1985 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

6471 ]

CONTENTS

Natural Gas Price Act (Bill 52). Hon. Mr. Rogers

Introduction and first reading –– 6471

Coal Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 51). Hon. Mr. Rogers

Introduction and first reading –– 6471

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

Fraser)

On vote 67: minister's office –– 6471

Mr. Ree

Ms. Sanford

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Davis

THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 1985

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, a group of students from

Stelly's Secondary School on the Saanich Peninsula is in the precinct

today. I thought they would be in the House at 10 o'clock, but rather

than interrupt proceedings later, I wonder if the House would welcome

their arrival.

Introduction of Bills

NATURAL GAS PRICE ACT

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

a bill intituled Natural Gas Price Act.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The Natural Gas Price Act is the culmination

of a long series of events. In 1982 my ministry directed that a study

be undertaken of all the critical aspects of marketing British

Columbia's natural gas. The internationally recognized authority, Dr.

George Govier, was put in charge, and one year later, in September,

1983, I released his report, along with a number of policy decisions

based on that report's recommendation.

After considerable consultation with the industry, further policy

decisions were made and announced last July. Since then my ministry has

been involved in the complex business of translating these policies

into legislation. The final result, which you see before you today, is

the Natural Gas Price Act. With the passage of this bill we will

complete the job of restructuring the entire institutional and

financial framework of the province's natural gas industry.

This new marketing of a royalty system is designed to encourage new

exploration and development, establish new markets for B.C. gas,

attract new gas-based industries and set a fair price for both

producers and consumers. The legislation establishes the statutory

authority for that marketing system. The legislation is both lengthy

and complex and its objectives are easily understood: to reduce

government involvement while encouraging the private sector to be more

competitive and aggressive in marketing British Columbia gas; to give

producers higher and more predictable netbacks, and at the same time

increase the revenues to the province and decrease the financial risk

to the B.C. Petroleum Corporation.

Under the old system, BCPC and Westcoast Transmission held a monopoly position

in the buying, selling and marketing of our gas. The new system will be open

and competitive. Any gas producer in B.C. will be able to enter into contracts

with any buyer, either in this province or out of it. The Petroleum Corporation

will also acquire a new role; for the first time, BCPC will be allowed to take

an active

part in developing new markets for our natural gas. Also, the people

of British Columbia will get a fair return from their resource with the introduction

of a direct wellhead royalty to replace the system of collecting revenues indirectly

through the Petroleum Corporation. There will be a consequential amendment to

section 93 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, which establishes a royalty

to be paid on all gas produced in the province.

Bill 52 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.

COAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

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

a bill intituled Coal Amendment Act, 1985.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, for the past year my ministry

has been involved in a review of the legislation to ensure that we are

providing the correct framework that will help us maintain the coal

industry's momentum. This review involved extensive consultation with

the industry associations and other agencies of government and

identified a number of roadblocks in our existing legislation.

The Coal Amendment Act, 1985, is designed to remove these

roadblocks. At the same time it will maintain all essential controls,

environmental safeguards, the guideline process and reclamation

requirements. and will ensure the province's economic and industrial

policy objectives are protected.

The Coal Amendment Act removes unnecessary administrative

requirements that are costly for both government and industry. It

reduces government's intervention in areas which should be left to the

marketplace. Among other things this act provides a fair process for

settling disputes between property owners and holders of coal tenure.

This deregulation legislation is very much in line with the

government's philosophy that less government is better government. It's

also a signal to the industry and the world that investment in British

Columbia's coal industry is welcome.

Bill 51 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.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a document arising from the committee's proceedings yesterday.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 67: minister's office, $224,728.

MR. REE: I have a few questions for the minister. Certainly

in my constituency I have limited highways; I have about three and a

half miles of actual major four-lane highway, commonly referred to as

part of the upper levels. But in that

section we have traffic of around

40,000 to 50,000 vehicles a day.

[ Page 6472 ]

MR. PASSARELL: Three and a half miles! You'll give me a heart attack, talking about three and a half miles of highway. Holy smokes!

MR. REE: I appreciate the asides from the member for Atlin

(Mr. Passarell), who probably has more miles than that in his backyard,

but the number of miles travelled per day of highway in my constituency

is probably about five times that travelled in Atlin, as far as actual

miles travelled by cars. So there is a far greater demand in some ways

on my three and a half miles of highway than the many hundreds of the

member for Atlin's. But anyhow, Mr. Chairman, the highways in my

constituency are a major concern. As I say, there are 40,000 to 50,000

cars a day travelling it.

There are two intersections, Lonsdale and Westview, which have

traffic lights on this major thoroughfare. Since I was first elected

six years ago, I have asked a number of times to have these

interchanges upgraded. I notice in the minister's report — on page 55,

on designs and surveys — there is a comment here about Capilano

interchange to upgrade in conjunction with Lonsdale and Westview. It's

got: "Capilano–Lynn Valley including Westview and Lonsdale, upgrade to

freeway standards." I'm asking whether the Ministry of Highways will be

upgrading to freeway standards in the not too-distant future. What is

the actual status of those two interchanges? Because to upgrade them to

highway standards would need overpass or separated interchanges to be

installed at those locations.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, the traffic from the North Shore

experiences considerably difficulty at the intersection of Cassiar and

Hastings Street in Vancouver, that being a bottleneck for traffic

coming to or from the North Shore. There have been studies and, I

understand, negotiations with the city of Vancouver with respect to

upgrading this Cassiar corridor to facilitate the movement of traffic.

I'd appreciate the minister advising what the status of the plans is

for that intersection.

[10:15]

Likewise, Mr. Chairman, the other access from the North Shore is the

Lions Gate Bridge which has had in the last number of years

considerable improvement on it, expanding the north and south ramps of

the bridge so that the lanes there are wider. Traffic can travel more

safely and a little quicker. It's done away with quite a bit of the

bottleneck experienced on the bridge in the past. The centre span of

the bridge needs to be widened to fully alleviate a lot of the holdup

on the bridge, and I would appreciate the minister advising us, Mr.

Chairman, again, as to his plans there. Once we're past the centre span

of the bridge, the causeway through Stanley Park, at the moment, is

down to about bedrock. I know they have had difficulties there with the

water drainage problems that the causeway experiences. That causeway

requires almost a complete, I would suggest, rebuilding. Again, what

are those plans?

Dealing with the Cassiar corridor, the Lions Gate Bridge centre span

and the causeway through Stanley Park, I appreciate that to enter into

the construction, repair or improvement of these areas at this time may

conflict with Expo next year. I do realize something has to be done,

but what are the plans of the ministry with respect to Lonsdale,

Westview, Cassiar and the Lions Gate Bridge?

A couple of other issues I'd like some comments on, as far as the minister

is concerned. Possibly he could have some of his staff check the mileage signs

on the upper levels of the North Shore. Since we went to metric, I feel maybe

some of the staff have the same difficulty I have: they don't know how far

a kilometre is. There are number of instances where a sign says two kilometres

and it's one kilometre; where it says one kilometre, it may be two kilometres

to an exit from the highway. I might suggest, particularly in my colleague's

constituency of West Vancouver–Howe Sound, that this is quite prevalent. But

I also ask that they check all the North Shore ones from Horseshoe Bay certainly

through to the Second Narrows Bridge.

Mr. Chairman, I have one other concern. I'd like to have some

comment from the minister dealing with the Motor Carrier Commission. I

have constituents come to me who have made appeals to commission

decisions, some of them extending back over a year; and they cannot

seem to get any resolution to their appeal. One of their big complaints

is that while the appeal is being held up, their competitors are

snipping at their business, getting extensions to their licence from

the commission, while the appellant is frustrated and can't be heard on

getting the same extension on licence. It is becoming a major problem,

I suggest, with respect to the carriers within the province. Mr.

Chairman, I would certainly welcome the minister's comments.

MR. STUPICH: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, there is a group of 55 students

from Harewood Elementary School in the precincts today looking after

some 20 parents and. teachers. I ask the House to welcome them to the

precincts.

