1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 1984

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4041 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to regulate Smoking in Public Places (Bill M203), Mrs. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading –– 4041

Groundwater Regulation Act (Bill M204). Mrs. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading –– 4041

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. A. Fraser)

On vote 62: minister's office –– 4042

Hon. A. Fraser

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Lockstead

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it's with a profound degree of

sadness and regret that we learn of the death of the Chief Justice of

the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Hon. Bora Laskin. There is no

question that his imprint upon the highest court of our country, and

indeed the legal parameters of Canada, will be of lasting and historic

significance. Chief Justice Laskin was in every sense a true gentleman,

possessing in abundance every characteristic of decency, honesty and

fair-mindedness. His greatest homage, in my view, was to the rule of

law, due judicial process, but tempered always by the fulsome concepts

of equity. His life work and passion for that was always graced with

great capacity of expression, saying not only the way it was but as

people could understand it to be.

I well remember some sentiments that he expressed in our province in the spring

of 1976, when he stated that defiance of the law amounted to a rupture of one

of the essential conditions of our social stability and that such defiance was

not a form of social protest which a tolerant society could tolerate. He said:

"There is a social duty to respect and uphold the law even while seeking

to have it changed or amended. Otherwise, we deny the distinction between lawful

social protest and illegal behaviour upon which our social stability rests."

He further said, Mr. Speaker: "Are we to descend into complete anarchy

by yielding to everyone the privilege of disobedience whenever the law or any

law is considered objectionable? Is not the only rational rule, commanded by

a representative form of government, that we yield to obedience while we continue

with lawful attempts to secure desired changes?" I'd say that those

thoughts, concepts and intellectual leadership are an inspiration for law-abiding

citizens everywhere.

Chief Justice Laskin will be sorely missed. On behalf of

the government side, and indeed I'm sure of all members of this House, I'd

like to state our most heartful sorrow and sympathy to his dear wife Peggy and

all members of his family, and to his court.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I join in the condolences to

Peggy and the two children. I had the privilege of knowing Bora Laskin

much more as a person than as the Chief Justice of Canada. He was a

teacher of mine, a most stimulating teacher — he and C.A.W. Wright at

Osgoode Hall many years ago. He was one who made people think; there

was no right answer, but you had to think through the problems

concerned.

Bora, who rose from a very lowly family in Port Arthur, Ontario, I

think it was, to the chief justiceship of Canada, to support his

growing family at that time would work all night on the Canadian Abridgement ,

abridging the cases — lawyers know what I'm talking about — for about

25 cents a

summary or something of that kind. He would work long hours.

He rose to the highest position in the land, or one of the highest.

So I remember him with affection as well as respect for his memory. The opposition

joins in paying our tribute to both, because he was also a great chief justice,

one of the outstanding legal scholars of the western world, an expert particularly

in constitutional matters, and one who had a warm heart for the deserted wife

or for the civil rights of ordinary human beings. He should be long remembered.

He has made a great contribution to Canada.

HON. MR. SMITH: Maybe I can add a few words, Mr. Speaker, to

what has been so appropriately said by the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations and the second member for Vancouver East.

He was probably a unique jurist in the sense that he went from an

academic background directly to the Ontario Court of Appeal. People who

saw him as an academic forgot the fact that he was a premier Canadian

labour arbitrator before he went to the bench. He participated in a

number of very major developments in labour law; I think particularly

of the Polymer case in Ontario, in which for the first time a union was

held responsible in breach of contract. His labour arbitration

decisions were well worthy of reading and quoting many years later.

When he became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, he tried

to elevate the highest court as a court that would rationalize

decisions across the country and review important questions of law. He

streamlined and modernized that court considerably.

I had the pleasure of appearing before him about five times. He was

a most courteous gentleman. He was also a distinguished writer of

constitutional law. His textbook was, I think, the bible for

constitutional law students in this country for 20 years. His many

articles in the bar reviews of Canada are still used and still quoted.

He was also an extremely warm human being, and he will be greatly

missed by the legal community of Canada.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If it is the wish of the House, the appropriate messages will be sent.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like the House to join me in welcoming

a group of some 50 grade 5 students who are in the precincts today.

They are from Discovery School at Shawnigan Lake, and are accompanied

by their teacher, Mr. Bazuik.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members to bid

a very cordial and warm welcome to some of our neighbours from the

Pacific, the Nakano Junior High School volleyball team from Tokyo. They

are accompanied by their coach Mrs. Yuki, their coach, who attended our

University of British Columbia. They are the number one team in that

city. Our heartiest welcome to you.

[10:15]

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO REGULATE SMOKING

IN PUBLIC PLACES

On a motion by Mrs. Wallace, Bill M203,

An Act to Regulate Smoking

in Public Places, 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.

GROUNDWATER REGULATION ACT

On a motion by Mrs. Wallace, Bill M204, Groundwater Regulation Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to

[ Page 4042 ]

be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

On vote 62: minister's office, $218,797.

HON. A. FRASER: I'm happy to report the estimates for 1984-85

to the House. As members of the House are aware, an infusion of funding

under the employment development account in 1983-84 provided this

ministry with its largest capital construction program ever. This

resulted in accelerated highway construction activity across the

province. While this momentum cannot be carried into 1984-85 at the

same high level, provision is made to continue or complete many of the

projects initiated during the last construction season. With the

completion of the two major projects — the Revelstoke-Mica

section of

Highway 23 and the new Chetwynd-Tumbler Ridge highway in the northeast

coal development — construction activities will now be directed toward

four-lane urban highways throughout the lower mainland and the

improvement of other highway systems at many centres in the interior.

Scheduled for completion in the 1984 construction season are such

projects as the Garbitt tunnel

section of the Hart Highway, the CNR

overhead and approaches at Tyee, the McKenzie Avenue extension in

Saanich, the Cassiar Highway 37 from Cranberry crossing to Derrick

Creek, Mary Hill bypass and Halston bridge approaches in Kamloops.

Construction work, including railway relocation, is progressing on

access routes to the Annacis bridge crossing of the Fraser River. As

disclosed in the budget speech, improvements to Highway 99, Horseshoe

Bay to Squamish, including bridge replacement and installation of

debris basins, are also scheduled to be undertaken in this construction

season. In 1983-84 a record two million tonnes of asphalt concrete

pavement was placed, being the equivalent of 1,147 kilometres of

two-lane highway. Completion of all these projects is scheduled for

1984, including those on Highway 16, Highway 37 and the Kallum Lake

road north of Terrace.

Dredging and construction of islands for the two mainspan piers of

the Annacis crossing are virtually completed, and a contract for the

main span has now been awarded to the firm of PCL-Paschen-Pike, a joint

venture. The approximate value of this one contract is $45 million, for

only the main span of the Annacis crossing. I might say that we hope to

complete the Annacis bridge during the 1986 year. At the present time

$80 million has been spent on the Annacis crossing, and by the time

it's completed in 1986, it will probably advance to about $250 million

for this one structure.

Other new structures or bridges to be completed for this year are

the Halston bridge across the North Thompson at Kamloops, which they've

been waiting 40 years for. The Greenville bridge across the Nass River

will be completed this year. There never has been a bridge in this

area. A replacement bridge at Enderby and a new bridge will open up new

country across the Fort Nelson River north of Fort Nelson, giving us

access to the north B.C. boundary and on into the Northwest

Territories. The federal government is building a road to come down and

meet us at the north B.C. boundary.

A new bridge is under construction from Boston Bar to North Bend on

the Fraser River, to bring them the first permanent crossing they've

ever had there. Work will continue on other structures, including

railway overpasses of the CNR between Prince George and Prince Rupert.

In the motor vehicle department, changes have now been made that

will improve service to the public in the area of motor vehicle and

driver licensing. Licensed vehicles in the province are nearly two

million, while drivers now number 2,200,000. Improved inspection

programs for buses and other commercial vehicles are being emphasized,

and efforts to eliminate drinking drivers continue as a high priority.

The upgrading of airport facilities will continue, and I would like

to emphasize that. I think statements have been made in the House that

it has been discontinued. This very small but effective program will

continue in the 1984-85 year, funded at a lower level of $2,200,000 but

not eliminated.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The other responsibilities of this ministry are the B.C. Ferries

Corporation, B.C. Steamships and the Motor Carrier Commission. I would

just like to say that we have been at work, along with the private

sector under contracts, doing some early road work and paving where we

can in the lower mainland and on Vancouver Island, and in the interior

are working on bridge construction, gravelling of rural roads, and so

on. This work was stepped up in February because of the good weather we

had, and is presently employing 2,500, mostly in the private sector.

With those short remarks, I look forward to the debate on these

estimates. Before I sit down I would like to introduce the people who

actually do the work: Deputy Minister Al Rhodes — the junior to our

ministry, starting his forty-first year, I believe, with this ministry;

George Baldwin, the general manager of B.C. Ferries; and Keith Jackman,

the superintendent of motor vehicles.

MR. PASSARELL: I'd also like to welcome the able staff, and

before we get on to vote 62 I'd like to congratulate the minister on

the cooperation he's offered to me over the last few years, and since

I've been the official critic of the Ministry of Transportation and

Highways the minister has been very helpful. Secondly, I am grateful

for the cooperation the House Leader and the minister offered me

regarding these estimates being brought up today, as I was in my riding

having a nice visit with my son during spring break last week. I thank

the minister for allowing the estimates to come up after I returned to

Victoria.

Now on to vote 62, Mr. Chairman. I see that the overall budget is

down $32 million from last year. Basically the estimate itself has two

major parts. The first

part is Highways operations, and the second is

highway construction and improvements. On a positive note, we see that

highway maintenance — the maintenance and operation of highways and

roads, bridges and ferry routes, tunnels and winter maintenance — is up

by $23 million. This is a good sign, particularly for us in the far

north who know that winter maintenance provides an important

transportation link for us, and without the winter maintenance by the

able crews we would be in difficulty.

[ Page

4043 ]

Regarding winter maintenance, we've been lucky in many parts of the province

in that we've had low snow tables, but compounding this have been higher

than normal ice conditions across the province, which cost the ministry even

more money, because instead of just ploughing they had to go out and sand. After

talking with Highways personnel in the Dease Lake area, I know the icy conditions

have cost more money in that area.

The second major part of Highways operations is highway construction

and improvements. This is the area in which the biggest cuts have

occurred; it is down $59 million. Road construction has been cut almost

in half and is down to $55 million, and paving has been cut by

one-third. One of the interesting subsections of this particular area

is.... I quote from the budget speech: "Recoveries are received from

shared programs with the federal government for railroad crossings, as

well as northeast coal grade construction, in conjunction with B.C.

Rail." I will be asking a series of questions, Mr. Minister, and the

first one is: how much money has the province received from the federal

government for railroad crossings? The second is: how much has been

received from B.C. Rail? We all know that the budget itself paid

approximately half a billion dollars to the debt of B.C. Rail, which

means the taxpayers are paying for the public rail line.

Another major issue which I'd like to address, and on which I have a

series of questions for the minister, is regarding the motor vehicle

department. The minister is aware of the public outcry across this

province, particularly on the mainland, over the closing of this

important government service. To use Ontario as an example — and I've

done this many times in the House since we've started looking at

privatization of the motor vehicle inspection branches, in that we're

going to be using a program similar to that used in Ontario.... There

have been many problems associated with the Ontario program, where they

charge a little over $50 to have your vehicle tested. One of the

problems I think we should be looking at, if we're going to move in

this direction, is that we have to impose some type of regulation on

the private dealerships that will be doing this, particularly with

respect to overcharging for maintenance work. An individual may bring

his vehicle into a private garage to have the inspection done, and

before the car is released with the decal, the dealership charges

maintenance costs, saying that he needs a new brake line or something

like that when he might just need some fluid in the brake lines.

The second problem — and this is well documented in the press and

also in correspondence that I've received from Ontario — is that there

is a problem in Ontario with individuals who do go into the private

service stations, lay $50 across the table and get their decal, without

even having the vehicle inspected. I know it's difficult for government

to get into the situation of playing Big Brother, but I would rather

see some type of regulation whereby individuals don't just go and lay

the $50 across the table — or $35, if that's what it is — and receive

the decal without even being inspected.

It appears that the government's intent with regard to motor vehicle inspection

is to have it across the province. I know we're debating this in a special

House committee right now. One of the problems that could be associated with

having this vehicle-testing program across the province instead of, as the previous

program was, only in the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island is that

if you have it across the province, you're going to have some problems,

particularly in isolated and rural areas where the only garage in town can just

pump gas and fix tires.

[10:30]

I'll give you an example. In Cassiar there is only one gas station

in the immediate area. You can go 100 miles south down to Dease Lake,

but you find yourself in the same situation. Or you can go up to Watson

Lake in the Yukon, another 100 miles to the north. If you're going to

have this vehicle-testing across the province and every owner of a

vehicle is going to have to get his vehicle tested once a year to

receive a safety decal, as in Ontario, how are you going to have the

only gas station in town perform the service or the duty, unless the

minister has grants in the future to give to the small gas stations

across this province in order to buy equipment to deal in this area?

The second area in regard to the motor vehicle inspection branches

and some of the controversy that arose is that if you look back to the

aspect of the branches in the lower mainland, we found that people who

live on the mainland, as do the majority of people in this province who

own vehicles, used to pay $5 to have their vehicle tested. The

government was losing money by charging $5 per vehicle inspection, and

sources from the motor vehicle inspection branch stated that there

could be a break-even point by raising the fee an additional 50 cents

to $5.50. The suggestion I made — I think a number of people have made

it — is that if $5.50 would bring a break-even point to the government

on motor vehicle inspection, why didn't we raise it to $6, keep the

program in existence and make a profit? That's a solution we should

have looked at, instead of closing down the motor vehicle inspection

branches so quickly, without looking at all the facts. There is an

important service provided by the motor vehicle inspection branches in

the lower mainland in keeping unsafe vehicles off the road.

I have another question. What is going to happen to the motor

vehicle inspection branch buildings now that the program is gone? Are

they going to be turned over? Are they owned by BCBC? Are they going to

be put out for tender, or is the government going to keep these

buildings vacant for a year or so and then reassess their position?

They might just open up again. I guess there is a lot of equipment

still in these buildings that could be used for the general motoring

public. My second question in regard to this area: if we're talking

restraint, a term which is often bandied around, how much will the

government save in closing down the motor vehicle inspection branches?

When the government was charging $5 for motor vehicle inspections, I

think it was losing $2 million to $3 million. That might be a high

figure, but let's say it was $2 million or $3 million. A concern that I

have, and one that I think a number of people around this province

have, is that once we closed down the motor vehicle inspection

branches, what happened to these unsafe vehicles that are on the road?

Is it the responsibility of the RCMP to be pulling unsafe vehicles off

the road? And is ICBC saving money at this stage of the game, with the

vehicle inspection branches closed down? I doubt it. With unsafe and

untested vehicles on the road, particularly in the lower mainland and

lower Vancouver Island, where the majority of vehicles are owned, it

looks like there could be a problem.

Another question I'd like to direct in this area is, can the

minister give assurances to this House that ICBC hasn't had to pay any

additional accident costs since the vehicle inspection stations closed?

Is the minister aware — or does he have the information — that work at

body shops has increased in

[ Page 4044 ]

the last six months, and whether there is any direct relationship to the closing of the motor vehicle inspection branches?

I'd like to move to the topic of transit. We're all aware of the

selling of PCL. We're also aware that basically this falls under the

auspices of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). The

reason I'm directing transit to the Minister of Highways and

Transportation is that the questions I'll be raising deal with safety

on the roads. The overriding question is: what steps has your ministry

taken — or does it intend to take — to provide more safety on our

highways? One suggestion that I just jotted down, which I think we

should be discussing under this estimate for regulation and/or act, is

mandatory car seats for infants. I think that's long overdue in this

province. It's something we should have been dealing with. My colleague

the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) has raised this issue a

number of times, and will continue to raise this issue until the

government brings in regulations to protect infants on our highways.

Secondly, airbags. A lot of studies have been done in the United States regarding airbags in vehicles as safety precautions.

A third suggestion, which the minister touched on in his opening

statements, is for tougher regulations in regard to drunk drivers who

kill people in killer accidents in this province. I think there should

be stronger laws and regulations coming in to protect the public from

drunks who go around and drive into and kill people.

Another issue I think we should be discussing is road safety. "60

Minutes" did a report on airbags, not in vehicles but on highways,

particularly coming up to bridge approaches and tunnel embankments,

instead of cars crashing into concrete. I've noticed that over the last

few years the ministry has been replacing the garbage cans — I think

they're like garbage cans — that you see filled with water or sand or

whatever, so that a vehicle that goes off the road will crash into the

garbage cans first before crashing into concrete embankments.

Another suggestion for safety on our highways is night-glow paint on

all the roads. I've noticed that we use some of that night-glow paint

down here in Victoria and in some areas of the mainland because of the

foggy conditions to replace the orange or white lines that have dotted

our highways for years. The night-glow paint on the center line and the

lines on the right side of the road allows the driver some type of

safety when it comes to foggy and rainy conditions. I would like to see

a continuing program of night-glow paints put on our highways.

The last issue is single-lane Bailey bridge approaches, which we'll

get into in a little more detail when we get into constituency problems.

The next issue I'd like to discuss under vote 62 is the air services

branch. I'm pleased to see increases, Mr. Minister, for this worthwhile

operation. I've been the air services critic since 1979, and I think

that any of us who look at this worthwhile program should congratulate

the ground crews, the pilots and the dispatchers. They continue to show

expertise in this area, and I think they probably lead North America,

if not the world, in the services they provide, particularly for us who

don't live in the lower mainland and who need the air services branch,

the government aircraft and the air ambulance service when it comes to

medical evacuation of children or families from the far north. The

entire program surrounding this is worthwhile and deserves my highest

congratulations in this regard. The medics and doctors associated with

the air ambulance service should also be congratulated for a job well

done.

One of the negative aspects of the air services branch is the

continuing overuse of the government aircraft by cabinet ministers. I

don't know if we're ever going to get away from it. I've studied the

logs, and I would hope that the minister will be tabling the last

year's logs in the near future. It's an ongoing problem, of cabinet

ministers using the government aircraft between Vancouver and Victoria.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, Mr. Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), I would like to go home up to Atlin

sometimes for dinner, too, and then come back here, but I'm stuck down

here in Victoria, as are many of us. But there are some cabinet

ministers, as you are aware, who overuse the government aircraft to go

home, and you're not going to be able to defend that.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: If it's not being used.... This is a time of

government restraint, which is what the minister should be talking

about instead of saying: "It's already being used; let's keep it full."

That's like saying the motor vehicle branches are being used by the

motoring public in the lower mainland so let's keep them open. I'll

rest my case on that one. I don't think that any cabinet minister is

going to be able to stand up in an era of restraint and talk about

government cabinet ministers who overuse the government aircraft. I

think there should be some time....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the minister to come to order.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to go on to a question here to the minister in regard to

this issue: what are the costs involved in cabinet ministers using the

government aircraft? Secondly, does the overabuse fall in line with the

government's restraint program?

One further issue before I go into constituency problems is a recent report in the 100 Mile House Free Press ,

which I'm sure the minister is aware of, dated February 24. It says:

"Highways Gain Full-time Positions." My question is: why is 100 Mile

House, in the minister's riding, the only Highways district in B.C. not

subject to cutbacks in full-time personnel? I was a little upset when I

saw this article, because I know the service that the Highways

personnel provide across this province. It's an excellent project, as

well as the employment that they provide and the service they give to

the motoring public.

Going on to constituency problems now, Mr. Chairman. This is an

ongoing problem. The minister and I have spent much time talking about

the specific issue of Bailey bridges on Highway 37. It's a dangerous

situation because often you come up onto a hill, because they cross

streams and rivers, and come onto a single-lane approach onto a Bailey

bridge.

Secondly, the minister referred to it today as the Speech from the Throne, saying that the bridge at Greenville is the

[ Page 4045 ]

first crossing of the Nass. The minister didn't say

that this morning. He said the first crossing at that area, which is

correct: that's the first time a bridge has gone and crossed over to

Greenville. But in the throne speech it said the first crossing of the

Nass. There are numerous crossings of the Nass, particularly Highway

37; the road into Kitsault crosses the Nass as well as the bridge into

Canyon City. Next time these southern bureaucrats are writing the

throne speech, I certainly hope they talk to your able staff, who can

point out where bridges are and aren't in this province.

[10:45]

Thirdly, I was pleased to see the right-of-way work being done on

the Atlin road. We did last year's estimates just a month or a month

and a half ago. I raised this issue, and the minister came back and

said there would be a program starting. I was pleased to hear that. The

particular problem that I pointed out to the minister was the big

boulders that were on the right-of-way. It's a dangerous situation. I

was back in the riding this week, and I could see that there has been a

big change. Those are being cleared out for safety.

The fourth question on constituency problems that I'll be directing

to the minister is this. A program was started last year on Highway 37.

It's been done before, but this seemed a major program. It is the

calcium program for dust control. Is the ministry going to continue? Is

there going to be any increase in the budget for calcium for dust

control on Highway 37? Basically it's a gravel road, and the calcium

does cut dust down, particularly when you're driving by one of those

big Arrow trucks going down south. When they pass you at 45 or 50 miles

an hour, and you've got a cloud of dust that lasts for about five

minutes, you have to pull over and wait for the dust to subside.

Does the government have any plans to lift the road restrictions on

Highway 37 at this time? The reason I ask is that Cassiar

Resources-Brinco have written to me saying that the road restrictions

on Highway 37 are causing them lower cost and so on. This is a

two-edged sword, because if you allow big vehicles, particularly those

ore trucks, to go over the road restrictions.... What's happening is

that in the spring breakup you tear the road up pretty well and it

takes all summer to have it fixed. I'd like the minister's comments as

to whether he has received any correspondence from Cassiar in regard to

the lifting of road restrictions on Highway 37.

The next constituency issue is the government's statements regarding

northwest development, particularly the statement that the government

would assist in the infrastructure and in the financing of it. What

plans for new roads, if any, does the ministry have in regard to the

northwest development program that the government has brought out for

the second or third time? Can you give any details on where these new

roads will be and the construction costs, particularly in the areas of

Telegraph Creek and Iskut, where the major resources are for this

northwest development plan?

Another constituency issue is the improvement of the access corridor

to Stewart. The minister is aware that Stewart is B.C.'s most northerly

ice-free port, and a suggestion in which I believe strongly is that

with Granduc being closed down — how long no one knows; it looks like

they're selling all the assets right now — Stewart should be pushed at

the federal and provincial levels as the major port. As part of the

northwest development scheme, Stewart should be used as one of the

terminuses of a new railway system from Stewart to the existing B.C.

Rail going toward Dease Lake. I'd like to know if there are any plans

by the ministry for road development into Stewart. I know the ministry

has just paved that

Section in the last few years, which I know many

residents from all over the far north, who are able to start around

Meziadin and drive almost all the way to Kitwanga on pavement,

appreciate. The minister did say that this summer the

section around

Cranberry will be paved — the 12 miles that is left between Kitwanga

and Meziadin that isn't paved yet. That should be completed this year.

As the minister is responsible for highways and transportation in

this province.... We've heard a lot of talk, particularly in the press,

in regard to the northwest development scheme — since the northwest is

the last frontier in the province that is virtually untapped — about

the rail linkage. We have the railbeds going in as far as Dease Lake,

but has the ministry been approaching the territory of the Yukon and

the state of Alaska in regard to putting the railway up through the

Yukon, past Cassiar, up into Watson Lake, across to Whitehorse and into

Alaska? We would have a rail linkage between the state of Alaska, which

has had no rail line since the White Pass, which went into Skagway,

closed down, through to the southern United States.

The next issue I'd like to talk about in the two minutes remaining,

before I have another speaker, is in regard to tourism. Can the

minister answer another question — I think I've directed about 20 or 30

questions to the minister: is there any indication of the ministry

pushing Highway 37 as the gateway to Alaska? Why I talk about this is

that tourism in the far north is our number one industry, and I would

certainly hope that the Tourism minister, (Hon. Mr. Richmond) would

endorse these suggestions, as I know he will. Highway 37 offers many

opportunities to this province, and particularly to small businesses in

the far north, as the gateway to Alaska. For years, since the

completion of the Alaska Highway, from Fort St. John, Fort Nelson,

Watson Lake, Whitehorse and then on to Fairbanks, it has been the only

route that government and chambers of commerce have looked upon. If you

are going to Alaska, you're going to take the Alaska Highway. I think

that with the amount of work that's been done on Highways 16 and 37,

Highway 37 is, if not a better road than the Alaska Highway....

One last question before I run out of time how much money does the

federal government give the province of British Columbia for any type

of maintenance work on the Alaska Highway? Because it really isn't the

Ministry of Highways personnel who are maintaining the Alaska Highway.

I'd like to know if it is broken down into transfer payments from the

federal government in regard to the Alaska Highway.

Another question I have is about the Nass road. The minister has

received much correspondence from the Nishga people who live in the

area in regard to the Nass road, particularly the

section between

Greenville, where the new bridge is to be located, and New Aiyansh. It

is a forestry road, and when the forest company is not operating, the

road isn't maintained to the level that it should be. I remember going

in there last fall when a couple of culverts had been broken for a

number of months, and it was quite dangerous.

Mr. Chairman, I see that my time has run out, and I would like an intervening speaker.

HON. A. FRASER: I will go from the back to the front in an

attempt to answer some of the member's question. Roads, as the member

probably knows, around Greenville and

[ Page 4046 ]

Aiyansh are forest access roads. This is not a

satisfactory situation, but we give money to Forests, who in turn give

a contract out for snow removal and so on, so they are not neglected

and forgotten.

Just one more point: as you know, we are rebuilding and paving north

of Terrace on what's known as the Kallum Lake road. That's in the

highway system. Our ultimate aim is to get all the way, but there are a

lot of problems and a long way to go. My understanding is that we could

complete half of the total distance to New Aiyansh this year, and that

resolves the problem once and for all.

My understanding is that the Alaska Highway is under the

jurisdiction of the federal government, and they contract out all their

maintenance. The province of British Columbia has an agreement with the

federal government that as they rebuild and pave the road, the province

of British Columbia will take over that

section which is in British

Columbia. We have taken over about 90 miles north of mile zero because

it has been rebuilt and paved. I would like to compliment the

from there all the way through to Whitehorse. They're spending

millions. They are probably doing it to speed up the turnover to us,

but they have certainly done a lot of work and should be congratulated

we will be taking over more of the highway.

I noted the member's remarks about tourism on Highway 37 to Alaska.

I guess we have not really promoted tourism to Alaska, and I'm not so

sure that we're in a good position to do that until we have a little

better road and can promote Highway 37.

As far as I'm concerned, the Yukon has not been approached regarding

rail. That is not my direct responsibility but that of the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). As a

member of the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development I have not seen

that come up.

The member mentioned access to Stewart. They've never had better

access than the road which was rebuilt and paved, with bridges replaced

and so on. They have an excellent harbour there, and as the member

knows, the asbestos is being hauled some 300 miles from Cassiar to be

loaded on barges and sent to the world market from Stewart. I have

heard discussion that a sawmill might be established in the Stewart

area, but there is nothing definite regarding that.

The member mentioned new roads. The only new road I've heard of is

the one at Klappan Cove. There seems to be some excitement about coal

deposits behind the Iskut area, and if anything happens there I believe

some new road would be required to transport the anthracite coal to

Stewart. As I say, the company is fairly excited, but I don't know if

anything will get going. I did hear one discussion that it could start

as early as this fall, and will require 18 or 20 miles of new road to

connect to Highway 37 so that larger rigs can haul the coal down to

Stewart.

The member also mentioned railroads. I think railroads have been

built all over Atlin, as far as drawing lines is concerned. But I am

not aware of any railroad construction. As you know, we shut down the

extension which goes right into Dease Lake.

[11:00]

Dealing with dust control, last year we paved 47 kilometres north of Kitwancool

as part of the program we have on Highway 37. As part of the answer dealing

with the member's question on Bailey bridges, we built six permanent bridges,

and for 1984 we contemplate completing that large contract near Cranberry, which

is the grading and paving of another 18.5 kilometres. The paving that was done

at Meziadin is what we call a first lift, and a second lift is to go on, as

well as two permanent bridges. I'm not so sure how to answer you on dust

control. We want to do some seal-coating on a

section of road in the Stikine

River area, as well as the

Section in the B.C.-Yukon border area north of Cassiar.

The total we're looking at there — and I'm emphasizing sealcoating — would

be 60 kilometres. So, yes, there are plans to increase the sealcoating, which,

in some cases where you get the right weather, is pretty satisfactory.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

I'd like to comment on Highway 37. At the end of 1984, 440

kilometres of this 800-kilometre Highway 37 and Highway 37A will be

paved or sealcoated. So we are making some progress, in other words.

We're at the halfway mark of servicing that large distance of 800

kilometres. We'll have more or less 440 of the 800 kilometres under

control, so it makes it a little safer and better for everyone

concerned.

Air services. I appreciate your comments about air services and make

the observation that on air services you're correct; we have a fine

service there. Your observation was that cabinet ministers are abusing

this service. I'd make the observation that that is on a scheduled run.

You're specifically referring to the Vancouver-Victoria service. It is

on a scheduled run.

You picked out an area in the province with no staff cutbacks. It

happened to be 100 Mile House in my riding. Quite frankly, I asked the

same question. But that was done by the senior management people due to

their management program. That's how it affected that one specific area

of the province. As I say, I asked the same question myself.

You talked about transit. I'm not responsible for transit, but you

were driving at safety on the roads and so on, and you are quite

correct; of course we're concerned about safety on roads. I'd point out

that one thing that we've been doing for five years — and I don't know,

but probably at a minimum cost now of $25 million — is guardrail. We've

really gone all out on guardrail, and I think it's a conservative

figure to say we've spent $25 million on the installation of guardrail

all over the province, as a safety measure.

I think you referred to air bags, but I haven't heard any discussion about that at all.

We have another safety feature that's put into our major structures.

They're not garbage barrels, Mr. Member, they're barrels filled with

sand. The idea behind that is that the safety engineers say that a

motorist who is out of control, rather than hit the concrete of the

bridge, will hit that first and won't get as much damage.

Child restraints. I've had that up here before, and we are still

discussing it in government. The opinion seems to be that parents have

a big responsibility here. I've said before in the House that if we

went ahead with child restraints, who's going to enforce it? I really

think there's a heavy responsibility on the parent of a child who is

under six years old. That is why the pause and hesitation regarding

child restraints. We haven't any imminent plans for putting that in and

making it mandatory. We aren't stopping anybody from using child

restraints now.

[ Page 4047 ]

A few questions here, from the first part, Mr. Chairman, regarding

the testing stations. I think you asked about what's going to happen to

them. The landlord and owner is BCBC. They've been notified that they

are surplus to our requirements, and I imagine they'll be disposing of

them. Through my office there have been quite a few inquiries from

people interested in purchasing them for different commercial uses.

Savings on the closing of the motor vehicle stations. This has been

argued back and forth, but it appears that about $3.5 million per year

is the saving, when you take all things into consideration — staff

benefits and so on. I would make this other observation, regarding

vehicles that you mentioned: it is illegal to operate an unsafe vehicle

on the highway. That's been in the Motor Vehicle Act for years.

Regarding ICBC's studies and whether we are costing or saving them

money, I believe they say we cost. I don't know whether that's right or

not, because these studies are all based on assumptions. I read one of

their studies, and a lot of it was assuming a lot of things if certain

things happened. It's certainly argumentative whether it will cost or

save ICBC money.

A lot of debate has gone on regarding the $5 price we were charging

for motor vehicle inspections. To the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell),

I think you said that if we raised them 50 cents or even a dollar, then

we'd be out of the woods. Again, after full analysis, the actual cost

is apparently about $12. That's what I get from the senior staff, so it

was a lot larger issue than raising it 50 cents, in spite, I think, of

some people saying that. When you delve into all the costs, it just

wasn't so.

I have a note here on the money we receive from the federal

government regarding railroad crossings — we call it grade crossings.

How much money is received from the federal government for grade

crossings in B.C.? It's about $24 million over the past six years under

the urban transportation assistance program. This program ends on March

31, 1984, and the federal government hasn't yet announced a new

program. We've been pressing the federal government to get a new

program in place, but I understand they haven't yet made a decision on

the program. That's where that stands. Yes, we do get some help. As you

can see, $24 million over six years is well appreciated.

It's my understanding that we don't get any money.... I think you

mentioned B.C. Rail. When we're talking about assistance from Ottawa,

the assistance applies to the mainline railroads, not to B.C. Rail. I

wasn't clear about what you said.

MR. PASSARELL: It's in the budget under the vote description.

HON. A. FRASER: Oh, you were referring to the northeast coal

project, probably, regarding B.C. Rail. How much did the federal

government contribute to B.C. Rail? Their contribution was a relatively

minor one; we shared the cost of planning studies and so on. Federal

funds have gone into the Ridley Island access road at Prince Rupert.

The federal government covered half of this $8.6 million spent on the

road. Another federal involvement includes upgrading the CN line from

Prince George to Prince Rupert. They're spending more than $100 million

this year alone on the north line for building the new coal terminal

that is now in operation at Ridley Island. Again, that's with the

I probably haven't answered them all, but I think I answered most of your questions, Mr. Member.

MR. PASSARELL: I gave the minister about 20 or 25 questions.

It's just as easy if you can get back to me, once you get the

information, like the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) did a week

or two weeks ago, whatever. Once you get the information, I'd be

appreciative of that, if it would make it a little easier for you

instead of having to get the information this morning.

I have a couple of other questions before I get back in. I still

have a number of constituency problems. The barrel is a barrel. To us

old country boys they look like garbage cans, but I understand what

they are.

I was talking about the restraint seats for the children. You made a

comment, Mr. Minister, in regard to who will enforce it, saying that

it's the parents' role. It's true that it's the parents' role, but by

the same token it's police responsibility too if we make a law. It's

just like the seatbelt legislation we have in this province. Who is

going to enforce it? The police are going to have to enforce it. If a

parent is driving around with a two-year-old baby sitting in the front

seat without a restrainer, they would be charged the same as if you or

I were driving and we didn't have our seatbelts on. We'd get a fine

too. I think that's the responsibility of us as lawmakers bringing

forth laws — not expecting the parents to enforce the regulation on

their children.

The other thing you said in regard to the closing of the motor

vehicle branches is that it's illegal to operate an unsafe vehicle

under the laws of this province. Of course it is, but all you have to

do is take a walk one night by a highway or any road in this province

and you see more one-eyed bandits than you do in any other province. I

think a lot of people driving in this province don't really realize

that there are two headlights on a vehicle; they're getting away with

driving with one. Of course it's illegal to operate an unsafe vehicle,

but for a lot of people, unless they get pulled over by the police....

When the motor vehicle inspection branches were in existence, there

used to be that little card that came through the mail telling you that

you had to report. If you lived in the lower mainland or on Vancouver

Island and your vehicle was registered here, you received a card

through the mail with a little letter telling you to show up at the

vehicle inspection. Then people would start becoming serious about

their unsafe vehicles.

I was pleased to hear you say that the break-even point was $12 more

or less. I would rather pay $12 to have my vehicle inspected than the

figure of $50 that's been bandied around, like in Ontario. If I can get

away with $12, I'd rather not pay $50. That's something we have to

seriously look at as lawmakers for this province. If it's $12, then

maybe we should take a second look at it.

[11:15]

In regard to some of the constituency problems that came back, I

understand about the snow removal on the Nass road. You just can't

let.... That's an area of high concentration of snow. But my concern is

the maintenance. We know it's a forestry road, and when B.C. Timber

isn't in operation, the road deteriorates because they're not using the

trucks. I think it's time that we seriously looked at taking that

highway into our highway grid system. It's not just a forestry road

that B.C. Timber uses, but well over 1,000 people from the communities

of that area — the community of Greenville with 400 or 500 people,

Canyon City with a couple of

[ Page 4048 ]

hundred people, New Aiyansh with 500 or 600 people

— use that road, and I think it's time that the families that live in

the Nass area are entitled to a provincial highway.

I was pleased to hear your comments in regard to the Alaska Highway.

That would be a nice day when it was turned over, wouldn't it? What do

you think we should call it — the Phil Gaglardi road? But I'm pleased

to hear that.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Bobby Ball road.

MR. PASSARELL: The Bobby Ball road! Who would...? Yeah, okay.

You'll be up there again, I hope, in the next election. I'd like to be

re-elected, Mr. Minister of Forests.

In regard to Highway 37, I'm pleased to hear, and I'm sure the

constituents of Atlin are pleased to hear, that it has been seal-coated

or paved to the halfway mark. There has been a big improvement on that

road in the last few years.

When I was talking about Stewart and the option of transportation

access, I was talking firstly about the rail linkage. You're a member

of the economic development committee. Secondly, when it comes to the

road — as the minister is aware — when you drive from Bear Glacier,

halfway between Meziadin and Stewart, into the community of Stewart,

you're going by Bear Glacier, and that's a pretty dangerous area. Quite

often in winter you have large snowslides in that area. A lot of times

you can be driving in there and see a rock or boulder ten feet high

that has rolled down from the top of the mountain lying on the road.

That's the aspect I'm wondering about. Is the ministry looking at any

other road access into Stewart?

You've answered my question in regard to the Alaska Highway, and I

have a similar question. I don't know if the minister has ever been to

Mile 48. I went in there about two years ago for the first time. Have

you ever been up on the Haines road?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Really? They told me they'd never seen you and

didn't even know who you were. Mile 48, just for the information of the

House, is probably one of the smallest communities in all of British

Columbia, and probably the most isolated area of the province. It runs

from the Alaska Highway west of Whitehorse down from the Yukon for a

short section, maybe 50 or 60 miles, through British Columbia and then

into Haines, Alaska. Who is maintaining that road right now? When I

stopped into the government camp there, it looks.... There is no

British Columbia emblem. When you pull into the highway camp, it

appears to be done by the Yukon or the federal government, because it

only has the flag of the Yukon and the federal flag. I know that it's

difficult to go and put a new British Columbia Highways camp there, and

I'm not asking that. But when I'm driving through my constituency I

would at least like to see a British Columbia emblem or some

recognition that we are in British Columbia and not in the Yukon, even

though we're 50 or 60 miles into the province. If we could somehow find

$10 or $20 in the ministry's budget we could take a flag up there. The

next time I go on the Haines road to go fishing, we can put up a flag

in the territory of British Columbia. We do have some comments

regarding British Columbia's flags in the schoolrooms, and I would like

to see them at least put up in camps in the province.

What type of funding does the province of British Columbia give to

the Yukon or the federal government to maintain the Haines road? It's

being done by the Yukon, and I'm wondering what type of transfer

payments we have for keeping the B.C.

section open.

Another question — I have a letter and a statement that we discussed

in this House — is the problem of a local resident who was having

problems with the local hire-up at Dease Lake. He had equipment, and he

was wondering why Dease Lake hadn't hired his equipment. The minister

sent me back a letter; I appreciated that letter. But the man said it

appeared that somehow a lack of communication.... Dease Lake didn't

have the right information. He has got to reapply. When you're talking

about heavy equipment, as the minister said, you need scrapers to start

off on the project. He had some scrapers that he could have used on

this; he uses it in his gold-mining operation. The whole concept of

local hiring....

Those are 27 questions that I direct to the minister. A final

comment before he answers the final questions that I've asked him.

Living in the far north and with the amount of time that I travel in my

constituency — probably the only way to get through the Atlin

constituency is to drive or hitchhike, and you spend all your time on

the highways — I'm pleased with the work that has been going on on

Highway 37, the Atlin road, and right through my constituency as well

as the roads that are being worked on and maintained right across this

province. I see much improvement. Much of that credit has to go to the

minister as well as to the men and women who work in the Ministry of

Highways who provide us the opportunity to travel on highways to almost

every area in this province. The entire ministry of Transportation and

Highways performs an excellent service to the province of British

Columbia.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the

member for the compliments, and I would like it to go to the staff. I

think we do an excellent job. It's nice to hear it acknowledged by the

member and anybody else. We do get lots of complaints; they're pretty

noisy ones at times, and it becomes discouraging. But when you have

compliments it lifts everybody, particularly the staff who have to do

the work.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

You mention the Haines road, Mr. Member. I'm advised by my deputy

that you are correct: the Haines road is British Columbia. But all

money and all jurisdiction of it has been turned over to the government

of Canada. They do all the spending; we don't spend any money at all. I

agree with you that maybe we could spend enough to find a symbol of the

province to show that it is British Columbia. Certainly we'll look into

that and see if we can't do something about it.

The other item that you had is an option road to Stewart. I'm aware

of the Bear Pass and, as you said, it's a difficult piece of road —

well, dangerous at certain times. Maybe they have an option road

they're looking at, but I haven't heard of it. If they found an option

tomorrow, I don't think it would be very high in our priorities in view

of.... In your area alone we'd like to replace some Bailey bridges if

we've got some money, rather than an option road.

You started off with child restraints and, yes, it's enforcement. That's correct. Enforcement of seatbelts and so

[ Page 4049 ]

on.... We're getting a lot better cooperation now,

but it's an additional enforcement problem that you give the

enforcement officers who say now that they can't keep up with

everything.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, it seems it was only last week

we were up here talking about transportation and highways and ferries

and debating last year's.... No, we weren't debating last year's

estimates, Mr. Chairman; we were debating estimates from the year

before. Now we're debating last year's estimates — I think.

I don't think we've received this year's annual report in terms of

the B.C. Ferry Corporation or Highways. But as you know, I'm the one in

our caucus responsible for the water transportation aspect — B.C.

Ferries and so forth — of the minister's portfolio. So I'd like to

start with that in view and ask the minister a few questions. I'm going

to try as hard as possible to avoid repeating what's already in Hansard from when we debated this portfolio on February 6 and 7 earlier this year, but I might go back a bit on some of it.

Having said that, I'm going to repeat what I said to the minister at

that time. The effect of the increased ferry fares on people on the

Sunshine Coast, the Gulf Islands, Bowen Island and Vancouver Island....

I must say that we in the opposition didn't get that much flak on the 6

percent fare increases to Vancouver Island. In these times of inflation

and recession and increased costs, people will accept a 6 percent

increase in those kinds of services from time to time. However, the

fare increases, coupled with the reduction in service to other parts of

coastal British Columbia particularly — I'll talk about the interior

after a bit — has had and will have a severe effect in these areas.

I'll talk about the Sunshine Coast in particular, where at the

moment we have 36 percent unemployment, where the number of people

receiving assistance from Human Resources has doubled in less than two

years and these kinds of things. I mention that because the ferries

into these areas — to the Gulf Islands, the Sunshine Coast, Powell

River, Texada and all of those islands — are our highways. We have no

other means, except air transportation — if you can afford it. A large

portion of our economy in these areas depends on the type of service

and the fares charged on those vessels.

I've often said that horrendous fare increases of that nature are

counterproductive. Less people are going to use those vessels.

Therefore the whole economy of these areas suffer. I'm thinking

particularly of areas like Gibsons, Sechelt and Powell River. As the

number of people using the ferry service is reduced and fares are

increased, obviously fewer people will use the ferry services. What you

get as a result of that is.... When I go to senior people within the

corporation to discuss these situations — and I would like to put on

record that they've been very good in supplying me with facts and

information; I've never been refused a meeting or a request for

information by the senior people within the corporation; that is not my

problem or my quarrel here this morning.... What I'm saying is that as

the number of passengers using the vessels, because of fare increases,

is reduced, we have a situation.... When I go to the corporation to

complain on behalf of my constituents that service is being reduced —

and I want to talk about that a bit later as well, Mr. Chairman — the

people at the corporation can easily — and I have many of the

statistics here, by month, by year, by day and the whole thing.... I'm

not going to go through all that, but the overview is that as the

number of people using the vessels is reduced, that justifies the

corporation — from the corporation's point of view at least, and the

minister's — in cutting back on service. So it is counterproductive.

[11:30]

I admit that I did appreciate it when the chairman of the board and

the general manager, sitting on the floor of the House here today, met

with our people in Powell River. A major concession was made. Resident

commuter cards were removed from all the residents — all forty-some-odd

thousand people living in the Sunshine Coast-Powell River area. We lost

that — gone forever. I'm not sure about forever, but gone anyway. That

was something introduced by a former Social Credit government. I guess

the government giveth and the government taketh away. A concession was

made which is proving beneficial to at least some of the residents;

I'll tell you in a minute whom it is not helping. The senior people and

the corporation went back to the board of directors and on the

commuter-type ticket, which was only good.... At the time, if you

bought a block of ten tickets for $148, or something like that — I'm

just going from memory here; I don't have the figure in front of me —

you got a reduced fare, but you had to use those tickets within that

month or they were useless to you. Consequently, prior to the meeting

in the spring of this year, I think the corporation had sold only four

sets of tickets to people living in Powell River. Because the tickets

are now good all year round, people are taking advantage of that. We

still don't have preferred loading on routes 3 and 7. Nonetheless, the

tickets are good all year round, and people are purchasing them. Those

who can't and won't purchase those tickets, and who consequently have

to pay the higher fares, are the many people on unemployment in the

area at the time. These people simply cannot afford to put out the

money up front to take advantage of the reduced fares, so those who

have the least are paying the most.

This brings me to subsidies. I notice that the subsidy from the

government to the corporation this year has not increased by $1. It’s

exactly the same this year as it was last year. We know that costs have

gone up. Fuel costs are up, and labour costs marginally. I don't think

labour costs have really gone up that much in terms of overall payroll

because of the cutbacks in the number of personnel on many of the

vessels. You may not know this, Mr. Chairman, but some of the vessels

have been reclassified in line with the Canadian Steamship Act and the

Canadian Coast Guard. Many of the vessels have been recertified,

resulting in fewer people employed on those vessels, so there must have

been some savings to the corporation in that regard. There have been

complaints because of the reduced number of people. I know that the

minister and the corporation have received a letter from the masters of

some of the vessels; certainly there's one that I'm personally aware

of. I've seen the letter, although I don't have a copy, complaining

about the potential danger — this is route 7, Mr. Chairman — on that

particular vessel because of the cutback in number of employees. Should

there be some kind of problem or catastrophe on that vessel, they feel

that they don't have enough crew members to handle a situation of that

sort.

These are some of the things that are happening. As I said, I know

it's easy for people to say: "Well, we're subsidizing that ferry

service at taxpayers' expense. They don't require a bigger subsidy or

shouldn't receive it. If people choose to live on Texada Island or

wherever, that's their problem." But that's not the right approach. We

don't say that

[ Page 4050 ]

about highway construction up in the interior. We

don't put toll gates on the highway to Prince George or Kamloops or

Kelowna or anywhere else. In fact, not only do those people depend on

water transportation for travel of any kind, but certainly our whole

economy in many areas is practically based on the service we receive

from the B.C. Ferry Corporation. We're paying a toll. It's as simple as

that. I know that the corporation does receive a subsidy of $47 million

a year, which I don't think is enough. It forced the board of directors

and senior management people of the Ferry Corporation into a situation

where they have had to reduce services and personnel. I don't think

that's been good for the economy of most of the coast of British

Columbia or for government revenues. I think that whole move has been

counterproductive. That is not only the language that I use in this

House but is a position that has been put forward by many groups

serviced by the B.C. Ferry Corporation. I'd like to think I understand

some of the problems that the corporation faces. As I said, I've

received good cooperation and a great deal of information, and I

understand their problem. In my view, the problem is not the management

or the board of directors of the corporation; it is government policy

which emits from cabinet and Treasury Board. Because it is so vital to

the economy of these areas, these matters and problems will hopefully

be looked at.

I know the answer to this question, because I ask it every year, but

I am again going to raise the matter of the federal contribution to the

B.C. Ferry Corporation. In 1977 the federal contribution was $5

million, after Northland Navigation withdrew its services on the coast

and the B.C. Ferry Corporation took up the slack by going into Prince

Rupert and the Queen Charlotte Islands, with stops at Bella Bella, Port

Hardy and so on. There was rather complicated formula, which I

understand is no longer in existence, but the fact is that the B.C.

Ferry Corporation will be getting nearly $12 million in subsidies from

the federal government this year.

You are not going to believe this, Mr. Chairman, but this $12

million doesn't go into the coffers of the B.C. Ferry Corporation; it

goes into general revenue. Although the subsidy was reduced by 25.1

percent two years ago, I maintain that on top of the subsidy being paid

to the B.C. Ferry Corporation that $12 million should go directly into

the B.C. Ferries account, not into general revenue, which I suspect is

subsidizing northeast coal, or whatever. The minister has answered this

question before when I've raised it, and I know the answer, but I want

it on record again this year, just to remind the minister.

I've got some highway problems too, but we'll get to that in a few

minutes. Everybody's got highway problems, except perhaps Vancouver

Centre; I'm not sure.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, I'm going to get to the Cariboo. I've got some beautiful stuff on the Cariboo. First of all I've got to do my stuff here.

I want to ask the minister, because the general manager is on the

floor of the House.... The general manager will remember that he and

Mr. Hodgson did agree, probably with one or two members of the board of

directors — I'm talking to the minister, just relax — to consult with.

Sometimes, Mr. Chairman, you are pretty quick to call me to order. I'm

a little suspicious of you; you get me twitchy.

Prior to the new summer

schedule going into effect for the Sunshine

Coast, Powell River and Texada Island, that consultation would take

place. I am asking at this time and reminding the minister and the

corporation.... I pose the question at this time because I was asked

this weekend by a group of people from Texada Island if I had heard

from the corporation and whether the general manager, the chairman of

the board and whoever would keep that promise — I think they will; they

haven't broken a promise to us yet, so I don't see why they should now

— to consult with the people of Texada Island, the municipal council

and the concerned citizens of Powell River, and very particularly, the

municipality and the concerned citizens' group of the Sunshine Coast

area at Gibsons. It has to be soon, because it is getting to that time

of year when these schedules are going to have to be drawn up fairly

quickly. We would very much like to avoid the dislocation that we've

had at every

schedule change. Every summer, every spring and every fall

we get a ferry

schedule that is totally out of whack, unconnected; in

fact, this spring it almost cut off any reasonable access to Vancouver

for people living on Texada Island. There was no consultation at all.

That situation has improved tremendously over the past year, and I hope

it will continue.

The next question I have relates to a matter which I know the

minister and the general manager of the board of the corporation are

familiar with, because I corresponded with them very recently on this

matter. Ocean Falls has been pretty well isolated. There are not too

many people living there, I'll grant you that, but they deserve some

service. Up to December of last year a subsidy was paid to various

private firms to supplement the service to Ocean Falls when the ferry

was withdrawn — the Queen of the North or the Queen of Prince Rupert .

About two or three weeks ago I met with some people from Ocean Falls

who have requested — and they can guarantee a payload — to have one

more trip of the Queen of the North

call in to that community to get people and vehicles in or out before

the summer

schedule goes into effect. I approached the ferry

corporation, I spoke with Mr. Hodgson and was informed by him that

because of tariff changes, which I don't quite understand, the board of

directors could not make the decision and that the decision would have

to be made at the ministerial level. I wonder if the minister would

have an answer for me on that today. Will they take one more sailing

into that community? As I said, the representatives I met with from

Ocean Falls can guarantee a no-loss trip to the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

I hope the government will undertake to assist the people still living

in that community.

While I'm on the subject of Ocean Falls, I would like to ask if the

government is currently subsidizing any carrier — air or sea — to

assist in serving the people in that community.

[11:45]

While we're up in the central coast area of my riding, I'd like once

again to ask the minister and the B.C. Ferry Corporation to consider

the construction of a ferry-docking facility at Bella Bella. The Queen of the North and the Queen of Prince Rupert

do stop at that community of about 1,100 people, but it's rather a

focal point of the central coast; they pick up people at Bella Bella

from other communities and the immediate area as well. The problem is,

there is no docking facility. A federal government wharf, which is

quite old and needs replacement, provides passenger service only — not

vehicles. You can't load or unload vehicles from this point. I know

part of the problem is that because Bella Bella happens to be a native

Indian reserve, the provincial government says:

[ Page 4051 ]

"This is a federal government responsibility, so

they can put up the bucks to build a proper ferry loading ramp." And

the federal government says: "The B.C. Ferry Corporation is a British

Columbia Crown corporation and why should we build them a ferry ramp?"

So it's catch-22. In the meantime, the type of service required there

is not being provided. I think there are solutions to the problem. I

might add as well that the band council stated two or three years ago

that the portion of the land, although it's on the reserve, where the

ferry terminal should be constructed would be turned over to provincial

jurisdiction so there would be no problem of sometime down the road

saying, "This is native Indian land and we're going to forbid you to

cross," or whatever. I don't think that would happen anyway, but it's a

concern that has been expressed by some people in government. So

they've made that offer.

Last but not least, some years ago the ministry undertook a study to

see if we could provide some kind of water transportation service — a

feeder service, if you will — to Bella Coola. A lot of studies were

done, soundings were done, and in fact the provincial government at one

point — when the wharf burned down there, about two years ago, and

prior to the federal government constructing the new wharf in the area

— had the opportunity of participating in that construction by

contributing some funds. The contractor at that time, while they were

there and construction was taking place, would have constructed a roll

on, roll off ferry ramp at Bella Coola. Of course the offer, I guess

because of restraint or whatever, was rejected. Consequently, the

federal government constructed their wharf, and if and when the

provincial government now ever decides to put in a ferry ramp in that

community, it's going to cost a great deal more money. The residents up

there in that community have been asking for this service for many

years. So perhaps the minister would care to comment on that.

Just one or two more items, very quickly — it's quite obvious we're

not going to get through this before lunch. It's my view that,

particularly during the week and particularly during the months from

September or October to March or April, many of these sailings — in

fact the majority, except perhaps on busy weekends — are not fully

utilized. Sometimes it's 25 percent or 30 percent capacity, and this

kind of thing. I know there are group rates in existence. For many of

the Gulf Islands and areas where your only means of communication are

by B.C. Ferries or Highways-operated ferries.... Quite frankly, I'm

suggesting to the minister and the corporation at this time that school

groups, school bands, sports groups, minor-league hockey teams, Guides,

Brownies, Scouts, Cubs, church groups and so on should at that time,

with prior notice, be able to travel free on those ferries. I don't see

why they should not. The ferries are underused during those hours of

the day anyway. I see no reason why those kinds of groups should not be

able to travel free during the week to attend those sports and school

functions. It wouldn't cost the Ferry Corporation a dime — with prior

notice.

I have one or two more questions. I wonder if the minister is still

considering the possibility of the Ferry Corporation acquiring the Princess of Vancouver

for the Powell River-Comox and Texada routes. I know this has been

under consideration for some time; it's no secret. The Ferry

Corporation has an idea of a one-fare, circle tour from Vancouver, up

the Sunshine Coast to Courtenay, down Vancouver Island and back to

Vancouver on one ticket at a reduced rate. It's a good idea, as a

matter of fact. It would probably assist tourism in the area, which is

badly depressed at the present time. But I wonder if this is still

under consideration. Where is that particular proposal at this time?

I have a few more questions here, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps the

minister would have time to answer one or two of my questions before

the noon-hour break.

HON. A. FRASER: To the member, I'll start with that last

question and go back. I didn't get that quite straight, but I think you

were talking about acquisition of vessels. I can assure you that we're

not acquiring any vessels, because we've got non-working vessels

running out of our ears. Maybe I got the wrong version of that.

Regarding the wharf at Bella Coola, I'm not sure what discussion

took place, but whatever it was, the lack of interest would be shown

because we aren't prepared to run a service in there even if we did

have a wharf. It's as simple as that. We can't afford to.

The Bella Bella dock: that goes on all the time. We stop there all

the time. You're correct — we can't get vehicles on or off. It's a

federal dock located on Indian land, and I don't know whether we'll

ever get that resolved. We would like to see that happen — a roll on,

roll off — so that we could freight and the whole bit. But I'm afraid

we're in a three-way discussion with the band, the federal government

and the B.C. Ferry Corporation, or the government of British Columbia.

I don't know where that discussion is at the moment.

Regarding Ocean Falls service, we recently got a letter asking for a

call into Ocean Falls. We withdrew service from there last fall. We

don't call there anymore on the trip from Port Hardy to Rupert, for

several reasons. At the present time I think there are 80 citizens left

in Ocean Falls. The other thing was that our captains were telling us

that we're going to get into trouble getting in and out of Ocean Falls

because of the sedimenting up of the dock area. Those were all, I

guess, excuses, but the business wasn't there. We're out of there now,

and they've asked for one more trip for the spring. Possibly that can

be accommodated. We'll be making a decision on that shortly. We've just

received that request, really. I might add that in the central coast,

which Ocean Falls is a part of, we have an agreement with coastal

ferries. They haul freight and passengers for the areas in the central

coast area. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways is subsidizing

them for, I believe, $145,000 or $150,000; otherwise, they wouldn't be

in there at all. It would not be economical for them to operate, and

they were going to fold up. We haven't deserted the central coast. When

B.C. Ferries went out of Ocean Falls, this would be one of the ports of

call for coastal ferries.

I understand from Mr. Baldwin that he or his senior people are going

to Powell River and Texada Island in April to discuss summer schedules.

I am advised that passenger utilization is very low during the winter

months on route 7, and for this reason the crew has been reduced from

nine to seven for the winter service.

I loved the comments of the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) on

the subsidy. I don't think he should be discussing those sorts of

things, because he is not an accountant — and neither am I — and so

whatever we contribute will only mix it up further. My version of it is

the subsidy started out at about $8 million, and is up to $12 million,

or almost $13 million now, I think, and is tied into

[ Page 4052 ]

the Vancouver cost of living. One thing that I want

to emphasize, Mr. Member, which is something that bothers you, is that

the agreement was made between the government of British Columbia and

Corporation. So I don't know why you want to sidetrack the money

directly into the B.C. Ferry Corporation. The subsidy money properly

comes into the provincial treasury from the treasury of the government

of Canada, and then the provincial government, as you know, takes that

money and puts another $30 million of provincial tax money with it to

subsidize the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I've got a copy of the agreement, Alex.

HON. A. FRASER: I've got a copy of the agreement too, and I

can have my

interpretation of the agreement just as well as you can.

What I am emphasizing is that B.C. Ferries aren't in the agreement at

all. The agreement is with the government of the province of British

Columbia. They receive the money, and we're quite happy about that. We

made the agreement, it's been escalating and that's fine. Under that,

and this is where another discussion takes place, we the government of

British Columbia agree that we will serve the Pacific coast. We don't

serve entirely with B.C. Ferries. I guess you could say that the

$150,000 which goes to coastal ferries in the private sector could be

debited to that as well, because they are helping serve the central

coast.

I noted your remarks regarding the ferry fares. I think that has

generally settled down now. There were no real increases in B.C. Ferry

fares when, as you pointed out, the commuter tickets were expanded from

30 days to.... I think the B.C. Ferries do get a little additional

income, but not a great deal. They'll get by in 1984.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1985,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada