1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4053 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Sheriffs' responsibilities. Ms. Brown –– 4053

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Segarty

Mr. Blencoe

B.C. air ambulance service. Hon. A. Fraser replies –– 4055

Pacific Coach Lines Ltd. Hon. A. Fraser replies –– 4055

Booths closed at ferry terminals. Hon. A. Fraser replies –– 4055

Orders of the Day

Builders Lien Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 9). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 4056

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates. (Hon. A. Fraser)

On vote 62: minister's office –– 4056

Mr. Segarty

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Kempf

Mr. D'Arcy

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Ms. Brown

Mr. Campbell

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Reynolds

Ms. Sanford

Mrs. Dailly

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Lauk

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Gabelmann

Tabling Documents –– 4077

TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 1984

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. CHABOT: We have in the members' gallery Mr. Hans

Steinacher, duly appointed consul-general of Switzerland, and Mrs.

Steinacher. I wish the members would join me in welcoming them here

today.

MR. HANSON: In the gallery today are Shirley and Linc Bodner

of the great riding of Prince George South, and the wife and son of

Alderman Bodner of Prince George. Young Linc reckons that in about ten

years he'll be sitting in this House as an MLA. I'd like the House to

join me in welcoming them both.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: There are four visitors in the gallery

today. I'd like the House to welcome representatives from the B.C.

Chiropractic Association, Drs. Grant Gainor, Don Nixdorf and Blake

Alderson and their associate, Mr. Don Adams.

MR. HOWARD: Visiting today — although I'm not sure they are

in the gallery — are Mayor Carman Graf of the town of Smithers and Pat

Norris, the municipal manager.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a

longtime friend and supporter of mine from the village of Ashcroft.

Yesterday this lady took up residence in Victoria. For other reasons it

was an eventful day: it was her thirty-ninth birthday yesterday, and

she began her duties as my new executive assistant. Would the House

please welcome Ida Makaro.

MS. SANFORD: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming the

representatives from the National Farmers' Union who are in Victoria

today to present their annual submission to cabinet and to

representatives from the opposition.

Oral Questions

SHERIFFS' RESPONSIBILITIES

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the

Attorney-General and has to do with the press statement which he

released on March 26 concerning the shifting of sheriffs'

responsibilities to the police force and the municipality. I want to

ask the Attorney-General whether he does not accept that the courts and

the justice system remain a provincial responsibility, and that

accordingly the province should bear the entire cost of these services.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the administration of justice costs by

the province are, as the member knows, very considerable, as are the responsibilities.

There is nothing in derogation of that constitutional responsibility to request

and require police departments to serve criminal documents in the areas which

they police. That is the practice in many other provinces in Canada. It is not

a revolutionary turn of events to have that responsibility covered by the local

police forces, who on many occasions in the past have had to be involved with

difficult criminal service, notwithstanding the presence of a provincial sheriff's

force.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker. It is always hard to understand why

we have to go backwards, when other provinces are inferior to us in the

delivery of service, in order to keep up with them. However, in 1983

provincial sheriffs delivered something in the neighbourhood of 150,000

documents. Does the Attorney-General not agree that shifting this

responsibility now to police officers is a gross misuse of highly

trained and expensive personnel?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Speaker.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, many municipalities, and Burnaby in

particular, were forced to cut their RCMP personnel in order to keep in

line with the tax restraints imposed on them by the government. Now

that this is going to be shifted on to them, they are going to have to

rehire or hire some additional staff. Who is going to pick up the tab —

for example, in Burnaby's case, for the $100,000 involved in hiring the

two additional staff to do this job?

HON. MR. SMITH: When the Minister of Municipal Affairs and I

met with the delegation from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, they

raised that matter with us quite clearly, and we indicated to them that

if, as a result of this change in duties with criminal documents on the

part of police forces, there is a major shift in cost, that is a matter

the province would be pleased to discuss with the municipalities from a

standpoint of cost, and what contribution the province would make to

that cost. We do not believe that in most cases in this province there

is going to be a major dint in cost, because the local police forces

will be able to accommodate, we believe, to this duty. In many cases

patrol cars are out during the evening at the time in which the

documents would be served, and also the local police are aware and

knowledgeable as to where some of these persons are who need to be

served. There is a chance here, not to pass costs on but to reduce

costs overall. The thrust of this is to reduce costs, not to pass costs

on. If there are some significant costs passed on, though, because we

don't claim infallibility, we will review that with the municipalities

and make an adjustment. We believe that if this system is tried in a

good spirit, and if it is cooperated in, and with the control systems

that we'll be able to bring to bear through the regional Crown

counsel's office on the issue of criminal process, overall we will be

able to reduce costs.

MS. BROWN: The municipality of Burnaby passed a motion last

night in opposition to this decision. About 40 other municipalities

have indicated that they are not going to participate in this new

decision made by the government. What action, if any, is the

Attorney-General going to take if the municipalities refuse to

cooperate?

HON. MR. SMITH: I am not as pessimistic or confrontational as

the member, and I believe that the municipalities and the police forces

will cooperate. I understand that it is necessary for them to clearly

make the point to us that they do not wish to have major shifts in cost

burdens occur, but I do believe that we will have cooperation with this

initiative and that there will not be a breakdown of the serving of

criminal documents. There will not be criminal trials that have to be

adjourned because of jurisdictional postures; I do not believe

[ Page 4054 ]

that that will occur. I hope the member shares my belief on that as well.

[2:15]

MS. BROWN: The mayor of Burnaby and a number of other mayors

have been desperately trying to meet with the Attorney-General to

discuss the fact that aside from using the additional services of very

expensive personnel, the increase in crimes in the municipality may

bring about the shifting of officers to the delivery of documents, an

irrational kind of thing for the government to expect from them.

However, neither the mayor of Burnaby nor any of the other mayors has

been able to get an appointment with the Attorney-General or even a

response to his letters or his phone calls. Will the Attorney-General

give us an idea as to when he's prepared to meet with the mayors from

the Greater Vancouver Regional District to discuss this matter?

HON. MR. SMITH: I thought I said right at the outset that

last week — on Friday, I believe — the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Ritchie) and I met with the Union of B.C. Municipalities,

representing the municipalities across the entire province. That was

the first step we took. We had that meeting, and the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and I made a statement yesterday as to our

willingness to adopt the course recommended to us by Mayor Couvelier of

Saanich, who represented the UBCM at that meeting, which was that we

agreed to sit down and negotiate any major shift in cost if one did

occur. We made that statement jointly, and that's the statement we

stand by. Having had that meeting with the UBCM, if there are other

mayors now who wish to discuss the matter with me, they're most welcome

to. I have not heard from the mayor of Burnaby, and the mayor of

Burnaby has not called me.

MR. COCKE: Have you heard from the mayor of North Vancouver?

MR. SKELLY: He keeps phoning, and you won't answer his phone calls.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, he doesn't keep phoning. Certainly we

will meet, Mr. Speaker, with a group of mayors in Vancouver — or

individual mayors now, if that's their wish.

MR. MACDONALD: To the Attorney-General. The sheriff's service

was established in 1974, and there is great concern out there that the

police officers who investigate and testify in court should not be the

people who are serving summonses. There is also concern that the

Attorney-General is downgrading safety in the streets by taking police

officers off to perform these rather civilian duties of serving

documents. My'question to the Attorney-General is: has he consulted

with the Police Commission? If so, what was their recommendation?

HON. MR. SMITH: The alarmist comments opposite that were just

made in relation to safety in the streets would really be amusing if

they were not so inappropriate. That member knows — he having been

Attorney-General — that the serving of criminal documents is a routine

matter of business that is carried out by policemen across this land.

It is not a retrograde step to try to be more efficient in the serving

of documents and to have the serving of documents more tied in with the

justice system, nor is it necessary to separate the server of a

document from somebody giving evidence because of some policy that they

had when they were in government, ten years ago, when they saw justice

bogeymen everywhere.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplemental to the Attorney-General. Is it

not clear that if you take police officers away from the prevention and

detection of crime, and make them into process-servers for part of

their time, you're downgrading safety? I ask you again: was this matter

taken up with the Police Commission? There is such a body. What was

their recommendation?

Another question. I would like to ask the Attorney-General about the

status of prisoner escort. Is this going to be privatized too? Are you

going to have private individuals, without the training that the

sheriffs' officers were getting, licensed to carry firearms out in the

community — a sort of special police force? Are you going to privatize

the prisoner escort service too?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SEGARTY: A supplementary to the Attorney-General. Would

the Attorney-General not agree that this will make for a far more

effective police role, inasmuch as serving these notices will get the

police out into the neighbourhoods and the communities in which they

serve?

MR. BARRETT: What do you think they are — waiters?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I think that will prove to be

the case in many communities where there are community police forces.

Unlike some of you, for six years I was chairman of a local police

board where there was a community police force. I just don't agree that

serving documents in the community is demeaning for a police officer.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a supplementary question to the Minister

of Municipal Affairs on the same topic. The government has not denied

that the costs of these new services will be borne by the

municipalities. The minister will recall that I attempted during

estimates to get him to discuss this particular issue. What has the

minister done to protect the fundamental principle that provincial

responsibilities require provincial support?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: One of the major things done by this government is the program known as revenue-sharing.

MR. BLENCOE: You cut it by 17 percent.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: As Minister of Municipal Affairs I will

endeavour to keep that intact, to make sure that the people of the

province will indeed benefit from the resource revenue of this province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Are you all finished?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, question period time is brief. Please proceed.

[ Page

4055 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, to the second member for

Victoria, I did take a great deal of interest in this decision to

transfer this particular duty, recognizing, however, that while there

are many benefits to it, it is also another opportunity for

municipalities to demonstrate their desire and ability to work with

this government in attempting to find more efficient and less costly

ways of doing things. In order to assure them that they wouldn't be

seriously hurt financially, there was a meeting, and I and the

Attorney-General agreed to monitor the costs of this particular

activity over the next year, after which, should they find that it

would require some adjustments, we would meet and discuss them.

B.C. AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

HON. A. FRASER: I want to change the subject. I want to reply

to questions I took as notice, and it's going to take me quite a while.

I hope you'll bear with me.

First of all, there was a question from the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) last Thursday or Friday, regarding government

aircraft and their licensing. There has been a complaint by the private

sector that government air services is charging and that therefore we

should have a commercial licence. In response to a petition made by

AeroControl Air Ltd., Delta, the province, through the provincial

dispatch office of the emergency health service, outlined to the Air

Transport Commission the use of government aircraft in the ambulance

role. On February 24, 1984, Mr. A. Wilson, president of Aero-Control

Air Ltd., responded to the government's submission and he reiterated

that it was his opinion that the province must apply for and obtain a

licence to operate a commercial air service, which he deemed the

ambulance service to be. On February 24, Mr. Wilson also wrote to the

licensing division of the Air Transport Commission, outlining his

objection to the government's use of aircraft without a licence. As

matters now stand, a decision must be made by the Air Transport

word from that authority.

PACIFIC COACH LINES LTD.

On Thursday or Friday members were asking about the disposition of the routes

that would take place following March 31 and the sale of Pacific Coach Lines.