MS. SANFORD: Yesterday when we were debating the estimated

expenditures for the Ministry of Highways and Transportation, the

minister made an admission: he said that he now qualified to ride on

the ferries, Monday to Thursday without charge. He had reached that

magic age — officially a senior citizen. I don't know if that means

that the minister is tired, Mr. Chairman, but he must be tired of

listening to me talk about the inland bypass route for my constituency.

I have been attempting, for years and years, to convince this minister

that it is high time that we have a proper, adequate highway within my

constituency on Vancouver Island.

When the minister talked about Mabel Lake yesterday, he said that we

have two roads going to Mabel Lake: one out of Lumby and one out of

Enderby. He said: "The one out of Enderby we've just about finished;

the one out of Lumby I can't say that. But after all, they're rural

access roads, so we can't have both of them finished all at once."

All we're asking for is one proper access road between the

communities on Vancouver Island. We don't have it now. The minister

knows very well that the highway there is inadequate. He's mentioned

this over the years himself. Some minor upgradings have been done; I

think we now have three or four passing lanes within the constituency.

He knows it is a dangerous highway. He knows of the traffic deaths that

occur there. He knows that in the summertime it's nearly impossible to

drive with safety and any kind of assurance that you're going to make

the time that it usually would take to drive that highway between two

given points, because it's not going to happen.

This is the situation without Expo. This is the situation without the work of the Islands 86 committee that's working

[ Page

6473 ]

very hard to attract as many people as it can to Vancouver Island next year

in conjunction with Expo 86 –– I don't know how many people are

going to come to Expo and to Vancouver Island, but I expect we're going

to have more people on Vancouver Island than we otherwise do in the summertime.

It's impossible now. I know the B.C. Ferry Authority have been talking about

adding additional ferry sailings to bring people to Vancouver Island during

the period that Expo is on. They have been talking about upgrading some of the

ramps and approaches to the ferries because of the anticipated additional traffic,

and they're going to funnel them all onto this totally inadequate, narrow,

winding highway on Vancouver Island between Parksville and Campbell River.

A lot of the people involved in Islands 86 have been attempting to

convince the minister that if they can find money for all of these

other projects, whether it's the Coquihalla, the ALRT, northeast coal,

the dam up at Revelstoke, whatever; they seem to be able to find

money.... But for some reason this minister, in spite of the fact that

he knows of the dangers, refuses to allocate the kind of funds that are

necessary to put in an inland bypass route. The area has been surveyed,

I don't know how many times; the municipalities have all agreed on the

route that they feel would be the best one; yet we find there is no

money, no desire on the part of the government to ensure that there is

an adequate route on Vancouver Island, Parksville north.

What I would like today from the minister is an assurance that once

this Coquihalla project is completed, the next project of any

significance is an inland bypass route on Vancouver Island. I'm hoping

that the minister will be able to give me that assurance today.

A couple of other things. Moneys have been tunnelled off into very

expensive routes, such as the Coquihalla, as I mentioned, and I think

it has been done at the expense of other projects — maintenance

projects and minor projects in the various constituencies.

I just wanted to bring to the minister's attention one issue in my

constituency related to a very small road called Virginia Road in

Parksville which, according to the district Highways engineer in that

area, has been the number one priority for a number of years. But he

has not had the funds to do even the number one priority. This

particular road, Mr. Chairman — you'll be interested — takes a winding

detour. Unfortunately, there's a river that runs across the road in the

wintertime. In the summertime it dries up pretty well and there isn't

too much problem. But in the wintertime there is a river that runs

across Virginia Road, and people have to drive through the river in

order to get home. If they have a small car they have a lot of fears.

They don't know whether they're going to be completely covered or

partially have the water up the side of the car when they drive home.

The ministry does not want to try to divert the river or do anything like that.

They just have a small

section where they want to straighten out the road and

make Virginia Road a proper road built to highway standards with ditching and

everything else so that the people can drive through there without any trouble.

Now I don't know whether the district Highways engineer this year is going

to have the kind of money that will enable him to do the number one priority

— which has been the number one priority for him for two or three years. People

do not understand, if that's number one priority, why on earth it doesn't

get done. It's because there are no moneys for even minor projects such

as that one. I am hoping that I can get assurance from the minister this year

that there will be enough money in the budget to do that.

Finally, I want to ask the minister about his

interpretation.... He

said he interprets the funds that come from the federal government for

assistance in paying for the ferry system as being moneys for all

ferries. When that agreement was initially signed — I think it was

about 1977 or thereabouts — was it not to provide financial assistance

to the government of B.C. to provide a decent service on the north

coast? The minister says his

interpretation is that it was for all

ferries. But it was very clear at the time, at least to a number of us,

that it was designated for north coast ferries. I am wondering if the

minister could inform us today what the original contract said with

respect to that subsidy money from the federal government. which today,

I think. totals about $14 million a year.

[10:30]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. A. FRASER: I'll start by responding to the queries of

the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree). First of all, you

are correct that we want to put in interchanges at Lonsdale and

Westview. We've told you this for a long time. We'd like to start on

one of them fairly soon. It is my information that each interchange

will cost about $5 million on the upper levels. But the time has

arrived when we have to take some action and get into detail. I

understand that most of the property has been acquired, except one

large apartment block. I'm not sure which interchange that is at, but

we aren't far away from, hopefully, getting a start there.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano, who you no doubt are

acquainted with, Mr. Chairman, also brought up the Lions Gate Bridge

and the Cassiar corridor. I have a personal interest in the Cassiar

corridor. I inspect it quite frequently from a good vantage point at

Exhibition Park, from which you can look down on this corridor. We all

say we have a lot of traffic, but as you know, the corner of Hastings

and Cassiar is the heaviest traffic intersection in British Columbia.

To improve that corridor is a combined city and province obligation.

Just to tell you where we're at on that, a lot of money has already

been spent in acquisition, and we have had no end of committee meetings

with the city. I replied with our position to the mayor of Vancouver in

March 1985. The mayor and city council of Vancouver acknowledged

receipt but have not responded. They said they would respond in a

couple of months, which could be more or less any time now. It seems

that we will get our act together and then be able to proceed to design

and construction. That's a massive job, and you're not going to see

that resolved overnight. But as I say, the time has come to address it,

with the traffic congestion and.... Of course, the freeway was built by

a previous government, and it ends on Cassiar. It was never the

intention that it would be left the way it is until now. But that's a

fact of life, and now it has to be connected with the bridge to the

North Shore from Cassiar. As I say, there have been no end of public

meetings and so on. I think we're about ready now to agree on what

we're going to do and when.

The Lions Gate Bridge is another massive undertaking. You're

correct, the north viaduct has been done. Other work has been done, but

the big job we have to do there is replacement of the centre span of

the bridge. That's a mammoth engineering job. The engineering has all

been done on it, and the cost of the job is $30 million. But we have

not got that on a

[ Page 6474 ]

top-priority list, because of Expo and other works that affect the traffic.

Referring to the causeway, we feel the same way about that, and

we'll do the causeway at the same time as the bridge work is done. I

have a further comment regarding the causeway through Stanley Park. I

don't know whether we'll ever get that done. The causeway is worn out

now. The park people don't seem to want to touch the existing road,

because of environment and so on. It has to be redone, but maybe we'll

have to wait until it goes to gravel to get consensus. They're even

critical of us working within the roadway we have. Once we say that

we're going ahead . or maybe the strategy would be to have public

meetings. But from the engineers' standpoint, the road is now worn out.

So I really think it will go ahead faster than any other because of

failure of the concrete there, which is almost upon us now. In other

words, it's worn out, and the drainage is in bad shape. We attempted to

start some work on that three or four years ago and were immediately

told by the city to get lost. It's quite a problem, but one of these

days it has to be faced up to.

Regarding signing, Mr. Member, we'll certainly look into metric

signing on the Upper Levels. I don't know what that is, but it sounds

to me like that can be corrected shortly. If the signing is wrong, why

certainly we'll correct that.

You opened up a real Pandora's box when you mentioned the Motor

Carrier Act. You're the first member to mention it, and I can tell you,

as the minister responsible, that we are very dissatisfied with the

Motor Carrier Act. By "we," I mean the government. We're now drafting

legislation to make some very massive changes in the Motor Carrier Act.

We've had a committee of users on it for a year. I mean that operators

as well as unions have been on the committee. We have to get modern.

I'd remind the Legislature that the Motor Carrier Act was put into

law in our province in the hungry Thirties, and has never been dealt

with since. As you know, transportation generally has all changed, and

we're still dealing with the antiquated Motor Carrier Act. We are going

to make very substantial changes when we can get the bill in the

Legislature. By substantial changes I mean that we are going to

deregulate a great deal. There's far too much red tape. I believe your

observation was that the appeals at the present time are always behind.

The appeals are held by members of the executive council. It's not

their fault; the whole system is absolutely bound in red tape.

I haven't said this publicly before, but the other thing wrong with

it is that it's become a lawyers' paradise — whether it's pro or con.

We are going to try to exempt commodities that don't need any licensing

at all. This is what we're looking at — the exemption of commodities.

As an example, we don't see why a gravel truck needs a licence from the

motor carrier branch. Therefore we're looking at the exemption of the

commodity of gravel and a lot of other vehicles.

I just forget the number of vehicles that are affected by the Motor

Carrier Act, but it's something like 40,000 or 50,000, and we would

like to cut maybe 20,000 vehicles that are now presently requiring

licences out of the licence system entirely. It spreads over. The Motor

Carrier Act also has jurisdiction, as you know — I'm talking the

freight side — over buses and taxis in British Columbia, and we're not

satisfied with the way that's working either. We have real problems in

trying to resolve those problems, not on the passenger bus side but on

the taxi side. Throughout our province we have real problems there.

More specifically, we have real problems at Vancouver International

Airport concerning who should or should not have jurisdiction. The

Motor Carrier Commission has had hearings, looking at regional

licensing regarding taxis on the lower mainland. They have recommended

to me that we not proceed with regional licensing. I'm not so sure that

I agree with that recommendation, but the present setup is that we have

a regional service for taxis at the Vancouver International Airport. I

might say that nothing is simple. In this case, we also run into the

jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transport, who are the bosses of the

airport and give the franchise for servicing of the airport. I have had

discussions with the new Minister of Transport, Don Mazankowski. But

wherever you look, we have difficulties. But now what we have going

there is that if the taxi is located at Vancouver Airport and happens

to be a Burnaby taxi, they take you or whoever their passengers are to

downtown Vancouver and it's against the law for them to pick up and

return with any passenger out of the city of Vancouver. I think this is

wasteful, with the cost of transportation the way it is. But there's no

easy solution.

The Vancouver city taxi licences are issued by the city and

ourselves, and of course they don't want any further intrusion into

their business because it will have that effect. The Vancouver city

cabs, it appears to me, do a fair job, but what I'm saying is that they

want to keep everything the way it is. We have the same thing from your

area, Mr. Chairman, with the North Shore cabs: when they come into

downtown Vancouver they're not licensed to pick up and take somebody

back. The vehicle goes back empty. I repeat, with the high cost of

vehicles and fuel and so on, it seems there's a lot of waste going on

there, but we haven't really grappled with that.

What I am saying is that we are going to amend the Motor Carrier Act

and we are going to deregulate. I hope this happens in 1985. I'm

referring to the legislation that has to do it. I apologize to the

appellants that they have to wait, but they're going to have to put up

with that system until we get a new system. We're even looking in the

new legislation at changing the appeal procedure; the present act

requires executive council for being the appeal. I want to emphasize

that one of the larger problems we have in my ministry is to get an

update and more modem under the administration of the Motor Carrier Act.

Now dealing with Comox. I got your message, Madam Member, and I've

been getting that for quite a while — for all of two years, maybe ten.

I have some notes here to inform you.... Most of this has been in

correspondence, but I'll just comment here.

Courtenay-Campbell River bypass. The Island people perceive delays

to cities and several smaller communities on the highway. Residents

along the highway believe that a bypass will relieve them of heavy

traffic and enhance liveability. I'm inclined to agree with them. Their

proposal is an inland route west of Courtenay and Campbell River,

starting around Mud Bay at the north end of the Parksville-Qualicum

bypass and ending at Menzies Bay north of the Campbell River pulp mill.

Much of the traffic on the Island Highway consists of short trips and a

smaller proportion would be attracted to a bypass route than believed

by the residents. At this time the through traffic is not sufficient to

justify the bypass. This is particularly true because it is not

possible to build the route in usable stages. By that comment

[ Page

6475 ]

we mean if we could do sections at a time and cut

it in. But it appears that it's a fair-sized project. I think we're

talking $100 million. We would have to spend the entire amount before

the citizen — the motorist — would get the use of it.

[10:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time, Mr. Minister.

HON. A. FRASER: Well, I'd appreciate it if I could have just another two minutes.

Leave granted.

HON. A. FRASER: Nevertheless, as traffic volumes grow, the

justification will increase and the desire will commence for reserving

the route at this time so it can be built with minimum social

disruption. Planning studies have identified a preferred corridor. This

selection has not been discussed with the regional district and the

municipalities. Recent improvements to the highway, including

intersection channelization, passing lanes and the 17th St. Bridge in

Courtenay, have enhanced the level of service. So what we're saying

about this large issue is that while we're not prepared to announce

that it's going to be built or when, we are trying to keep up with the

existing road. I understand that around $10 million or $15 million has

been spent recently on upgrading the road from Courtenay to Campbell

River; by "recently" I mean in the last two or three years.

Virginia Road. I don't know anything about that one. We'll certainly look into that.

The last you have on the ferries.... Quite frankly, I don't mind

tabling the agreement in the Legislature. Then we can all get lawyers

to give us different

interpretations.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the member for Cowichan-Malahat, discussion

of legislation, past or proposed or present, is not normally

permissible during estimates.

MS. SANFORD: How about new roads?

MR. CHAIRMAN: New roads would be very permissible if it's not a subject matter of legislation, Madam Member.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I never knew before that you were

psychic. Certainly I do want to refer in an indirect way to

legislation. But first, I want to say to that minister, sort of

following along in what my colleague has been saying about the bypass,

that I thank him for the stop light at Mill Bay; I thank him for the

stop light at Kilmalu; I thank him for the stop light at Cowichan Bay

Road; I thank him for the overpass at Koksilah; I thank him for the

left-turn slots coming south at Whippletree Junction and at Bench Road.

All of those are on the Trans-Canada Highway.

I remember standing in this House ten years ago, and telling him when he was

four-laning that highway that if he didn't put in a bypass road, we were

going to have stop-and-go lights all the way from Malahat right through, and

it's happening. And it's a necessity. All of those cost money — a lot

of money. He can tell you how much the Koksilah overpass cost. Stop lights cost

a lot of money too. Sooner or later, that bypass road has to be completed in

my area as well. I wasn't even going to talk about that, but I couldn't

resist. And I did want to thank him for all those lights and crosswalks and

stop signs and overpasses and left-turn slots that I've been bugging him

about all these years. They're all there now.

This minister has recently been on the hotseat with the ombudsman.

I'm surprised to find out that this sort of thing has occurred, when I

know of an instance right on the road that I live on.... Incidentally,

it's a little embarrassing, Mr. Minister, that you've paved Chapman

Road right to my gate; the rest of it's gravel. My neighbours think I

must have some pull. I was dealing with Mr. Morris. I want to tell you

what a great man Mr. Morris was, and I hope you appreciated Mr. Morris

when he was there; he's now retired. When you ever get through with him

up in the Coquihalla and he comes down, I hope that we get just as good

a person down there as we had in Mr. Morris. But in the meantime we're

sort of in a never-never land there, and I'm told that there's no way

that the rest of Chapman is going to be paved, because there's just no

money for it. As I say, it is a little embarrassing to find that here

it is paved right to my gate — done under maintenance, apparently — and

the rest of it is still gravel.

I started to talk about Chapman Road in relation to a person who

lives on that road. That road was put through his property long years

ago. There was a court case about it, and it was agreed that it was a

road; yet that man got some compensation just recently. Fm sure you're

aware of that, Mr. Minister. It seems like an uneven-handed management.

That's all I want to say about this business of expropriation.

Certainly we did have a White Paper on an expropriation bill floating

around here a few years ago. I think it's high time that we had an

overall expropriation act, so you wouldn't have Highways acting in one

way and other departments acting in another way. What we need is

overall legislation — the only time I'm going to use the word — that

would bring that under control.

I've got a couple of other general things here, and then I've got

three short snappers for the minister. I'll give you these two general

things first, and then we'll do the three short snappers.

On January 22 of this year there was a news release put out by....

Actually it was public information of ICBC. It has to do with radar

detectors. They're trying to ban the sale of these, through getting

merchants to ban the sale of these things. There are some interesting

statistics here. During the past ten years 7,383 have been killed and

close to 329,000 injured on B.C. roads. Speed is the major cause of

traffic accidents; in crashes resulting in serious injuries that's

frequently the cause. Police report that radar detectors are found in

80 percent of vehicles caught speeding by aerial patrol. When — maybe I

am going to infringe again — we were amending the legislation under

which this ministry operates, there was strong pressure put on that

government to put in some mandatory regulations relative to radar

control devices in vehicles. I think that this kind of action, which

the minister was involved in as well, certainly indicates to me that

the time has come to take some action. Leaving it voluntary.... Even if

you get all the merchants agreeing — and you're not going to get all

the little ones to agree — as long as it's legal to have those things

in your car, they're going to be sold. If it gets difficult to get them

over the counter, it’s going to become a black market item, and I don't

think the minister really wants to get involved in fostering a black

market in this province.

The other general thing that I wanted to talk about is regulations

regarding driving with lights on. I drive that Malahat every day, and

sometimes it's foggy and often it's

[ Page 6476 ]

raining. The biggest hazard on the road is cars

that don't have their lights on. There have been statistics in some

areas that you can reduce the accident rate 22 percent by having your

lights on. There was a time when buses and trucks.... It was a company

regulation that those vehicles ran with their lights on. Then

individual drivers started picking it up.

I wonder whether or not the minister has looked at all at some kind

of regulation to ensure that people drive with their lights on when

visibility is poor, or generally. What's wrong with driving with your

lights on all the time? I don't see anything wrong with that, except

that my colleague for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) might forget to turn

them off. Even I have done that on occasion. But I do think it's

something the minister should consider. I wonder if he's looked at it,

and if he has any statistics that, like mine, would indicate that

cutting the accident rate by 22 percent by driving with your lights on

would be helpful.

HON. A. FRASER: First of all, regarding your district

manager, that's correct. Our good district manager, Mr. Morris, has

retired, and your new district manager is D'Arcy Byers; he should be

there any day. My deputy says he will be in the area June 10. He's

being transferred from Merritt.

Dealing with radar detectors, I would just like to point out clearly

that it is not government policy to ban radar detectors. They are quite

legal in British Columbia under the Motor Vehicle Act. I want to make

it abundantly clear that that's government policy, and also in the

regulations of the Motor Vehicle Act. I guess some people were out

trying to discourage merchants from selling them.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: I don't think so. I think you'll probably find it was ICBC, but I'm not sure.

MRS. WALLACE: They represented the ministry. He said Transportation and Highways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the member for

Cowichan-Malahat has knowledge to give to the committee, the member can

be recognized in the normal manner.

HON. A. FRASER: At this time there is nothing illegal at all

about selling radar detectors in British Columbia. They are legal under

the Motor Vehicle Act.

Regarding daylight lights, yes, we're looking at that, but so is

Transport Canada. I think where we're headed is that yes, they're

looking at them to improve safety. My information is that Transport

Canada has been doing studies for two or three years. The position of

British Columbia I think is to help and encourage. I think there will

probably be something coming, but they want to do it on a national

basis and our government is glad to support it. That's where we are on

that issue.

MRS. WALLACE: What about expropriation? You didn't answer that one.

[11:00]

HON. A. FRASER: I'm not so sure, Mr. Chairman, that that's my

direct responsibility, but following your comment, I can comment now that expropriation

powers are given to certain Crown corporations. They certainly are given to

Highways. You're right, there has been a white paper on it. As far as government

policy is concerned, they haven't come forward with a bill. That's where

it's at.

MRS. WALLACE: Now for my three short snappers. I have in my hand here order-in-council 801 relative to the Mill Bay–Brentwood

ferry. It reads: "On the recommendation of the undersigned, the

Lieutenant-Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the

executive council, orders that approval be given to the British

Columbia Ferry Corporation to delete service between Brentwood Bay and

Mill Bay." Is the minister going to delete that service?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I would inform the House and

the member that this order-in-council was passed to facilitate changing

the route of the Brentwood–Mill Bay ferry. The Brentwood–Mill Bay

ferry.... Both docks are gone; they're shot, and we have to do

something. In the wisdom of B.C. Ferries they suggest that this ferry

service be replaced, running from Swartz Bay, using that terminal, and

building a new terminal, as the order says, at Garnett Creek rather

than eliminating the service. Why they looked to this was because they

could replace the service by building one dock, not two. In other

words, Swartz Bay already exists.

I just would announce to the House today that there've been second

looks taken at the area spelled out in the order, and tell you that an

order will be coming shortly to rescind order 801. We'll take another

look at that whole issue.

MRS. WALLACE: My second short snapper was going to be: are

you going to implement service between Swartz Bay and Garnett Creek?

You've now said no to that one. My third one was going to be whether

you would rescind the order, and you've already answered that. I would

like an opportunity to have some input into your final decision as to

where that terminal is to go in my constituency. The minister nods, and

I'm sure that we can get together and discuss that.

HON. A. FRASER: As clarification to the member, we're

rescinding the order but we're going to took at other options. I might

say that what we're looking at is Hatch Point instead of Garnett Creek.

MRS. WALLACE: Inasmuch as the minister has added that, I

would like to point out to them that when Chevron went into Hatch

Point, there was a commitment given to the residents of Hutchinson Road

— which is thickly settled suburbia — that that road would not be used

as a haul road for the Chevron trucks. That road is now being used as a

haul road for the Chevron trucks. This is the difficulty with Hatch

Point; it's the ideal spot otherwise. But we must took very carefully

at the access, and I would like an opportunity to discuss that with the

minister when that point comes.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Well, we certainly do seem to be spending a

lot of money on roads this year; there's no question about it. When we

look at an

article in the Province on Wednesday, March 13, of this

year, the headline says, "B.C. Will Spend $500 Million on Roads, " and

to the best of my estimates most of that money looks like it will be

borrowed. It's interesting that in the 1983 election when New Democrats

suggested borrowing $500 million for a number of job creation projects

throughout the province, there was a lot of criticism from the

government benches in terms of doing

[ Page

6477 ]

that. Now it seems that they're having to swallow

their own criticism, as they're spending virtually the same amount on

job creation projects through road construction.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mind you, we are creating some economic spinoff as a result of it,

and it is doing some good. I do question as to whether or not the

number of jobs created with a capital intensive work project such as

highway construction is perhaps the best bang for the buck, so to

speak. However, there definitely will be some economic impact as a

result of those programs.

I want to — and I'll point this out to the Chair at this point —

talk about a

section of a particular highway that is now being

constructed, and the reason I don't mention that highway is that

there's a bill presently in place dealing with phase 1 and phase 2 of

that construction program. But I want to talk about a

section of that

highway construction which is not covered by the bill, and with leave

from the Chair, because the bill does not cover this portion of the

highway, I would request that it be opened for discussion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair can't make that decision. I'm sure if

there is a.... If the debate is in order with respect to the

administration of the department, then that would be in order. I guess

it would be up to the minister to advise the committee as to whether we

are anticipating other debate or we are dealing with the administrative

actions of that ministry. I'll really leave it to the committee and to

the minister. Please proceed.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Okay, I guess we'll just fly by the seat of

our pants here. There is a

section of highway that is planned to be

constructed. I believe the takeoff is at Merritt, down to Peachland,

and then up from Peachland along the west side of Okanagan Lake,

terminating at the north side of Okanagan Lake just around the city of

Vernon. I must admit that there will be certain positive benefits for

those interior communities as a result of this phase 3 construction, as

it's called. But I did notice that in the original announcements of

this overall highway construction the original announcement of this

phase 3 proposal seems to have been left out by the minister. I would

ask the minister, as I have done earlier in the House, whether he has

reconsidered the construction of this phase 3 link and Westside link

along Okanagan Lake, because there has been virtually no discussion of

that last

section of the highway other than the possible link from

Merritt to Peachland.

The residents of the interior are a little confused with the

original announcement that came out, I guess it was back last fall,

that indicated phase 3 would be a part of this overall project, and now

in later announcements it seems to have been neglected. I would hope

that with the coincidence of there being a by-election in the north

Okanagan at that time, it wasn't simply a temporary promise that was

made in order to attract votes. I would hope that the minister would

have full intentions to proceed with this.

However, I may point out a few concerns that have been addressed,

one of them by the business community in the Vernon area, that the

present proposed location along the west side of Okanagan Lake, exiting

I guess around the O'Keefe ranch, which is about seven miles north of

Vernon, may actually cause traffic to be diverted from the business

area in the city of Vernon. There is a lot of concern that Vernon may

actually receive negative benefits as a result of this construction.

I believe there has been some argument that perhaps the ministry

could consider, rather than the Westside link, upgrading the present

Highway 97 to a four-lane capacity all the way through the interior,

which would maintain traffic flow through those communities as

destination points. Perhaps the minister can clarify his position in

this matter.

Going back and reviewing a couple of the salient questions on that,

I would like to get some clarification in terms of the commitment of

the ministry in first of all constructing this phase 3 link. When will

it be done? It was proposed that it would be done in the near future,

and I refer to an original press release in the Vernon Daily News ,

Tuesday, October 2, 1984, which clearly outlines this phase 3 link to

be part of the overall construction. As I said before, now it seems to

have been forgotten about, and I would like to get some answers as to

why.

Another point I would like to bring up with regard to this phase 3

construction is the question as to why it has to travel a rather

circuitous route from the Merritt area proceeding southeast down to the

Peachland area south of Kelowna and then taking a swing north up the

west side of the lake. When you look at the route, it brings a lot of

questions to mind as to why the route was positioned the way it is. If

the minister was to consult a topographical map, he would see that a

more direct route from Merritt to Vernon could be undertaken across the

Douglas Lakes plateau over through that whole area down through

Whiteman Creek, exiting just about where it comes out on the proposal.

I have hunted through that country extensively; I know that it's

reasonably calm terrain. There is already a road punched through right

to the Douglas Lakes area that could be upgraded; mind you, it would

take significant upgrading. But the critical issue here is that the

distance involved would be almost half of that of the present route. If

it is the intention of the ministry to provide a more direct route from

Highway 1 down through the Okanagan, eventually emerging in Hope, then

it would seem that such a route would be a heck of a lot more

advantageous for the flow of traffic, rather than venting it all

through Kelowna and then back up. Perhaps the minister may want to

expand upon that suggestion.

The second concern I have is in regard to the present Highway 97. I

do congratulate the minister for keeping his promise of last fall to

the residents of the north Okanagan, a promise to upgrade Highway 97

for about 10 or 11 kilometres south of Vernon, taking out some

extremely dangerous corners that have caused a number of accidents over

the years. I might point out to the minister, if he hasn't been in the

area recently, that work is proceeding quite well. They're really

carving up the countryside, but I think the overall effect will be

beneficial for everyone concerned.

That brings to mind a long-term problem in the Okanagan, and that's

looking at the southern end of Highway 97, just as it exits the

electoral boundaries of Okanagan North, and goes into the boundary of

Okanagan South. It does bring forth some questions as to the difference

in the state of the road when we pass from one constituency into

another. It's been a long-standing joke, actually, in our area, because

it goes from a narrow, twisty two-lane path to a very nice wide highway

as it passes the airport, but it changes very radically when we get

into Okanagan North — right about at the

[ Page 6478 ]

Winfield area. I'm sure the minister is aware of this

section of highway.

The residents of Winfield have been pressing this matter for some

time now. I've been aware of it for a number of years. They continually

press their concerns that the traffic flow along the present route that

goes through Winfield is causing a lot of problems. There have been

needless fatalities in the area. It is unsafe. I've been through a

number of times when there has been very heavy traffic in the area. We

have big 18-wheelers rolling by on a two-lane highway that also has to

accommodate schoolchildren walking along a very narrow shoulder. There

have been people hit. There have been needless deaths. The citizens

have been concerned for some time.

I would ask the minister whether he has.... In fact I know that he

has plans for upgrading this, because I did receive a letter from him

indicating such, as well as the upgrading of pedestrian safety and

crosswalks. But I would ask him if he could give me a time for this.

Does he have a date for construction of any upgrading programs? As I

mentioned, it is of considerable concern. I would also suggest that

upgrading for pedestrian safety is really a priority. It would really

be nice if we could have that upgrading in place by the time that

school rolls around again in the fall.

[11:15]

With regard to the rest of the highway, as the minister knows it is

two-lane in most of the area, sometimes going into three-lane. Does the

minister have any plans on the books now for four-laning of the entire

route between Winfield and the Vernon area?

I think that deals with most of my concerns in terms of Highway 97. I would appreciate any response from the minister on that.

I would like to move to another problem area, Highway 6, which exits

Vernon east through Lumby, over Monashee Pass and into the Arrow Lakes

area. I believe it's the same highway — it is the same stretch of road,

whether it's called the same highway or not — that proceeds from

Fauquier on the east side of Arrow Lakes up toward Nakusp north. It is

a road which has caused considerable problems. I'm sure the minister is

well aware that many sections of the road have in fact caved in. Along

the lake edge there have been traffic diversions for some time now

because the road has been sliding down the bank.

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: My colleague says it's a 1948 highway trying to deal with 1985 traffic conditions.

It has broken pavement, potholes and dangerous, blind comers. This

is a road that children have to be bused on on a daily basis, back and

forth through those long interior winters that can cause considerable

icing problems on the road. It is an unnecessary danger. The most

dangerous

section of the highway is the

section from Fauquier to Nakusp

that edges along the lake. But I might point out that in the

section

proceeding over the Monashees, although there has been some upgrading,

and I'll give the minister credit for that, there are many sections

that remain to be looked at. We've got a real problem there in terms of

safety. I would ask the minister if he could give me any time lines on

upgrading, particularly that

section along the Arrow Lakes.

I have a few more questions, but since my time is very limited,

perhaps I'll let the minister rise in rebuttal, and then I'll proceed

accordingly.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'll be glad to respond to the

member for Okanagan North and to the House. The member led off by

saying that the NDP had promised roads in 1983. But the NDP got

defeated in 1983, and the reason they did get defeated is their record

on roads when they were government — they didn't do anything. So

obviously the voters generally didn't buy very much of that.

That member over there seems to be wiggling around, sitting on the

fence. I don't know where he stands regarding.... He says he's not sure

whether he's in favour of highway work, whether we get the benefits out

of it. You know, I think it's about time he made his mind up. Then he

turns around and asks for $450 million worth of work in his own riding.

It doesn't seem to add up to me.

However, under phase 3 — and I have to be very careful with this

member, Mr. Chairman, because his version of what I said will be on

Okanagan radio in about 15 minutes — his version, I repeat, of what I

said.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: Right. I love this place; you know that. I'm not like you, Mr. Chairman; I haven't even had a sabbatical — you have.

