1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd 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)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5809 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Reports

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills fifth report.

Mr. Strachan –– 5809

Oral Questions

2, 4-D in Okanagan Lake system. Mr. Skelly –– 5809

Ministry of Tourism automobiles. Mr. Hall –– 5809

Protest against superintendent by Terrace school principals. Mr. Howard –– 5810

McAlpine report on Ku Klux Klan. Mr. Barnes –– 5810

Mr. Lauk

Hazardous chemicals. Mr. Nicolson –– 5810

Violation of Human Rights Code. Ms. Sanford –– 5811

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates. (Hon. Mr.

Fraser)

On vote 189: minister's office –– 5811

Mr. Lockstead, Mr. Mussallem, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Howard, Mr. Barber

Division on an amendment

On vote 190: general administration-highways –– 5821

Mr. Lockstead

Division on an amendment

On vote 191: general administration-transportation –– 5821

Mr. Lockstead

Division on an amendment

On vote 201: air transport assistance Program –– 5822

Mr. Lockstead

Division on an amendment

On vote 204: building occupancy charges –– 5822

Mr. Lockstead

Division on an amendment

On vote 205: computer and consulting charges –– 5822

Mr. Lockstead, Mr. Lauk

Division on an amendment

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Phillips)

On vote 126: minister's office –– 5823

Hon. Mr. Phillips, Mr. Leggatt, Mr. Segarty

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I have some visitors in the gallery today. In New

Westminster we have a community organization called Self Aid Never Ends

— the acronym is SANE. Some in this chamber may or may not identify

with that acronym. In the gallery are 12 workers for this very

rewarding organization. I hope the House will make them welcome.

MRS. WALLACE:

I have some guests in the gallery today too. The Shawnigan Lake School

has operated for more than 60 years in my constituency. It has provided

an educational facility to young men from various parts of this country

and others. I'm delighted today to have in the gallery young men of the

senior class at Shawnigan Lake School, together with their instructors.

I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. NICOLSON:

Also touring the precincts today are several students from St. Joseph's

School in Nelson, their principal, their teacher and two parents. I

hope the House would also bid them welcome.

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are some people who asked

me not to introduce them, because I introduced them last year. They are

my parents, so I won't introduce them. But I would like the House to

welcome my sister Eleanor, who is with them.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, at 3 o'clock some students from Edmonds Junior Secondary

School, accompanied by their teachers Mr. Dahlo and Mr. Smith, will be

joining us. Would we welcome them in absentia.

Presenting Reports

Mr. Strachan, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders

and Private Bills, presented the committee's fifth report, which was read

as follows and received:

"May 27, 1981

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"The

standing orders have been complied with relating to the petition for

leave to introduce a private bill intituled

An Act to Amend the

Vancouver Charter, except for late filing, but with respect thereto the

petitioner has paid double fees, in accordance with standing order 98

(3). Your committee recommends that the petitioner be allowed to

proceed with said bill.

"All of which is

respectfully submitted. W.B. Strachan, Chairman, Select Standing

Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills."

MR. STRACHAN: By leave, I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

2, 4-D IN OKANAGAN LAKE SYSTEM

MR. SKELLY:

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Two days ago Vernon city

council reversed its decision to reject the use of 2, 4-D in aquatic

weed control in the Okanagan Lake system. Can the minister assure the

House that no member of his ministry interfered with the council by

putting pressure on council members in this matter?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Well, there are 1,800 people in the ministry. I don't know if any of

them have spoken to anyone on the Vernon city council; certainly I

didn't, and no one was instructed by the minister's office to do so. I

would be very surprised if anyone in the ministry specifically spoke to

them. But the possibility remains that someone from the ministry did

speak to people from the Vernon city council. I will investigate and

find out and bring an answer back to the House.

MR. SKELLY:

I have a new question for the Minister of Environment. It was reported

in yesterday's Vernon Daily News that Alderman Yount of Vernon council

charged that a Ministry of Environment official, namely Dr. R.J.

Buchanan, used threats on the city council to obtain a reversal of

their decision. Obviously the minister has decided to investigate this

charge. The specific allegation was that Dr. Buchanan blackmailed

council, claiming that if they didn't agree to use 2, 4-D they would

not receive any other assistance in mechanical weed control from the

provincial government. Has the minister decided to investigate this

allegation also?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I didn't say I

would investigate the first one. I just said I'd look into it; I

certainly will do that. I can tell you that the agreement between the

Okanagan Basin Water Board and the provincial Ministry of Environment

regarding aquatic harvesting of weeds has already been agreed to for

this year. I would be hard pressed to understand how anyone in the

ministry could threaten to withdraw something that we've already agreed

to. I'll look into that as well.

MINISTRY OF TOURISM AUTOMOBILES

MR. HALL:

I have just a couple of short snappers for the Minister of Tourism.

They're not even multiple-choice questions either. Can the Minister of

Tourism advise the House how many automobiles are charged to or belong

to the ministry?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I don't have that information at hand, but I will take the question as notice.

MR. HALL:

While the minister is doing that for us, I wonder whether she would

find out how many of these cars are painted in the ministry's

distinctive colours or with the ministry insignia, and who has charge

of those vehicles that are not so treated or identified.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I assume that's part of the question that I'm taking as notice.

[ Page 5810 ]

MR. HALL:

Lastly, having identified that part of the question and that

information, would the minister find out who has use of those vehicles

that aren't painted in the ministry's distinctive colours or identified

with the ministry insignia, and where they're located?

PROTEST AGAINST SUPERINTENDENT

BY TERRACE SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to

direct a question to the Minister of Education, and ask the hon.

minister whether he has received a telegram from the Terrace District

Administrators Association — that's the association of principals, vice

principals and administrators working within the school board offices —

to the effect that that association feels that the activities of the

superintendent of schools in the Terrace school district is unfair,

insensitive and unacceptable to that body, and that they have a lack of

confidence in his communicating skills, leadership style and

supervisory practices. If the minister has received such a telegram,

could he indicate to the House whether he has decided to respond

favourably to the concerns expressed in that telegram?

HON. MR. SMITH:

Well, Mr. Speaker, if I hadn't received it, by that question I

apparently received the information contained in it, and I'm obliged

for that. No, I haven't specifically seen that, hon. member. There have

been a number of concerns in Terrace in the past few weeks, as you

know, which flowed from a decision by the local board to transfer two

principals from their duties as principals back into the classroom.

Last weekend I dispatched my Deputy Minister of Education and my

assistant deputy minister to Terrace. They went to Terrace on Friday

and again on Sunday and held very lengthy discussions, both with the

officials and members of the school board and also with the

representatives of the teachers. The result was that a wildcat strike

planned for Monday was averted by agreement on both sides, and the two

teachers who were transferred to the classrooms have been granted

transfer appeals according to a procedure which, actually, the member

and I discussed in committee. The member had a hand in assisting me in

that. The new procedure is that both parties name a nominee. They have

chosen — I gather in both cases — their own chairman. The matters in

that district appear to be moving toward a resolution. But I will

certainly take into account the telegram that he alludes to. I thank

him for his question.

MR. HOWARD: Am I to assume that

this telegram, which was sent to the minister from the Terrace District

Administrators Association on May 19, has not yet been brought to the

minister's attention, even though it was directed specifically to him?

HON. MR. SMITH:

No, Mr. Speaker, the member would not be correct. I have had a number

of communications from that district, and I would not be prepared to

respond today to that one. That will be a matter that will be under

review, along with the decisions of these two transfer appeals. It

would be impossible for me to respond to that telegram until I've had

the benefit of considering the decisions of the two transfer appeal

committees that have been set up. I could not give a favourable or

meaningful response.

McALPINE REPORT ON KU KLUX KLAN

MR. BARNES:

I have a question for the Minister of Labour. On May 6 the minister

indicated that the only thing required for the McAlpine report on the

KKK was the addition of an index. When asked whether the minister had

asked Mr. McAlpine to make other changes, the minister replied: "None."

Has the minister now decided to table the report?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The report will be tabled in due course.

MR. BARNES:

The author, Mr. McAlpine, has accused the minister of stalling on the

release of the report. Is the minister stalling the release of the

report?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is no, I'm not.

MR. LAUK: I have a supplementary to the Minister of Labour. If the minister is not stalling the release of the report, who is?

MR. SPEAKER: A further question from the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK:

The report was delivered in late April — 29 days ago. It has 80 pages.

If the minister were the slowest reader in the world, that would be two

and a half pages a day. Who is stalling release of the report? Why is

it not being released now? Can the minister explain that?

MR. SPEAKER: A further question from the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Why is the minister such a scaredy-cat?

HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS

MR. NICOLSON:

I have a question to the Minister of Environment. The Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has approved and is using chemicals,

Captan and Benalate fungicides, which have caused harm to tree-planters

handling seedlings treated with these chemicals. Yet the Forests

ministry continues to use them, sending out trees in cartons which are

literally dripping with these chemicals. Has the minister decided to

investigate?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The simple answer is

yes, but I think perhaps if I give the member a little information it

might be helpful. This particular chemical is one of the IBT chemicals,

which puts it on that list of ones that were approved by the laboratory

that didn't do the thorough test. It has been used in British Columbia

since 1949 in everything from wallpaper to rose dust and other things.

There

is a difference of opinion between the federal Minister of Agriculture,

Eugene Whelan, who approves these chemicals, and Monique Bègin, who is

the Minister of Health in Ottawa, as to whether or not they should be

put to household uses, and indeed to other uses. I will look into the

specific question that you brought up. We are in almost daily contact

with the federal ministry regarding their position as to whether the

use of Captan will be allowed for all the uses that it has been put to

in the past. We have no specific record within our ministry of problems

in British Columbia in dealing with Captan.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Speaker, I've been assured that a person wearing gloves had contact

dermatitis occur immediately upon using it. There were six

tree-planters planting, in this particular instance. It appears that

the trees in question were diseased trees and they were literally

soaked — put into plastic bags and then shipped up into the field. I

ask the minister which is more important, the health of the trees or

the health of the tree-planters?

[ Page 5811 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I think the question is facetious. Obviously the health of the planters

is more important than the trees. But this concern has not been brought

forward to the pesticide control branch of the Ministry of Environment.

It may have been brought forward to the chief forester or people in the

Ministry of Health, but it hasn't been brought forward to me. I'm

delighted that you brought it forward today. On the specific case, I

know we've had discussions about this chemical, but if this information

has been available to you for some time, I wish you would make it

available to me.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I take it

from that that the minister has not been notified by members of his

ministry, with whom we've been in contact since Friday. Is that correct?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I've had discussions with officials in my ministry today and yesterday

on a wide range of topics. I'm not sure who, specifically, is "we" and

who, specifically, you have referred to in the ministry.

VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Mr. Gray-Grant, the publisher of Western News ,

was recently found in violation of the B.C. Human Rights Code by

publishing an advertisement which stated: "Male student, 17-25,

training for management." The publisher was before a board of inquiry.