I don't want to read it all, but I will cover some of these routes. I have

received this information from the Motor Carrier Commission, who license all

vehicles. Pacific Coach Lines

(1984) Ltd., Victoria, has been licensed to operate

in Victoria and Vancouver. Maverick Coach Lines, Vancouver, between Vancouver

and Nanaimo. Gray Line of Victoria Ltd. — Victoria, B.C. is their address —

between Victoria and Port Hardy and also Nanaimo and Port Alberni. In each instance

these carriers have filed time schedules, route schedules and tariffs that are

not inconsistent with the services set out in the individual agreement of sale

with Pacific Coach Lines Ltd. Cascade Charter Service Ltd., Chilliwack, between

Vancouver and Harrison Hot Springs, is servicing routes on both sides of the

Fraser River. Route schedules and tariffs are consistent with those previously

offered by Pacific Coach Lines. Time schedules are reduced in comparison to

that which was offered by Pacific Coach Lines, but schedules have been submitted

to meet commuter and popular demands for service. The proposed service has already

been published in some Fraser Valley community newspapers. Information with

respect to the disposition of terminals is not complete; however, some information

is available but may be subject to future change. Greyhound Lines of Canada

has entered into a similar agreement for the use of Larwell Park terminal. However,

there will be a role reversal, as they will now provide accommodation for depot

facilities, sales and parcel express service to Pacific Coach Lines

(1984) Ltd.,

Maverick Coach Lines Ltd., Cascade Charter Service Ltd. and others. In Victoria,

Canadian Pacific Hotels has agreed to an assignment of the earlier agreement

to Gray Line of Victoria Ltd., who will operate the depot and in turn sell tickets

and handle express for Pacific Coach Lines

(1984) Ltd. The Victoria garage facility

is included in the agreement of sale to Pacific Coach Lines

(1984) Ltd., who

will operate, and by agreement service, those vehicles of Gray Line of Victoria

Ltd. I think the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) asked about Nanaimo. At this

point the depot in Nanaimo is owned by Cameron Island Development Ltd. Agreements

for terminal space for both Gray Line of Victoria Ltd. and Maverick Coach Lines

may still be outstanding. Duncan, Courtenay, Campbell River and Port Alberni

are owned by Pacific Coach Lines Ltd. — I'm referring to depots — and tentatively

will be leased to Gray Line of Victoria Ltd. Haney, Abbotsford, Langley and

Chilliwack are operated by B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. Greyhound Lines of

Canada is negotiating with Hydro and has bid on all of the related office furnishings.

All carriers involved have entered into agreements for continued

service, joint tariffs, use of terminal facilities and other matters so

that interlining services will not be unduly disruptive to the public.

Fleet disposition seems to be as earlier reported in the House, but

generally it's 33 to Pacific Coach Lines

(1984) Ltd., 26 to Gray Line

of Victoria Ltd., 14 to Maverick Coach Lines Ltd. and 9 to Cascade

Charter Service Ltd. I think that pretty well covers that operation.

BOOTHS CLOSED AT FERRY TERMINALS

I have one more item that I took as notice, regarding B.C. Ferries

and the summer handicraft sales. I believe this question was asked by

the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead). In response to many

suggestions from the travelling public, B.C. Ferries is embarking on a

program of converting their news-stands to gift shops on all major

vessels. In addition, B.C. Ferries will progressively introduce gift

shops at some major terminals. Plans are underway to enlarge and

possibly relocate the news-stand gift shop on major vessels next fall

when the vessels undergo their annual refit. Many passengers have

complained that news-stands on board ships are simply too small and

inadequate, and that B.C. Ferries should merchandise a suitable line of

quality locally crafted gifts and souvenirs depicting various areas of

British Columbia and Canada. The first terminal gift shop will be

introduced at Tsawwassen this summer.

Over the years space has been made available to local arts and

crafts groups for the purpose of selling their wares. This program will

continue at Swartz Bay and Departure Bay. At Tsawwassen the corporation

intended to offer artisans the opportunity to sell their products

through the B.C. Ferries gift shop. For those not wishing to take

advantage of this opportunity, I have asked the corporation to review

the available space at the Tsawwassen terminal to ensure that an area

will continue to be made available for these local artisans. As

[ Page 4056 ]

in previous years, the program will continue at

Swartz Bay and Departure Bay. This program was never in effect at

Horseshoe Bay due to the lack of space.

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

Introduction of Bills

BUILDERS LIEN AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Builders Lien Amendment Act, 1984.

Bill 9 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

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

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I just want to get up for a few

minutes in support of the estimates of the Minister of Transportation

and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser). I want to briefly say that there has

been more work done in the East Kootenays under this minister than

under any other Minister of Transportation and Highways or any other

government in the history of our province. The minister is to be

complimented for doing an outstanding job, and the people of the East

Kootenays really appreciate all the work he has been able to do in that

constituency over the past number of years.

Interjection.

MR. SEGARTY: You're right. He's been shaking gold all over the place; there's black gold on the highways. Leprechauns can't steal it.

Mr. Chairman, some of the improvements that have been made in the

Kootenays in the past few years include the Sparwood north bypass, and

the people of Sparwood truly appreciate that, along with the paving of

Crowsnest Highway 3 from Fort Steele to Wardner. This couldn't have

been done without the hard work and effort of the district Highways

managers and staff within the Fernie and Cranbrook Highways district.

I'd like to note that Joe Wrobel, the new district Highways engineer in

Fernie, has done an outstanding job. He is a breath of fresh air in

that Highways district, and we look to further great improvements over

the next few years, along with Harvey Popoff and his secretary in the

district office in Cranbrook, Diane Graham, a really great person who

works hard.

I would like to bring to the minister's attention some of the things

which the people of the East Kootenays have set out as a priority over

the next few years. They include the Ministry of Transportation and

Highways small airport improvement program. The minister did take a

trip to Sparwood to open the Sparwood north bypass a few months ago,

and had an opportunity to look at the airport that is being developed

by the regional district, in cooperation with the three municipalities

minister is aware, the cost of completing the project would be in the

neighbourhood of $500,000, which would mean hardtopping the airport

strip. Perhaps the minister could give me some information on where

that particular project stands.

Another project that is important to the Highways district of Fernie

would be the paving of Crowsnest Highway 3 from Fernie through to

Sparwood and up to Elkford on Highway 43, which has been set out as a

priority.

The Cranbrook Highways district has made a number of great

improvements in that particular area, and I would like to thank the

minister for his help and cooperation in upgrading the Highway 3

beautification project through the city of Cranbrook. We would like to

see that project continued over the next few years to bring it out to

the west of Cranbrook. It has really made quite a difference along the

highway route.

Along with that is the Cranbrook-Kimberley cloverleaf project, which

is well underway and in fact is now at the completion stage. All we

need are a few dollars from the ministry's paving program to complete

the paving project, which would basically see that project completed.

I would also like to thank the minister for all of the work that he

has done along the whole Crowsnest Highway 3 from the coast through to

Sparwood. A lot of great improvements have been made on that highway,

and as the minister is aware, all of the municipalities along that

highway view it as an important southern route through our province and

want to develop it as a tourist route through our entire province. The

minister has seen fit to see that that is a priority over the past few

years, and I know that they will continue in that effort.

One of the other problems that we find in the East Kootenays is

non-resident use of plates. People from Alberta come into the province

of British Columbia, whether it's trucking companies or individuals who

work in the coal-mines — or, in this particular case in Golden, the CPR

yard construction project — with their motor vehicle licences for small

trucks and cars. The people of the area feel that people come in from

Alberta, they're working there, and they never take out licence plates,

because they don't take up permanent residence. At the same time, if

British Columbians go into Alberta they seem to be harassed from the

first three weeks of their visit to Alberta to get their licence plates

changed. I wonder if we could not strengthen up that particular area;

it may give us some needed revenue to the province.

As well, trucking companies who come into the area to operate in

British Columbia, having a contract to work on a particular project,

apparently don't need licences to operate on municipal streets. Once

they've come off British Columbia highways, they are no longer subject

to licensing approval. That's most likely the case in the northeast

comer of our province where we have massive coal-development projects

underway, in southeastern British Columbia where we have coal projects

underway, and in Golden, where there are major construction projects. I

wonder if the minister couldn't give us some change-of-policy direction

in those areas.

One of the other areas where we are having some difficulty is with

the…. We're fortunate up in the East Kootenays that we have been able

to find a market for our huge surplus of wood chips, and sawmill

companies operating in the Columbia and Kootenay ridings have been able

to keep their mills open over the past few months in difficult times in

our economy because they have been able to export the

[ Page 4057 ]

surplus chips to Washington and Montana. The

company that got the contract — and basically, I guess, they are

limited to a couple of companies — by lowest bid is having difficulty

in obtaining licences for the transportation of those chips because of

some British Columbia regulation on width or whatever, stating the

trucks have to come into Canada from the state of Montana, and we have

differing regulations. I wonder if we couldn't be a little more

flexible in our approach to the regulations in those areas.

Again, I want to compliment the minister and the ministry for all

the work that they have done, and I reiterate that the East Kootenays

has seen more work done under this great British Columbia Minister of

Highways than we have seen under any other minister of highways in any

other government in the history of our province. I want to take this

opportunity to thank the minister for all of that work.

HON. A. FRASER: Thank you for the compliments, Mr. Member. I

can imagine that if we hadn't done it, we'd have really heard from you,

but I am pleased that we have accomplished what we've accomplished. We

are never finished in this ministry, as you know. There are more things

to do.

Going from back to front, the wood-chip haul that you are talking

about has been brought to my attention by the industry through the

economic development committee of cabinet. Once it was turned down by

our ministry people, and it's now back a second time, and I think we're

going to effect resolution of it. That's bringing you right up to date.

Basically the problem is that the American truckers want rigs that are

about 30 feet longer than we want to allow on the highway system, and

we also have to watch our Canadian carriers as well. Overall for the

economy, we're trying to do all we can to accommodate them so they can

move these chips.

The licensing of motor vehicles is a never-ending problem, and I

have asked the RCMP to find out if these people are permanent residents

and check them wherever they are in British Columbia. That started last

fall, but we continue to get complaints from, as you say, the southeast

and the northeast sector. Now it has opened up in Golden, as I think

you mentioned, because of the amount of construction going on created

by the CPR railroad, with Alberta people in there working who are not

getting their plates. We certainly are conscious of that.

Last but not least, on airport assistance, I said this morning that

this very popular small program instituted by the government in 1977

has improved a lot of airports, has built complete airports and partial

ones, and is ongoing with reduced funding this year. You're correct, I

did inspect the Sparwood airport. I want to congratulate the local

people — along with federal money, I guess — for bringing it up to

level. It's almost ready to pave, and hopefully in that funding we'll

be able to grant assistance this year to see to its completion so it

can be used as an airport. It's a very successful program, and your

area is entitled, certainly, to its share of that. I don't see why that

can't happen in 1984.

[2:45]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Prior to the lunch hour I hadn't quite completed my presentation, and I do have a few more questions for the minister.

I want to thank the minister for his answer after question period to

several questions that were posed, and I want to tell him that I

appreciate the fact that he does not take up the time of question

period but makes his answers to questions taken as notice after

question period, which is not the habit of some of the ministers over

here or his colleagues who take up most of question period with

non-answers. I really do appreciate that.

I want first of all to clear up a couple of matters. Mr. Chairman,

the minister seemed to misunderstand this morning when I raised the

question of the federal government subsidy. I don't want to get into a

long harangue about it, but I want to clarify the situation, at least

from my point of view. That original federal government subsidy — and I

do have correspondence from federal ministers and provincial people and

the then-MP of the area, Iona Campagnolo — was to go as a subsidy to

the government of British Columbia's B.C. Ferry Corporation to

supplement the service being withdrawn at the time. That's mv

understanding of that subsidy just for the record, Mr. Minister. On the

matter of the Ferry Corporation perhaps taking over the run between

Powell River and Comox, I don't know what the plans of the corporation

are in that regard, if any. The misunderstanding on your part seemed to

be that you thought I was suggesting the purchase of another vessel;

that is absolutely not so. I understand very well the situation in the

Ferry Corporation regarding the surplus vessels you have at the moment.

Hopefully they will not be surplus in a year or two, and they will be

required to put people to work and provide better service to the coast

of British Columbia.

I've pretty well exhausted the B.C. Ferry Corporation items I wish

to discuss. I have just one more item dealing with ferries, and that is

what appears to some of us on the coast here as a matter of

preferential treatment to certain areas of British Columbia. Some time

ago the minister announced — and I won't go through the whole thing

here — that he would be shutting down three interior Highways-operated

ferries because there were alternate highway routes. However, there was

a great fuss raised in some of these communities like Quesnel,

Marguerite, Castlegar and other places, and it now appears the minister

is changing his mind and is, in fact, going to continue those services.

I'm not opposed to that. It's part of the government's responsibility

to provide services to the people of the province, and there's nothing

wrong with that. And the minister does have a right to change his mind.

These are free ferries, by the way, Mr. Chairman. There are no tolls at

all, and I'm not necessarily knocking that either, but the minister in

this area — particularly his own electoral area — where the residents

would have to travel some 60 miles around if this ferry was shut down

on the other side of the river…. Well. the headline in the Province

reads, "Home Turf Is Gunning For Fraser" — quite an angry meeting, I

would take it from this article. But the point I'm making here is that….

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: As a matter of fact, yes, they threatened

civil disobedience and to shoot you. I don't believe that; they

wouldn't do that to you, Alex. That must have been a tough meeting, Mr.

Minister. I've been to some tough meetings, but they've never

threatened to shoot me at any of them — not so far.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Maybe they should have, I don't know. I don't believe this.

[ Page 4058 ]

The point I'm making is that the minister is knuckling under to

pressure. When we had something like 600 residents on the Sunshine

coast angry about ferry cutbacks into that area, the minister didn't

knuckle under. Was it because it was an NDP riding? I don't know. The

minister is knuckling under to…. He's reversing a decision he'd made in

regard to these three Highways — operated ferries in the interior,

which have no tolls. I'm not suggesting tolls. I'm easy on the subject.

I know a lot of people on the coast who say that if we have to pay

tolls down here, they should pay tolls up there. But a case can be made

against that as well. But that is not the point. The point is that the

minister knuckled under in that case and reconsidered a decision

affecting many more thousands of people. When the late sailings were

taken off Route 3 on the Sunshine Coast, people who had bought season

tickets, people who were going to night school — hundreds of them who

had paid their fees — were shut out. There was no way they could attend

any of these many functions, because those late sailings were

cancelled. The residents of the area came up with a method — they had

done their homework — of maintaining those late sailings and providing

better service to the coast. The minister wouldn't listen. That's water

under the bridge, and we know that we have a new summer

schedule coming

into effect within the next month and a half or so. I'm just telling

this House that the minister reversed his field when it was a matter

involving a small local ferry in his own riding, but when it came to

reversing his field and reconsidering a decision affecting literally

thousands of people whose livelihood depends on the B.C. Ferries

service, he turned a deaf ear. I'm not too happy about that and neither

are my constituents, I can tell you.

Mr. Chairman, I want to turn for just a few minutes to a couple of

local highway matters. I know that several other people want to speak

in this debate. I'm going to ask the minister…. Well, I can't ask the

minister. The minister did not produce his annual report this year, so

I have no idea….

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We don't have the annual report for the last

fiscal year, do we? What I'm dealing with here are the 1982-83…. Well,

it's the report for the year ending March 1982, and that's very

difficult to…. We should have one for 1983, but we don't. So the point

is that we don't know how much money was spent in the various parts of

British Columbia and in the electoral areas. But for the year ending

March 31, 1982, in the minister's riding…. The minister always enjoys

this part of the debate. I understand that $30,499,576 was spent in the

minister's riding. Now that's a pretty lucky riding — if you happen to

live in Cariboo. But the fact of the matter is that once again the

minister has spent a great deal of money in his own riding. I

understand the problems. That used to be my buddy riding. I've

travelled through and around his riding. I've got another one now.

Nonetheless, the unfair distribution of funds….

The fact is that reconstruction of Highway 101, leading up the

Sunshine Coast, stopped in 1976. Not a bit of work has been done to it.

Band-aid work, yes: a few potholes have been patched, and a corner or

two knocked off. It's a snake trail. I'm not asking that the whole

highway be reconstructed in one year. You have to remember that that

highway serves permanent residents — never mind the tourists and

visitors. In terms of permanent residents, it serves some 35,000

people. All I'm asking for is that the minister allocate funding for

the continued reconstruction of Highway 101 up the Sunshine Coast to

Powell River. It would do more to improve that snake trail of a

highway, which is in really terrible condition, quite frankly. It's

deteriorating all the time. It would provide some local job

opportunities for local contractors, truckers and other people in the

area. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that we have a 36 percent

unemployment rate in that area, so we'd be killing two birds with one

stone. We'd get some highway work done and get some job creation as

well, even though it might be on a short-term basis.

One other matter,, while I'm on my feet. I'm sure the deputy will

remember this one here. It's kind of serious to a lot of people. I was

back on the Sunshine Coast at quite a large unemployment meeting on

Thursday night, and several people there asked me why the Ministry of

Highways is refusing to let the local peace committee and the regional

board place signs at each end of the highway — one near Langdale and

one near Earls Cove — informing people that that area has been declared

a nuclear-free zone by referendum. The Ministry of Highways allows

signs of all kinds to be placed on the highway, aside from signs

dealing with the driving task. Why? I cannot understand why these

people, who are prepared to make up and erect the signs themselves…allow

these signs along the highway. I would guess that this group is

probably going to put those signs in place anyway and challenge the

ministry to tear them down. I don't think that bodes well for the

government, but we shall see.

I was going to talk about motor vehicle testing, but other people

have discussed it and it will be discussed again. I'm sitting on a

committee that will be discussing this matter, so I'll bypass that one.

One last matter for the minister, Mr. Chairman, while I'm on the

floor. The minister referred briefly to the airport assistance program.

It is an excellent program from that ministry, and has been of some

benefit to a number of airports in my riding. I'm not knocking the

program. I can't seem to find in my estimate book, Mr. Chairman, how

much funding the ministry has allocated to the airport assistance

program for fiscal year 1984-85. If the minister would give me that

figure, I really would appreciate it.

Last but not least — and I've written to the minister on this matter

— the regional district of Powell River recently requested a very

modest sum for the Texada Island airport. It involves some clearing

along the sides and things like that. The regional district itself is

putting up quite a large sum of taxpayers' money, and another large

portion of funds is being put up by local companies and volunteer

labour on Texada Island. The sum requested by the Powell River Regional

District is modest, and I hope the minister will give that matter his

serious attention. The airport is operating quite well right now, but

it's not officially opened yet. I understand that the minister will be

receiving an invitation in the near future for a person to come and cut

the ribbon, and officially open that airport.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of remarks with

regard to this minister's estimates, generally with concern for the

north and particularly with regard to my constituency of Omineca.

[ Page 4059 ]

[3:00]

First of all, I would like — as other members have done to

congratulate this minister. I think he's doing a bang-up job. He has

certainly given a lot of consideration and cooperation to my

constituents over the years. I do realize that during these times of

restraint he's having a very difficult time with dollars. As well, I

understand that with other pressing services in the province, this

ministry is probably not faring as well as most when it comes to its

share of dollars. Mr. Chairman, I said "concern"; I am always concerned

when I see a decrease in an overall Highways budget in British

Columbia. We do in fact have a decrease this fiscal year to the tune of

about $33 million. It's a significant decrease in this province when

you consider the meagre size of the Highways budget, compared to the

miles that this ministry has to construct and maintain in a vast and

rural province such as British Columbia. I'm concerned that this budget

is on the decrease.

I'm happy that the maintenance side of the budget is up. As

northerners we have a great concern for the way in which our roads and

highways are maintained. Having a great number of months of the year

during which we experience winter conditions, it's very important that

highways and secondary roads in the northern part of this province are

well maintained. I am concerned, however, that the highway construction

and development side of the budget is down. I can only see that that is

going to hurt the citizens of north central and northern British

Columbia, where it's absolutely essential that we construct and

develop, on an ongoing yearly basis, new highway and road systems. For

if we don't we will surely fall behind and get behind an eight ball

behind which it is very difficult to get out from. Roads and highways

in our part of the country are a lifeline. Maybe that's not so in the

urban areas of British Columbia, where there are other means of

transportation, but there certainly are not other means of

transportation in the north-central and northern part of British

Columbia. We rely heavily on the roads and highways built and

maintained by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways in our part

of the province. Any decrease in road development and road construction

or in any aspect of a Highways budget will surely have a detrimental

effect on our citizens. We don't like to see that, Mr. Chairman,

because we feel that per mile we pay more than our share of gas taxes

because of the distances we must travel to gain the services that

people in the urban areas of our province take for granted — hundreds

of miles to drive to see doctors, to get to a hospital, to seek the

services of any government ministry or department. We feel we pay more

than our share of the gas tax, considering it on a per-mile basis. We

also feel that we make a very large contribution to the sales tax of

this province, given the fact that vehicles in our part of the country

don't last five years. They don't even last four or three years. In

fact, if you can get two years out of a pickup truck or a

four-wheel-drive vehicle or a car on the highways that we have to

travel, you're very lucky. I see my constituents replacing their

vehicles almost on a yearly basis, to travel on our highways,

contributing a great deal to the taxation situation in our province.

Mr. Chairman, I too want to talk about the airport assistance

program. I too want to ask the minister where the devil it's found in

this year's budget. I'm told it's there. I'd like to know where it's

found and I'd like to know how much it's for. How much it's for is

probably more important than where it can be found. I'm happy to hear

that it's in there, but I've seen it dwindle over the years and I think

that's sad. I think it's sad because, for those who might not know, the

airport assistance program was brought into this province by my

seatmate the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). It's

probably one of the best programs in this province. It's certainly the

best program in this province as far as getting dollar value for

dollars paid in by the taxpayer. It doesn't have a preponderance of

overhead. That dollar gets out into the hands of the people of this

province and the councils of this province, who probably get $2 value

for every tax dollar expended. I think it's one of the best programs

that's ever come into this province. Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but

that program was brought into this province, for those who don't know,

to just return a little bit to the north for what was taken away from

them when the Dease Lake extension of the BCR was curtailed. That was

one of the things that was returned to the rural part of this province.

I've seen that fund go from a high of nearly S5 million a year to

whatever it is this year. I suspect that it's probably less than half

of that. Again I say, that's of serious concern to me, as a northerner.

That's a very good program. It's a program that was put in place for

the rural people of this province, and it's the last program that I'd

ever want to see disappear in his province. If that program is in fact

down to $2 million, that's sad, I say, as I said before. I want to know

where it is and how much it is.

I have two particular situations which need to be looked at

immediately in regard to the airport assistance program. One is the

airport at Houston, a community of about 4,000, which has within its

boundaries and adjacent to it three industrial plants in which work

approximately 1,200 employees. If you add that to the number of

employees that it requires to service the two sawmills regarding

logging, hauling, etc., you probably have 2,000 employees within a

50-mile radius of that community. It's absolutely necessary in my mind,

Mr. Chairman, that asphalt be placed on the runway of that airport to

facilitate the air ambulance service of this province. If someone in

that community is seriously hurt — which happens on a regular basis in

all industries — the nearest airport is 42 miles away. The nearest

point to which you could bring the jet air ambulance is 42 miles from

that community. The airport at Houston is now ready for the asphalt. I

think that asphalt should be placed on that airport runway this year.

The other airport needing some consideration is at Fraser Lake.

Although it is not as important as the airport at Houston, it is

certainly of great importance as far as the citizens living in that

area are concerned. The airports at Houston and Fraser Lake are two key

projects for which we need moneys out of the airport assistance program

this year.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

On the highways side of the budget, I want to talk about particular

situations in my constituency. Again, as I say, I'm sorry to see one

side of the budget being reduced. That side is highway construction and

improvements. Two situations exist on Yellowhead 16, the northern

transprovincial highway of this province, which runs through my riding

from east to west for some 200 miles. One of those situations is the

Hagman Hill project, which I brought to the minister's attention on

many occasions. I think it has gone begging for something to be done on

it for a number of years now. As the minister has said to me, I

understand that we have low traffic counts along this highway —

certainly in regard to some of the turnoffs off Yellowhead 16. I don't

think that that should

[ Page 4060 ]

in any way mean that we should give serious,

dangerous situations less of our time. Certainly the Hagman Hill

situation is dangerous. I know it is. I travel it often myself. It

should have been at least three lanes a long time ago. A number of

deaths on the hill have been attributed to the sharp S-curve at the

bottom. But the more serious aspect is that it only has two lanes. It's

a very steep hill and a very long hill. A very serious situation is

created every time you get something larger than the ordinary-sized

automobile climbing that hill. You've got to line up before you get to

the top; you get impatient drivers who create an awful passing hazard

before getting to the brow of the hill. It's a serious situation. It's

got to be looked at. Something must be done before many more people

lose their lives on that particular hill.

The other situation that I bring to the House today is the François

Lake East road at Fraser Lake, on which a number of my constituents

live. For a number of years they've had promise upon promise that it

would be given priority. It needs priority in regard to maintenance and

upgrading, but the most serious aspect of that particular situation is

the turnoff. The area where that François Lake East road leaves

Yellowhead 16 just west of Fraser Lake is a deathtrap, if ever we had

one along Highway 16 in the north. The situation is intolerable. It's

got to be changed. Again, I fully understand the meaning of traffic

counts. But just because we don't have a high enough traffic count

doesn't mean we have to kill some of our citizens in a particular

situation before doing something about it. Certainly we will. I viewed

such a situation myself very recently in regard to that turnoff. It's

not difficult to rectify. The old part of Yellowhead 16 is still in

place, which takes off at the top of the hill and enters the François

Lake East road 25 yards from Yellowhead 16. To re-use that old

section

of Highway 16 would be the route to go. Certainly it should receive

some serious consideration. I'm asking the minister once again for that

kind of consideration here today. For the number of people who now live

in the area of François Lake East and who use that particular turnoff

and road, maintenance and upgrading and a serious look at the turnoff

is long overdue.

On behalf of the citizens of Fort St. James I would also like to

bring to the House today the question of paving the main street of Fort

St. James. Ordinarily I wouldn't bring such subjects to the floor of

this House, but the council of the village of Fort St. James has, in

good faith I believe, done an awful lot of work, which has cost the

taxpayers of that community a bundle of money, to upgrade their main

street through downtown revitalization. They had the promise that on

completion of the downtown revitalization project that main street

would receive new pavement. The receipt of the new pavement isn't the

important thing; the important thing is that many of the dollars that

have been sunk into downtown revitalization will be lost if that paving

is not done this summer. Because of some of the things that were done

in regard to curbs, gutters and sidewalks, etc., unless that main

thoroughfare through the community is upgraded this summer and asphalt

is put on that particular stretch of highway this summer, some of those

dollars spent on downtown revitalization will be lost. So that's the

reason I bring that particular subject to the floor today. I want to

know from the minister if there's any possibility at all of that paving

being done. I know it's difficult, when there's no paving being done in

the general area, but unless we do it at this time when we can get paving

done at a lot lower price than ordinarily, we will also lose by the

fact that some of the money spent on downtown revitalization will be

lost.

[3:15]

There are a couple of other subjects I want to talk about this

afternoon. One of those is the government air services. I see that

although the Highways budget has gone down, the budget for the

government air services has gone up by some half a million dollars.

It's been a pet peeve of mine for a long time. We spend a great deal of

money on the government air force — the "people's air force," I like to

call it — and probably rightly so, because we must get our ministers to

all parts of this province. That's not what I'm arguing about. I'm

arguing about it being a branch of government. I guess I'm arguing for

privatization of the government air services, as I have for many years,

and I argue that point again. But I'm arguing as well for a fuller use

of that government air service.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure this has happened to you on many occasions.

As I gaze out the window of a PWA or CP Air's 737 as it is taxiing out

to the runway in order that the taxpayer of this province can pay $134

one-way for me to travel from Prince George to Victoria, what do I see

standing on the tarmac at Prince George airport but the government

aircraft. That doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't make one iota

of sense. I know this perfectly well, because I've checked the records.

Why couldn't I warm a seat in that government aircraft from Prince

George to Victoria and save the taxpayer of this province $134.50? And

I've done it time after time.

I'm not just talking for me as a back-bencher; I'm talking for all

members of this assembly. I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why the

taxpayers should pay $5.228 million in this fiscal year and have people

travel the same airspace at the same time and spend another $134.50 of

the taxpayers' money. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. There are

ways we could utilize that government air service to the fullest, and

probably save the taxpayer of British Columbia a bundle in the process.

It's wrong, and as long as I sit in this chamber I'm going to say it's

wrong on every opportunity I have. I think it's wrong that it is in a

ministry of government. I think it should be privatized, because I

believe we could have twice the service at the same price we pay today

if it were privatized. But if we don't go that far and it isn't

privatized, for God's sake let the people who are elected to this

chamber use those air services. Why should the taxpayer of this

province pay for me to ride on CP Air or PWA at the same time as a

government jet is making the same trip? If it didn't happen to me so

many times I wouldn't be arguing the point today. It has happened time

after time, and Mr. Chairman, I would suggest if you could stand and

speak on this subject you would agree with me. You would tell of the

number of times it has happened to you, because it has.

I would like to hear from the minister today if any consideration's

being given to privatizing the government air services of the province

of British Columbia and, secondly, allowing members of this chamber to

fill empty seats as those planes fly around this province. It is an

absolute waste, and if we're going to talk about restraint, that is a

great area to look at. Why are we making the taxpayer of this province

pay $268 for me to fly back and forth to Prince George, when the

government aircraft, with probably at least two or three seats empty,

is making the same trip at the same time? It doesn't make any sense

from any point of view, financial or other. I would like to find out

why.

[ Page 4061 ]

1 have only one other subject which I would like to approach this

afternoon: metric signing of our highways. I would like to ask the

minister when we are going to regain our sanity in at least this

province, and go back to miles per hour. As I travel around the

province and speak to a number of people, particularly in my

constituency, in light of the court cases that have been held in regard

to the metric system in the province of Ontario…. I want to know when

we are going to return to a highway sign, firstly that I can

understand, and secondly, that most of the citizens in this province

have grown to understand over the years. I am sure the member for

Skeena (Mr. Howard) is as old as I am and can relate to that. I would

like answers to those questions, Mr. Chairman.

The only other question I would like to ask the minister is if he

thinks he is getting shortchanged in this year's budget. I have here

some figures which show quite conclusively that the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways is being shortchanged in the overall

budget. It is taking in more money than it is getting to spend on the

highways and transportation routes of this province. Exclusive of

federal government transfers, which are many and are pretty sufficient

for CNR overpasses, Trans-Canada Highway transfers, ferry subsidies,

etc., the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, through the use of

its highways and transportation systems, in this fiscal year is

returning $564.7 million, and the total budget is only $569 million.

I say that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways is being

grossly shortchanged, and that can only lead to the deterioration of

our highways systems in this province. We made a mockery of a former

minister, in fact we gave him quite a nickname, because of this very

thing being done under another administration. I don't want to see it

done under this administration, Mr. Chairman. The Ministry of

Transportation and Highways is being shortchanged. It is right here in

black and white. Some $564.7 million is raised simply through motor

vehicle licences, the ferry system and gasoline and diesel taxes. Those

three things have raised $564.7 million in this fiscal year, with the

total budget of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways only $569

million. If you add to that the subsidies and transfers, you'll

probably find that over $600 million is returned to the coffers of this

province through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and only

$569 million of that is being returned to the transportation and

highways systems in this fiscal year. I take exception to that. I'd

like to know the minister's views on it.

HON. A. FRASER: First of all, to attempt to reply to the

member for Omineca, Highways revenues exceed expenditures by…. I'm

rather happy you brought that out, Mr. Member. I'd like particularly

the urban MLAs to remember that, because they've been constantly saying

— for 100 years that I'm aware of — that they subsidize the highways

system. It's not a fact at all. The Highway system pays its own way,

thank you very much.

Regarding metric signs and the change, we haven't changed the total

system, but what we have I suggested, and it's going on now, is dual

signs wherever you enter British Columbia, from Alberta and the state

of Washington. I'm not so sure, but I know the press was pretty excited

about this when I mentioned it a couple or three months ago. I think

the signs are up, so go for a drive. We're walking before we run, and

have taken that gentle step to metric as well as miles, and they should

be up in places like the Trans-Canada Highway where it enters British

Columbia from Alberta, where the highway enters B.C. in the Peace

River, and of course coming across the line, I would think at all

border crossings wherever our good friends from the United States

enter. So I believe 40 or 50 of those dual signs have been put up in

the last 30 days. They were manufactured here in the sign shop. If

they're not all up, they certainly will be. I really believe they are

probably all up by now. That's as far as we want to go at this time.

Now government air services. First of all, the increase in the money

is to accommodate further ambulance work of the government air

services. That is to pay for increased air ambulance flights.

Privatizing the air services. We've looked at it some, but no

decision has been made. We've looked at privatizing particularly what

they call the sched run from Vancouver to Victoria, but no decisions

have taken place on that. We're certainly not finished with that.

Who rides on the aircraft is really what the member for Omineca was

talking about. Occasionally MLAs ride on the aircraft, but in most

cases it's government employees and ministers. I'm not now talking

about any ambulance flights. There is no authorization for MLAs to ride

on the aircraft, and I'm not aware of any policy change taking place in

that regard.

The Fort St. James paving that you mentioned, Mr. Member. I don't

know whether we've promised that. It doesn't matter whether we promised

or not; I appreciate that problem, and I was glad that you appreciated

it. I don't know whether there's any paving there, but we'll certainly

look at it. We may have to haul hot mix a long way. I don't know what

the score is there, but I am also aware of the community's

beautification program. Of course, this puts the final icing on the

cake, as I guess you'd put it. We'll certainly look into that.

[3:30]

The next item that you brought up was François Lake east. I think

we've had correspondence on that. It's such a small item; I would just

say that I don't see why we can't get it fixed and cleaned up. Maybe it

just needs a little more effort on our ministry's part to do that.

Where it leaves Highway 16 is such a problem. The other Highway 16,

Hagman Hill, I'm fully aware of. Whether we get around to doing

anything on it in 1984 or not, I don't know. As you pointed out, our

budget is pretty restricted.

Regarding airport assistance, Mr. Member, it's no wonder you can't

find it, but it's under vote 68; in fact, it is even referred to under

vote 68, if you read the fine print. You can't find the amount involved

by reading the breakdown; at least I can't. I'm told the amount is

$2,200,000, but I don't see that amount here. It comes under grants and

contributions under the subvote, transportation policy, on page 207 of

the estimates book. The verbal explanation appears on the bottom of

page 206. We're aware of your request. You made the point as well that

this money is reduced substantially from its highest point — I think it

was $5 million or $6 million in some certain year — to $2.2 million for

the total province. All I can say about that is that I appreciate that

amount under restraint. There was a possibility at one time of it being

eliminated entirely. So I appreciate the small sum we have. We'll get a

few small things done with that amount.

I want to deal with the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), who

has now gone and who was on the same subject of airport assistance. My

answer is the same as that to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf): it

appears under vote 68.

[ Page 4062 ]

The member for Mackenzie was talking about reports. I don't want to

get too much confusion here. First of all, I'm sure all members have

the 1982-83 fiscal year report of Transportation and Highways. We

haven't got the 1983-84 annual report because the year hasn't finished.

We are running ahead this time as far as administration's concerned as

compared to last year.

He mentioned the three ferries that were to be suspended:

Marguerite, McLure and Castlegar. It was announced that they would

cease, and then it's announced that they will run on a restricted

basis. I don't make any excuses for that. These ferries were picked

because there were roads around them, but once you announce something

like this, you find out the individual community problems. So a

compromise was reached that the ferries would continue to run on a

cutback basis. Their hours of operation will be cut back rather than

completely eliminated.

I think the member tried to say that that didn't happen in some

other area of maybe B.C. Ferries or even highways operations. I would

just point out that the ferries we are talking about here are what we

call the reaction ferries. They are certainly not high-class

transportation compared to some that B.C. Ferries operate. There's

really no comparison as far as cost of operation; they are certainly

not a Cadillac service by any means, but certainly we're not

eliminating them entirely.

I would tell, the committee, Mr. Chairman, that what is behind this

is that during the last fiscal year 1982-83, from operating costs and

revenue — and I'm now only talking about the Highways side — there was

a $26 million loss. Under restraint and shortage of revenues, all we're

trying to do is reduce that loss figure. That's why we have the dustups

we have where we are trying to get a handle on the large discrepancy

between revenues and expenditures in the Highways-ferry system.

I think that pretty well covers both members' queries.

MR. KEMPF: Just a few parting remarks. I understand the

problem that the minister is having in regard to total dollars in his

ministry. As I've said before, I believe that the Ministry of Highways

is being shortchanged and certainly have produced evidence to that

effect. It is quite clearly evident that the Transportation and

Highways ministry is bringing in more money than is being allocated in

its budget. This certainly shows that it is being shortchanged. I want

that to be indelibly marked on the record, Mr. Chairman.

I can't leave the government air services without a parting shot,

Mr. Minister. I'm happy to hear that there is an increase in the air

ambulance service. If there is a service that is needed and wanted by

the people of British Columbia, certainly it is the air ambulance

service. We have the best in North America and probably the best in the

world.

As for the no-authorization comment in regard to MLAs utilizing the

air services of this province, possibly what is needed are a few

remarks in the estimates of the individual who makes that

authorization. I'm seriously considering that. There must be some

consideration given to utilizing those aircraft, particularly in a time

of restraint. I have a blank spot in my mind when it comes to the use

of commercial aircraft when, in fact, a government aircraft is making

the same trip at the same time. There could be a system developed

whereby an MLA, merely by making a phone call, could ascertain whether

a government aircraft was going in the same direction as he wished to

go on a particular day or weekend. As I've pointed out before, I see no

reason why that couldn't be done, and shouldn't be done, to save the

taxpayers of this province a number of dollars.

There are a couple of other things that I want to touch on. I would

be remiss if I didn't respond to a news item that showed up in the

Lakes District News for March 7, 1984, with regard to the François Lake

ferry service; it's entitled: "François Ferry Service Hit by Restraint

Program." Mr. Chairman, I want to correct that incorrection on the

floor of this House today. It was suggested at that time — and the

local Highways manager is quoted in this news item as saying — that the

cut in service is "a result of the government's restraint program."

That is not true, Mr. Chairman. I fought for that reduction in service

for a number of years, because I could see absolutely no reason why the

Omineca Princess should

operate on a 24-hour basis. When I looked at the sheets on the ferry, I

found that during that six-hour period from midnight until 6 o'clock in

the morning, on many occasions there are only one, two, or no cars at

all going back and forth. It was absolutely ridiculous. It wasn't a

restraint program that brought about that reduction in service; it was

just logic. It saved the taxpayers of this province probably a couple

of hundred thousand dollars a year. I applaud the minister for taking

the steps to reduce that service.

There's one other subject that I wish to talk about, and another

question I would like to ask the minister this afternoon; that's with

regard to licensing and the apparent reduction in service to some of

the rural communities of this province, which I understand has started

already in regard to new drivers and applications for drivers'

licences. In the case of my constituency and a neighbouring

constituency, apparently the service has been reduced so that a driver

examiner no longer stops at the communities of Hazelton and Houston.

The citizens in those communities now have to drive — of course, they

can't drive without a licence — or find their way by some means to

Smithers in order to write their driver's exam. I fail to see where

that's a restraint move. It's the same kind of move as made by the

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing; they intend to take the two land

managers out of Vanderhoof. I don't think there'll be a saving. In the

case of Houston, that driver examiner passes right through that

community to service Burns Lake. To pull that examination time out of

the community of Houston does not, in my mind, constitute restraint. I

would like the minister to have a look at that and to hear his feelings

on it here this afternoon.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'm not surprised that there

have been cutbacks in the motor vehicle section, unfortunately, because

of restraint. We'll certainly look into that one where, as you say,

people in Houston have to go to Smithers; then, of course, the

inspector has to go through there to go to Burns Lake. I certainly

don't see why he can't stop in Houston once in a while. I think maybe

that's the answer.

MR. D'ARCY: I have a few remarks to the minister. Hopefully

he can pay some attention to them and give me some reassurance. We've

heard government MLAs give the minister credit for doing good things,

while they're asking for more money to be spent in their riding. That's

normal, Mr. Chairman. Even in times of cutback, the Highways minister

is Santa Claus. Actually I do have something to thank the minister for.

I want to thank him for his decision to reverse the total withdrawal of

service on the Castlegar ferry last week,

[ Page 4063 ]

although it's kind of a Pyrrhic victory, since it was the minister who made the decision to close it down in the first place.

[3:45]

Perhaps not for the benefit of the minister but for the benefit of

other members and the press, that service has been described as a small

ferry. It may be a small ferry in terms of physical size of the

vehicle, but I'd like to remind the minister and the House that this is

the fourth-busiest ferry in the entire province. It hauls even more

passengers and cars than the Sunshine Coast service between Departure

Bay and the Sunshine Coast. Only the Albion ferry among Highways

operations and the two major crossings on the Strait of Georgia exceed

that particular ferry in the amount of traffic it carries. On the

average it carries approximately 1,200 cars and 2,500 passengers a day,

which makes it a very busy crossing indeed. So I'm glad that decision

was reversed, even though at some inconvenience to shift workers with

the shortened hours, whether they be in private industry, in

transportation and communications or in the health care field. I think

shift workers normally think they're discriminated against. I suppose

this is another example of it. But a ferry operating for 14 hours a day

is better than no ferry at all, particularly when we're talking about a

ferry with this incredible amount of traffic annually of more than

400,000 vehicles and about 850,000 people using it.

We have some need for some capital improvements in the riding of

Rossland-Trail in the Rossland highways district. We have need for

major maintenance projects. In the division of work that the Highways

ministry uses, some of those maintenance projects are probably called

new construction or capital costs.

The minister may be aware that in 1963 Route 22, which is

approximately 20 miles long between Trail and Castlegar, was a winding

goat trail. In the 12 years between 1963 and 1975, 19 miles of those 20

were rebuilt into a first-class modern highway. The remaining one mile

has never been rebuilt. It's usually called the west Trail approach or

the last mile between downtown Trail and the city limits. It's a

misnomer to call it a rebuilding; Highways never built the original

existing road. The existing road was built by private industry, and

control of it was assumed in the 1960s by the Ministry of Highways.

There has been agreement on plans and relocation of various

services, both industrial and civic, and agreement on relocation of the

Canadian Pacific Railway since late 1978, early 1979. One contract has

even been let and completed. I believe that contract was close to a

million dollars, the chief beneficiary of which was the Canadian

Pacific Railway. A

section of track was relocated and straightened out

that they had been wanting to improve since the 1890s. The taxpayers of

B.C. came along and did it for them. What I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, is

that the Highways ministry get on with the job. There has already been

a commitment by the federal government for a grade crossing subsidy

because of the potential removal of two railway crossings that involve

five railway tracks. One is a three-track crossing and the other is a

two track crossing.

I would also point out that with the major expansion and

modernization of the zinc processing facilities in Trail, one of those

crossings is considerably busier than it used to be. That particular

crossing now serves the zinc plant where it didn't entirely before.

It's something that we really need. There has already been substantial

public investment. Quite frankly, there is some substantial private

investment hinging on completion of that project as well. It could add

very much to the competitive position of British Columbia industry in

dealing with foreign competitors and provide a needed economic activity

within the province of British Columbia, both in construction and

operation. So we have a job that's roughly one-quarter done. We need it

completed. It is something that has been hanging fire, as I mentioned

earlier, since 1975 and definitely since 1979. We're not talking about

a new project or something we're pulling out of a hat. We're also

talking about something essential, in my view, for the economic wealth

not only of that area but also of the mining industry in the East

Kootenays and in the other areas that supply raw materials for those

operations in Trail.

I want to talk about what are usually called maintenance projects,

but what in fact, I suppose, as I said earlier, Highways would see as

capital projects. I hope the minister and the committee are aware that

our neighbours to the south are looking at a major problem with their

highways and bridges on their interstate network because of lack of

upkeep and maintenance over the last ten years. Because of this, the

highway system down there — particularly the interstate network — has

deteriorated to the point where special nationwide gasoline taxes are

necessary. Many observers have indicated that even if all that money is

earmarked to maintain — and I want to emphasize that it's not to expand

or modernize but simply to maintain — the interstate network, it's only

going to touch the worst of the areas and is not going to look after

the entire system.

There is nothing wrong with the grades, but the highway between the

Black Bear junction, north of Rossland, and between Highways 3B and 22,

right through to Meadows junction on Highway 3B and south to Paterson

on Highway 22…. Both of those routes are in desperate need of

resurfacing. Municipal authorities and I asked for it last year; we

were told that there were no plans and no money for that sort of thing.

Believe me, if this work is not done, and not done in this paving

season, we are going to have a far more expensive difficulty — apart

from any inconvenience to the public; apart from the fact that the

travelling public in that area deserves and pays for decent highways.

In that regard I agree fully with the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf):

if it's not done this year, it's going to cost a whole lot more in

ensuing years. I would estimate that we're looking at a total of

resurfacing. I'm not asking for grade improvements; I'm simply asking

for resurfacing that has been desperately needed for about 18 months

now.

Another major maintenance project — it shouldn't be major

maintenance, but unfortunately it is — is the Trail bridge, which is in

terrible need of repainting. I don't know exactly what happened with

the technology, but this was done, I believe, in 1975 or 1976;

certainly within the last ten years. There is absolutely no reason that

I can see for that bridge to need painting again, but it's in desperate

need of it. Once more, if it's not repainted…. We're not just talking

about an aesthetic problem; we're talking about the possibility of

major deterioration due to corrosion of the principal girders of that

bridge. It's a very substantial four-lane bridge, and really needs to

be looked after.

Quite frankly, I don't understand, in these days of modern acrylic

paints, why a bridge would need repainting in less than ten years. I

know of paints used by industry in atmospheres which are fraught with

chlorine, sulphur and other

[ Page 4064 ]

chemicals, and radical temperature changes, but

which last a lot longer than ten years — 20 or 25 years. But clearly,

on this particular bridge, the girders need to be scraped or

sandblasted or ground down to bare metal and properly primed and

painted. I know that's going to cost a lot of money, but that bridge

will seriously deteriorate if that work isn't done, and it needs to be

done in fiscal '84. Also, if the minister doesn't like taking my word

for it, he's going to be hearing — if he hasn't already — from

municipal authorities in the area on all of the elements I've

mentioned: the Trail bridge, the west Trail approach, and the desperate

need for resurfacing of highways which are, I would emphasize,

otherwise adequate and have been built and put in place at substantial

public expense over the years.

I would like to have the minister check with his very able deputies

and assistants there about what the status is of reconstruction of the

Pass Creek road. Again, this is something that the region, out of

Nelson, and the district, out of Rossland, have done considerable

planning work on — and, I believe, some property acquisition for — over

the years. There is a major safety problem as well as a public traffic

problem on this road, as the population has grown: not just the

ordinary public travels back and forth to work or to school, but there

is a major problem on that road due to a substantial increase in the

amount of logging-truck traffic, industrial traffic and, unfortunately,

school bus traffic. I say "unfortunately" because there is a perfectly

adequate school in the area, but due to the general loss of students

and dropping of the school population in the area, more and more busing

is taking place. So there is not only a road condition problem but a

major road safety problem which has been recognized for several years

by the district and the region. We're certainly hoping for a major

start to be made on this route. I believe about 20 kilometres are

slated for reconstruction.

Last week, during the estimates of the Ministry of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs, I mentioned the need for microwave landing systems

in British Columbia, but as airports do come under this ministry I

would like to discuss this briefly with the minister. I am not

suggesting that the minister go to Treasury Board and ask for money to

do something which is quite rightly and properly within the purview of

the federal government. I am not asking the minister to take the feds

off the hook at all. I am simply pointing out to the committee that I

would hope that whenever the minister deals with his federal

counterparts regarding airports — and the subject of airports has been

raised in the discussions today — he would emphasize that if any money

is to be spent on microwave landing systems in the province of B.C. by

any level of government, discussion should take place with the

provincial ministry, and a clear examination of those airports with the

the greatest need are looked into, before we start seeing taxpayers'

funds going into the provision of this much-needed service at airports

which have virtually no service or need at the present time.

I don't know what the minister's experience is getting in and out of

airports in the Cariboo during the winter. But I can assure him, if he doesn't

already know, that airports in the southern interior, as well as in the north,

have a severe problem due to the peculiar meteorology and geography of British

Columbia. With a microwave landing system in place, weather-induced cancellations

or delays could be sharply reduced. I'm thinking particularly of airports

such as those at Kamloops, Castlegar, Terrace, occasionally Prince George, Penticton

and even, on occasion, Cranbrook. Certainly any airport in the province of B.C.

which is located in a valley, and that applies to most of the interior and northern

airports, could benefit from this. I would hope that the minister is urging

his federal counterparts to do that.

I have nothing against the Whistler-Pemberton area, Mr. Chairman,

but the fact is that they are primarily looking at the tourist

industry. I think we all should be aware that many of the airports that

I've mentioned serve not only a burgeoning destination tourist industry

in their areas, but also many other aspects of the B.C. economy and

many other British Columbia taxpayers in a much more major way than the

Whistler-Pemberton area does.

I would like to ask the minister to give us an update on the status

of the reconstruction of the Castlegar interchange. This has been

something near and dear to municipal authorities, the minister's

regional staff and property owners in the area for a number of years.

That interchange is basically the same as it was back in 1960, when it

was first built. With massive commercial and residential development in

the area, it is certainly overdue for something to be done. As I

understand it, there has been agreement between the Highways ministry

design-and-location people and the municipal authorities, as well as

the property owners in the area, as to what shape that interchange

should be.

I would like to concur with the request of the member for Omineca

(Mr. Kempf) that MLAs on either side of the House have access to

government aircraft — only, of course, if a seat is available and if

the plane is going where it should be. I would like to remind members

opposite, especially the backbench members opposite, that when the air

services were established in this province by the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) when he was Minister of Health, that the policy

that the member for Omineca desires was indeed in place. It is quite

possible that if a plane happened to be going to Williams Lake, the

member for Cariboo (Hon. A. Fraser) might phone the hangar at Pat Bay

and ask if a seat were available. The policy which is in place now and

which the member for Omineca objects to was put into place by that

government when it was elected in late 1975. I'm not suggesting that an

MLA should be able to order up a plane or demand a seat; I'm simply

suggesting that what the member for Omineca has said is indeed

appropriate, would save the public purse some money and would make

proper use of the availability of aircraft. Indeed it was the policy at

one time in this province, until altered by the present government over

there.

[4:00]

1 would like to point out, and I think I'm concurring with other

members who have spoken in this committee, that when we speak of

highway services, ferry services, general maintenance, and even simply

the re-establishment of highways as they once were — I talked about the

terrible need for resurfacing — we are really only talking about the

areas getting back what they put out in tax dollars in any event. The

minister talked about what he called losses on the Highways ferry

system. I'd like to point out that those areas — and I'm thinking

particularly of Castlegar, which was threatened with losing a ferry —

pay substantial tax dollars into general revenue, some of which is used

to subsidize transit services in the lower mainland, and even in other

parts of the West Kootenays and in all other parts of the province. But

those taxpayers do not have a transit service, yet they pay the same

taxes into general revenue.

[ Page 4065 ]

I'd also like to point out that when the Highways minister likes to

talk about losses on certain ferry systems or services, we should all

remember that apart from the general operating subsidies that go to

transit from all taxpayers of this province, whether they have those

services or not, there is also a substantial subsidy, in terms of

interest, that will be paid for the ALRT services in the lower

mainland. I'm not opposed to the establishment of that; I'm simply

pointing out that that is not a charge for interest against the

residents of the lower mainland; it's a specific charge against all

residents of the province whether they live in greater Vancouver, the

West Kootenays, the north, or wherever it is. So let's remind ourselves

that when we speak of losses on a particular service in a particular

part of the province, we have to think of it in the context of the

total transportation scene and all of the various services and

subsidies which are put out by the Treasury Board to provide public

transportation — or assist in defraying the costs; that would be a

better way to put it — in the various parts of the province of British

Columbia.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I hope the minister can address some of the concerns that I have put

forward here. I want to reiterate that we have major need not only to

maintain the system that we already have, from deteriorating even

further and costing the public purse much more than it otherwise would,

but we also have a substantial need from an aesthetic and industrial

point of view for the completion of the rebuilding of Highway 22

between Trail and Castlegar.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Just a brief comment thanking, I guess, the

Minister of Transportation and Highways for the job he did in putting

through a bypass that was anticipated in Penticton for 25 years. The

point that I raise, or the request I make to the minister, is to advise

him that the B.C. Winter Games are going to take place in Oliver and

Osoyoos in February 1985. Over 2,000 volunteers will be hosting, and

we're looking forward to a great event. Mr. Chairman, the one problem

we face in making that 100 percent successful is access to a place

called Baldy Mountain, a ski hill where we can have our alpine

activities. At the present time people have to drive about 40 miles out

of their way to go up a back road. All that is required to make much

easier access to Baldy Mountain is road construction for about 16

miles, I believe — it may be less than that — from Oliver through to

Camp McKinney. I know the people in the area are prepared to work with

Highways to get that road through, which would provide shorter and

easier access to Baldy Mountain, helping make the 1985 Winter Games a

success. It would certainly help the tourism industry in the Okanagan.

I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that I can probably talk to my colleague

from time to time on this matter, but I just thought I'd raise it now.

I know he'd want to see the 1985 Winter Games be a success and he'll

take my comments to heart.

MS. BROWN: I want to raise a couple of points. First, just in

passing, on the government jet, I would personally like to see the

ministers, as well as everyone else, ride the commercial jets. I think

it would do the ministers a lot of good to have to travel with ordinary

citizens once in a while, just to see how the other half lives. The

government jet should be concentrated in terms of being used as an air

ambulance service rather than giving this kind of limousine service to

cabinet ministers. Put them all in the commercial jets, Mr. Minister.

You'll have my support for that.

I want to talk about restraints for children under the age of six

riding in automobiles. I notice a smile on the face of the deputy,

because I've been raising it under this minister's estimates since

1979, and you can see that my record for success is actually getting

worse with each passing year. In any event, I have some heavy-duty

support on my side this time. One such person is Dr. Norman Hamilton,

the chairman of the B.C. Medical Association. They've now entered the

fray, and he's pointed out some interesting comments. I'm quoting from

an

article in the Times-Colonist in March 1984. He said it's

odd for police to ticket adults for non-use of seatbelts when

youngsters who cannot make decisions for themselves are left

unprotected. He went on to say that 91 percent of deaths and 78 percent

of injuries could be eliminated by the use of child-restraint devices.

The thing is that the minister this morning, in responding to the

issue when it was raised by my colleague the member for Atlin (Mr.

Passarell), said, and I'm quoting from the Blues, so I hope that this

is accurate: "The opinion seems to be that parents have a big

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

ahead with child restraints, who's going to enforce it?" I want to

address myself to the enforcement of child restraints. What we have in

the province is a law that says everyone over the age of six riding in

an automobile has to wear a seatbelt or some form of restraint, and

what the police do — and it's happened to me on more than one occasion

— is a random checking. Suddenly you're pulled over to the side, and

they check to see if you're wearing your seatbelt. If you are, fine; if

not, you've broken the law. You are fined on the spot, and you are

handed a ticket for doing so. Why is it not possible to do that in the

case of children? In the same way that when the car is pulled over to

check whether the adult is wearing a seatbelt, check to see whether the

child or the children in the car are also restrained — whether they are

wearing a seatbelt or whether they are in a restraint.

The problem that we have is that we have two problems. One is the

one mentioned by Dr. Hamilton, and that is that children cannot make

these decisions for themselves, so really the responsibility is up to

the parents to see to it that they wear their restraints. Because there

is no law that says to a parent that when you have failed to restrain

your child who is riding in a car, you will be punished. The parents

don't bother, and the child is the one who suffers in the long run.

MR. R. FRASER: It's a lousy attitude on the parents' part, isn't it?

MS. BROWN: It's a very bad attitude on the part of the

parents. I agree with you, but what I would like to see, though, is for

the government to take the first step in terms of protection of

children under the age of six in this province. If there were a law

that said if a child is seen riding in your automobile, whether you are

the parent or not…. Because often children ride in the automobile of

their grandparents, aunts, uncles or someone else. It's not always the

parents, but any child who is not restrained and is seen riding in a

car driven by an adult, that adult is liable to some sanction, whatever

it may be — either a fine or whatever the law is that exists right now

in terms of an adult not using their seatbelt.

[ Page 4066 ]

Failure to restrain the child should be categorized in the same way

that allows Human Resources to apprehend a child based on neglect. It

should be seen as neglect on the part of the adult driving that

automobile, because it is a form of negligence on the part of the

adult. Now it is quite possible that there are still parents and adults

living in this province who do not know the statistics on the dangers

to children who are left to travel in an automobile unrestrained. They

do not know of the large incidence of brain damage to those children —

not that they are thrown outside the car, but they are thrown around

inside the car in the event of either a rear-end or some other form of

accident. It's possible that there are still people who don't know that.

What that means, then, is that the government should embark on an

educational program, the same kind of good program that was embarked on

by that government in terms of drinking and driving — the Counterattack

program. There's an excellent program on television, on the radio, in

posters and in ads in the newspaper. Embark on a genuine educational

program to save the lives of children and to cut down on the high

incidence of injury of children in automobiles. The statistics are

absolutely horrendous, and in every instance it's not based on a

decision made by the child herself or himself, but is really based on

negligence on the part of whoever the adult is who is driving the

automobile and hasn't taken the time or concern, or doesn't know or

understand enough about the inherent dangers, to see that the child is

in a car restraint or at least is buckled into a seatbelt.

I would really like the minister, Mr. Chairman, through you, to

explain to me why it is possible to enforce the mandatory use of

seatbelt laws on adults, but is not possible to enforce it in terms of

children riding in an automobile. Secondly, I'd like his comment as to

why it is not possible to embark on the kind of education program they

did in Saskatchewan some time ago, and as the Canadian and B.C. Medical

Associations have embarked on at this time.

Well, just a minute.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, you sat down.

MS. BROWN: I was trying to enter into a dialogue with the

minister about what I consider to be a very serious program. I'm not

talking about potholes, I'm talking about the lives of children, and I

would appreciate it if the minister would respond or at least give some

indication that he has heard what I am saying. That's all I'm asking.

[4:15]

HON. A. FRASER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have heard what the member has said, and I have two or three observations.

First of all, you referred to Dr. Norman Hamilton. I want to single

him out today. I don't know when he has time to be a doctor, because

he's written to every newspaper in the western world about child

restraints. He's really done a great job. I sincerely mean that. I

think I've seen his letters in a hundred different publications.

You quoted me from this morning, and yes, it only adds to

enforcement responsibilities which we're having difficulty with now.

We're not in any way stopping child restraints now. There's no law

against it. What you're asking is to make it compulsory, and that's

what we are not doing. I would remind you that our government removed

the sales tax from child restraints in this present budget. That's a

small step in the right direction. I'm amazed at the line that member

has taken. In my opinion, these child restraints are expensive; we've

looked at that and had a lot of observations. It impacts on the poor to

make it compulsory that they have child restraints, and this is the

reason that we haven't done anything about it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, no life of a child is so cheap that

the cost of a restraint is too expensive. I'm not surprised at the

position I take, because I've said to the minister on more than one

occasion that part of my work experience has been on the ward of a

hospital where children were the victims of brain damage. Most of those

children were injured in automobile accidents by being thrown around

inside the car, not by being thrown out of the car. It's not possible

for anybody to visit the ward of a hospital dealing with brain-damaged

children and come away and say that the price of a car seat is too

expensive. We're talking about children who are going to be deprived of

normal life for the rest of their lives, who are going to spend the

rest of their lives mentally retarded and physically unable to move

around.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I know this is really hilarious and funny to the

member for Vancouver South. He thinks this is a very amusing topic; I

can see that.

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, I was not making a joke.

I'm suggesting to the member and anybody else that the parents have a

large responsibility in the field of child care.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member.

MR. R. FRASER: She can't suggest it's a joke; it's not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order, Mr. Member. You'll have your opportunity to debate this under the minister's estimates.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I have never denied that parents

have a responsibility. But I do not believe that when parents fail in

their responsibility, and their failure results in brain damage and in

many instances death, the government can walk away from it on the basis

that car seats are expensive. If the member for Vancouver South can't

see that, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing that I can do about it, But I

think that Dr. Hamilton and a number of other concerned citizens

recognize that responsibility. Children don't choose their parents; if

children could choose their parents, everybody would choose the most

responsible parents they could possibly find, parents who would make

whatever sacrifices were necessary to be able to afford a car seat and

a restraint for them. But that's not what happens. The government is

saying that children should be penalized for the stupidity of their

parents. I'm saying that that's not right, and that's not fair. There

are far too many children who end up injured, brain damaged and

confined to wheelchairs or beds for all the days of their life as a

direct result of the failure of the adult who was driving the car at

the time of the accident to take responsibility for placing them in a

car seat or in a restraint.

I wish the minister would not stand on the floor of this House year

after year after year and tell us that these seats are too expensive.

They cost anywhere from $60 to $80. A parent who smokes spends that in

a matter of months. Most parents

[ Page 4067 ]

who do not use a car seat don't do it not because

it's expensive; they don't do it because they don't realize the

importance of placing that child in a restraint. That's where the

government's education program would be of value. The minister did not

even respond to a recommendation. At least his ministry could spend

some money on running ads in the newspaper, on television or on radio —

anything at all to get that message across. How many times, Mr.

Chairman, have you been driving around and seen children standing up in

the front seat of a car? In this day and age I've seen adults driving

with kids in their lap steering the car. I have no right as an

individual to pull over and say to that parent: "What you are doing is

cruelty. You are jeopardizing that child's life and you should go to

jail on the spot." On more than one occasion I've actually commented,

and the parent quite rightly has told me to mind my own business. It's

their democratic right, they maintain, if they want their child to

stand on the front seat while they're driving.

I have a dog that travels in my car; I won't let that dog sit on the

front seat, because it's so unsafe. Yet there are parents and adults in

this province who allow kids to climb all over the car while they're

driving. The minister can't see that at least the government could do

one positive thing and get the word out there that that endangers the

life of that child. All we're asking is that that message get out there

to parents. I don't believe that any parent or any adult would

deliberately jeopardize the life of a child riding in their automobile.

MR. CAMPBELL: I was going to start off talking about

highways, but I think perhaps I will start talking about child

restraint in rebuttal to the previous speaker. When we talk about the

responsibility of child restraint, surely that must be some of what

being a parent is all about. That's what it's all about. When the

government has to come in and legislate against children five years

old, and the parents say they can't control them, what's the matter

with the parents? They talk about restraint under five years old. I

really wasn't totally upset when I heard that member speaking about

restraint, because it appears to me that the breaking point on

restraint must be five years old. After that, they don't want anything

to do with restraint. I really think that the onus is on parents to

provide guidance of the children, not only to those under five but

those over five. If more guidance were provided to those children,

there would be a lot less that the government would have to do in

intervening in later years. They would be better off for it. The

parents would be better off for it. Certainly society would be better

off on the whole for it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds

has had her opportunity to stand in her place. Would she please give

that opportunity to the member for Okanagan North.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time may come, sir, if you rise in your place.

MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that.

When the hon. member over there heckles me, it makes me so nervous I

really find it very difficult to talk. So I certainly do appreciate

your intervening on my behalf, sir.

1 want to talk about highways and what a great job this minister has

been doing in Okanagan North. In this past year well over a million

dollars has been spent in Okanagan North on highway improvements. The

entrance into Lumby was all four-laned. There were 14 kilometres on

Highway 6 resurfaced. Certainly the people there….

Interjection.

MR. CAMPBELL: Unfortunately, we don't have the ALRT and all

the bus lines that this member for the coast talks about, so we

appreciate it when the minister comes up there and does some paving.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that my people up there appreciate

that. The west side road of Okanagan Lake has also had a lot of work

done on it. Presently another nine kilometres are being paved over

there. This year Silver Star road was paved right to the entrance of

Silver Star, upgrading Silver Star and making it a destination ski

area. I'm pleased that the minister is assisting in this endeavour to

make this a success. We probably have one of the best ski areas in

British Columbia in my area of Silver Star.

Also at this time the government is surveying and purchasing the

right-of-way for a four-lane highway coming south out of Vernon. I

would certainly encourage the minister to make every effort to proceed

with this project as fast as possible. During the summer months there

is a tremendous influx of tourists into that area. We like all the

tourists; we love them. In our area we're not prejudiced against

tourists even if they block the road now and again with their campers,

because they're spending great tourist dollars in there. However,

sometimes there is a slowdown on the highway, and I would certainly

encourage this minister to make every effort to widen that four-lane

highway right to the airport south of Winfield. It is necessary and

urgent because of this heavy traffic, and I would like to impress on

him at this time how important that is.

MR. MACDONALD: Call an election and you'll get it.

MR. CAMPBELL: One of the great things about this minister is

that he provides good services every year and some years we get better

services, and then a little while later the people are all happy

because that great minister's done such a great job paving the roads.

So every year is election year in my area, because we get treated right.

MS. SANFORD: What's he paying you?

MR. CAMPBELL: What does he pay us? He pays us in blacktop. I

want to impress on those members across there and on this minister that

the people in the interior appreciate good roads. Even if some of the

people on the coast don't appreciate them, we do. So I'd like to

impress on him what a great job the people up there think he's doing.

Okay?

There are a couple of other things I would like to speak to the

minister about. One of them is our airport in Vernon, which has been

operated by the city of Vernon for, I suppose, 25 years. A year ago it

was taken over by the Regional District of North Okanagan, which

encompasses the city of Vernon, the district of Coldstream, the city of

Armstrong, the village of Lumby and the city of Enderby, as well as

electoral areas A to G. When this became a regional airport, the

regional airport commission again asked for assistance from

[ Page 4068 ]

the Ministry of Highways for the upgrading of this

airport as a municipal airport. I want to impress on the minister that

this is a municipal airport, not a major airport for PWA or Air Canada.

It does have a fairly short runway. Over the years the runway has had

patching, and it does need upgrading. But the problem with the existing

runway is that it passes over some reserve lands, which the city of

Vernon presently leases from the band there. That lease will expire in

two years' time, and the city has purchased the adjoining property so

that the airport can be realigned to miss this reserve land that it is

presently on. All areas within the Regional District of North Okanagan

are in favour of this, except electoral area A, which I might add is

the area the airport is in. They think the airport should be moved to

the district of Spallumcheen. Unfortunately, while the mayor of

Spallumcheen agrees that the airport is necessary, he thinks it should

stay in electoral area A.

So that is the quandary. I know that this great minister knows how

to solve those types of problems, Mr. Chairman. I have every faith in

him and his people to resolve this; he's resolved many types of

problems like this before and I'm sure he will in the future.

[4:30]

There's one other thing I would like to impress on the minister. A

Mr. Tarasoff from Winfield is endeavouring to establish a run for

transportation of passengers and minor freight from Vernon to Nakusp

approximately three days a week. Mr. Tarasoff has had his application

in to the Motor Carrier Commission for approximately six weeks to two

months, and he's not had a reply yet. The people of West Kootenay,

which encompasses Edgewood, Fauquier, Burton and Nakusp, have very

limited transportation into their area for freight and passengers.

There is no more train service into there. There is a limited bus

service from Nelson into there; otherwise there is no Greyhound bus. If

people wish to go to Vernon or Nelson to go shopping or for medical

reasons, dentistry, etc., there are no bus facilities for them; the bus

service was discontinued approximately four or five years back. It

would certainly be in the interests of these people if a new bus

service could be established for them over there. This would be a small

bus carrying approximately eight to ten passengers with parcel post

express, etc. This man has made an application to the Motor Vehicle

Commission. There is nobody providing the service today, and I would

certainly like to impress on the minister that the more urgently he

could expedite this service the better it would be for all concerned.

Again, this man is one of my great people from the interior who is not

asking for any subsidies. He's not asking for any government financial

assistance. He simply wants to provide a service, and the people who

benefit from the service will pay for the service. I would think it

would be to everybody's advantage to assist this gentleman in getting

going.

In closing — and to you, Mr. Minister — I would like to thank you on

behalf of the people of Okanagan North for the great job you've done. I

would ask that you look into the couple of things that I have

mentioned, to assist us in that, and we will say it has been a job well

done.

HON. A. FRASER: To the member for Okanagan North, I appreciate your remarks. Thank you very much.

I'll go from back to front. I'll be glad to pursue the application.

I might say that the application from whoever this proposed carrier

is…. As far as the Motor Carrier Commission is concerned, it usually

takes about six weeks just to open the mail — without getting into the

process. They have quite a detailed process. But we'll be glad to

follow that up.

The next item that you brought up…. I appreciate all the

compliments, but I'm not so sure you're not throwing me to the wolves

when you want to get me into the controversy about the Vernon airport.

It's been very controversial, and I think you spelled it out. The

attitude of the government has been that when they settle their own

controversy within their own community, then we would gladly help.

You're right that it was to go to Spallumcheen, and they changed their….

They didn't want it there, or some didn't, and now they're back

talking about the city airport in Vernon itself. I imagine that

electoral area A that you are talking about is the area known locally

as Okanagan Landing. I've been in Okanagan Landing and been chased out

of there before this on other items. It is a local controversy. We

still say that once that's resolved, we'll be glad to help.

Speaking of airports, Mr. Chairman, as far as we can see…. The

answer there is certainly for the commercial planes to get better

access to the Kelowna airport, where getting better access is to

rebuild and four-lane Highway 97 from Vernon to the airport. We are

looking at that — not only looking, but acquiring right-of-way now to

start on that job. Hopefully funds will be available to get started on

that job to put in a more adequate road system. The whole Okanagan

valley is overtaxed with vehicles. It's not just in the tourist season;

it's in the winter as well as the summer. The traffic counts are the

highest in the province. We just have to get on and get more capability

in the system. We're going to do that when funds are available, and get

ready so that when funds are available we can get on and upgrade.

To my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt), I'm glad he pointed out that Oliver-Osoyoos is going

to have the B.C. Winter Games. We'll help in any way we can with access

to Mount Baldy, I believe he called it.

The member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) raised several riding

issues. First of all, I'd like to reply to some of his queries. The

Castlegar interchange. The city expressed concern over the eastbound

off-ramp, and a loop was designed which would reduce the problem of

overruns by runaways at Columbia Avenue. As the design neared

completion, the city raised the issue of access to a proposed shopping

centre east of the interchange. The city proposed an additional

interchange to provide this access. The ministry could not accept that

proposal. It was much too close to the present interchange — in fact,

half a kilometre — to operate safely and effectively. The ministry

proposed an intersection at this location, but it would only operate

safely and effectively if the westbound off-ramp were closed and this

traffic handled at the intersection. This did not meet the city's

objectives. Negotiations to seek an acceptable solution are at hand. In

other words, we don't seem to be able to agree, but we're not in total

disagreement and we intend to try to resolve that interchange problem.

You raised a good issue, Mr. Member, regarding microwave landing

systems. Our engineers are in close coordination with the federal

transport people at all times on that. I thought you would be happy to

know that we agree with your remarks. I think practically all the cases

that you mentioned, except for one, are the responsibility of the

federal government, but we work closely with their engineers on those

items.

[ Page 4069 ]

1 don't think we've got an answer for you on Pass Creek Road other than the fact that it is just money.

The member brought up the painting of the Trail bridge, and we'll

certainly look into that. We have a continual maintenance program, and

neither do I know why the bridge is getting into disrepair. I don't

think we need that to happen. We'll find out why and see if it can't be

programmed in the maintenance program for painting this year.

The member lost me a bit on some of the items. We hadn't

contemplated any research south of the border. We'll probably have to

take another took at that, but it is a question of funds being

available.

The biggest item of all is Highway 22. I'll just bring you up to

date on the four-lane relocation of that highway to replace the Smelter

Hill

section of the existing road between Tadanac and Trail. It

consists of the construction of a four lane roadway, a railway, a

railway underpass, a utility bridge underpass, reconstruction of

Cominco's utilities and reconstruction and relocating of the existing

Trail Creek culvert in the area supporting the highway, plus a

hydraulically inefficient

section downstream that floods occasionally.

The work has been split into three projects, the first of which,

project C-0566 was awarded to Jacmar Construction of Surrey on April

11, 1983, for $713,313. Project C-0566 included excavation for the

construction of Trail CPR underpass no. 2672, and Trail pipeline

underpass no. 2673.

On phase 1, project 2, the remainder of the work is expected to cost

$7.6 million, of which the ministry will be reimbursed $1.22 million by

the city of Trail, and $0.25 million by Cominco for Trail culvert and

Warfield Hill Road underpass respectively. Contract documents are being

prepared for a second contract to relocate community facilities and

reconstruct the Trail culvert. Phase 1, project 3, consists of the

completion of the road itself, after contract 2 has been carried out.

For Phase 2, 1.8 kilometres, reconstruction of the existing two-lane

Warfield road to improve alignment and include truck lanes along

alignment of J4, the latest estimate is $1.5 million. To date on this

project only preliminary design and field geotechnical surveying,

including drilling, has been done. That is a bit of an overview, but

I'll go back and say that there are not funds available in this budget

to accommodate a tender call, and that it would be under phase 1,

project 2.

1 think that answers most of the questions of the member.

MR. MACDONALD: Just a word or two to the minister about the

missing link in the Trans-Canada Highway between the waterfront and the

freeway along Cassiar. When I brought the subject of the missing link

up with some people in the area, they thought I was referring to the

minister, but I assured them that a thought like that would never enter

my mind. But it entered theirs, because they're waiting for the

minister's response. I must admit that the minister has been very good

in talking privately about the matter, and he does have the

consultant's report and the modified plan, which is now unanimously

approved by the Vancouver city council. The minister shouldn't be

suspicious just on that account. He should say it is meaningful, and it

is meaningful. Concessions have been made. The tunnel thing always

bothered me, I may say, although it was favoured by many residents. I

just wondered how that final pollution product that was gathered in the

tunnel would be dispersed, unless there was a high stack or something

of the kind.

1 can't understand why traffic slows down as much as it does for a

tunnel. I'm puzzled by the Massey Tunnel — how the very small drop in

speed of the cars going through there can result sometimes in a

mile-and-a-half lineup. I don't understand the mathematics of it. But

anyway the tunnel has been agreed to be out, by the residents in that

area, as a costly alternative. I hope the minister can go along with

the mid-cost composite design, as it's called, which has been

unanimously approved now by the city council of Vancouver. I hope that

this period when he must look at the feasibility of the various aspects

of it is rapidly drawing to an end. This is a good plan, it's certainly

a desperately needed plan, and I hope it will get prompt attention.

[4:45]

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Vancouver

East, I do want to say a bit about this because it is a very large

contemplated project. As the member says, a study has been undertaken

by an independent consultant to assess the optimum engineering design

having the least social community impact in four-laning Cassiar Street

from the Trans-Canada Highway to the Second Narrows Bridge. The

consultants have evaluated the options, their impacts and costs, The

study cost was $107,000, of which 25 percent was paid by the city of

Vancouver. A joint committee consisting of the planning department of

Vancouver city council, representatives from the local citizens and the

ministry prepared terms of reference for the consultants. Three schemes

were examined to equal levels of detail: a depressed open cut, a

cut-and-cover tunnel and a bored tunnel. The study was completed in

September '83 and sent to the city for their comments. Public hearings

held by the city in December '83 resulted in a fourth scheme being

prepared by the city's planning branch, based upon modifications of the

cut-and-cover scheme. This fourth or compromise scheme was favourably

received by the public groups and approved by city council on January

12, 1984. The ministry has sent the proposal to the consultants for an

overview report. This has now been received by the ministry. The report

I have, Mr. Member, indicates some problems with the fourth scheme and

recommends a study equal in depth to the other schemes be made to

properly evaluate it. I only recently got that, but we just seem to go

on, one study after another, and I think it's about time some decisions

were made.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask the minister

some questions about Highway 99. Last year he made some very popular

announcements with regard to some improvements in that area, and I know

there have been a number of studies done on catchment basins, and I

would like to congratulate his staff on the way they've handled those

within the constituency. I've had so many letters from constituents in

the Lions Bay area lately saying: "Congratulations to your government

in the way they've handled this." He's sent his staff members to talk

to people — tell them what's been going on and what the plans are for

the area.

I know there are a number of people in my constituency who read Hansard

and would like me to ask the minister this during his estimates: what

are the plans for Highway 99 over the next 12 months or so? I know

we've made announcements as to what the plans are over the next number

of years, but I know there are still some concerns about the Brohm

Ridge area because there was some work started there last year. Driving

up to the World's Cup a couple of weeks ago I noticed

[ Page 4070 ]

the rocks are being chipped off the sides of the

road in the Brohm Ridge area again, so I would assume we've started

some work back in that area. I'm just wondering if the minister can

take a couple of minutes to bring us up to date as to the activities we

can expect in that area over the next little while.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, on Highway 99 from North

Vancouver to Squamish, Whistler, Pemberton and so on, last year we

announced several improvements were going to be made over a period of

time. The enginee