I don't know just where to start in dealing with phase 3, which the

member asked about, but phase 3 is going ahead. We were in Merritt the

other night and dealing with the exact route. The engineers have two

proposals for the exact route of phase 3 — where it would go from

Merritt and approximately where it would arrive at Peachland. I would

like to tell the House that that's been put out in general terms. As

for the specifics, we're having public gatherings at Merritt and at

Peachland right away. I forget the dates, but I think it's June 10 or

11 — something like that — in Merritt. Maybe the member could

doublecheck this, but I believe our senior people will be in Peachland

with displays for interested citizens on June 17-18 or 18-19 — it's

within that three-day period. I'd recommend to anybody who's concerned

about where phase 3 is going that they go there. They'll have the

particulars....

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: The alternatives will be there, as I understand it.

The member made a point under phase 3 of my not talking about the

west side. Well, maybe it was missed by him, but we haven't forgotten

that west side road at all. It's still within the plans. The engineers

have to identify that west side corridor. We had planned on having that

identified by September 1985. I'm now talking about the west side

corridor, not the main leg of phase 3, Merritt to Peachland. I think

you asked for the reason. The engineers say the reason for that is that

the present highway goes through Kelowna and Vernon, and when they are

four-laned they will still have limited capacity for through traffic

because of traffic generated by the cities themselves. The west side

corridor is necessary to rationalize long-term capacities of the

overall system. That's why they're looking at a corridor there.

[ Page

6479 ]

I want to go back now to the Highway 97 we have. I would like to

deal with it from Penticton to Vernon. We all know we have lots of

capacity problems there. We have done a fair amount of work in the

area, such as Channel Parkway in Penticton. They've talked about it for

60 years; it's now a fact of life. We've worked in Westbank, where, I

might say, about the heaviest traffic counts in the Okanagan occur.

We've worked on the Kelowna bridge because we had to get capacity.

We've worked on Harvey Avenue. And as you said, we four-laned the

airport.... That was done some time ago.

You're right, we have a large contract working from Vernon to Bailey

Road at the present time. Overall we have made some progress, and I

would just like to state in the House that it's the intention of the

government to four-lane everything from Penticton to Vernon. We're

moving in that direction as fast as we can. The next job, which will be

called very shortly, is a four-lane contract from Penticton to Trout

Creek. We're having a test fill made at the present time to see if the

environmentalists will let us use the lake to put our rocks in, and

also what depth we have to go to put our rocks in — whether it's 30

feet or 300 feet, or the base of the fill. When that information is

available.... I think the exploratory work has started, and hopefully

they'll have the answers so that we can put proper specifications out

for a tender call this fall.

It would appear to me that the next tender call to go out for

four-laning of the road would probably be Bailey Road to Oyama. I would

remind that we've been picking away at it constantly. The way we see

it, Mr. Chairman, all the work we do is forgotten, and all they

emphasize is what we haven't got to. The government hasn't got a

never-ending pot of gold. But in the case of the riding that you

represent, we already have four lanes from north of the city of Vernon

into Vernon; I imagine you are aware of that.

I would like you to check with us to get the dates for the Peachland

deal, which is coming very shortly, and we'll show what we have in mind

regarding phase 3. I want to get it on the record that phase 3, Merritt

to Peachland, is a four-lane road; we're not building a two-lane road

there.

You mentioned Highway 6, Lumby, Monashee and so on. I'm aware of

that road. But I don't think that we have to take any back seat there.

We've spent millions on that road since we've been government. It's

been very expensive. I looked at several of the jobs they did over the

years. I've asked the staff here; they haven't got the figures, but

from 1977-78 up to the present time it's maybe $20 million on Highway

6. I'm not saying that we need to do more; and that will come.

In your riding we have another situation, and I know that you

got...should have higher priority than Highway 6. I forget what you

call it locally, but we've got a bad bridge right in the community. I

think the city of Vernon would like to see that cleared up, and our

ministry feel the same way.

MR. MacWILLIAM: That was in fact the bridge over the railway

tracks at Polson Park in Vernon; in fact, that's one of my questions I

was going to come to.

Just to back up for a moment, the minister seemed to take issue with

my initial comments. I guess they do require a second rebuttal to

clarify my position. Certainly I'm in favour of highway construction;

there's no question about it. We need it throughout the province — the

highway upgrading. But certainly my position is, and always has been,

that perhaps the amount of money expended on highways does not give the

number of jobs that, for example, an equivalent expenditure in the

small business sector could give. All I'm saying is that highway

construction, as with coalfields and other major projects, is very

capital-intensive, and the number of jobs created for a million dollars

of capital investment is very limited. As a matter of fact, taking the

coal industry, it takes a million dollars to create one long-term job.

The jobs created in highways are temporary, for that matter. So there's

some, I guess, philosophical discussion that could arise as to where we

best put our limited dollars. Certainly I'm in favour of the highway

construction; I never questioned that. Glad to see it.

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Well, so be it.

Also the minister raised a point which I found rather confusing. He

said that the west-side construction would be identified by 1985. I

don't quite know what he means by "identified." I mean, are you talking

about the route being selected — is that what you're saying — or are

you talking about the initiation of construction? So perhaps the

minister could clarify what he means by the identification of the route.

The minister also did not answer a previous question, which I

consider a significant question, as to why the ministry did not select

a more direct route from Merritt to the north side of Okanagan Lake.

Why have they gone on this circuitous path down through Peachland?

Again I reiterate that the more direct route up over through the

Douglas Lakes Plateau, down through Whiteman Creek or a number of the

valleys, would be a far faster route. If, in fact, the reason for

construction of this highway is to facilitate traffic by an alternative

route — a quicker route to the coast — this doesn't seem to mesh with

that philosophy. There seem to be some political overtones here as to

servicing an area such as Kelowna, and the minister did not answer that

— did not make that clear.

Also, I wonder if the minister could answer whether or not he has any plans – and l'll submit this as a request – that

when the west-side route is initiated, the construction of the phase 3

link, as we call it.... I wonder if the minister could grant a request

that he initiate an employment centre in the city of Vernon for the

hiring of day labour and local labour input into the construction of

that phase 3 link. I think a local employment centre in the communities

of the Okanagan, so that we can alleviate some of that 20 percent

unemployment that we're presently facing in that area, rather than pull

people in from other areas of the province or even outside of the

province.... So could you give me your position on the initiation of an

employment centre for that phase 3 link?

[11:30]

Now moving on to the other question that the minister had preempted

me with: the discussion of the Polson Park bridge, the bridge over the

railway tracks. There do seem to be some confusing signals coming from

the ministry, because it seems that in my discussions with one of the

aldermen at one of the recent UBCM meetings, I guess a year or so ago,

he was led to believe from ministry officials that this was not at the

top of the priority list, and he came away from that meeting — again,

this is the alderman I'm talking about — with a feeling that there

wasn't a commitment from the ministry in terms of constructing this

bridge. I might add that this is a dangerous bridge. It's

wood-surfaced. As a rider of a motorcycle myself, especially during

frosty mornings I've found this bridge to be an extremely hazardous

road situation. I know there have

[ Page 6480 ]

been a number of very close calls. I really don't

want to have to wait until we have a fatality on that bridge in order

to press the minister into action. I would request, in the spirit of

cooperation, and representing the city of Vernon and the residents of

North Okanagan, that the minister please consider adjusting his

priorities to make upgrading of this bridge a major priority in his

itinerary.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Moving on to another problem, this, I guess, relates to highway

construction and tourism — sort of related areas. A number of concerns

have come to my office in regard to inadequate rest areas. I've written

the minister before on this, and I'll restate the case in point. The

section of road from Kelowna all the way to Vernon — which is about 50

kilometres or so, round about 30 miles — doesn't have any rest

facilities. I think there is only one service station on that section.

People have complained that they don't have any facilities to stop off

and attend to the all too human needs that sometimes need to be

attended to. The minister's reply was that he didn't consider the

distances enough to warrant it. However, the chamber of commerce, as

well as a number of local businessmen in the Vernon area, have voiced

their concerns over the lack of these facilities. They've requested — I

don't know whether the minister has received that request yet — that

there be a rest facility supplied somewhere along this route,

preferably just before entering the city of Vernon. Another concern

that was brought to my attention was the maintenance of these

facilities where they do occur.

One couple, these travellers who came in to see me, were quite

concerned when they tried to find a facility that was half-clean. They

were most concerned that the hygiene of the roadside washroom

facilities was very poorly attended to. I more or less bring this to

the minister's attention so that maybe we can have a look at this and

try to maintain those a little better.

I guess I still have a fair amount of time here, so I'll go into the

next question. In terms of directional signs, I guess the regulations

allowing signs to be placed along the highway routes are rather

stringent. The present regulations do appear to restrict the ability

for a city, for example, to advertise its various tourist attractions.

I don't have a full appreciation of it, but from what I've received in

talking with people, the signs are pretty well limited to.... They

can't have any print on them; they can be sort of figurative signs, to

say the least. The regulations don't allow very much information to be

placed on them.

There's a lot of concern with the tourist-related businesses in

Vernon that the regulations prohibit the advertising of a lot of the

tourist attractions that otherwise could be more adequately advertised.

The business community of Vernon will be approaching the ministry, if

they haven't already done this, in terms of placement of some signs

that give a little more direction on both the north and south entrances

of Highway 97 into Vernon. I wonder if the minister has any thoughts in

terms of possibly relaxing the regulations somewhat to allow a little

more directional advertisement to take place.

I think I've pretty well covered everything unless something pops up in the minister's reply. I'll sit down at this time.

HON. A. FRASER: Just to comment on a few things that the

member for North Okanagan has brought up. He questioned identification

of the west side route. Our engineers are still looking the country

over. What I really said is that by September they will have identified

a route that possibly can go ahead — they wouldn't be at the stage of

calling contracts or final decisions — and then that would be taken to

the communities affected to see what they think about it. Once the

engineers have identified a route, that of course creates some

problems, such as watersheds that they're going through and so on. We

don't mind discussing that with the public affected at all. That's what

we mean by identification.

I think I missed answering you regarding actual construction. I'm

now dealing with phase 3, Merritt-Peachland. It is hopeful that we can

get started on that, with the actual construction in 1986. It would

appear to us that if things go right, we would have that completed by

1988 — phase 3, Merritt to....

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: No, I'm talking strictly on phase 3, the

Merritt-Peachland section. We still have final decisions to make on the

route itself, and that's what is taking place in Merritt and in

Peachland this week. They've laid out the approximate.... Really what

they're showing is two routes, and we want public input on that. Then

those decisions are made, the signing could go ahead, and I don't see

why contracts can't be called.

HON. MEMBER: Any date on the west side?

HON. A. FRASER: No, because the only date that I've given on

the west side is what I've just said: identification of route by

September of 1985. I think we shouldn't be saying when we're going to

call construction when we haven't actually got enough information about

the route.

The member brought up employment centres. No, I don't think

employment centres are our responsibility. I assume there is an

employment centre in Vernon now, but I would like to point out that the

contractor working on the contract, which is a $9 million to $10

million job, is View Construction Ltd. from Kamloops, and it's my

information that he's hired practically all his people from Vernon. In

other words, what we're saying is that with the job that's going on

now, that contractor has certainly cooperated with our request. But we

get involved with union jurisdiction and so on, and — I'm now talking

contractors — it depends on who they have their union agreement with.

It might be the teamsters, it might be the operating engineers, the

labourers and so on. But we've made our point clear. All our

contractors have their side of legal agreements with various unions,

but we would like them to cooperate as far as possible by hiring in the

local areas. That doesn't only apply to the individual — say a D8

bulldozer driver — but it also applies when they need rental equipment:

that they get the list in the Highways office and rent off that from

the local area. I might say we're getting a lot of cooperation from the

contractors on that as well, rather than maybe Vancouver dumptrucks

going up to Vernon to work, which can happen, and then the local

machines not working.

You mentioned rest areas. Our rest area system is I think fairly

good. I'm not so sure that we need a rest area between Vernon and

Kelowna. That's not very far to go. There are

[ Page

6481 ]

pullouts. We would like to see the private sector

do something as well. I don't know how many rest areas we've got in the

province. We have lots of them. Some of them are real classy ones with

running water and so on, and some of them are a little less. I might

say that most of the servicing of those areas has now been put out to

contract, and everything seems to.... We're expanding on it all the

time.

Directional signs: well, you really get me on directional signs. Our

office is inundated with the signing not being adequate. We do try to

cooperate. Where we have been successful regarding communities is

telling them to get their act together, and if they will put what they

want on the signboard, we'll put the community sign up for them and

build the pullouts so that people can get off in a safe way and get

back on our highways. We've done that in several communities; I don't

know whether we have in Vernon. We prefer that, rather than a

proliferation of individual signs all over the place. Where the

communities have done it, it's worked out quite well.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Just a clarification, I guess, in terms of

the directional signs. The way I understand it, then, the minister is

quite open to erection of these signs if the community itself does the

sign construction. Is that what you're saying? That you will be

flexible with this? For example, if these businesses submit to your

ministry a schematic diagram showing exactly what they want on the

sign, could they get an okay for the sign erection? Will you proceed

with erection of these signs?

HON. A. FRASER: Very definitely; sure, we're glad to. But

that doesn't say they'll necessarily get it. They'll get an argument

with it. If they pick a piece of highway to put the community sign on

which hasn't got what our engineers call good sight distance, they'll

get turned down, but they'll be provided with an alternative. Then that

provides another argument if they don't like the alternative. But we

can resolve the things dealing with the community at large, such as the

Board of Trade and/or the city council and so on. We've done lots of

those already.

MR. MacWILLIAM: In terms of the sight distance, I assume that

consultation with the regional manager at that point would allow them

to determine a location. What I'm trying to point out is that if the

request was for signs for both the south and north sides of the city,

would the site location be determined by the regional manager there? Is

that who these people would contact?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, we can give better service than

that. Our district manager should be able to.... If he needs help from

head office or the regional office, it's up to him to call for it, but

he knows our rules and regulations. You've got, or will have.... The

district manager in Vernon retired, and that position is vacant, but it

will soon be filled. The local people go to a district manager. We have

38 of them — good ones — in British Columbia.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I do thank the minister on that. I know there

is a lot of concern, and I'll take those concerns to the individuals;

I'm sure they'll be quite happy to produce a schematic diagram and ask

for acceptance.

In terms of the highway facilities, what we're talking about is

serving people who are on the road — a travelling public. Many of those

cars on the road are non-residents, from other provinces or from the

States. We're talking about tourism facilities. We're talking about

amenities. There is a feeling, certainly a criticism, that we haven't

developed the appropriate infrastructure to serve the travelling public

adequately. I would suggest that one of the means of doing this would

be to upgrade our present service facilities. Travelling throughout the

state of Washington was a real eye-opener for me. They not only have

facilities in very close proximity to one another; they even have free

coffee at some of them. I found it incredible. They're very well

served. I think we're lagging quite far behind in this and would ask

the minister to reconsider his position.

[11:45]

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to this

member, because really I think we have a fairly good system, but this

member is arguing philosophy. He wants the government and the

socialists to do everything. Our government want the private sector to

do most of it. I think they've done a good job — the tourism side in

the private sector. I don't agree with your comments at all. We will

encourage them and play down the government's side of it. We're really

disagreeing on philosophy.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I wasn't going to stand again, but I think

the comment does deserve a reply. There is no intention of mentioning

anything in philosophy. It is developing the infrastructure, and if you

want to contract out any services that are provided.... As a matter of

fact, I think the different community groups do it in the States. Let's

not get into the philosophical basis. What we're talking about here is

developing the facilities — the infrastructure necessary to provide the

service. Philosophy doesn't enter the issue.

HON. A. FRASER: I appreciate the member's remarks, but I've

been reminded by the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) that we

shouldn't be talking politics in here.

MR. DAVIS: First I'd like to congratulate the minister for

bringing in the seatbelt regulations as they pertain to children under

six. I think that this was a necessary move. It was made possible by

the existence of Canada-approved child restraint devices, and I am glad

to see that everyone is now covered as far as seatbelts are concerned

on our highways, including our very young people.

Secondly, inspection of vehicles. I hope the minister will be able

to step up his spot inspection of commercial vehicles on our highways.

I would also urge him to reconsider his or the government's decision

not to institute a private sector inspection system, perhaps similar to

the one in Ontario or similar to a slightly different one in the United

Kingdom, where private sector garages are licensed and subject to

certain regulations to inspect vehicles, not necessarily on an annual

basis but perhaps only when they change hands when they're sold. But

nevertheless, there is a self-financing basis for inspection; also a

system which could be provincewide, as opposed to the selective

regional system we had in existence here a few years ago. I hope that

at some point in the not too distant future the government is prepared

to look again at inspection for all vehicles travelling on our

highways, roads, streets, and so on.

The hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) mentioned the Cassiar connector: the highway link

[ Page 6482 ]

between the Second Narrows Bridge across Burrard

Inlet and Trans-Canada Highway 401, approximately a mile to the south

of the southern end of the Second Narrows Bridge. I look with some envy

on the expenditures which are being made in the interior on a four-lane

divided highway traversing literally hundreds of kilometres, when we

don't have the equivalent along, or parallel to, Cassiar Street in

Vancouver. I know that the province has been prepared — at least there

have been statements to this effect — to pay for a vital connector

through a difficult

section of streets, admittedly, in east Vancouver;

that the problems essentially have been related to zoning or, perhaps

more appropriately, local neighbourhood approval. But that is a very

important mile. It's important not only to residents on the North Shore

who work or otherwise wish to travel to the rest of the lower mainland,

but to people currently following the Trans-Canada Highway route to the

Horseshoe Bay ferry jumping-off point to Vancouver Island.

I hope that, one way or another, the province is able to work out an

arrangement with the city of Vancouver whereby the redevelopment of

that

section of the Trans-Canada Highway proceeds. Give us one or two

interchanges there, similar to these generous interchanges that are

going to be built in the interior, and, hopefully, give us six lanes.

We've got six lanes now on the Second Narrows Bridge; I gather it could

be expanded to eight. Therefore, one way or another, let's work out an

agreement with the city of Vancouver.

In the last analysis, if the city, given reasonable discussion, a

series of meetings and so on, is still of a negative frame of mind, I

think the province should at some point proceed. I certainly would

suggest that action to the minister within the next year or two or

three. Time is now running out. That is, as the minister said, a

serious traffic bottleneck; it's hazardous. The crossing at Cassiar and

Hastings, as he says, is one of the busiest in the province. It also

has one of the few red lights left anywhere on the Trans-Canada Highway

from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island. So hopefully we can get on with

that.

For residents of the North Shore, another ferry crossing over the

Strait of Georgia is certainly desirable. We have a lot of traffic

originating in Vancouver, Burnaby, generally to the east — Coquitlam

and so on — and headed for Vancouver Island, which goes north across

one of the two bridges over Burrard Inlet, then along through North and

West Vancouver, departing on a two-hour ferry crossing to Nanaimo on

Vancouver Island. If there were a crossing, and I'll say nominally from

Point Grey to Gabriola Island.... First, the traffic would not have to

cross Burrard Inlet. It would not load up the already heavily travelled

bridges — especially at peak hours — across Burrard Inlet. And it would

not have to take what is really for many people a circuitous route to

Vancouver Island, but a direct route. The crossing of water would

occupy less than an hour; it would be possible therefore to have hourly

sailings. The ferry pressure on Horseshoe Bay would be reduced. The

pressure on the highway up to Squamish and the Pemberton area would be

reduced. As far as North Shore citizens are concerned, that would be

relief indeed. For the travelling public as well there's a considerable

saving in time, perhaps as much as a couple of hours, and a substantial

saving in energy, wear and tear on their vehicles, and so on.

A new crossing across the Strait of Georgia would involve two new

terminals and road access. As I see it, the best road access to a new

terminal on the Vancouver side would be to use one of the several

generous highways now going out to the University of British Columbia,

with the terminal somewhere in the general area of Wreck Beach, and

this would be the least damaging insofar as the ecology of the delta of

the Fraser River is concerned, and would be good for many reasons. On

the Vancouver Island side, the terminal would be located in such a way

that the highway would lead into what eventually would be a ring road

around Nanaimo. The centre and northern part of Vancouver Island would

be much better served, both in terms of time elapsed and in terms of

investment.

The investment itself would not be as large as some of the other

projects which the government is contemplating. It would be of the

order of $100 million or $125 million. The term "modest" isn't the

right one, but it would be certainly less than some of the big projects

currently underway in the province. I think because of the economies

inherent in a crossing of that kind, it would have a favourable

benefit-cost ratio, not only as far as the government is concerned, but

certainly as far as the public generally is concerned.

A bridge across the Fraser. I think the government is right in

proceeding with the construction of the Annacis highway crossing. I

read with some concern in one of the daily papers today that the

Transportation ministry wanted to take another good hard look at a

dual-purpose bridge from downtown New Westminster across to Surrey;

dual-purpose meaning that light rapid transit and vehicular road

traffic would also use the same structure. I'm opposed to that. I think

that would be stupid. There have been various studies. Highways

cooperated well with the rapid transit people in several investigations

a few years back. They looked particularly at refurbishing the old

Pattullo Bridge and mounting rapid transit on it. There were various

ideas proposed, including a new railway crossing, which would involve

the federal government and additional red tape. What came out of it all

was that it would be much cheaper to build a light rapid transit-only

bridge across the Fraser and fix up the Pattullo Bridge for highway

purposes separately. I assume that's what will in fact happen.

I think highways generally should avoid downtown areas. To build a

new highway bridge — and I assume it would be six-lane — across the

Fraser in the general vicinity of downtown New Westminster would simply

add to the downtown New Westminster traffic problems. It would

undoubtedly add to some of the surface traffic problems in Surrey. It

would delay for a matter of years, if not till a period as late as

1990, for instance, the construction across the Fraser of light rapid

transit. If light rapid transit makes sense, it makes sense because it

also crosses the river and taps the large population in Surrey, extends

up-river on the north side and begins to tap the growing population

also in the Coquitlam area.

So I personally don't see that there is any case whatsoever for a

joint project bridge across the Fraser in the general area of downtown

New Westminster, in close proximity to the Pattullo Bridge.

On taxis and regional taxi licensing, like the minister I think that

taxis should be licensed, at least in the lower mainland area, on a

GVRD or regional basis, not by the municipalities individually. Most

municipalities agree with this. There's even been a committee in city

hall at Vancouver that seemed to agree with the idea that regional

licensing should occur. The Motor Carrier Commission has looked at the

problem. It says that, generally speaking, "the current level of taxi

service in the greater Vancouver area is satisfactory." However, there

are certain problems which should not exist in a metropolitan area the

size of Vancouver. These

[ Page 6483 ]

include: (1) the inability of charge account

customers to freely use their regular taxi company; (2) the unnecessary

accumulation of deadhead miles by various taxi companies and the

possible effects this may have on rates and charges to the public;

(3) the variation in rates charged in the greater Vancouver area is

undesirable.

[12:00]

This can be managed in several ways. I think the Motor Carrier Act

regulations should be amended to establish a regional zone exemption to

provide for a regional licensing zone system, which would include the

municipalities and cities which comprise the GVRD. That's the way to

go, in my view. I think we should do this before Expo. I think we

should do it in the interests of economy, lower costs, less energy

usage and lower fares for the public. I think that's the only way to go.

There are numerous other topics I could get into. The Motor Carrier

Act certainly needs revision. I'll get up briefly this afternoon, if I

may, Mr. Chairman, and make a pitch for improvements in the Dollarton

highway, which is a provincial highway in North Vancouver, before it's

turned over to the district municipality there.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada