also, I'd like to point out that the Hon. Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), the Hon. Minister of Transport

and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and myself did go and

meet with the Nanaimo Regional District and discussed

thoroughly the possibility of that kind of approach. I won't

say there was any agreement even between the three of us or

with them. I'm afraid that's the way people are. We did consult

with them and there will be more consultations before any firm

decision is made on both sides.

MR. MORRISON: I can take it, then, from that

[ Page 1890 ]

conversation that there is absolutely nothing in this vote

this year for any money to be spent in that area on highways or

bridging, through Mudge Island onto Gabriola, for this year's

vote and this year's estimates. Is that correct?

HON. MR. LEA: That's right.

Vote 98 approved.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the House grant leave to reopen the

vote?

Leave granted.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's no point of order.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! When you raise a point of order I'll

recognize you, but take your seat when you're asked to. Retake

your seat! Will you please take your seat!

I want to make one thing clear. If we're going to have any

sort of order, then the Chair has to be recognized. You can

raise a point of order, but when you are asked to take your

seat, you do so.

Now then, I asked the House if they would grant leave to

reopen that vote. I heard yes, I didn't hear any no. I

recognize the Member for North Okanagan.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will you please take your seat! I want

the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) to withdraw that

statement immediately. You have imputed the chair. Will you

please stand up and withdraw the statement you just made? You

know the statement you made.

MR. McCLELLAND: What statement?

AN HON. MEMBER: And try to be a gentleman!

MR. CHAIRMAN: You imputed the chair, and you'll withdraw

that statement or I'll report to Mr. Speaker — that's what I

must do.

MR. McCLELLAND: What statement?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You said I'm running this House like a

kindergarten. Will you withdraw that?

MR. McCLELLAND: I withdraw that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Member for North Okanagan.

MR. MORRISON: On a point of order, may I remind you that

when you said that vote was called....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The vote has been reopened; it's no

longer a debatable issue.

MR. MORRISON: It was never closed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The vote has been reopened; it's not a

debatable issue.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, look who's talking about who's asleep.

There's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11; there's about 20

Members of the NDP who aren't....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! You are dealing with vote

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your

comment. It's a shame so few of the NDP Members, the government

Members, are taking

part in this debate.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Do we have to be in

here to listen to a filibuster?

MRS. JORDAN: Filibuster?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Member for North Okanagan has the

floor.

MRS. JORDAN: Would you like to bet 10 bucks on that, Mr.

Minister? I'll take you on right now. Put your money where your

mouth is, because certainly that's not what you are doing in

Health.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Where's granny today? Did you give her a day

off?

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

I've got to listen to her for an hour!

[ Page 1891 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! This is vote 98.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, last evening there was a lot of

debate and we were crowded out by the clock. There were some

questions I had asked the Minister which I'd like him to answer

today because he didn't.

One is whether you will consider the area along Woods Lake,

from Woodsdale to Oyama on Highway 97 as a development area for

a picnic-pedestrian long-range programme. If the plans are not

already drawn up, will you undertake to have them drawn up this

year? We recognize this won't happen overnight; it's something

that, once the plan is drawn up, should involve the communities

as a whole. They should have the opportunity to take

part in

providing picnic benches or trees or anything.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, if you won't answer it now, I have other

questions.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: All right, I'll be speaking again....

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the answer is no.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh! Why not? The Minister refuses to consider a

programme that was committed by the former administration,

which was the beautification of that area along Woods Lake.

You're not an imaginative Minister, Mr. Minister; you're an

unimaginative Minister. I shall certainly let the people of the

Okanagan know that, in spite of the fact that money has been

spent there, trees have been planted and the people have even

gone out and watered those trees by hand, including some of the

Highways personnel, this government and this Minister and his

administration refuses to do anything towards helping develop

it. Pretty poor show, Mr. Minister. I suppose it's rather

typical of what's going on in Highways in British Columbia.

The next point I asked the Minister that he didn't answer — I hope he'll show

a little more open mind in this area — is just what he in his administrative

post is doing toward organizing a province-wide, cost-sharing programme for

road maintenance and entrance into non-profit ski areas in the Province of British

Columbia. With inflation the way it is and the number of B.C. interests and

the number of ski areas and long-term recreational areas.... I believe ski

areas should include tobogganing and sleigh riding, skating and viewing areas

so that all the public can enjoy them. This is growing in British Columbia.

The majority of them are operated on a non-profit basis but, by nature of our

climate and terrain, many of them have to be a good distance from major highways.

It's our feeling and my feeling that the government should

be entering into an equitable programme that would apply to the

whole province in offering some assistance in the construction

and maintenance of these roads. I would invite the Minister's

comments on that. I won't repeat my arguments I made last

night, Mr. Chairman.

It's a matter of serious concern regarding this Minister and

his administration, and it relates to the new City of Kelowna.

In the agreement outlined by your government....

HON. MR. LEA: Your leader can't handle it himself, eh?

MRS. JORDAN: Well, this is quite interesting, Mr. Chairman.

I think really the comment by the Hon. Minister of Highways — can't my leader detail this programme — indicates one of the

most serious problems we have with this Minister and his

administration. He simply doesn't know what his

responsibilities are, where the problems are and where the

jurisdictions are. A very large portion of the North Okanagan

constituency administered by the Member for North Okanagan lies

within the new City of Kelowna. You might be interested to

know, Mr. Chairman, that a good deal of that is agricultural

land that your tsar of planning wants to turn into residential

areas. This very much concerns the Member for North Okanagan

and it very much concerns the people in the North Okanagan. I

can see now the problem doesn't stem from within the

department; it stems from the Minister himself.

One of the major problems is that you simply cannot get any

answers about any roadwork that is to be done or not done in

that area. You talk to the city highway engineer; he asks you

to refer the matter to the provincial highway engineer. You

talk to the provincial highway engineer; he refers you to the

city highway engineer.

I'll try and find the letter because I'm sure it will

interest him. This is a letter from the district highways

manager to myself but was previously sent originally to some

constituents who wrote. It's regarding specific roads, and I'll

go into those specific roads under his vote. But he says,

regarding such and such and such a road: "I wish to advise you

they lie in the North Okanagan Electoral District and are now

within the boundaries of the new City of Kelowna."

What type of answer is that? They are in the Kelowna highway

district. They are within the former Central Okanagan–South

Okanagan highway district, and by way of the agreement that

your government proposed to the new City of Kelowna, are in

fact your responsibility. And your own highway engineer,

[ Page 1892 ]

bless him — and I wouldn't blame him, because quite

obviously this is a problem within your administration — is

giving this sort of political gobbledygook and runaround to the

people in this area and to the duly-elected

representatives.

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I have had to

solicit the help of the mayor of the City of Kelowna in order

to get these people some answers, because your department is so

reluctant to commit themselves because they are not getting the

back-up from you and your government that they should be.

That is not an attack on the civil service, Mr. Chairman;

that is a condemnation of this Minister.

HON. MR. LEA: They'll figure that out for themselves.

MRS. JORDAN: It's quite justified.

For the Minister's convenience, I would refresh his memory.

He wasn't then the Minister of Highways, but he should be aware

of this, I'm sure. There was a commitment made with the City of

Kelowna, when it was forced into this shotgun marriage,

regarding highways:

A) the provincial government to pay for maintenance of all

roads, street, bridges, culverts, drainage, signing, control of

access permits, and all other duties currently carried out by

the Department of Highways for a period of five years.

No wonder the Minister has left in such a hurry. This is a

direct condemnation of him in light of the letter I read

previously. After five years the new city will assume financial

responsibility to a maximum cost of 5 mills. Any excess costs,

Mr. Chairman, will be shared 20 per cent by the new city and 80

per cent by the provincial government.

Well, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it is very clear in

that agreement who is responsible for what for the next five

years, regarding the City of Kelowna. I would ask the Minister

why, when citizens of the area who were the victims of this

shotgun marriage speak to the regional highway engineer, they

get such a political and really stupid answer. Why isn't the

Minister giving this man the leeway to carry out his

responsibilities?

I would like to know from the Minister specifically how much

money his department, under his administration and the former

Minister of Highway's (Hon. Mr. Strachan'

s) administration, has

spent in accord with this agreement in the new City of Kelowna

last year. I would also like to know what specific commitments

he has made for this year, on which roads and how much will be

involved in each instance.

The next agreement that was made with the new City of Kelowna which involves

a very large segment of the North Okanagan constituency is under

section B):

the provincial government to pay for the cost of a comprehensive community plan

and base map, one inch to one mile, I guess it is, or better, the cost of which

is estimated at approximately $150,000.

My understanding at the moment is that this cost is now

ranging between $200,000 and $250,000. I would like to know

specifically, through you, Mr. Chairman, to that Minister, at

what point this plan stands, how much that cost is and whether

the government is going to assume the total cost.

The next point is C): the provincial government to construct

all roads in the new city in accordance with the provincial

government grid road plan, as prepared by the Department of

Highways during the years 1971 and 1972, which was the grid

road plan prepared by the former administration. I bring that

to your attention, Mr. Chairman, because this Minister's very

fond of suggesting that there was no planning done in the

Highways department by the former Minister. I felt he should

know that there was a very extensive internal grid system

planning programme, and an external grid planning programme

going on in the Okanagan.

I would like to know from this Minister, because these roads

affect the constituency of North Okanagan, exactly what steps

he is prepared to take this year, how much he is prepared to

expend, and on which roads.

The next agreement is D): the provincial government to

upgrade all bridges and culverts in the new city; the

provincial government to provide the new city with sand and

gravel pits in or adjacent to the new city. I would like to

know on that point exactly what commitments the Minister made

and carried out last year, and what commitments in terms of

action and dollars he has made and intends to carry out this

year.

F) the provincial government to provide capital funds in the

amount of $1.5 million for the purpose of construction and

providing a major public works yard together with three depots

in the new municipality. The depots will contain storage sheds

for the graders, loaders, trucks and other miscellaneous

highway maintenance equipment. I would like to know, Mr.

Minister, which one of the storage sheds is going in the North

Okanagan constituency, and also the state of progress of this

commitment and the estimated cost at this time.

Now, Mr. Minister, there's a clause here, and I read that,

which allows the government to slip out from under its

responsibilities in this shotgun marriage after five years. And

I wish to assure you on behalf of the constituents who live

within this area from the North Okanagan that they expect you

to meet your commitments and not use that clause as a means of

slipping out from responsibilities as has happened previously

by this administration.

Another matter which is in fact a commitment made by this

Minister under his administration, and

[ Page 1893 ]

it's under his vote, Mr. Chairman — because he used

government funds to visit the area — is with regard to the

Westside Road leading from the west bank side of the Okanagan

Lake to O'Keefe's Corner in the North Okanagan. The majority of

this road resides in the North Okanagan electoral district and

highway district.

To refresh his memory I would bring to your attention, Mr.

Chairman, a letter dated October 23, 1973, addressed to myself

and signed by the chairman of the Westside Property Owners

Committee:

"On September 5, 1973, a meeting was held at the Firtree

Marina where some 200 property owners from the Westside Road

attended to make the Minister of Highways, the Hon, Graham Lea,

who was present, aware of the frustration they encounter in

travelling this road, and their attempts to have improvements

made. At the time, we were given two days notice of the

Minister's visit."

This is a rural area, Mr. Chairman, and they have

radio-telephones. It is very difficult...and I advise the

Minister that in the future they would like more notice of the

meeting. They also endeavoured to get in touch with the MLA

from the North Okanagan, but unfortunately I was travelling

with a committee at that time and didn't hear from them until

the day of the meeting and couldn't leave my government

responsibilities. But they would like me to pass on to you the

fact that in future they would like to have their MLA

there.

However, "At the time, we were given" — and I continue to

quote — "two days notice of the Minister's visit. I endeavoured

to contact you in the event that you wished to be present"...et cetera.

"In any event, at this meeting a committee was appointed to

communicate with the Department of Highways re improvements to

the Westside Road. There were commitments made by the Minister

of Highways at this September meeting, and the committee feels

many of the discussed problem areas to [;e improved this fall

have not received any attention. A member of this committee on

October 17 instructed me, as acting chairman, to bring this to

your attention"...et cetera.

You know, Mr. Chairman, the pity of this is that he was at

that time a new Minister and, in fact, this revolved around an

election in which the NDP candidate went in and made very broad

commitments to the people of that area, and these commitments

were backed up by the Minister of Highways. But, in fact, he

didn't meet them. I would bring to your attention, Mr.

Chairman, some of these concerns.

A lady — and I won't mention her name — reported she had been visited by five

members of the Department of Highways engineering staff who were investigating

new routes through Nahun Point and other trouble spots on the existing Westside

Road. She further pointed out that the new bridge at the area of Simpson's log

dump near Kelowna was just about completed, now driveable and there was considerable

grading on the south end for a few miles. And that, Mr. Minister, was a bridge

slated under the former administration.

"However, between Nahun's Landing and the south end of the

gravel surface all were concerned with the generally bad

condition of most of the surface, particularly washboard, in

areas where fill work had been done. But lack of attention to

those unpaved hills, dangerous comers, some with extreme drops

to the lake, and grades in those corners which slope towards

the outer cliffside, make the most hazardous conditions when

covered with snow, ice and mud."

Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't suggest that these hazards just

arrived. They didn't. But in fact this government's road

programme last year was so inadequate and so out of keeping

with previous progressive programmes in the area that not only

did this area not get the attention it should have for the

future, but it deteriorated. This Minister must answer for

this.

"The committee wish to remind the Minister that the unsafe

areas to the south were discussed at the September 5 meeting

when in the Minister's closing statement he said: 'The unsafe

and deplorable condition was recognized.' and stated that steps

would be taken to remove the main hazards this fall."

That was last fall, Mr. Chairman.

We have all heard his very confident statements to the

House, and we can imagine how he spoke with aplomb and

authority at that meeting where he was out to make a good

election appearance. Then, in fact, didn't meet his commitment.

These people believed his effort, believed him to be

sincere.

"He said that this would help to provide a safer route for

school buses, and those travelling daily with children to and

from school.

"Members of the committee from Nahun north pointed out that

the road had had little improvement, with the exception of one

grading attempt improving the conditions for a day or two. This

was done just before the long weekend and heavy traffic soon

dispersed the surface."

In fact these members stated that the north end of the road

was the worst they had ever seen it, since the NDP took

over.

Mr. Chairman, again I don't suggest that this road has ever

been a paradise for driving. But I suggest that the people in

the area, following a year's

[ Page 1894 ]

administration by the NDP government, themselves stated that

this road had never been in worse condition.

They also pointed out to the Minister where the most serious

driving hazards in the fall and winter were, and that was from

the south corner going north. In case the Minister, who doesn't

seem very familiar with this area, has forgotten, I would

remind him that approximately one mile north of the end of the

pavement there are two very bad comers on a steep hill, each

with a severe drop to the lake. Mr. Minister, these corners not

only need widening, which is a difficult thing to do, but they

also need retaining walls to hold them up, and to be filled and

widened.

The next area where they are concerned and which they

brought to the attention of the Minister, was area D.L. 39 of

the new bridge, where logging trucks are using the Westside

Road for about one mile. They suggested that the hill there had

a washboard condition which was extreme, in their experience,

and had deteriorated since the NDP took over.

Point (3): D.L. 2549, 4497 and 3546. I'm reading these

numbers out, Mr. Chairman, because I hope the Minister, in view

of the fact that he broke his commitment to these people last

fall, will indicate today to this Member and this House exactly

what he intends to do in each of these areas this year. They

say that within these areas are short stretches of very narrow

rocky roadbed where it is impossible for two cars to pass and

difficult to back up to a safe position. This is quite true,

Mr. Minister.

Point (4): D.L. 3541 at Nahun Point. This is a very

interesting point, Mr. Chairman, and I'd love to take you

over.

"It is a major hazard area under any conditions, as approaches on each end are steep, very

narrow, curved and seem to miss any service attention during

the winter." — and this has not improved this winter, Mr.

Chairman — "Sanding and chains are a must, even under light

frost, providing the road has been ploughed, which has been on

few occasions this year. This is due in part to the road width

being too narrow for the graders."

Mr. Minister, you made a commitment on that corner. You

haven't done anything about it. I can recognize your problem:

that is an extremely difficult corner to deal with and it's

going to cost many thousands and thousands of dollars. If you

intend to put that money in there, fine. I can recognize why

that corner might not have been repaired last fall.

What I question you on is the fact that you made this commitment in view of

an election, and you haven't carried out your commitment. I want to know, through

you, Mr. Chairman, if you are going to carry out that commitment, on all these

areas, on this extremely difficult road which, it appears, you went over and

didn't appreciate in terms of its difficulties and its cost factor.

The next ones are D.L. 2923 and 2550, just north of a residential

subdivision called Valley of the Sun.

"At the top of a long steep hill is a

bottomless sand corner, so rutted and. deep, at times a vehicle cannot travel

up and down."

I'm not familiar with that particular road and I don't know

whether it's part of a subdivision. If it is, then I think the

Minister's responsibility doesn't lie there. But if, in fact,

it's a public road and if he made this commitment, I want to

know what he's going to do about it.

The next one is D.L. 3329, Ewing's Landing area.

"Here there are several hazards. A wet clay surface sloping to the ditch almost ensures one going off

the road when meeting an oncoming truck or car. To make matters

worse there are three or four bad twisting curves with grades

in every direction and large trees which would seem to be in

the road right-of-way."

You made a commitment there, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman. Is the Minister going to meet this commitment?

D.L. 3795:

"Rock has been used here, which creates a condition of driving on giant marbles."

The last one that they are concerned about are two hills at

the north end, one at approximately D.L. 2198, the other just

before the pavement.

"Each are steep, twisting and have severe washboard. So much

so that it is reported the school bus may have to cancel its

extended service."

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, I am aware, and I think

everybody in his department is aware, of what an extremely

difficult road this is in terms of widening it any further.

There has been considerable work done on it over the years,

it's very expensive and it's very frustrating because the road

in the north end is used extensively by logging trucks, and

they chew it up very quickly. We have an extreme problem of

heat and dryness which leads to further washboard problems.

Oiling it as much as the people would like has proved

expensive. The thought of widening the whole road in the past

has been beyond reasonable priorities in light of the fact that

there hasn't been a large population in there over the past

years.

But, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that

population has increased dramatically in the last two or three

years, and the patch-up job and the reasonable condition of

this road has been treated. The commitments that you made are

in the areas of the most difficult area and have not been

supported by your department in the past.

My point is: are you going to meet the commitments that you

made and broke last year, and carry out this work this year? Is

the Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, going to, in fact,

take care of all

[ Page 1895 ]

these corners, build the retaining wall, take out the Nahun

corner rockbluff, and blacktop that road?

If he is, I'll be the first to applaud him. I hope he will

stand up and assure the Member and the people in this area that

he will meet this commitment, that this will be done this year,

and that there is money in this meagre vote for maintenance and

upgrading.

I'll go back to the specific questions I asked him in regard

to the new City of Kelowna when he has answered because I have

some more. I'd like to bring to his attention the matter of

Highway 97, between Kamloops and Vernon. I'm really surprised

that the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) didn't mention

this.

The road from Kamloops to Vernon, Highway 97, is used very

extensively by both commercial traffic, including logging,

tourists traffic, and the small amount of local traffic. It has

been extended and widened as far as Monte Lake, but the area

from Monte Lake into O'Keefe Corner is, at best, a patch-up job

in terms of what the Minister appears to have planned this

year.

I'd like to ask the Minister, when he elaborated last night

and said "repair and maintenance" if he really didn't mean he

was just going to dust off the roads, he was going to do more

black topping and shouldering. On behalf of these people, I

would like to ask if they will be widening this road, paving

the shoulders, and indeed, bringing it up at least to the

standard of the road from Monte Creek to Monte Lake.

I'd also like to speak in terms of some provincial policies.

There has been some debate about whether one can discuss

highway safety under this Minister's vote, in spite of the fact

that he utilizes a fair number of pages of his annual report in

this discussion.

With the problem of minor infractions within the highway

usage, and putting together the fact that we are always short

of blood in British Columbia, I would like to suggest that the

Minister of Highways get together with the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Cocke).

Where people are in sound health but are habitual offenders

in speeding and other areas that don't involve alcohol, while

they don't have to pay a fine today — they only get demerits — they will have to pay an increase in their premium under their

driver's permit but also to set an arbitrary figure of six

demerits. When a person has six demerits, they also, if they

are in a fine state of health, are requested to donate a pint

of blood to the Red Cross blood bank.

Mr. Minister, a large percentage of blood is used in highway

accidents on an emergency basis.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You are dealing with vote 98, not the

Minister of Health.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, those in highway accidents are large

users of blood in this province. We are short of blood in this province and

I am suggesting to this Minister, who has spent a great deal of time in this

House in discussing his desires to promote highway safety, that this is one

more way he can make drivers more conscious of the need to obey the speed limits

and safety rules which he is helping to institute in this province. Anyone beyond

6 demerits, if they are in good health, does have to contribute a pint of blood

to the British Columbia Red Cross. That may save their own life when they abuse

the highways this Minister is building.

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

Following through with my colleague, I fully endorse his

comments on Mr. Merilees, the former Member of this House, and

the beautification programme he worked so hard with the

department to promote. I fully concur. I felt the meridian

should have been named "Merilees Meridian."

I would like to ask the government to continue its

programme, which is very sparse indeed, of using artificial

turf at all areas where we have a cement or blacktop meridian

and turnoff areas. Just out here on the main intersection out

of Victoria, there are lovely trees on the sides of the roads.

Then you have this ugly blacktop meridian. Further down, you

have a smaller area utilizing the turf. I believe this should

be a policy all over the province. Where we have blacktop

meridians, they should be covered with artificial turf.

There is also a matter of considerable concern regarding the

ferry on the Shuswap Lake. There is another rumour emanating

from your department that the ferry, because it only carried

1,780 passengers last year and has a low average, is going to

be discontinued. Is the Minister listening?

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, I am listening.

MRS. JORDAN: The people are most concerned that this ferry

service, which is utilized by the local residents and is also a

marvelous tourist attraction, be maintained and upgraded.

Perhaps more effort could be made on the part of the gentleman

operating it to provide more generous but still simplified food

service in terms of pop and candy bars. So often people get on

the ferry, they haven't taken any food and they get sick or

feel queasy if the lake is rough. They can't always buy

something. There should be some sort of staple foods on this

ferry that are not perishable so they can get something to help

settle their tummies.

I hope the Minister will assure this House and the people

that this ferry will maintain its run and every effort will be

made to meet these simple needs of the people. Maybe a few more

chairs would help also.

[ Page 1896 ]

Also under the Minister's vote I would like to speak in

general terms of policy. I'll have to make specific reference

to a point which I will bring up in more detail under the

detailed votes. This is a matter of division between traffic

warrant and common sense.

I think every Member in this House appreciates the need of

the department and the engineers and designers to basically

operate on a warrant system and the traffic-count system. There

comes a time when the adherence to the system absolutely

destroys common sense.

I speak of the bypass to Allison Park at Okanagan Landing as

one example. I am quite free to say, as I did at the time, that

this is not necessarily a high priority but it was a commitment

by the former administration to involve themselves in a

progressive programme, doing a little bit each year. This

policy has been reversed by the current administration and we

now have letters from the Minister suggesting that, in short,

there is going to be no bypass and that it's an internal

problem, which is to a large degree true. If anything, they are

going to upgrade the present road.

Again I suggest that you spoke without knowing the full

facts. The problem of that road, as in many other roads in this

province — and one is on the other side of the Kootenay Lakes — go back years and years, some of them 50, 60, 70 years. It

started out as a walking area, then was a horse area and a

cattle area, then a car area, and now it's a traffic area to a

large provincial park as well as a tourist area in terms of

driving to visit, as well as a community area in terms of

people living there. There is no way, Mr. Minister, you can

upgrade that current road without destroying yourself as

Minister. As a politician, I suppose I should be sitting on the

sidelines, hoping you will do it, but I don't because I don't

wish you that sort of a situation.

I feel the responsible thing to do is not blast that road,

which would virtually, in some instances, go through peoples'

living rooms, into a wider situation and encourage more traffic

into that area. This is why you should recognize that the

outside traffic in that area was not extreme in terms of

traffic counts and warrants but was a hazard to children and to

residents within the area and to the tourists themselves.

The Minister has talked about mobile homes with bathtubs on

them. Well, lots of these mobile homes come from British

Columbia. Trying to get them through that area is extremely

dangerous both for the drivers and for the people living in the

community spot.

I would urge you to reconsider your position and to continue a progressive

programme utilizing the Ellison bypass plan that was drawn up in conjunction

with the regional planner of North Okanagan in cooperation with the highway

engineer from the City of Vernon and with your own department. It went to public

hearing and was approved by the people. It was designed in such a way that it

could eventually linkup with any major change that was made on Highway 97.

These people have been very patient. It took two or three

years before I could get a sympathetic ear from the department

under our former administration, but they took a realistic

point of view. Frankly, we have been sitting on a bubbling

kettle all this time. These people have