Usually in cases where there is a clear violation of the code it is

normal for a cash penalty to be assessed against the respondent. The

penalty in this case was initially set at $750. Can the minister advise

why his human rights director instructed that no cash penalty be

applied in this case?

HON, MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the member for Alberni, who seeks the floor on a point of order.

MR. SKELLY:

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question from the member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Rogers) indicated that he had in his possession a list which he called

the IBT list. He cited one of the chemicals from it, namely Captan. I

understand that, under our standing orders, if a minister quotes from a

list or a document that he has in his possession, he is required to

table that document in the House. The minister has consistently refused

to make this list public or to table it in the House in response to

letters and written questions on the order paper, and I would ask you

look into this point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: We have

reviewed the practice on tabling documents referred to in the House and

even in committee. I will send the member a copy of that recent review.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 189: minister's office, $213, 962.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I have two very brief questions for the minister at this point. I would

like to ask the minister-or one of the people joining him in this

Legislature today-how many mines rights-of-way have been approved in

the 1979-80 and 1980-81 period. Is the system which has been in place

since 1925 still functioning well, or does the minister have problems

with that system?

While I have the floor, I do have another

question of a very local nature. It is a matter which I brought to the

attention of a senior member of the ministry just a couple of days ago.

Perhaps the minister would comment on this matter. It is the proposed

ferry scheduling between Texada Island and Powell River. The ministry

is planning to withdraw the vessels currently serving Texada Island for

two sailings a day to supplement the Comox-Powell River run. The better

solution might well be, as proposed by many of the licensed personnel

on both of those crews, to put on two extra sailings a day of the Sechelt Queen ,

which is presently serving the route between Powell River and Comox.

There is a great deal of dissatisfaction on Texada Island, which is in

my constituency, We know that people living on islands consider the

vessel that serves their area as their vessel. I can understand their

problem. I did promise such groups as the Texada Island Chamber of

Commerce and others that I would mention this matter to the minister,

so perhaps the minister could respond.

HON. MR. FRASER:

First of all I'd like to reply to some of the observations made by the

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) in the latter part of

yesterday. To make some observations in the riding of Esquimalt, we

have what we call the Western Community. It's a large, non-municipal

area. I don't know how many people live there, but I would guess it's

between 30,000 and 50,000. It depends who you talk to, but it's a large

unincorporated area. It's probably the largest in our province.

guess I'm biased. I was in the municipal field. I think the answer to

all their problems is incorporation. I know that they've attempted that

by votes, but it seems to me that their problems are horrendous and

getting worse. Maybe that's not the right phrase. The worst part of it

is that as more people come in, it complicates and compounds all the

problems that are out there. It seems to me that they continue to

deteriorate because of the increase in population. There's nothing

wrong with it. It's a nice place to live, but the only authority there

is the regional district. I don't know where they're at, or what the

member's position is on that. As one person in this Legislature, I

think it's worth it to try and incorporate. In the meantime, we all

have to try and resolve the problems that exist and have been there for

a while. They're going to continue to be there.

Regarding

the Western Community and this ministry in relation to roads, more

money has been spent since 1976 on better road facilities. I refer to

the Trans-Canada Highway. I remember when we first took over government

in 1975, and I remember five or six years before that. Blanshard Street

had come to a dead stop 20 years before. The widening of the

Trans-Canada Highway to the Western Community had been talked about for

20 years. You don't talk about that any more,

[ Page 5812 ]

because

it's all done. It was done between 1976 and 1978. This doesn't discount

the fact that there are still problems beyond that in the Western

Community.

I have some notes here on the traffic volume on

Sooke Road beyond Colwood. It's about 70 percent from our normal

warrant for four-laning. Consequently, four-laning is not likely to be

considered for about five to seven years. I assume that would be based

on what has happened in the last three or four years regarding

population increase. If that declined or increased, those years would

vary. In the meantime, we propose to make progressive alignment

improvements each year and to attempt to provide short four-lane

sections for passing.

Regarding subdivision approvals which

the member brought up, I might say that that's under this ministry's

jurisdiction all over the province in rural areas. We do thousands of

approvals a year. I think our ministry does a fair job of it. We work

in conjunction with the authorities. In the case of the Western

Community, of course, we work in conjunction with the Capital Regional

District. Our ministry has nothing to do with zoning. They have that

authority, but we have the authority of final approval of subdivisions.

I'm not so sure that they always see eye to eye on these things, but

they do try to work out their differences. "They" are the Capital

Regional District, our senior ministry officials and district officials

as well.

You mentioned Marler Drive. I've heard that name

before in relation to flooding of Craigflower Creek. It's my

information that the Marler Drive flooding problem has now been

settled; that is, all technical questions have been settled with the

residents. We know what we will do. All that remains is the sharing of

costs. We will be discussing this with the residents very soon. I might

say that various alternatives have been considered to solve the

flooding problem. Those include dyking, concrete or sheet-pile barrier

walls, filling lots and raising houses to match new elevations, and

creek cleaning. The most recent meeting was attended by homeowners and

representative officials of this ministry. The homeowners favoured

raising their houses. Homeowner representatives have been requested to

have estimates updated for raising and subsequent restoration of the

houses. Now that the technical work is complete, a joint meeting with

the residents, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways will be arranged to investigate a program

for financing of the work. That is a bit of detail on the perennial

flooding problem created by Craigflower Creek.

I haven't an

answer for the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) on the Texada

Island-Powell River ferry. I wasn't clear about the question on the

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources right-of-way. I do

know that in practice we work in close conjunction with the Ministry of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources on rights-of-way. I'll try to

find out what's going on with the Texada Island-Powell River ferry. I

wasn't aware.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I'll very quickly clarify a point.

I'm sure your assistant deputy minister, Mr. Johnson, will clear up the

matter of the Texada Island ferry. The point I was attempting to get at in the

question of the jurisdiction of Highways in relation to Mines is that it would

appear that you're going to be relinquishing that jurisdiction to Mines.

It happens to be the view of many people, including me, that perhaps your ministry

is the ministry that is best qualified to decide on this type of road construction,

and not some mining company or some Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources, as we have at the present time, who won't listen to anyone, will

take no advice or direction and is incompetent, among other things.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the minister for his kindness to the constituency of Dewdney. I hope it will continue.

Today

I ask for a change in alignment of the Albion ferry on the Albion side.

Usually in the mornings, afternoons and evenings there's a large

backlog of cars waiting to get on the ferry. These are parking on the

regular roadway, almost cutting off one lane of traffic. There was an

accident there two or three days ago. I'd like to suggest to the

minister that a slight realignment of the highway at that point, moving

the road over about four feet and creating a parking lane on the south

side of the road, would cost very little, would be very desirable and

is very necessary.

As the minister knows, the two little

ferries at Albion are carrying more traffic than the number one route

of the B.C. Ferries. That's very important and they're very proud of

that. At the same time I wonder if I could also ask the minister if you

have another ferry standing by of the Klatawa class that would handle

six more cars. If you could exchange that for the one we have there —

the Laguna — it would help the traffic situation immensely. I understand you have such a ferry somewhere in your backlog of ferries.

I'd

like to say to the minister that the heavy traffic at this point in the

highway system must indicate to him the necessity and importance of a

bridge at Albion. At this time I'd like to ask him formally to give

consideration to a new bridge structure in the Albion-Langley area,

somewhere within half a mile of Albion either way.

MR. MITCHELL:

I would just like to carry on with a little bit more questioning on

what I brought up to the minister yesterday. That was some public

announcement soon of what potential program the ministry has for the

establishment of the Millstream extension and the east-west grid

system, especially in the Langford-Colwood area. Today I received a

piece of correspondence from the minister in which he indicated that

they are going to extend Kelly Road through to Jacklin Road at the

intersection of Jacklin and Jenkins. In the correspondence the minister

stated that there was no intention of upgrading Jenkins Road. As I said

yesterday, Jenkins Road is a small community, and if the extension of

Kelly Road is going to be part of the east-west grid system, you're

going to be running all this traffic into Jenkins Road, which is a very

quiet, narrow little street. It's very much like taking a glass and

putting a firehose into it. It's all right if you hold the firehose,

but if you happen to be holding the glass you're going to have an awful

lot of spillover. Without some serious and proper planning in the whole

Western Community you're compounding the problem.

I feel

that the ministry, because there's no other jurisdiction out there,

must bring in some type of planning and grid system that is going to

develop the area and open up some of the land that right now is

undeveloped, but is not going to create a problem to the residents who

are established in that area. My big problem is a problem that's facing

that whole Western Community. All kinds of stories are going about. In

six years the ministry has been working on this particular program, and

I sincerely believe from information that filters out into the

community that there are proposals. I think these

[ Page 5813 ]

proposals

should be laid out not to the MLA or regional people but to the general

public so that they have a chance to get some input and ideas into the

possibility of what's going to happen out in that area. As I said

yesterday, the minister is the czar, the supermayor of that area, and

until such time as his government does something else to change it,

this is a problem.

One other question he failed to cover. I

would like to thank him if I read him properly that they are going to

settle the problem on Marler Drive. They are going to raise the houses

and fill in the low spots. I would like to congratulate him. It's been

three years now, and if we've been successful in getting one problem

straightened out that's fine.

We have two other major flood

problems in that area, and I know the minister met out in the.... One

was to discuss the Bilston Creek problem that has been aggravated by

the large number of subdivisions that are developing in the Western

Community, especially on Triangle Mountain and along the Kershaw canal,

which drains Florence Lake and the Millstream area. Are there any plans

for flood control of these two particular areas? Is there any

long-range program from the ministry, either to the Capital Regional

District or to the local community, for taking hold of the problem and

trying to get some solution to it?

HON. MR. FRASER: I

guess the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) has stepped out. But

just for his information on his question regarding mines, we have

proposed a minor amendment to the Mining Right of Way Act to change the

minister responsible. It's to avoid a repetition of a minor legal

process. It is a legal change, and really does not affect who builds or

maintains the roads.

I have a reply here for the member for

Mackenzie regarding the Comox-Powell River run and the run to Texada

Island. Last year the Sechelt Queen

was speeded up during summer months to give extra trips. Due to

mechanical problems experienced last year, we cannot speed this ship up

this year. Instead, we have arranged for full use of the Albert J. Savoie at Texada Island and shared use of the North Island Princess

for the gulf crossing. This will give at least as much capacity at rush

hours and in total more trips per day for Texada Island. I hope that

answers that.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr.

Mitchell) is back again. Discussing Jenkins Road, I remember sending

the letter to you. But I think that in this whole Western Community....

The member is asking about planning, and I believe our ministry has

some ideas about that. They've dealt with the Capital Regional District

about it. I don't think it's acceptable to them, but I don't want our

ministry to impose that plan on them. In other words, if the local

elected people can't make a decision, we're not going to impose one on

them. I think that's really what's going on out there. I would suggest

that everybody get together at the elected level, including the MLA,

although he said he'd exclude himself. I think we've all got to get

together and find out what these people have been talking about and

who's holding up what. I believe our ministry — I'm talking about

transportation corridors and that — has made suggestions, and they have

not been acceptable to the elected people.

Alternatively, I

think what the MLA is saying is that the public doesn't know what's

going on either. I think it's about time they were informed. I don't

know just what vehicle to use, but we should be using the vehicle that

the local elected people, the area directors.... If they want to call a

public meeting on that, I'm sure that our ministry officials will have

their ideas and put them to a public meeting. Maybe that's the avenue

we've missed. We've been talking to elected people. They have their

rights — whether they like something or whether they don't. They don't

have to accept our ministry's ideas about transportation corridors and

so on. That's where I think the breakdown has taken place, but I might

be mistaken.

You did mention the plans for remedying floods.

Basically that doesn't come under this ministry at all. That's the

responsibility of the Ministry of Environment. We always get involved

in the floods when they happen, with the assistance of the Ministry of

Environment. Again, maybe something's missing there, in that the

Ministry of Environment is not being notified. I know that our ministry

works with them every day in all areas of the province regarding flood

conditions. But they're actually the ones responsible for laying out a

plan to remedy a flooded area. In other words, in the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways we do what we're told by the Ministry of

Environment.

A few more notes here. Bilston Creek drainage

depends on the organization of the residents into a drainage district

or some such solution. Again, I guess this is a local community thing.

What we're saying is that they should organize themselves into a

drainage district to come up with a solution to that problem. I think

that pretty well covers the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. I'm

inclined to agree with you that maybe the elected people could call a

public meeting. Maybe they have done so, I don't know. If the citizens

are confused and the rumours are flying around, that's a good way to

clear it up.

MR. MITCHELL: There are just two things

the minister said that I would like to comment on, Mr. Chairman. I

agree that the MLAs, the ministry and the elected people should meet

together. When I kind of invited myself to a meeting he was attending

with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), the

Minister of Municipal Affairs thought it would be good idea, but I

gather I was not invited by the Minister of Highways.

There

is one other thing I would like to mention. You did mention that they

should form an organization to look after the flooding on Bilston

Creek. I find this very strange, Mr. Chairman, because it was this

government that dissolved the last organization that was formed in

order to try and come up with some suggestions for the Bilston Creek

flood control. It was the present government that dissolved it and left

the impression that somewhere down the line there was going to be

another vehicle or another organization to take up the problem. Now I

kind of gather that the minister is recommending that they form another

Bilston Creek improvement group. If this is what he is recommending, I

would be happy to get it in detail.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the observations of the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, but I want to reply to the member for Dewdney

(Mr. Mussallem) on the Albion ferry that runs on the Fraser River.

We've got a real transportation link in our province here. The Albion

ferry crosses the Fraser River between Albion and Langley, and business

is so good we can't keep up with it. We had to put on a second ferry at

the insistence of the MLA for Dewdney some two years ago, and we still

can't keep up. I think we have the same situation going on here as we

have between

[ Page 5814 ]

Courtenay

and Campbell River — at least that's my version. Everybody who lives on

one side of the river works on the other, and vice versa, and they all

have to cross, in this case, the Fraser River either to their dwelling

place or to their work place.

The member doesn't like me to

say this, but he well knows that there is a good bridge in his riding

which is just getting completed after ten years. I refer to the bridge

at Mission. They don't have to use the ferry, but it's a long way

around to the bridge to go from Mission or Haney to work in Langley, or

vice versa. So we have this excellent ferry service, and now it is

creating problems with congestion. All I'll say to the member there is

that we will look into that immediately. We don't like that to happen.

This member says: "All we need is a wee bit of blacktop four feet

wide." Well, when I take this to the engineers, they'll say: "Yes, but

we've got to spend $1 million to put the four feet of blacktop on a

road surface." We'll sure try and do what we can, because that's a busy

highway, and we don't want them parking there and obstructing it. We'll

look into that immediately because of the buildup.

To the

member for Dewdney, Mr. Chairman, your other request was regarding a

bridge. I can assure the member that there is no bridge in the

immediate plans of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. We're

concentrating on another crossing further down on an arm of the river.

I don't want you to hold out any hope that we're in imminent danger of

calling a tender for a bridge between Albion and Langley, but to the

best of our ability we must maintain the ferry service. I think that

pretty well replies to the member for Dewdney.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, I shouldn't be more than 20 to 25 minutes in relating

some of the problems we're confronted with in Terrace, Smithers and the

like.

I just sent the minister a photocopy of some pictures

I took a week ago last Sunday at a railway crossing called Carnaby

crossing, along Highway 16 between the community of south Hazelton and

Kitseguecla.

AN HON. MEMBER: While you were driving.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, while I was driving. I was not on the bus.

For

the edification of you, Mr. Chairman, and others, it is a picture of a

bus that could not, for a variety of reasons, negotiate the sharp

right-angle turn off the highway and across the railway track, and

thence another sharp left turn back onto the highway. To avoid missing

a semi-trailer that was in front of it, the bus swerved to the right

onto the shoulder of the road. It took out a railway-crossing signal

and went over the tracks and the pot-holes on each side of the crossing

and up over the abutment along the curve of the highway on the

right-hand side going south.

I just happened to be going

from Terrace to Hazelton that day, and arrived there shortly after this

had occurred. It was a passenger bus, but it was not in commercial use.

It was bought by a private owner who had it as his own van. He was not

unfamiliar with the road, as many people are during tourist season.

send that across to the minister and say to him that, as he knows, that

is a very dangerous, very disastrous crossing at Carnaby, because of

the approaches to it. There are many instances of cars being unable to

negotiate the turn, going either north or south because they're faced

with the same sharp S-turn in each direction. The concrete abutments on

the side are scarred by burnpers and blackened by tire marks because of

previous vehicles being unable to get around there. In many instances,

cars have gone right over the edge. The driver of that bus and his

family were not hurt; they were very lucky.

That highway

needs to be rerouted. You need to eliminate that level crossing, run

the highway on the east side of the CN railway line continuing

southward, and come back out on to Highway 16 just beyond the place

known as Skeena Crossing. That's where the railway goes across to the

west side of the Skeena River. I am advised that the Highways ministry

has got the right-of-way, the land, and they've got everything in

place, but they haven't got around to doing it.

In addition

to that, I want to raise a general question of Highway 16 proper,

specifically that area between Kitwanga and beyond New Hazelton. The

blacktop has been broken up. It has pot-holes and splits in the centre

of the highway where the asphalt originally came together, one strip

laid on one side and one on the other. It's a very unsatisfactory and

dangerous strip of road.

The minister wrote to me in

response to a letter I had written to him earlier saying that yes, they

were going to fix that road in 1980. Now 1980 came and went, and

nothing happened. So I would appeal to the minister to please do that.

want to make a third point very briefly. This is information that I

communicated to the ministry by way of correspondence. I just want to

take the opportunity briefly to lay it before him now. Some

concentration of effort beyond that which has taken place in the past

should be expended upon the so-called back roads, and not just

exclusively the arterial highways. We've got a number of back roads in

Skeena, as there are in other rural areas, that have been gravel or

dirt roads since time immemorial. They've had the occasional grading,

and the occasional move to take out a bad comer, or something of that

sort; but it's very insignificant in terms of the actual need and

requirement.

My people would be most happy to have a

diversion of some of the funds that are committed, and have been

committed in the past, to arterial — highways. Some of those funds

could be used to upgrade those back roads, like the one from Terrace to

Rosswood, or the ones at Driftwood and Glentanna, outside of Smithers,

and the one up the Kispiox Valley, which will be blacktopped later this

year, I understand.

When I raise those questions very

briefly to the minister, I don't particularly expect him to reply and

make a firm commitment that everything's going to be fixed immediately.

But very briefly, I would like to have some commentary from the

minister to be able at least to say to folks back home: "Yes, the

minister understands what the problem is, and he is either going to do

something about it, or he's not going to do anything about it."

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the questions of the member for Skeena, the

Carnaby crossing requires a relocation, as you said. We don't need to

build an overpass. We have to relocate our highway, and we're not quite

ready to go. That

section is being designed, but we're still having

minor problems acquiring right-of-way from the Indian band. We don't

anticipate a long holdup, so I hope we can have that crossing

eliminated, say, 12 months from now.

MR. HOWARD: Eleven? Are you negotiating?

[ Page 5815 ]

HON. MR. FRASER:

I'm speculating. As I say, I hope we don't have too much difficulty

acquiring the right-of-way. It's my understanding that a small part of

the revision is on Indian land.

Paving on Highway 16 — we've

got to do some work on the road before we can pave it, so you're going

to have to wait there. I agree with you on the back roads; I'd like to

do that. I might say we've started in your riding. I think as we talk

here today the road to Kispiox is being paved; I hope it is. It was

rebuilt and they're paving it. That's the sort of thing we should do,

particularly with all the resource communities. In the case of Kispiox,

the logs are coming from 60 miles north, down through built-up areas.

Those roads weren't designed for it in the first place. Secondly, the

dust stays in the valleys. That's what we're trying to do. We've got a

handle on that. A lot of people live at Kispiox. As I say, last year we

rebuilt the road so it will hold pavement; this year the paving

contract was let and I'm pretty sure they're working.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I thank the minister for his reply regarding the widening of the strip

at Albion. I can assure him that it's not a major job; it's a very

small job. I hope that he'll do it very soon.

The bridge at

Albion — I do not expect that at the present time, of course. I know

that the Annacis Island bridge must be first. But I think the ministry

should be making a study of the situation — not an in-depth study but

an engineering survey of the area — because there's no doubt about it:

a bridge will have to be built there in the near future. I hope the

minister replies that he will give that some consideration. We don't

expect it immediately, but we hope that it won't become a crisis before

we start building or planning it. That's the request I make at this

time.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, in many progressive

jurisdictions, both in Europe and in other places in North America,

Ministers of Highways are responsible for building roads for more than

simply the private automobile. They also build roads for bicycles. They

build roads for a large number of people in certain communities — a

growing number of people most particularly in greater Vancouver and

greater Victoria — who choose that particular alternative for reasons

of economy, efficiency and personal health. In progressive

jurisdictions they have policies that finance the construction of what

are usually called "bikeways." In progressive jurisdictions these

bikeways serve both recreational and commuter travel purposes. In

progressive jurisdictions the value to one's personal health is

respected, and the contribution that people who use the bicycle instead

of the automobile make to the energy economy of those areas and states

is also respected and acknowledged in public policy.

As is

frequently the case on the west coast of North America, the state of

Oregon is leading the way. For — I believe it is now — six years

running, the state of Oregon, via state law, via policy adopted on both

sides of that state Legislature, has enunciated a statute which

requires that one half of 1 percent of the annual appropriation for

state highways shall be directed toward the construction of

recreational and commuter bicycle paths.

I realize that the

particular label is the sort of thing that causes giggling on the part

of some people without vision about alternative modes of transport to

serve human beings who either do not wish to use or cannot afford to

use the private automobile. But I want to argue as seriously as I can

with the minister that in the great urban communities of North America,

especially in those blessed by the topography and the climate to allow

year-round use of bikeways, it is in fact a very practical investment.

It is in fact a step into the future. It is in fact a commitment to the

personal health, to the energy conservation policies and to the

increasing safety that has to be observed — especially in the case of

very young children who use bicycles for perfectly obvious reasons.

for one — and I'm sure the minister agrees — am sick and tired of

reading what happens when we have collisions between three-speeds and

Buicks. I think almost invariably the Buick wins, the three-speed

loses, and sometimes the child loses her or his life. One of the

reasons is that in many of these communities we have no physical

separation of the bicycle from the automobile. Invariably the Buick

wins, and sometimes it takes a life in the process of winning.

the Capital Regional District the police estimate there are currently

120,000 bicycles on the road. That's far more than there are

automobiles on the road. Again, in particular urban communities where

both the weather and the topography encourage this form of

transportation, especially — but not exclusively — on the part of young

people, we also have a public-policy question of public safety raised,

When anyone bicycles in Victoria — for recreational or commuter

purposes — on Shelbourne Street, it just isn't safe. I'm sure the

minister has driven on it and he knows it's not safe. In the case of

that particular street, probably no realignment is possible. However,

there are alternatives possible.

I was pleased to be

involved in 1974 and 1975 — as one of the organizers and as the

treasurer — with the first regional district committee on bikeways. We

put together a proposal for recreational and commuter bicycle paths

across greater Victoria. It was formally endorsed by the Capital

Regional District. We built a bikeway, and unfortunately, no more has

occurred since then. Why is that? Because it's hard to get people to

take the issue seriously until their kid or neighbour's kid has been

run down on a bicycle. Then they begin to worry about questions of

public safety. It's hard to get people to take it seriously until you

examine the energy economy of North America and begin to realize the

profligate waste associated with the private automobile. You begin to

wonder whether or not there are other jurisdictions that have had some

success in promoting alternative and efficient means of public

transport.

It's clearly the case in progressive countries in

western Europe that they've had considerable success adopting,

promoting, supporting and paying for the alternative modes that must be

established in order to make bicycling safe, efficient and affordable.

There are many nations around the world where the bicycle, not the

automobile, is the principal means of public transport. There's nothing

wrong with those nations and there's nothing wrong with that policy. In

a country like our own, where gas currently costs roughly $1.60 a

gallon, more and more people, for reasons of personal economy as well

as in the interests of the public economy and energy conservation, are

turning to alternative and cheaper modes of personal transport.

That

being the case, I ask the minister — as I've done, I think, every year

since I got elected — to consider and to promulgate a policy, in the

interests of public safety, personal health and energy efficiency, that

at least does what the state of Oregon has done for the last

half-decade. They commit a part of the annual appropriation for

highways to bikeways. The state of Oregon has a full-time state

employee who is an

[ Page 5816 ]

engineer

in the highways department and who negotiates with the counties and

cities of Oregon the design, placement, siting and configuration of

bikeways. Having so negotiated and assisted with the design work, the

counties and cities are then entitled to draw from the appropriation by

way of a proposal to the state Department of Transportation. It works

in Oregon. Similar proposals and achievements have now been attained in

Illinois, New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, California and, most

recently, in Washington state.

In this country, the National

Capital Commission has for the past four years pioneered public

investment, for the purposes of the safety of individuals — most often

children — and for the purposes of personal health and energy economy,

in the creation of a network of bicycle paths on the Quebec and Ontario

sides of the national capital. They have something like 400 miles of

physically separated and safe recreational and commuter bicycle paths.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: These are paid for by all Canadians, Mr. Minister.

That

being the case, it seems to me that all British Columbians might have

an interest in examining some of the reasons for the success elsewhere.

Once more, I ask the minister to consider such a policy. I recognize

that not every part of the province has the topography or the climate

to justify it. In many cases the distances are far too great. But in

the large, urban communities of British Columbia — and they are many

and they are growing — it is, in fact, a rational and intelligent

policy. It has precedent and success elsewhere. We should learn from

it. We should be prepared to commit ourselves to it and to spend the

money necessary to put it in place.

In particular, I ask the

minister to look at the old CNR right-of-way. It is clearly one of the

ways in which we can both enhance the tourist industry and establish a

model recreational bicycle path that runs up the heart of southern

Vancouver Island. Any grade that a train can take can most certainly be

taken by a human being on a bicycle. Hopefully the CNR right-of-way

will be returned to full public ownership in the very near future — by

which I mean, local administration in this province — either through

the regional district or the ministry. That being the case, it seems to

me that one of the most appropriate immediate uses for that is to

establish it as a hiking and bicycle path. It's extraordinarily

beautiful in many of its stretches. For the purposes of local as well

as tourist recreation, there's a tremendous possibility here. If we

have any vision, wit and imagination at all, we'll seize this

particular opportunity, we'll make it our own and we'll make it work.

The relative cost of building that is far less than building an

ordinary and conventional road.

I ask the minister to also

consider, within the context of his welcome — and I welcome it and

support it — proposal for the development of a Vancouver Island

regional transportation strategy, further uses to which we could put

the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway. Once again, it obviously has tourist

potential. Hopefully the minister will take a lead, as the minister

fundamentally responsible for transportation in this province, in

recognizing that we could use the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway for

more than simply tourism, although tourism is important. We can use it

for more than ski trains, although ski trains are important. We can use

it, in fact, as the principal new instrument of public policy in the

twenty-first century. Clearly — and the member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) has pointed this out on many occasions — we

should be using the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway now for rapid transit

from the Sooke-Langford-Colwood-Metchosin district. The minister could

and should be taking a role in the responsibility here. It's a joint

responsibility. We have to plan for roads and rapid transit. We have to

do the planning in the same room and under the same roof, because it

serves the same people and purposes.

I ask the minister to

tell us what his plans are for the enhanced use of the Esquimalt and

Nanaimo Railway, to complement the other forms of public transport for

which he is responsible in this province. I ask whether or not he is

considering such a strategy for the increased use of the Esquimalt and

Nanaimo Railway, both for Island and regional transportation, rapid and

long distance, to serve the interests of all the people of Vancouver

Island.

In regard to a particular problem that has been

drawn to my attention, I wonder if the minister is prepared to look at

the possibility of upgrading the Patricia Bay Highway in at least two

or three spots so that it may be used for safe pullover for public

transport. I've had complaints in writing as recently as a week ago

from residents of the northern part of my riding and Saanich riding who

observe that one of the reasons the UTA doesn't work very well on the

Pat Bay Highway is because there aren't very many places for it to

safely pull over. I ask the minister to advise whether or not it would

be possible to build along the Pat Bay Highway pullover lanes and

stopping places for UTA service on the Saanich Peninsula running back

and forth between Victoria and Sidney. For the purposes of safety and

greater convenience those lanes and pull-over places, I think, are

necessary and required.

I have a couple of other

observations and a few more questions for the minister. The next one

concerns the Motor Carrier Commission. I have some problems dealing

with this agency, and 1, like many other MLAs, have had to do so for

going on six years now. The traditional secretiveness of the Motor

Carrier Commission disturbs me a great deal. On several occasions I've

received correspondence from them in which they have point blank

refused to provide me, as a member of this assembly, with reasons for

their decisions. This is, I think, totally unacceptable.

do note that in the last several months the Motor Carrier Commission

has become somewhat more responsive to legitimate requests for

information about why it took a particular decision. That doesn't,

however, explain the fundamental problem that some of us have — and

that I most personally have — with such a commission. It may seem

paradoxical to the minister, but I personally believe that in the field

of transport of this sort it's just possible that the best remedy is

the free market.

I'm not persuaded that the Motor Carrier

Commission knows what it's doing when it issues taxi licences in

Victoria. It seems to me that the free market might better know what

it's doing by way of determining the number of customers and sort of

fees and schedules those customers are prepared to pay for the level of

services they wish to employ. I'm not sure at all — and I don't speak

for my party; I don't propose to speak on behalf of the New Democratic

Party in any way — that the Motor Carrier Commission or any other level

of government in this particular instance is simply competent to

regulate this field. There is a basic regulation required, and

[ Page 5817 ]

that,

of course, is again in the field of public safety. We have to be

guaranteed that these buses, taxis and other forms of public transit

are safe. But after that's done I'm not so sure that we should be in

the business of protecting the markets for the entrepreneurs. It seems

to me that it might be a better policy to have them fight for

themselves. It might be a better policy to have them earn their own

share of the market and not have it automatically protected.

far as I can tell, the business of the Motor Carrier Commission is

protectionism, pure and simple. I am sick and tired of having authentic

free enterprisers come to my office to ask why they can't get a licence

to compete in a freemarket part of the economy called transportation in

Victoria. I'm not persuaded that the rationale originally found in the

thirties and forties for the establishment of the Motor Carrier

Commission is anything better than obsolete today. I personally believe

that in this particular instance it's no longer possible to find an

intelligent or competent explanation for this continuing intervention

in the marketplace, where there are no issues of monopoly except those

monopolies created by the Motor Carrier Commission itself. I don't

think that's a very intelligent reply for us.

Again I

observe that I'm not speaking on behalf of my party. To the best of my

knowledge we have no policy on this issue. Neither does the governing

party, as far as I can tell. We've both taken for granted that a

commission set up decades ago should be allowed to continue into the

future without any fundamental re-examination of its purpose. I don't

share that. I don't like people who come to me.... I'll read into the

record an instance; in this case Better-Rate Cartage Ltd, of 323 Henry

Street, Victoria, is telling me that they're perfectly capable of doing

a business, providing good service, and providing it at rate slightly

lower than their competitors, and they're being told that the field is

full, they can't compete, and there's no room for them in the

marketplace. I don't buy it. I don't buy that any agency of government

is, first of all, knowledgeable enough to make such an assessment and

secondly, even if they were Fm not persuaded it is their business to do

so in the first place. Why, for instance, is it not possible to

consider a policy — experimentally in one community in British Columbia

that wishes to adopt it — of abandoning any form, which I suspect to be

archaic and obsolete, of protecting someone's investment by issuing a

licence and denying other people the opportunity to compete and open it

up widespread for a year or two or three on a trial basis? I'm not

quite sure how we'd measure that. I realize it's a difficult issue. But

nonetheless give it a try somewhere. Attempt somewhere or other to

determine whether or not it is just possible that the Motor Carrier

Commission as originally conceived has now become an obsolete

instrument of public policy and no longer serves a good purpose. The

basic purpose of public safety must still be upheld. I simply resent,

and increasingly strongly resent, being told that we have an agency

governing a particular field of public interest — in this case public

transport — where there are no natural monopolies, like a telephone

company, that can be justified — obviously, there can only be one

telephone company; it's absurd to have 20 competing — and where in the

absence of a natural monopoly, all that we examine is what happens when

you have a tradition-bound public service bureaucracy protecting the

capital investments of people who moved into the field some time ago or

protecting the capital investments of the lucky few who manage to move

in nowadays. I mean no disrespect to the individuals who work for the

Motor Carrier Commission. Within the terms of reference they are given,

I'm sure they are all trying to do the best possible job. In many cases

— at least in private conversations — a number of them have

demonstrated to me their earnestness and their responsibility. But it

has also been demonstrated to me — I'll read two cases into the record

very quickly — that the current terms of reference are simply not

satisfactory.

Better-Rate Cartage Ltd. of 323 Henry Street in Victoria — Sam Boyd, president;

Greg Kennedy, director — made a proposal to take over a contract with Victoria

Press Ltd. They did so in late November and early December of 1980. This contract

had been held previously by a company called D-Line Carriers, which was a

licensed agency under the Motor Carrier Commission. For its own reasons Victoria

Press chose not to renew that particular contract. I don't propose to

go into those reasons; that's their business and not ours. The value of

this contract was $180,000, and it was due to expire on January 15, 1981.

Better-Rate Cartage Ltd. proposed to take over the contract. It underbid D-Line

by approximately $15,000. The basic reason they were able to do so is because

they proposed to charge $15 an hour versus $17 a hour that D-Line proposed to

charge.

Better-Rate

Cartage has three large trucks and was in the process of getting two

more. They applied to the Motor Carrier Commission for an interim

permit and simultaneously for a permanent permit. They were given a

verbal assurance by Victoria Press that they would be granted the

contract. I am told Victoria Press was satisfied that they were

competent to manage the contract. Of course. with many distributors

concerned to receive the Times-Colonist on time, Victoria Press

wanted to assure itself — obviously it did — that these guys were able

to do the job. However, as it turned out, Victoria Press was advised

that the Motor Carrier Commission might look askance at this proposal

to issue a new licence in the greater Victoria trading area. Sure

enough, they did. Lo and behold, they were denied a temporary permit

and a permanent one as well. Better-Rate Cartage consulted a lawyer,

who got no further than I did. They consulted me, at my home in act, on

two occasions. They have been financially damaged as the result of the

refusal by the Motor Carrier Commission to do this.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

What

does the Motor Carrier Commission say? At least this time they gave

answers, but I'm not at all satisfied with them. I'm not satisfied on

two counts. As far as I can tell, Better-Rate Cartage is run by honest

businessmen who worked to earn the equity in their company and to buy

the trucks and to do a better job slightly cheaper than their

competition. As far as I'm concerned, that's good enough for me. If

they meet the tests of the marketplace and public safety, as far as I'm

personally concerned they are eligible and qualified and should be

allowed to compete. I personally happen to believe in that kind of free

enterprise. I think it's authentic, important and necessary.

What's

happened in this case? Once again, protectionism and an obsolete

attitude bound by tradition and no great purpose told them as follows.

This was a letter from Mr. Tyson, deputy superintendent of motor

carriers in regard to the Motor Carrier Commission. In a moment I'll

get to the relationship between the two. This is what the deputy

superintendent of motor carriers had to say in regard to the matter,

[ Page 5818 ]

because they were involved too. It's to the attention of their lawyers, Milton and Munch, Douglas Street, Victoria.

"In

response to your letter of January 26, 1981, you are advised that the

information relayed to your client was with respect to the request for

a temporary permit and not a decision with respect to an application

for regular annual licence authority. It appears from the information

sheet made out upon relay from our Victoria branch office that your

client has applied for both regular licence authority and also

temporary authority or permit until such time as the commission makes

its decision with respect to the regular licence application.

"For

your general information, you are advised that applications for motor

carrier authority are not issued automatically upon receipt of an

application. Applications are issued only when it is seen to be in the

public interest for such licence authority to be granted. Applications

for regular licence authority are published and assigned a number. Any

carriers who consider their activities to be affected adversely have

the right of making objection. The Motor Carrier Commission considers

the objections as well as the supporting material submitted by the

applicant as well as many other factors in order to maintain a sound,

economically viable transportation system in the province.

"As

to permits, you are advised that the commission's policy is that

temporary permits are issued only in the case of an emergency. This

means that there is a need of the public for the transportation service

and that there are no licensed carriers with the authority available to

provide that service. In the case of your client, it appears that in

addition to making the regular licence application, a request for

temporary permit to start was made.

"A test of need was made, and it was found that there were

licensed carriers available. Accordingly the request for the permit was refused.

Such a decision on a permit request is, of course, without prejudice to any

decision the commission may make with respect to the regular licence application.

I trust that the above information will be of assistance, etc."

I mean no disrespect to the individual public servant who signed the letter,

either. He is simply carrying out public policy. I would ask the minister, though,

if he could tell us what he deems to have been the public interest in this case.

Is it in the public interest to protect the investment of an established carrier,

to allow a new entrepreneur to get into the business, and to provide, at least

according to Victoria Press, apparently a better service than the other principal

competitor? Thereby they would earn their way in the marketplace and earn a

living to pay for their own enterprise, to pay taxes and to be good corporate

citizens.

Where

does the public interest really lie? Does it lie in giving the Motor

Carrier Commission the authority to shut these guys out of business and

to retain it for the people who are already there? I want to say again

that to me, personally, that kind of protectionism is obsolete. I don't

understand the basis of such a policy.

For instance, in

regard to taxis in Victoria or any other place, why should we not

consider a system whereby taxi drivers are permitted and encouraged to

form cooperatives for the purpose of advertising and dispatching, but

no one person shall be permitted to own more than one licence at a

time? If we're concerned about monopolies, that's fair enough. I don't

want just one taxi company in the city owned either by the Crown or by

an individual. I don't want that at all. People should have freedom of

choice to go to their own taxi. It's nothing of such grave concern to

public policy that we should be in the business of setting up

monopolies or of regulating them either.

Why don't we break

the monopoly altogether, restrict it to one licence per individual,

allow them to form co-ops for dispatch and advertising purposes and be

done with it? Is that not also somewhat more in the public interest

than it is allegedly in the public interest to protect the traditional

investments of people who have put capital into the field but who

should be required to compete with younger and perhaps more vigorous

entrepreneurs who come along from time to time?

I have one

other question. It's related to the same topic. From time to time,

people are successful in making appeals to cabinet of Motor Carrier

Commission decisions. We've discovered them, and it's been the subject

of a court case. I'm referring to the case of Gray Line of Victoria Ltd. vs. Chabot, McClelland et al ,

registry numbers A801976 and A801977. I'm referring as well to the

judgment of the chief justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia

at the Vancouver registry.

In this particular instance, the

cabinet decided to overrule the Motor Carrier Commission. I'd like to

ask why. The chief justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in

his decision, which I'm sure the minister has seen, decided that there

was something wrong with the way the province looked at its particular

decision. In fact, he ordered reconsideration under the Judicial Review

Procedure Act. I'd like to ask the minister as well what the

consequence of that review has been, because I haven't been able to

find out.

An appeal was made on June 17, 1980, was heard by

three members of the executive council and was made by Conmac in the

presence of counsel for all parties. This is what the Hon. J.R. Chabot,

Hon. G.M. McCarthy and Hon. J.H. Heinrich had to say — these are their

names as they appear in the Supreme Court document from which I'm

reading, Mr. Chairman:

"This appeal coming on

for hearing before the undersigned members of the executive council on

behalf of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council in the presence of

officers of the appellant applicant, Conmac Stage Limited... upon

reading and their material submitted, and hearing what was alleged by

the parties present, it is hereby ordered that the appeal be allowed,

and the Motor Carrier Commission forthwith issue to the appellant,

Conmac Stage Limited, limited passenger vehicle licence authority as

set out in application published as 106279."

There was

another appeal as well in regard to Conmac dated September 17, 1979,

and the same basic decision was made by the cabinet. Conmac's

competitors appealed that decision to the supreme court, and the

supreme court said at page 18 of its decision: "I must set aside the

two decisions and the two orders-in-council which have been made in

these two cases." He then ordered that it go back to judicial review.

What

I'd like to ask the minister is, in this instance, on what basis and

with which criteria the cabinet decided that the public interest as

interpreted by the Motor Carrier Commission in the case of Conmac was

not an adequate inter-

[ Page 5819 ]

pretation, and that the cabinet itself was more competently able to assess it than was its own Motor Carrier Commission.

Once

again, we have two instances of the public interest being, I think,

rather artificially defined — in the first place by the Motor Carrier

Commission and in the second place by the cabinet. In both cases it was

turned over by the Supreme Court of British Columbia. I would like to

know not simply what criteria the Motor Carrier Commission uses to

determine the public interest when deciding whether or not to award a

licence, but what criteria the cabinet uses when it overrules the Motor

Carrier Commission.

In this particular instance the

cabinet's procedures — note, Mr. Chairman, "procedures" — were found to

be faulty by the chief justice of the Supreme Court of British

Columbia. He refers in the same decision, at page 18, to his own

uncertainty as to how these decisions were made, and he orders that

they be reconsidered. I will quote again from the chief justice:

"As

I am in the same state of uncertainty as any other knowledgeable person

who could not know who really made these decisions, I do not think it

appropriate to apply the curative provisions of

section 9 of the

Judicial Review Procedure Act. These two matters are accordingly

remitted to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for appropriate

reconsideration pursuant to

section 5 of the Judicial Review Procedure

Act."

Well, Mr. Chairman, if the supreme court chief justice

finds it difficult to understand on what basis cabinet decided to

overrule the Motor Carrier Commission, and if members of this

Legislative Assembly — and I'm not the only one — find it difficult to

understand how the Motor Carrier Commission makes these decisions, the

basic question may be whether there are any tests, standards or

criteria that make any intelligent sense at all. If so, what are they?

I've never seen them, and I've never been able to find out what they

might be. If they're not really there, except by virtue of selfserving

rationales made for what are fundamentally arbitrary and protectionist

policies, then I don't think that's adequate any more. There may have

been a case 40 years ago. If there is, we'll honour it as a piece of

history gone by. I'm not so sure the same case can be made today. I am

sure that Sam Boyd and Greg Kennedy of Better-Rate Cartage are entitled

to compete if they can perform a service that is satisfactory to their

clients and that meets the tests of public safety, The other tests that

seem to be applied appear to me, Mr. Chairman, to be unfair tests and

shouldn't be applied to anyone at all. I'd appreciate the minister's

comments.

HON. MR, FRASER: I appreciate the remarks from the first member for Victoria.

just wanted to conclude a remark to the member for Dewdney. He is

probably doing his duty and looking for MLAs. Regarding a proposed

bridge for the Albion crossing, we are protecting the right-of-way, and

that's as far as it's gone. I believe it's in the community plan for

that area on both sides of the Fraser River.

Dealing now with the first member for Victoria's observations, first of

all, I think I have some good news on bicycles. I wasn't even aware of this.

First of all, I share his concern to a degree about bikeways and so on, and

I recall telling him last year that we're paving our shoulders to six feet

now. I think we still have a little bit of a down side on that. In a lot of

cases it's not separated, so they're on the same level. On all our two-lane

roads they're now doing the shoulders to 6 feet, and we get along if guard-rails

can be applied and so on. I think we're moving in the right direction. That

side was the rural area of the province.

This

is news to me. and maybe it shouldn't have been. I'm told by my deputy

that under revenue-sharing.... It was changed two years ago and

includes bicycle paths. I'm dealing now with the urban areas of the

province — villages, towns and cities. They can now get revenue-sharing

for bikeways. I wasn't aware of that, but that boils down, if it's

approved and so on, to a fifty-fifty share for the development, and

maybe that helps.

MR. BARBER: Have you had any applications for sharing?

HON. MR. FRASER:

I'm not sure, but I think it's a good point to put out as MLAs. In this

case here I think they've done a good job, because I see the signs all

over. If there is more money required, it is eligible revenue- sharing,

and I would gamble that most of the municipalities don't know that.

Mr.

Chairman, as far as transit is concerned, that comes under my colleague

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), but I don't

want to duck it completely. Transportation, of course, is my

responsibility, and we have the Vancouver Island study getting going

now on that.

Regarding the E&N Railway. I think that

will get fitted in on that transportation study; that's the observation

I want to make there.

MR. BARBER: What about the CNR right-of-way, Alec?

HON. MR. FRASER:

I've got a note of that, Mr. Chairman. It's my information that the

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing is now negotiating on the CNR

right-of-way with CN. I don't know where it's at, but that's my

information: Lands, Parks and Housing is trying to negotiate something.

the Pat Bay Highway, we have worked with the Capital Regional District

on that. As a matter of fact, the mayor of Saanich came to see me on

this subject a couple of months ago — bus stops for transit on the Pat

Bay Highway. Yes, there are some problems, but we've eliminated quite a

few, it's my understanding. All the bus stops requested have been

installed, except the following. Work has started on Royal Oak

interchange and will be completed in two weeks. This is at full cost to

Highways. At Elk Lake no bus stop will be installed without a signal to

safely get pedestrians across the highway. We've got a problem at Elk

Lake, in other words. The ministry and Saanich are jointly

investigating a signal, cost-shared between the ministry and the

municipality. In other words, we can have a pull-out in the Elk Lake

area, but we're worried about pedestrians crossing after they get out.

They're looking at signalization there. At Tanner Road on the Pat Bay

Highway a signal is also required. That is also being investigated with

Saanich in both cases, with the community of Saanich. I think we've

eliminated some, and we're on the road to getting most of them solved,

hopefully, so transit can be better used on the Pat Bay Highway.

MR. BARBER: How about in Sidney? I gather there has been some problem there.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm not sure about Sidney. I think they did bring that up, and then it got down into those areas that were the worst.

[ Page 5820 ]

MR. BARBER: Would you take a look at the Sidney one?

HON. MR. FRASER: Sure.

Now

on my favourite subject, the Motor Carrier Commission, I want to say

that it is a semi-judicial body, but it comes under this ministry for

the financial part and so on. I speak with a little knowledge, Mr.

Chairman and members, because I happen to have the first public freight

licence, Vancouver to Prince George, granted by the then Public

Utilities Commission. We had a public freight licence that served

everything north of Cache Creek, and we built up a large business. So

I've been on that side of it.

I guess it is basically made

up of three commissioners appointed by the government, and then we have

the branch side which does the day-to-day operation. There are three

commissioners with a chairman. On the branch side they have a

superintendent — you read a letter from the deputy superintendent — and

they have branches throughout the province. There's a total staff of

about 50. The problem is we need more staff because of the terrific

number of applications coming in for permits and everything else from

all over the province. I've been authorized — I think it is — to

increase by five in the 1981-82 year. So that is the basic structure.

They have branches in Victoria, Kamloops and Prince George. They carry

out the Motor Carrier Act.

Basically, as I understand the

history of it — and certainly things change — it was created to

guarantee that the public interest would be protected. In other words,

they would have a service. That was the intent behind the legislation

that created all this licensing. Prior to that we had chaos, no

reliable transportation system, dog eat dog. Consequently most people

went bankrupt. So they are granted the privilege of a licence through

this legislation and they assume a lot of responsibilities. It depends

on the area and the carrier, but the responsibility they assume is that

they must guarantee the people in the area for which they are licensed

a constant, scheduled service and so on, whether it be taxi, bus or

freight service.

It is definitely in the public interest. In

our province today there are a lot of publicly licensed freight

carriers; Vancouver to Prince George is an example. If they were on

their own, dog-eat-dog, I'd ask the committee who'd haul the freight to

Spuzzum and Boston Bar, which are small communities en route. But they

must take the freight for Spuzzum and Boston Bar, with the licence

privilege they've got. Maybe we shouldn't be worried about these

things. But as I understand it, that's the basic tenet of that

legislation.

As far as the provincial government is

concerned, they have a responsibility to see that service in these

transportation areas is carried out. Of course licensing is the control.

MR. BARBER: What about in Vancouver or Victoria, where competition could do the job?

HON. MR. FRASER:

Of course, we're getting that now. There's competition all over, and

more people wanting to get licences to get into the act. They are

granting more licences, but it appears to me not as fast as the economy

is expanding, whether it be for taxis or buses or freight. When you

apply for a licence, you can go to the superintendent of the motor

carrier branch and he can grant the licence without any reference to

anybody if he thinks it's in the public interest. If he doesn't, he

sends it on to the commission and they can have a hearing. They can

reject or approve it.

That leads me into the process where

the Motor Carrier Commission rejects; then the citizen applying has

appeal procedures to the executive council. You referred to a case

where it was rejected from the Motor Carrier Commission and came to the

cabinet. They overruled the observations, and I guess they had their

reasons. I might say in commenting that I sat on a lot of the cabinet

appeals, but not once since I've had this responsibility. But I sat on

them for two or three years quite frequently until the administration

of the Motor Carrier Commission fell under my responsibility. I haven't

sat since.

But you say it's secret; well, I guess it is. I

believe the act spells out that it can be, if I recall rightly. I'm

referring to the Motor Carrier Commission.

Now to finally

wrap up on the Motor Carrier Commission, I know that an appeal went to

the supreme court. I don't know where that's at, and I don't really

think that we have the information, but I'll get it to you if we have.

MR. BARBER: The supreme court ordered in favour of Conmac, and ordered you to take a second look.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Well, I can't comment, because I'm not sure. But that's the whole

process. I want to conclude — on the Motor Carrier Commission, Mr.

Chairman, and to the first member for Victoria — that we're looking at

this whole process now. I don't know whether you'll be able to ask a

year from now whether I am still looking. I hope not. I think we have

to take a harder look at the Motor Carrier Commission and just where

we've been and where we're going. Because it started in 1932 and 1933;

there have been very few amendments to the act. What I'm saying is that

at least, hopefully, we'll have some amendments to it for the 1982

session.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It would appear that we're

prepared to vote on the minister's office, and before I move the

traditional amendment — it has become traditional this year — I have

one word for the minister. It has been brought to the attention of some

of our members, particularly myself, that people out in the regions

occasionally, when they go to the regional office on some matter

involving budgetary items, are told nothing can be done for them at

this time on that piece of highway or bridge — or whatever the problem

may be — because the NDP is holding up the budgetary estimates of the

minister and the government. I'm sure this doesn't come from the

minister's office. At least I hope not. It's the kind of complaint we

receive from time to time, and the minister knows very well that we

pass interim supply here, and the debate of these estimates has no

bearing whatsoever on the funding of these various projects. I thought

I'd draw that to the minister's attention.

It has been part

of our party and caucus program, when the ministry has budgeted

significantly over last year on items like travel, propaganda —

properly called "information" — and office expenses, that we reduce the

budget on that particular vote by the amount of money in excess of last

year. These funds could perhaps be better utilized in housing, health

care, etc., particularly some of the information items, where the

budgetary items have gone up by vast amounts.

On this

particular vote 189 of the minister's office, the minister has

increased his office expenses by some 70 percent or $5,800. I therefore

move that vote 189 be reduced by the amount of $5,800.

[ Page 5821 ]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Plassarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman, I heard the name of the hon. member for North Peace River

(Mr. Brummet) read out on the division list. I see that he's absent,

because I see that this desk over here bears the name of the hon.

member for North Peace River. How do we resolve such a thing? When a

division takes place, hon. members are to take their seats. The seat of

the hon. member for North Peace River is back here now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for the observation, hon. member.

Vote 189 approved.

On vote 190: general administration — highways, $7,679,067.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

This particular vote, in terms of advertising, publications and

propaganda, is being increased by 520 percent. I therefore move that

vote 190 be reduced by the amount of $280,000.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Brummet

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 190 approved.

On vote 191: general administration — transportation, $1,064,894.

MR, LOCKSTEAD:

For the same reason as above excess spending on offices, deep-pile rugs

and things like that — I move that vote 191 be reduced by the amount of

$13,050.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Barber

Hanson

Mitchell

Plassarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Brummet

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 191 approved.

Vote 192: highway maintenance, $ 195,919,712 — approved.

Vote 193: highway construction — capital, $288,993,088 — approved.

Vote 194: Hydro development — highways, $10 — approved.

Vote 195: engineering branch, $1,070,533 — approved.

Vote 196: motor-vehicle branch, $23,582,731 approved.

Vote 197: motorcarrier branch, $1,360,825 — approved.

Vote 198: Motor Carrier Commission, $354,851 — approved.

Vote 199: transportation policy analysis branch, $1,439,776 — approved.

[ Page 5822 ]

Vote 200: air services branch, $3,798,669 — approved.

On vote 201: air transport assistance program, $4,000,000.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I would move reduction of this vote for the reasons listed above. This

happens to be for propaganda purposes in excess of what they spent last

year for the same purpose. There's not much on this vote. I move that

vote 201 be reduced by the amount of $2,700.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the

Journals of the House.

Vote 201 approved.

Vote 202: British Columbia Ferries, $63,713,476 — approved.

Vote 203: British Columbia Railway, $13,200,000 — approved.

On vote 204: building occupancy charges, $19,717,071.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Chairman, this vote is for building occupancy charges. Would you

believe that the increase this year over last year is an astounding

$4,361,071? Is the minister moving that whole ministry into the Empress

Hotel? I can't understand it. I therefore move that vote 204 be reduced

by the amount of $4,361,071.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 204 approved.

On vote 205: computer and consulting charges, $4,892,550.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

This is the last vote in the minister's estimates, so before I move the

traditional amendment I would like to first of all say that, while many

topics weren't covered under debate of the estimates, I think all

members on this side of the House really appreciated the time and the

lengthy and detailed answers the minister provided to all of us who

asked questions. We're pleased by the minister's personal knowledge of

his portfolio, and the cooperation of the staff of that ministry was

much appreciated.

The total amount of the various vote

amendments we've moved here this afternoon comes to $5,474,271, and

here we are with a visual display in my scrapbook of the overspending

of this government. Look at the overspending — the whole government.

Moneys that should be going for health care and other people programs

in this province are being wasted, because the government is padding

its budget again to get ready for the next election. I therefore move

that vote 205 be reduced by the amount of $811,650.

MR. LAUK:

I'd like to say on behalf of all members of the chamber how much we

appreciated the time and research that went into the opposition

critic's handling of these estimates. We express our appreciation for

his contribution to these debates.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

[ Page 5823 ]

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 205 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY

AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

HON. MR. GARDOM: Now,

Mr. Chairman, for the moment all British Columbia has been waiting for

— but the Leader of the Opposition has not, because all he's still

trying to do is find 1,993 dinner no-shows. It gives me a great deal of

pleasure to read: "Vote 126, resolved that a sum not exceeding $204,312

be granted to Her Majesty to defray the expenses of the Ministry of

Industry and Small Business Development, the hon. minister's office."

MR. NICOLSON:

On a point of order, when the House Leader seeks the floor during

committee to introduce a vote, he is not to embark upon debate. I would

request that the Chair so direct. Fair is fair, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member has made a good point.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I have certainly looked forward to this opportunity, afforded me during

the course of my estimates, to discuss the activities of my ministry.

First of all, I would like to say a great thank you to all the members

of my staff, who have worked so hard during this past year, both here

and in the Vancouver branch. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we are a

reasonably small department, very few in actual numbers of employees.

But the few of us in the department are certainly a very potent force

in the economy of British Columbia, which, of course, also helps the

economy of Canada.

I have had — and I'm proud to say so — a

great deal of loyalty and devotion from a very efficient and devoted

staff. Their devotion in the department and their attention to details,

their enthusiasm over the job — which, indeed, they are doing for all

British Columbians — has certainly been, in no small measure, a great

influence on the success we've had in British Columbia in leading the

economy of British Columbia to that height which is unsurpassed

anywhere in Canada, indeed in any state of the Union.

I want

to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I certainly look forward to working

with the staff in my department in the years ahead. I hope they will

find it as enjoyable and as exciting as it has been in the past.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

want to say a special thanks to my deputy, Sandy Peel, who I hope will

join me shortly. He's not coming? He is a very devoted deputy minister

and a very efficient one. I also give a word of thanks to Jack McKeown,

who runs our department in Vancouver and who has accompanied me through

the past year though many thousands of miles of travel and helped me

prepare for some very important meetings in various countries in the

world and assisted me with debriefings and also with preparations for

additional meetings.

At this point, I want to say that in every country where we have travelled

we have certainly received tremendous assistance from the embassies, consuls

and high commissioners who work for the Foreign Affairs department of our federal

government. As a matter of fact, I think they have gone beyond the call of duty

in assisting all British Columbia delegations, no matter where they travel in

the world, with setting up appointments, ensuring that their itinerary is being

followed and, indeed, that the best use of our time is made so that we are able

to get on with the business and the responsibility to which we have been delegated.

have another special word of thanks to Bob Food who has diligently

administered our small business programs and our tourist industry

development subsidiary loan agreement program. There again, he has done

an excellent job. The result has been that our loan department has been

very successful in putting money where it should be put so that jobs

are created, and small entrepreneurs in this province are indeed helped.

course, I always have to say a very special word of thanks to my

secretary, who is always at my beck and call, day and night,

particularly during the last year when we were in some very tedious and

very important negotiations on northeast coal. I also want to say a

word of thanks to my ministerial assistant, who kept me away from a

number of political pitfalls and has been a very devoted servant. I

realize that sometimes that's very difficult, but he has done an

excellent job during the past year. I also thank my staff in the

constituency office.

Mr. Chairman, I am indeed blessed with

a great team which during the past year has given me constant

encouragement when things didn't look too bright sometimes. They've

been a constant inspiration to me. I think I'm a very fortunate cabinet

minister to have such a loyal staff.

The directors and the

chairman of the British Columbia Development Corporation are also doing

an outstanding job for all British Columbians in administering and

running the Development Corporation.

I also have a word of

thanks to the staff, management and directors of the British Columbia

Railway, who in the last five years have taken that resource railway

from a loss of $22 million to a very profitable position. I want to

tell you, that didn't just happen. It happened because of hard work,

tough decisions and good management. I want to say thank you to the

management, the staff and the directors of the British Columbia Railway

for doing an outstanding job, not for me or the government, but for all

the citizens of British Columbia. If there is one mode of

transportation or one area that affects the economy of this province

more than any other — Mr. Chairman, being from the north you will

understand what I'm saying — it is indeed the British Columbia Railway.

you will notice, this year the budget of the ministry has increased

substantially. The increase is mainly due to increased moneys in the

estimates for northeast coal and for the British Columbia Railway

debt-servicing. During the past year our ministry went through a

zero-based budgeting exercise with Finance, and some belt-tightening on

behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia has indeed occurred.

Now

having made those few remarks regarding the ministry and the staff — as

I say, I consider myself a very fortunate cabinet minister to have such

a loyal and devoted staff — I would like just a few words on the

economy and where we are going in British Columbia.

If you

were to summarize economic development and how it relates to the people

of this province, the greatest benefit of the expanding and growing

economy we have in

[ Page 5824 ]

this

province has been the very, very strong performance in employment

creation. Along with the strong performance in employment creation we

have also had an accompanying drop in unemployment. At a time when

other provinces and jurisdictions in North America — and indeed in the

world — are finding that their economies are either going backward or

staying on an even keel, British Columbia has progressed. That

progression, Mr. Chairman, is a direct result of the policies of this

government, and I sometimes think that the opposition would have us

believe that it is automatic.

Our record in employment

creation in 1980 was outstanding. With 11.1 percent of Canada's

population, the province of British Columbia led the nation in job

creation. That is an enviable record, and one which the socialist

opposition does not like us to repeat too often. But it's a record, and

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, it's a record we're proud of. Last

year we created in the province of British Columbia 21.7 percent of all

new jobs. Since 1975 we have created over 195,000 new jobs in the

province of British Columbia. Those jobs have been created not by

government going out and spending massive amounts of money to create

little flames in the economy here and there; those jobs have been

created by the investment of the private sector. Those are long-lasting

jobs. The workforce in the province of British Columbia can look

forward to the future with a great deal of security. Those in the

workforce, those union members, are not worried about losing their

jobs; they're not worried about the economy going backward, as they are

in other provinces and jurisdictions in Canada. That is because we have

done a good job of managing the economy of British Columbia.

Last

year our gross provincial product advanced 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent

while — listen to this — the rest of Canada declined. Now, Mr.

Chairman, I have to ask you: do they not have natural resources in

other provinces in Canada? Is there no demand for the products from

other parts of Canada? I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that indeed there

was and there still is. Then why is the province of British Columbia

able to advance, while the nation as a whole, as I understand it, is

going backward?

MR. BRUMMET: Policies.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

You're right on, Mr. Member for North Peace River. It's because of the

policies of this government. There are those in the province who would

have you believe otherwise. I think they believe that with Social

Credit automatically comes a strong economy. But, Mr. Chairman, there

is one outstanding feature about the increase in our economy last year:

we were able to increase our gross provincial product at a time in

history when our lumber industry was not experiencing the best of

times. Even with the decline in the demand for our lumber products,

because of the diversification of our industry, because of the

diversification of our markets, the province of British Columbia was

able to increase its gross provincial product in very difficult times.

That

didn't happen by chance. It happened because when we became government,

we set out on a course of economic development to diversify our markets

so that we would not be wholly dependent upon the United States. That

policy of diversifying our markets, particularly for our lumber

products, indeed paid dividends last year. When housing starts in the

States were down, our lumber industry has been able to carry on. It was

not the best of times, but not the worst of times, because of the

encouragement of the government to diversify the market.

are making great headway, positive strides in diversifying our markets

in the Pacific Rim, particularly into Japan. We are making advances in

other countries in the Pacific Rim. Those advances are possible because

the government of British Columbia has led economic missions into those

areas.

I've been accused of travelling around the world, and

coming home empty-handed. I want to tell you that because the province

of British Columbia recognized the potential in the Pacific Rim and

took the initiative, travelled and sold....

MR. HALL: Over and over and over again.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Yes, over and over again, my friend. I want to tell you, Mr. Member for

Surrey, that you can't sell sitting on your behind in a soft, cushy

chair. You've got to get out and sell. I'll tell you, when we go

overseas, we go overseas to work and sell, and the results, my friend,

are there. The sales are taking place.

MR. HALL: Show us the price.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

And I want to tell you further that you haven't seen anything yet.

Because in that market, you don't go in with your order book in your

hand and get a sale the first time. You have to go back. That's where

we've been successful. We have been determined.

MR. HALL: To break all records.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's why we're successful. Yes, we're breaking all records in sales, my friend.

MR. HALL: In travel.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

And we are dragging the federal government, kicking and screaming, into

the decade of the eighties and into the Pacific Rim. We're pulling them

kicking and screaming. After the initiatives of this government, the

federal government has finally recognized that indeed that's where the

action is going to be in the decades of the eighties and nineties. Once

again, British Columbia leads the way. Yes, British Columbia leads the

way against carping criticism from the socialist opposition, who said

we didn't know what we were doing. But the results are there for

everyone to see. That's why I'm so proud to stand up this afternoon and

tell all the people of British Columbia.

I'm not bragging to

say we've done a great job. We must do a better job, and indeed we

will. But our record to date is enviable, and it makes the socialist

hordes opposite very jealous. They know deep down in their hearts that

we've done a fantastic job. They know. We've diversified our economy

away from just two or three resource-based industries into a booming,

growing manufacturing base. Yet the socialist hordes opposite would

still like the people of British Columbia to think we're still hewers

of wood and drawers of water. Not so.

British Columbia has a

good, strong and growing manufacturing base. We have a growing

high-technology industry that indeed, in many instances, is being

successful in the world market, competing against the great giants of

the European communities, competing against the great giants in the

United States and, indeed, competing against the high-

[ Page 5825 ]

technology industries in Japan. That's what we have in British Columbia.

With

the initiatives being taken by the Minister of Science and Technology,

that high-technology industry base that we have is continuing to grow.

It will grow because this government made a policy that we wanted to

move into the high technology field. That's where the future is. That's

why we created industrial parks. They were strictly for high-technology

industry.

Our marine park that we're building out in Saanich

is for specialty marine industry. Sure, we made a gamble, and we put in

a building and the facilities, What happened, Mr. Chairman? It's full

of ocean industries. In the very near future I look forward to going

out to the opening ceremonies.

What I have been talking

about is very significant: diversification of investment so we don't

have all the investment from one country; diversification of our sales

so that our sales are not all dependent on one country; and

diversifying our economy into a manufacturing base — not only

manufacturing but, indeed, high-technology manufacturing. Those

policies, plus the forestry, mining, coal policies and all of the great

policies that we've brought in in this government....

MR. LEA: Name one. Just name one.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, you come in here with a big smirk on your

face and all you do over there is criticize. You don't want the economy

of this province to work. Your leader said so down in Halifax years ago.

MR. LEA: Just name one, Don.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Well, I was naming the policies, but you're deaf. You don't want to

hear and you don't want to see. You'd rather go around harping and

carping criticism and making stupid statements, which I will enumerate

in detail, my friend. Yes, I'll name one policy. I told you already.

Our forestry policy and our policy of diversifying our markets and

investment from one country to other countries.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I'll ask all members not to interrupt the minister. If

the minister could address the Chair, then we can proceed with orderly

debate.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The policies are there and, indeed, the results are there.

1987 our gross provincial product is forecast to rise again. It is

anticipated that because of the development and investment in northeast

coal, our gross provincial product will increase approximately 1

percent. We anticipate more sales of coal, not only to Japan but to the

European community as well. Because of the initiatives we have taken,

British Columbia will increase not only sales of coal but sales of all

our products to the United States, Japan and the European community.

There will be great growth in markets such as Australia, South Korea

and all of the Pacific Rim countries. The results of these initiatives

and the strong economy we have are an expanded labour income and

expanded consumer expenditures. All of these have contributed to our

growth.

We have had a larger than normal immigration. This

has caused a lot of problems for the government, But, Mr. Chairman, I

want to say that these are the kinds of problems that this government

would rather cope with than the problems of high unemployment, no

growth and an exodus from the province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Indeed, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, the statistics do back them up.

MR. LEA: No, they don't.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I know you're hurting over there, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, to be

part of a government that really doesn't have an economic policy. When

they did have it, they blew it. I know you're jealous of the fantastic

job that we have done over here. I know you're jealous of the fact that

the people of Kamloops endorsed this government, when you thought that

somebody else was going to win. I know the member for Prince Rupert is

bleeding. He's hurting. His whole party is hurting. But I don't feel

for them, because they're not even good opposition. They were terrible

government, and they're not even good opposition.

MR. LEA: A man with no compassion. I feel sorry for you.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I've got to feel sorry for you too, my friend, because I speak to you

outside of the House sometimes, and you seem like a fairly normal

individual. But when you get in this Legislature you lose command of

all your faculties. You seem to go completely berserk. There is no

rationale whatsoever.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please,

hon. member. Could I just say a couple of things. First of all, Mr.

Minister, you have three minutes left, and secondly, we are debating

vote 126, the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I'm disappointed that I only have three minutes, because there is such

a fantastic story to tell. Hopefully I will have the opportunity to

give you more good news before the votes are finalized. I want to talk

at length about that great project called northeast coal.

MR. HANSON: Just table the contracts.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

There's that member over there, the second member for Victoria, who had

an

article in the paper the other night that said we're going to lose

20 percent or 25 percent of our forest lands to economic development.

That's the kind of falsehood that opposition is perpetuating with the

people of this province. We lost about 20 percent of our forest lands

in the last decade. Where did it go? Of the forest lands that were

alienated in the last decade, 99 percent went for environmental

purposes or parks and were not lost to the people of British Columbia.

But the second member for Victoria will try and mislead the people of

this province into thinking that forest land was being taken out for

economic development.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. You have impugned another hon. member.

[ Page 5826 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Shame on him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll have to ask the minister to withdraw the word "mislead." Will the minister withdraw?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'll withdraw, and I'll sit down too, because I think my time is up.

MR. LEGGATT:

I too am somewhat amazed at the tremendous personality that we get

exposed to inside here every once in a while. There's a Jekyll and Hyde

complex in the minister. I have a feeling that he goes out into the

bathroom and takes some kind of special potion that changes him.

Outside he's a calm, rational fellow who speaks in modulated tones; but

after he's had that elixir and he comes into this place — my God, it's

drooling-at-the-mouth time.

MR. HALL: Which is the real one?

MR. LEGGATT:

We're not sure. We're not sure whether it's Mr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde. But

I always enjoy listening to the minister, because he has this wonderful

facility of applying what is really a fundamentalist heating process to

the art of politics. Somehow he's able to put his hand on the economy

of British Columbia and say: "Heal." He has solved it. The great

magician from the north, the great fundamentalist healer of the

economy, has suddenly converted us all from — and I'll use his own

words — hewers of wood and drawers of water. What is the coal deal if

it isn't leaving us as hewers of wood and drawers of water — as diggers

of coal, and we'll ship out the coal.

I want to tell you

that we are not naive about the question of coal sales. When this

government was in office it had planned and developed some interesting,

feasible arrangements for the marketing of coal. In fact, if one had

continued to study and follow those proposals — proposals, I might say,

that were supported by the vast majority of coal experts in this

province.... Some of the best thinking people in the province, who

looked at the questions of how to market northeast coal properly and

how to avoid a massive subsidy by the taxpayers of the province of

British Columbia, looked at an alternative proposal, which was to move

the coal all the way down the BCR and move it out north through

Chetwynd. I'm afraid that proposal still makes the best economic sense.

I'm

not relying on the kind of harum-scarum, heal-the-economy approach that

the minister takes. It's a case of just looking at good old solid

economic horse sense. That's something the minister has not applied in

the coal deal. He has entered into a contract in which the taxpayers of

this province will subsidize the Japanese steel industry to an extent

of much more than $1 billion. We had estimated it would run at $1

billion. Given the present interest rates.... We were using a 12

percent calculation; we don't think 12 percent money is available at

this point. So I think you can do your homework — get your pencil out

and try recalculating the shortage that takes place in respect of every

tonne of coal that is marketed out of the northeast.

general terms, the deal itself is uneconomic. The taxpayers of the

province of British Columbia have been asked to massively subsidize

Japanese industry, which, by the way, is so successful in competing,

selling their automobiles, that they are putting Canadian workers out

of work because of the efficiency of their steel industry. There's also

their excellent technology; there's no taking anything away from the

marvelous engineering and other skills of the Japanese. I don't know

why we have to go about subsidizing them. They're already doing very

well, thank you. Do they really need the minister to reach into my

pocket, your pocket and the taxpayer's pocket, and funnel off perhaps

billions — certainly more than a billion — to subsidize that Japanese

industry?

Let's examine the proposal not merely in terms of

the economics of the Anzac line. The key defect in this particular

proposal lies in the Anzac line itself. If you analyze the numbers and

the figures, and you come up with a way of moving that coal to

tidewater without the Anzac line, the minister's economics might make

some sense. But that $500 million nut in the middle of the project —

that somehow has to be paid for — has driven the economics of the deal

to the point where it's a bad deal and not a good deal. The Anzac line

has on it more tunnels, in terms of mileage, than the Canadian Pacific

Railway has from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It has a cost-control

problem in the construction of those tunnels that no one knows.

the desperation to come up with some kind of a deal on northeast coal,

and in spite of advice to the contrary, I think the minister has

persuaded his advisers that we have to go ahead now or we won't sell

the coal. The deal, therefore, is premature; it's economically unsound.

There are other problems, which we'll deal with in some detail. It is

the worst site for a town, environmentally. It is the worst route for

the railroad, environmentally. The question of the social problems

inherent in the development of the town have not been adequately or

properly addressed. It is a deal at the wrong time and at the wrong

place.

I'm not saying that any government — whether it was

an NDP government or this one — wouldn't sell northeast coal. Of course

we'd sell northeast coal. We would be just as aggressive as the

minister has been in trying to sell northeast coal. The only difference

is that we would sell it economically; we wouldn't give it away. That's

the difference between the approach of this minister and the approach

that we would take. We don't need to pay them to take the coal. I know

the minister is going to say: "Wait a minute, what about all the new

contracts?" If he stands up in the House and says that he's got another

seven million or ten million tonnes signed, sealed and delivered to

Taiwan, Korea or one of the other rim countries.... We don't think it

will ever be Japan, because we know the situation in Japan: that market

is glutted. The Japanese have ordered far more coal. They're so

optimistic that this member thinks he can sell coal to New Zealand.

Remarkable! If you look at the economics of the Japanese market, which

obviously the minister and his officials haven't done, instead of this

euphoric kind of "everything's onward and upward and we can sell, sell,

sell," you'll see that the Japanese have now purchased more coal than

they're going to use. All of the studies show that. The world coal

study shows that. If there's a margin in that market, it may be about

six million tonnes. That's a world market. That's the absolute maximum

that the Japanese are going to commit themselves to.

The

fact is that it's a bad deal for British Columbia, and we're losing

about $10 for every tonne of coal that goes across that line. There's

$10 coming out of the pockets of British Columbians. It didn't have to

be that way. It was only that way because of unsound economic thinking

and very poor economic planning. As I say, if the minister proposes at

[ Page 5827 ]

the

conclusion of his estimates to announce that he has ten million tonnes,

he'll still be subsidizing the deal but probably at a lower rate. Right

now the subsidy is very massive.

Something else that I hope

the minister will address in his remarks is the tabling of the

contracts. We still would like to see the contracts that have been

entered into between Teck, Denison and the Japanese industry. We all

have a fear here. The other day I noticed that the minister has gone

beyond the preliminary stage now, and he's inviting tenders for the

tunnelling in of the Anzac. My recollection is that those tenders are

coming in in June, I haven't got the ad in front of me, but the

minister can correct me. If Teck and Denison don't have a signed deal

with the Japanese and suddenly we have committed public moneys to that

tunnel, what a wonderful position for those companies to be in to

renegotiate the deal. The minister seems to have made all the

commitments so far. We'd like to see those contracts in writing and to

see them tabled here. We want to know if the minister is going to back

up again, as he's backed up from the very beginning throughout these

negotiations. There has been one soft party in the whole thing. Every

time the deal started to get soft, who got soft? The minister backed up

and sweetened it up. That was the history of the negotiation. I'm not

sure whether the minister's saying yes or no.

I know the

minister has a memorandum in his possession that was directed to all

the deputy ministers from his officials in his department — Mr.

Sivertson and Mr. Malkinson. I know the minister wants to be open with

us and give us all the information so we can, as good legislators,

assess the deal in terms of its pros and cons. The first item on that

memorandum of June 6, 1981, said: "Certain changes were made in the

financing formulas for the Anzac branch line surcharge escalation to

meet the Japanese concerns about future cost competitiveness of

northeast coal." Who made those changes? Was it the minister who

proposed that the deal be sweetened up in order to close it? I don't

suspect it was, the federal government. Would the minister like to rise

and tell us how that surcharge got changed? Who changed it? Why was it

changed and how much was the change? How much more did we give away on

the deal in order to complete it? I hope you'll make a note of these.

Perhaps your officials will.

I want to read to the minister an interesting press release that came out from Mr. Perrault back in August 1980:

"Details

of the federal response were made known in a release of a federal Telex

sent this morning. In a press conference in Vancouver, Perrault said:

'The national government cannot ask Canadians to, in eff