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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6447 ]

CONTENTS

Special Enterprise Zone And Tax Relief Act (Bill 49). Hon. Mr. McClelland

Introduction and first reading –– 6447

Oral Questions

Ministry of Forests estimates. Mr. Howard –– 6447

Expo 86 Corporation president. Mr. MacWilliam –– 6447

Chemical poisoning. Ms. Sanford –– 6448

Expo 86. Mr. Passarell –– 6448

Aid to Cominco smelter. Mr. D'Arcy –– 6449

Bingo operations. Mr. Hanson –– 6449

Expo 86. Hon. Mr. Richmond replies –– 6449

Coquihalla Highway Construction Acceleration Act (Bill 2). Second reading

Hon. A. Fraser –– 6450

Mr. Passarell–– 6451

Mr. Ree –– 6452

Mr. Nicolson –– 6453

Mr. Davis –– 6453

Mr. Lockstead –– 6454

Hon. A. Fraser –– 6455

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

Fraser)

On vote 67: minister's office –– 6457

Hon. A. Fraser

Mr Passarell

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Michael

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Howard

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 1985

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have a very important and,

I think, a very nice announcement to make to the House. I know that the

members will be pleased to join me in congratulations to one of our

fellow members of the Legislature, and my parliamentary secretary,

whose little boy, 6 pounds 8 ounces, Christopher Sean, was born this

morning at 10: 14 in Victoria General Hospital. The member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) tells me that both his new little

son and his wife are doing very well.

HON. MR. PELTON: In the members' gallery today is a personal

friend of mine from Maple Ridge, Mr. Clark Chilton. I would ask the

House to make him welcome, please.

MR. MICHAEL: I would ask the House to make welcome a friend

of mine, a former resident of Salmon Arm now residing in the city of

Victoria, Dave Howard.

Introduction of Bills

SPECIAL ENTERPRISE ZONE

AND TAX RELIEF ACT

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

a bill intituled Special Enterprise Zone and Tax Relief Act.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, just a couple of words

before moving that the bill be introduced and read now. This bill will

allow the government to implement one of the key components of its

program for economic renewal. It will set up special enterprise zones,

providing British Columbia with the flexibility to attract new kinds of

industry — and I stress that — and development to the province.

Important tax incentives include relief from the corporation capital

tax, a move which augments the phased elimination of this tax, as

announced in the March 14 budget speech. It provides sales tax

exemption in the zones on construction expenditures and on purchases or

leases of machinery and equipment used by a firm in manufacturing or

processing, as well as on the goods consumed.

It will see special enterprise firms get relief from British

Columbia corporate income tax for a period of ten years, and a second

very important measure of relief will provide a five year period of

relief from provincial corporate income tax for all eligible

corporations who undertake substantial new investment either in those

municipalities which have signed agreements under the

Provincial-Municipal Partnership Act or in unorganized areas outside of

municipalities, which will ensure, Mr. Speaker, that in effect every

region of British Columbia will have the opportunity to become a

special enterprise zone and get the benefits therewith.

In our search for new investment, new export markets and new jobs for British

Columbia, this is a very important part of our total package, and I move the

bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 49, Special Enterprise Zone and Tax Relief Act, 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.

Oral Questions

MINISTRY OF FORESTS ESTIMATES

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) in his capacity as

government House Leader, and ask him, given the extreme importance that

forestry has in this province, why there is a delay in calling the

estimates of the Ministry of Forests for consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to recognizing the

government House Leader, the Chair must advise the member for Skeena,

who I am sure is fully aware, that the question is not in order in this

particular forum. It relates toHouse business, which, as the member knows, must be conducted outside of this particular forum.

MR. HOWARD: I'll rephrase the question and ask the minister

if he has decided to call the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. Or

is he, like the minister, treating forestry as a sunset industry?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair must once again advise

the member that the previous statement by the Chair equally applies to

this statement. As it revolves around House business, it is not in

order in question period.

MR. HOWARD: Am I correct in assuming then that we may never

see the estimates of the Minister of Forests? Is that what you're

doing? You're hiding them.

EXPO 86 CORPORATION PRESIDENT

MR. MacWILLIAM: To the Minister of Tourism. Will the minister

confirm that the president of Expo Corporation is now subject to

disciplinary action by the board of directors for his handling of

public funds regarding the purchase of a luxury automobile and a

directors' meeting held at a luxury California resort?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MacWILLIAM: A new question to the minister. Why is the

board of directors only now dealing with the matter when it has been

leaked to the public by a member of the news media, when the incident

in question took place more than a year ago? When you're caught

mishandling public funds, should not the discipline be swiftly handled?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the member correctly points

out that the incident — both incidents — took place roughly a year and

a half ago. The matters have been dealt with by the chairman of the

board and were dealt with at that time.

MR. MacWILLIAM: A new question to the same minister. Since he has taken control of Expo Corporation, Mr.

[ Page 6448 ]

Bartlett has fired a number of senior staff,

including the vice president of marketing, the vice-president of

finance and the vice-president of planning and development. Will the

minister please advise whether he has approved these firings on behalf

of the government?

[2:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I remind the member that Expo

86 is a Crown corporation. As the president of the corporation, Mr.

Bartlett is not required to report to the government when he dismisses

a member of his staff.

MR. MacWILLIAM: It's my understanding that the minister is in

fact a member of the board of that Crown corporation. Would he now

answer my question?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: My response is the same, Mr. Speaker. The

president of the corporation has no requirement to report dismissal of

staff to the government or to the board of directors.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I wonder if the minister is saying that the

right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. However, a new

question to the minister. The minister is surely aware that Mr.

Bartlett has hired two vice-presidents, two directors, five managers, a

supervisor and a producer who are all former cronies of his at Canada's

Wonderland theme park in Ontario. Has the minister approved of this on

the part of the Expo president?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In answer to the first part of the

member's question about the right hand versus the left hand, Mr.

Speaker, indeed they do know what each other is doing. The answer to

the second question is that the president of the corporation is charged

with putting on a successful fair. It is not the intent of this

minister to question every decision that that person makes.

MR. MacWILLIAM: A new question to the minister. The firing of

senior staff involves hundreds of thousands — possibly even millions —

of dollars in severance payments. The hiring of Mr. Bartlett's cronies

to fill virtually all of the senior administrative positions raises the

question of why no British Columbians are given access to these

opportunities. Has the minister decided to review the hiring practices

of Mr. Bartlett? Has the minister decided, as a member of this

government; has there been any decision, as a member of the board?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, suffice it to say, in answer

to the member's question, that many good British Columbians are working

at Expo at all levels of the corporation.

CHEMICAL POISONING

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of

Environment. The federal health protection branch will release later

today the name of the chemical involved and the name of the cucumber

grower involved in the chemical poisoning of a number of consumers. I'm

wondering what steps the minister has taken to ensure that the existing

limited protection, under the Pesticide Control Act and regulations,

will be better enforced to ensure the public's health and safety.

HON. MR. PELTON: There is a strong suspicion that the chemical involved was a chemical called Temik, which is a very toxic granulated pesticide.

The investigation is still ongoing. I know a greenhouse operator is

suspected. I don't know his name at this point in time, but I'm sure

that I will be apprised of the name as soon as it becomes available.

Insofar as any future action is concerned, I would think it prudent

to wait until the investigation is complete and we have all the details

before we make any determination of what might be required to be done

from here on.

MS. SANFORD: If in fact it turns out that this was an illegal

application of that particular chemical by the cucumber grower, then it

seems to me that the problem is one of deterrence and penalty rather

than regulation as such. I'm wondering if the minister is satisfied

that the penalties under the current statutes are sufficient to deter

or prevent growers from the illegal use of chemicals.

HON. MR. PELTON: With all due respect to the hon. member

asking the question, I think it was hypothetical in a great degree, so

I do not really feel inclined to respond at this moment in time.

However, I don't mind advising the hon. member that we do have some

rules in place already which would see the individual who might be

found responsible being prosecuted through the courts.

MS. SANFORD: This issue has raised tremendous public concern

among the population of British Columbia. This whole issue is very

damaging to the reputation of all the growers in the province. I'm

wondering if the minister has decided that he could take one step,

regardless of the outcome of this particular investigation, and that is

to implement recommendation 19, which was submitted in 1975 in the

Mackenzie royal commission report, which would require that all

applicators take the course.

As it is now, Mr. Speaker, I think there are only about five

pesticides that require the full training of people who are making

those applications. Will the minister assure the House that he will

ensure that recommendation 19 of that commission report is implemented

regardless of the outcome of this, so that all applicators are required

to take a course so that they know what they're doing?

HON. MR. PELTON: As much as I would like to give that type of

assurance, Mr. Speaker, I do not really consider myself in a position

to do so at this particular time. I would like to wait until the

investigation is completed and we have the whole story.

EXPO 86

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Tourism. The Expo world's fair was originally planned as a showcase of

transpiration technology. Can the minister explain why the government

is cancelling the vintage car show scheduled for July 6 to 10, 1986?

[ Page 6449 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his

question. I don't have all the details for you yet. I am having my

staff took into that matter, because I, like you, am not pleased with

that decision on the surface. I don't know the details, and I will

pledge to that member to bring an answer back to this House just as

quickly as possible.

AID TO COMINCO SMELTER

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development. Sinclair Stevens has announced that Ottawa

will not support the retention of lead smelting and refining in Trail

unless there is a significant new provincial financial component in any

grant or subsidy that may be forthcoming, in keeping with the spirit of

agreements reached elsewhere in Canada. Has the minister been

authorized to negotiate with Cominco and the feds on a partnership

basis in order that these criteria can be met?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, first of all I'd like to

see a copy of that announcement. I am not aware of Mr. Stevens's having

said that. Certainly he didn't say that during our press conference a

week ago Monday, following the meeting of industry ministers from

across Canada. In fact, he announced at that time that the federal

government was still negotiating with Cominco. It's my understanding

that those negotiations took place as late as a weekend ago, on a

Sunday, with Cominco officials and Mr. Stevens. I am still convinced

that federal government aid should be forthcoming, and we'll do

everything we can in discussions with the federal government to ensure

that that will happen. So there are further discussions necessary yet.

However, in terms of the British Columbia contribution to aid to

Cominco, Cominco officials have said that British Columbia has met all

of the requests that Cominco made of the government and more. In fact,

in the tax advantages and other financial advantages that will be

available to Cominco, at both its Trail operation and its Kimberley

operation, aid over about a ten-year period will be well over $100

million. Cominco itself has said that we have done everything they

asked and then some.

We'll await further negotiations, primarily between the company and

the federal government, to find out where those negotiations go, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, the information — the announcement — did come from Sinclair Stevens's office, and there's been no denial.

Has the minister requested that the provincial water tax for

electricity be reduced in order to conform with that particular federal

requirement, and that has long been a requirement of Cominco as well? I

do not like the situation of representations of what various private

parties outside this House may or may not have said. Quite frankly,

we're dealing with the government and what the federal government has

requested and required in this particular case.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like to ask that member to table

those announcements. I have never heard them. I have never heard Mr.

Stevens say them. Mr. Stevens' officials have never said them to us.

He's never said it to me and, so far as I know, he's never said it to

Cominco. So if you have those announcements, I'd sure like to see them.

BINGO OPERATIONS

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary

with respect to commercial bingo operations. On at least three

different occasions the Provincial Secretary has told this House that

he is awaiting a report from officials in his ministry regarding the

question of restoring bingo inspection services cancelled when the

Provincial Secretary fired his staff. Has the minister decided to table

that report?

Has the Provincial Secretary considered the action of the

Saskatchewan government, faced with a similar problem? They have faced

up to the reality and organized a full public inquiry. Will you table a

report, and will you do what Saskatchewan has done?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I'm not familiar with what

Saskatchewan has done regarding a public inquiry vis-à-vis bingos. I

don't know what the problem is in Saskatchewan. Maybe they do have a

problem –– I don't view British Columbia as having a problem regarding

bingos. The document that you make reference to is an internal document

prepared by officials of my ministry to the Provincial Secretary,

informing him of the activities of bingo operations in British Columbia

— the kind of approach that is taken by the province of Alberta. I've

had an opportunity to examine the document and have come to the

conclusion, in view of the fact that it's an internal document prepared

for the minister's information, that it's not a document that should be

tabled. It's not a document which involves the expenditure of public

funds. If it had been a public inquiry or if public funds had been

expended outside of government, then there would have been a

requirement, my friend, to table that document. But this is strictly a

ministry internal document; it's nothing earth-shattering. There is no

need for its tabling.

EXPO 86

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer questions I took as notice yesterday.

The first answer is to the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lank) when he asked me if Mr. Fawcus is receiving a salary from Expo or

from government for the services he's providing. The answer is that

former Justice Fawcus is retained by the audit committee of the board

of directors of the Expo 86 Corporation. He was retained to draft

conflict-of-interest rules, and I'm told that the conflict-of-interest

rules laid down by former Justice Fawcus are the most stringent of any

to be found in any corporation. He is also retained at an hourly rate

on an as-needed basis by the same audit committee of the board of Expo

and is paid at the usual hourly rate — whatever that is — and I'm sure

that the second member for Vancouver Centre would know that rate better

than I.

[2:30]

Also, Mr. Speaker, yesterday in answering a question from the first

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) about whether Mr. Pattison

has any financial connection with the Expo 86 Corporation other than

the guidebook contract, I said: "To the best of my knowledge, no." But

in order not to even hint at misleading this House, and wanting to get

the full story out, I would like to more fully answer that part of the

question by going into some of the research that I've done since

yesterday as to just what contracts Mr. Pattison's companies have with

the Expo 86 Corporation.

[ Page 6450 ]

First is the highly publicized bid of Mr. Pattison's leasing company

to purchase the Mercedes-Benz. His was the highest of three bids

received. Secondly, when the decision was made by the board that

General Motors would be designated as the official car manufacturer for

Expo 86, Mr. Pattison left the meeting, as he is a GM dealer; and that

decision was made.

Also, his company, EDP Industries, has been given a contract for

computer software and payroll services. Mr. Pattison, again, was not

involved, and the bid by EDP was by far the best.

Also, there are two signs being provided to the corporation by Neon

Products Ltd., one in the amount of $11,868.52, and the other for

$49,726.98. These were the lowest of four bids.

The international division of Expo also purchased copies of Beautiful British Columbia magazine to provide mementoes to international guests to British Columbia. The amount was $3,000.

The member is aware, as it was covered yesterday, that Beautiful British Columbia

magazine bid on the guidebook contract. There were 200 bids for that

contract, and 68 bona fide bids were gone through very carefully. It

came down to a shortlist of three. Beautiful British Columbia magazine's bid was by far the best, and the decision was ratified by the board while the chairman was absent from the meeting.

Some other contracts were awarded but not brought to the board because of the

relatively small size. They include: a contract to Neon Products Ltd. for a

sign at the Expo centre in the amount of $2,685.27; vehicles purchased from

Pattison Pontiac: two pickups, eight Blazers and one station wagon. They went

to public tender: 11 tenders were received, and the Pattison Pontiac bid was

the lowest on each tender. Expo also leased one vehicle for a member of the

executive for a short period, for a sum of $1,200.

Through Expo's advertising agency, Baker Lovick Ltd., ads have been

placed in the media on behalf of the corporation, and some of these ads

have been placed with CJOR radio station in the amount of $4,800.

Also Baker Lovick, acting as the agency of record for Expo, placed

advertising through Seaboard Advertising Co., which is owned by the Jim

Pattison Group, in the amount of $36,000. Also, occasionally employees

of Expo corporation fly on Air B.C. at the regular rate, and some of

the employees even admit to shopping at Overwaitea Foods.

I should add, Mr. Speaker, that just in case it should come up,

there is an employee of the Jim Pattison Group on loan to Expo at no

charge to the corporation, to assist us with the parking situation in

downtown Vancouver. Mr. Pattison offered the service of this person,

Mr. Denis Carlin, to the corporation free of charge.

That ends my questions taken as notice, Mr. Speaker. Now I would

like to make a very short ministerial statement. I have been informed

by the chairman of the board of the Expo 86 Corporation that he has

accepted the resignation of the president of the corporation, Mr.

Michael Bartlett.

MR. SPEAKER: The opposition is entitled to a response. There is none.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker, starting with Bill 2.

COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY

CONSTRUCTION ACCELERATION ACT

HON. A. FRASER: I am happy to say a few remarks and move second reading of this bill.

This will enable the government of British Columbia to offset the

costs involved in accelerating the

schedule for the Coquihalla Highway.

The normal

schedule for a project of this magnitude and complexity is

eight to ten years. As the members of the House are aware, this has

been revised to two to three years.

This shortened

schedule translates the already difficult project

into a major and challenging undertaking. However, both the government

and private industry have proven themselves equal to this challenge.

Currently the construction of the first phase is well underway. As a

matter of fact, as you probably read in the press, it's at the 50

percent completion stage. All the grading and crushing and the majority

of the bridge contracts have been awarded. The design work for the

second phase has commenced.

Questions have arisen regarding the rationale behind the

acceleration of this project. The reasons are basically fourfold, the

most compelling reason being that acceleration means the creation of

jobs. Currently there are 1,350 people employed, and I think that's

been revised; currently there are more than that, probably 2,200,

rising to 3,000 by about August, 1985.

In addition, it is anticipated that the Coquihalla project will act

as a catalyst for further economic development. Already the communities

of Merritt and Kamloops have received development proposals which are

directly related to the construction of the new highway.

With the opening of Expo 86, it is anticipated that the tourist

industry of B.C. should experience a dramatic increase. This will

translate into a substantial increase in traffic using the provincial

highway system. To accommodate this situation, additional capacity has

to be supplied. From the various engineering studies done by our

ministry, the construction of the Coquihalla was deemed the most

cost-effective solution to this problem.

Finally, the current competitive bidding climate will enable the

government to construct a modern freeway facility at costs

significantly lower than they would be in a less competitive market. I

might say that the pattern seems to be, on the bids that have been

awarded for the first phase, that they're running about 30 percent

below the costs that we were experiencing in the same type of work in

1979, 1980 and 1981.

The toll structure being proposed in this bill to offset the costs

related to this acceleration calls for a minimum charge of $8 for cars

and up to $40 for large commercial trucks and trailers.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: I'm coming to that. Don't get in a hurry, Mr. Member.

The basic philosophy employed to determine the toll structure has

been to relate the toll to the expected benefits enjoyed by each user

type, and set a 50 percent benefit recapture rate. This means that the

government and the users of the new highway will be equal partners in

offsetting the costs related to accelerating the project.

[ Page 6451 ]

Mr. Speaker, the first year revenue from tolls — the first full year — is estimated, and I repeat estimated, at $20 million.

The use of this new facility can expect to save approximately one

hour to one and one half hours of travel time between Vancouver and

Kamloops, and a distance saving of 80 kilometres. This translates into

an annual operating saving of $40 million for the operators of the

vehicles.

An additional benefit to be enjoyed by the people of B.C. is the use

of higher standards and safer highway facilities. This could result in

a saving of millions of dollars in accident costs, etc.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that considerable

consideration has been given to the location of the toll booth. Since

the toll is intended for the long distance traveller, the ministry will

construct the toll booth plaza at Coquihalla Lakes, a distance of 55

kilometres north of Hope. This will allow travellers to take advantage

of the recreational potential of both the Coquihalla River and the

Coldwater River valleys without paying toll.

I think I've overheard a mention regarding maintenance. I didn't

have it in the notes, but I will tell the House that our ministry

doesn't see any difference in the maintenance costs of this road than

any other road — as an example, the Rogers Pass.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this bill will provide the mechanism for

the government to provide a large leap in the level of service offered

by the provincial highway system at a time when the people of B.C.,

visitors and industry urgently require it. I would like to further say

that we shouldn't forget that if motorists don't want to use the new

toll road we have two excellent highways that do not have a toll. I

refer, of course, to the Trans-Canada Highway and the Hope-Princeton.

So there are a lot of choices.

In conclusion, I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a number of questions to direct towards

the minister in regard to the bill we're debating today. First, why are

we debating this bill? You have the authority under your ministry to do

this highway without going through Bill 2, unless it's on the aspect of

borrowing the hundreds of millions of dollars. But the building itself

could have been done without the debate in here on Bill 2.

There are a number of concerns that I would like to raise. The first

one is the Charter and the mobility clause. If I'm not mistaken — the

Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom) can correct me

— I think it's clause (6) on the mobility rights of the new Charter.

The problem that's involved is having so many people in British

Columbia unemployed and — in dealing with the Charter itself — who have

skills and who should be encouraged to work on this project with our

high unemployment rates in the province right now, instead of bringing

people in from Alberta to do the work. Our tax dollars, Mr. Minister,

are paying for this project, and we should be encouraging as many

British Columbians as we can to gain gainful employment on this project

for the next year and a half.

With regard to the labour issues, I think some of the problems

associated with the Coquihalla and reported in the press can be

discussed at a later time.

Mr. Speaker, I have five specific issues I'd like to raise

concerning the issue of the Coquihalla. As the minister said in his

opening remarks, if people want to use it, then they should pay the

tolls. I don't find any disagreement on that. There have been tolls on

major highways in the United States for years. It's very commonplace to

find toll-roads in Pennsylvania and the eastern states. Paying $8 for a

car and $40 for a truck, you probably save that in the gas that you'd

use by driving that road. You're saving an hour and a half at the speed

limit of 100 "klicks," which will be 60 miles per hour in the old

system.

One of the concerns I have — and the minister touched on this

briefly in his opening remarks — with setting up the toll in the middle

of the highway, or 55 kilometres north of Hope, is some of the problems

that will be associated with a toll booth in that area. It is more or

less in the middle of the wilderness of the highway. With, let's say,

1,000 cars per day and 200 trucks per day, that toll booth is going to

have close to $20,000 during a day. What type of security is the

minister going to propose for a toll booth in the middle of a highway

where there will be $20,000 at any one time? I think that's a question

that the minister is going to have to address.

[2:45]

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, I'm sure those issues probably happen in

Prince George, Mr. Minister of Education. But it's a question we have

to address. We could say Atlin, but under this government there hasn't

been a business in Atlin that's ever been able to accumulate $20,000 in

one day, so....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I would like the government to resign, sure, Mr. Member from North Vancouver.

I think security regarding that toll booth is something we have to look at.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Moved it out? The last time there was a bank

in Atlin was 1901, I think. I wasn't even born, let alone here to move

my bank account out at that time.

The second question I have is service stations along the route,

regarding Crown land that will have to be sold for service stations to

be put into the area. Does the minister have any information he can

give to the House regarding Crown land and service stations? How will

these service stations be supplied with power? Will B.C. Hydro be

running a 750 KV line up the Coquihalla? Or will service stations have

to provide their own power sources? If they have to provide their own

power sources along the route, then we're going to fall into the same

kind of problem associated with the Alaska Highway operators this

winter. They were complaining about the high costs of fuel to keep

power in the power stations, and a boycott happened along the Alaska

Highway this winter.

If the ministry is going to be asking service station operators,

because people will have to buy gas or mechanical parts along the

route, to provide their own power source, will there be financial

assistance given to service station operators to put their services in

the area?

The third question I have is fire protection along the route. I

wonder how this will be accomplished since we'll be going through a

wilderness area. If you look at the Hope-Princeton route, Manning Park

is there to provide fire assistance in the area. I'm wondering what's

going to happen.

How many permanent highway camps will be installed along the Coquihalla to deal with the tremendous amount of

[ Page 6452 ]

snowfall we get in the area? As we know, the

snowfall issue is a major one that the ministry and the engineers had

to face in the construction of this project. There have been reports

that snow will have to be loaded onto trucks and packed a couple of

miles because of the steep banks and hillsides on the right-of-way.

This will increase costs. Does the minister have any figures on what he

expects the cost for snow removal to be per year on the Coquihalla?

The fourth issue I'd like to direct to the minister regards game.

You'll be opening up a new area of this province, and there will be

more hunters coming into an area that was previously inaccessible to

hunters. The regulation in the province of British Columbia regarding

hunting in this area is a quarter mile on either side of a highway.

There have been outfitters in that area for years, but now we're

opening up and resident hunters can go and drive up into the area and

hunt. I'm wondering if the minister would look at a moratorium....

Instead of the quarter-mile hunting on each side of the right-of-way,

would the minister look at a mile on either side of the right-of-way as

a moratorium for four or five years — not that you can't hunt after the

mile, but not to encourage game depletion in an area that previously

was inaccessible to a lot of hunters. That was an issue that was raised

at a recent outfitting conference in Smithers.

Costs. We know that the phase 1 original costs were $375 million,

which was doubled from the initial announcement. You're supposedly

building on frozen ground up in some of the summits of the mountains

there. Does the minister have any plans on the construction of the

pavement that will be going up in these higher elevations? How long do

you expect the pavement to last, being built on frozen ground?

Bridges. We see that some bridges on the Coquihalla are costing $10

million. They are major projects. They're quite impressive, from what

I've seen and read about them. There will be certain areas on the

Coquihalla that will be similar to the Squamish highway. Has the

ministry brought in any new technology, for instance, for runoffs and

snow avalanche removal on the Coquihalla? In the states of Washington

and Colorado they have some new technology that could be used on this

highway in regard to these two issues. Has the minister been looking at

new technology for avalanches and runoffs regarding these bridges?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This is a major project, as most of us are aware, and we basically

look at three project completion dates on this. Phase 2, from Merritt

to Kamloops, basically has a road there now. It's quite windy. I know

the minister has probably travelled on it and knows the difficulty that

the local residents have to contend with. If I'm not mistaken, the $375

million covers phases 1 and 2. Is that right, Mr. Minister? Okay.

The third phase, which will link the Coquihalla to the Okanagan, has

been announced to go through Peachland, even though there have been

other rumours that the road will go into other areas in the Okanagan.

Maybe the minister could enlighten the House as to exactly where this

road to the Okanagan from the Coquihalla will be going in phase 3,

since there is much controversy surrounding the announcement of exactly

where it'll be going. Will Peachland be used as a terminus, or Kelowna,

or Vernon?

Regarding local hiring of day labourers in phase 3, I would like to

see some employment centres set up in the communities of Vernon,

Merritt or Kamloops. The local employment offices could be set up by

the Ministry of Highways for day labourers to provide much-needed jobs

to residents in the Okanagan and the northern interior.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that this government has

taken a massive megaproject underway here. It's unparalleled in many of

the roads that have been built in North America. There is a lot of

emphasis being placed on this road, and I would hope that the

government place their priority to helping the residents in the area to

improve our tourist industry, to provide jobs on the local level, to

encourage business development in the area; basically all coming down

to helping our economy. I would hope that the priority of this

government is to help the local economy, instead of using it simply as

a tool for a pre-election...as a campaign issue for re-election. The

province will be watching this construction very closely, across from

the constituencies of Atlin down to the south. I hope the project

itself comes under budget; that it won't encourage any further massive

borrowing by the taxpayers of the province to build this road.

Those were the main issues I'd like to discuss at this time, and I

hope the minister could answer the questions that I've directed to him.

MR. REE: I'm very pleased to extend a few comments with

respect to this bill — or not so much the bill, but the Coquihalla.

This Legislature, at the end of the last century and the beginning of

this century, spent many, many hours in debate dealing with the

Coquihalla, or with the transportation of goods from the Kootenays to

the coast of British Columbia. Many hours were spent in debating

various bills for railways and what not through the Coquihalla at the

beginning of this century. In fact, at one time the people on Vancouver

Island put a caveat that any bill to permit the building of a railway

through the Coquihalla should also require the builder to build a fixed

link from the mainland to Vancouver Island, and failure of such a thing

would be the secession of Vancouver Island from Confederation.

It's changed today, the feeling of the people of Vancouver Island.

There's record of that, and it's well set out in a book called McCulloch's Wonder ;

the author is Barrie Sanford. I commend that book to all members of

this Legislature with respect to the impetus for the building of the

Kettle Valley railway, and particularly the Coquihalla portion of the

Kettle Valley railway. The hardships and the race between the builders

of the railways, either from the interior to Spokane or from the

interior to the coast here, is well reported in that book, and it is

fascinating reading in the history of this province.

The route through the Coquihalla has been recognized, as I sort of

indicated, since the end of the last century, because there were many

resources — and there still are many resources — in material and in

people in the interior of British Columbia. The building of this

highway will facilitate the movement of these resources to the coast

and from the coast to the interior, a route we have been without for

some years, since the railway was closed down I think back in the

1950s. I had the great fortune — I think it was in 1947, 1948 somewhere

— to ride the Kettle Valley railway from Lethbridge in Alberta through

to Vancouver.

AN HON. MEMBER: Scary.

MR. REE: It was scary but it was beautiful, beautiful country. To have it opened up at this time.... In fact I got

[ Page 6453 ]

off at McCulloch Junction. McCulloch Junction, Mr.

Speaker, was about 20-odd miles out of Kelowna, and you had to go by an

old dirt road. There was a bus system to get you in and out of Kelowna

at the time, and you got off the railway at about 11 o'clock at night,

actually, and you went down this highway to get back on. I had a chance

to see this highway again in the daylight, and I was glad I'd first

come down in the darkness, because it was very frightening. But it's

wild country; it is hard country; it is beautiful country up in that

area.

Mr. Speaker, one of the main reasons I wanted to speak on this bill

or speak at this time is my family background dealing with the

Coquihalla. I had the opportunity when I was with Trans Mountain Pipe

Line to travel it a number of times. Trans Mountain and Prettys' Timber

had purchased the right-of-way from the CPR up the Coquihalla, and as I

say I had the opportunity to travel through there up the old

right-of-way through some of the tunnels and through some of the

snowsheds along the right-of-way of the pipeline. It is, as I say,

rough country. In certain valleys you could see the old boxcars still

at the bottom of the valley where they had fallen off the railway.

There are old trestles up there, and I understand the CPR — or not the

CPR, the engineers out of Chilliwack — used to go up there on training

exercises blowing some of these trestles down.

But, Mr. Speaker, as I say, I have family background on the

Coquihalla. My grandfather, Angus Creelman, of Creelman Construction,

was one of the prime contractors back in the beginning of the century

in the building of the Coquihalla railway. I'd like that to be in the

record, Mr. Speaker. I also had an uncle, Robert Verge Creelman, who

was killed in a rockslide in the building of the Coquihalla on December

20, 1918 — a 19-year-old youth at that time. So it has been close to

the family — the centre — and I'm most pleased to see its development,

to see it as an access not only for industry but for tourism for this

province. I'm sure it will add to that, and the costs in the long run

will be minimal compared to the benefits received.

[3:00]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to say a few words

about this, because as was mentioned by the previous speaker, this is

part of the Kettle Valley line. I'd like to talk about how this affects

Nelson-Creston.

This particular bill is taking dollars away, I think, from work all

over the province — taking energies and personnel from all parts of the

province and concentrating them into this one major effort. But I'd

just like to bring to the minister's attention that the Nelson-Creston

area and the Kootenays — particularly the West Kootenays — are really

like an isolated fortress. It's been necessary through history to

breach that fortress in order to make them accessible. Certainly the

building of the original Coquihalla railway was part of that, as it

connected to the Kettle Valley. The southern trans-provincial route

generally follows the Dewdney Trail, and the Dewdney Trail was put into

that area in order to bring access so that we would not lose our

sovereignty in that area.

Then the member mentioned Spokane; and the natural trading patterns

for that area, if the border were taken away, would be with Spokane.

Now here you're really shortening up the length between Calgary....

You're making the option which people have had, which has been pretty

well an equal option to go on the southern trans-provincial route or to

go on Highway 1.... It's really been six of one, half a dozen of the

other, particularly if people take off at the point where the

Trans-Canada Highway divides in Alberta into the two alternative

routes. It's actually shorter to go along Highway 3 at the present

time, or the Crow route. Also to breach the natural geographical

defences of the Kootenays, the Crowsnest agreement was brought in. So

there have been some major moves to remove the isolation of that area.

Of course, the Kettle Valley line was another, and, I suppose, latterly

the upgrading of the Dewdney Trail into what is the southern

trans-provincial highway. The last really major move was the

construction of the Blueberry-Paulson link, and of course the Kootenay

Sky way, and even the link between Castlegar and Salmo, which the

minister presided at the opening of.

This new route, the Coquihalla route, really becomes a shorter route

between Vancouver and Calgary. There is another option too, and I would

suggest at this time that the ministry should give serious

consideration to the ramifications of allowing a gradual evolution of

the use of Jumbo Pass. It could be first introduced as a summertime

route, suitable basically for recreational vehicles; it could evolve,

and then become perhaps in the future a year-round route. This is

something that should be done very gradually; it should not impact on

the area in too sudden a way. But it is something that should really be

looked at. What is happening here is that we are really speeding up the

route between Calgary and Vancouver; and I think that we make diversion

from that route less and less of a likelihood. In terms of it being

just an extra half-hour to go along the southern transprovincial, the

choice now becomes one of hours. I think that it could have a very

negative impact and that it's time the ministry gave consideration to

some other forms of accessing the Kootenays. This is one that will not

require going across on the ferry; this is something that joins

basically from Invermere to the Kootenay Lake valley north of Kaslo.

There are presentations before the minister on this. As I say, it's

something that I think would have to go along rather slowly, so as not

to impact too quickly on the area. For that reason, I would hope that

while we go ahead with this very major development.... An offer has

been given to the minister whereby people would do this privately: make

the link. It's only about a ten-mile link required to make this

passable for recreational vehicles in the summer months. They would put

a toll on it to recover their costs; and they say they can do it for a

couple of hundred thousand dollars. I don't know if that's the best

approach. But we're looking here at $375 million, and I'm convinced

that it's going to be a lot more than that; this won't be the last bill

that we'll see before this House.

Maybe for a few million dollars we could allow something and see if

it will grow and develop naturally. It would put access a great deal

closer to Calgary and, I think, enable a little bit more commerce in a

trading pattern, which I think is more reasonable and practical than

our having to look all the way to Vancouver. Certainly the only other

real logical alternative is to alter the Canadian-U.S. boundary; and I

don't think anyone wants that to happen.

MR. DAVIS: I'm supporting this bill for two reasons. One is

that it provides much-needed employment for segments of the

construction industry, which otherwise are largely unemployed currently

in the province, The other is the user-pay principle which it appears

to endorse.

[ Page 6454 ]

One of the members opposite was wondering why this bill was brought

to the House at all: doesn't the minister already have sufficient

authority under the transportation legislation of this province, or

under the Highway Act, to build the Coquihalla highway at an

accelerated rate? There's a principle here: it's loosely the principle

of user-pay; it's the revival of tolls. I think that tolls are not only

desirable but in some instances necessary. In the case of a facility

like the Coquihalla highway where the tolls will defray a large part of

the cost and where there is an obvious benefit to the users in terms of

energy saved and time saved, levying a charge on those who use this new

avenue of transportation is sensible. It identifies the benefits in a

concrete way, and it translates them into construction now rather than

construction later.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I hope that this principle — not only the principle of user-pay, but

using tolls to defray costs in the early years — is applied to some

other projects in the next decade or two. I think that right now a good

case can be made for a shorter ferry link across the Strait of Georgia:

a crossing, let's say, from Point Grey to Gabriola Island. If that

shorter link is analyzed in the same fashion from a cost-benefit point

of view as the Coquihalla Highway, I believe that the economics of that

particular project are more favorable indeed than those of the

Coquihalla Highway. In future years, and perhaps I'm looking into the

1990s or even later, a highway north through Pemberton, a link up into

the Chilcotin country and so on — I'm sure this would appeal to the

minister — might also be contemplated as a toll facility in whole or in

part. This too would accelerate the construction of a transportation

link, which in the long run will obviously be needed but which could be

made available much more readily, in a much earlier fashion, by the

institution of tolls.

The cost of the Coquihalla Highway through, I gather, to Kamloops is

$375 million. The annual interest and maintenance charge would be of

the order of 10 percent or 12 percent of that — of the order of $40

million. The minister tells us that, in the early years at least,

revenue from the tolls which have been indicated — $8 for cars, a

maximum of $40 for trucks — might bring in $20 million. He told us that

the $20 million figure was half of the estimated benefit. If the

benefit is $40 million a year and the cost is $40 million a year,

obviously it's break-even from a cost-benefit point of view. If the

traffic builds over the years, $20 million a year income to the project

will become $30 million in five or ten years and will become $40

million by the turn of the century at the very latest.

So this appears to be, even when the users pay half the benefit, a

break-even project. It's a break-even project in circumstances where

otherwise around the province road transportation arteries, street

transportation avenues and so on are provided free, at least on the

surface, to the user.

There's been no mention in the calculations of the gasoline and

other taxes paid by the user of the Coquihalla. That's another income

to the province. So I think that the benefits of the project are

clearly favourable.

If the user in this fashion will pay for the project, why not not

only get on with it, but get on with others of a similar nature? All I

would say to the minister is: let's look at another crossing across the

Strait of Georgia in the same fashion. Let's look at other longer-term

and necessary highway developments for the 1990s and thereafter. Let's

at least start analyzing them now and rating them and deciding which

should proceed first, second, third and so on.

The hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) decried the fact

that this Coquihalla link might divert some of the southern Alberta

traffic northward through the Rogers Pass, and of course down from

Kamloops through Hope and so on. He's ignoring the fact that much of

Alberta is north of Medicine Hat, and that much of western Canada,

certainly many of the resources of western Canada, is north of Calgary

and the two great barriers of the Rockies and the Coast Range. To the

extent that a new, more direct, more easily traversed artery is driven

through the Coast Range, this has to be good for western Canada. It has

to be good for British Columbia.

So while we're not concentrating all our activity and interest along

the international boundary, I think this highway link has to be good

news for the great majority of people in this province and certainly

for Alberta and Saskatchewan. So I'm supporting this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I didn't actually intend to get up in this

particular bill and thought I could save my comments probably for

estimates. But since I see everybody else in the House getting up, I

thought I might as well get on record on this bill. Why not?

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you, in spite of some of

the remarks that I've listened to here this afternoon, that I am

opposed to tolls on any highways in British Columbia. Some years ago

the former Premier of this province, W.A.C. Bennett — it would have

been approximately 16 years ago — abolished all tolls on the highways

of British Columbia, including the tolls across the Lions Gate Bridge

in Vancouver. You could have said that was done for political reasons,

but nonetheless those tolls were abolished. I believe that the income

the government is going to receive in tolls on the Coquihalla Highway

will not even pay the cost of the $375 million borrowing on that

particular project.

[3:15]

The other thing is that tolls like these are a regressive tax. That

is, those people on lower incomes are paying exactly the same tolls as

the millionaires who buy $48,000 Mercedes and drive up that highway.

They're paying the same $8 toll. So it's a further regressive tax on

many people in this province if they wish to utilize that particular

highway.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I know they don't have to.

I'd like to say that I had occasion to drive over the Hope-Princeton

just a short time ago, and in my view, that highway is not being

properly maintained. I usually have to make that trip once or twice a

year, and I see the highway in certain sections. The Hope-Princeton is

falling apart, as are many other highways in the province. The

government announced this Coquihalla project some time ago — and you

may not remember this; the minister will confirm this — and then

because of so-called restraint, a two-year hold was put on the project.

Approximately two years, as I recall.

Now why has the government chosen this particular time about a year

ago now — to reinstate the project, while the so-called restraint

program is still on? If we have to borrow money for highway

construction, could we not, for example, have utilized that money in

other parts of the province to create jobs all over the province?

Everywhere I go we have

[ Page 6455 ]

roads that need repair or reconstruction, or even

new roads that are required. Could we not have created employment for

those small contractors, the working people in those areas,

particularly in areas like the Sunshine Coast and Powell River? That's

close to home; we could talk about other areas of the province. Other

areas of the province have the very same problem. I wonder if the

minister had considered that aspect of utilizing the $375 million that

we're going to have to pay interest on for many years.

I have more, Mr. Speaker. I think I will save my further remarks for

debate of the spending estimates of the minister. But I did want to get

on record on this topic, and I look forward to the minister's response.

HON. A. FRASER: I appreciate the discussion that we've had.

In my closing remarks I'm going to try to reply to observations made.

The first one is the member for Atlin's observation: why the bill at

all? We have to pass the bill to have the authority to collect a toll.

Apart from whether the government borrows the money or not, we have to

have the legal authority to collect a toll. On that subject, with the

formalities that are involved we expect to have the road in operation

May 1, 1986, and there's a lot of lead-up to that. So I hope that

answers that part.

Regarding Alberta workers and so on, most of this work has gone to

tender call, and gone to the low bidder, which is the policy of the

government. About 95 percent of the work on this project is being done

by British Columbians, as far as I know. We have one contractor that

has made some headlines. The name is Ledcor. I just make the

observation that Ledcor bids to our ministry and his address is

Richmond, British Columbia. That's the address, and that's the way we

do business with him. I'm aware that they were originally based in

Alberta. As a matter of fact, Ledcor was low bidder on jobs for our

Highways ministry five or six years ago, and shows up every once in a

while as the low bidder. They have two fairly good-sized jobs on this

at the present time. But I'd remind the House that he bids as Ledcor,

Richmond, British Columbia. We have had problems, and I'd like to

acknowledge the help we've had from union people and so on to resolve

it. We have tried somewhat.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The other observation is one that I had myself. It's really security

that you're talking about at the toll gate itself. The toll gate — I'd

like to bring it down — is going to be at the Coquihalla Lakes. That's

at the summit, actually, of the road. You climb all the way from Hope

to the Coquihalla Lakes, and then you decline into Merritt. It's about

half way. Believe it or not, some smart people in our ministry have

devised it so that when you pay your $8 it goes down a concrete tube

into a concrete cell underground. I thought that was pretty smart. So

the only cash that would be available to anybody who wanted to try

anything would be the $8, or the $40 they're handling at the moment.

But the build-up of cash.... There's safekeeping being built into the

system, and I guess it will be carried away as required by Loomis, and

I hope they come quite often. Yes, it's all.... And the tender call on

that structure is going out any day now, I believe, to have it built in

time — the toll booths and the security that will go along with them.

Regarding the Crown land and the power source on the road, our

ministry is coordinated with the Ministry of Environment and the

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, and most all of it — you're

correct — is Crown land. They will be coordinating where the pull-outs

will be and where Crown land, as I understand it, will be made

available to people who want to locate on the road,

We'll probably get to this in my estimates; we also are involved in

a fairly large Hydro extension. I'm not saying for the whole area. I

believe our ministry has to pay for a power extension from there to

Coquihalla Lakes. I'm not clear just what happens to the power supply

from Coquihalla Lakes south to Hope.

The member for Atlin asked: "What about a highway camp?" As you

know, in your riding we have maintenance camps and we run the camps. It

will not be necessary, as I understand it, to have camps, but we'll

have a maintenance establishment at Merritt and we' ll have another

maintenance establishment at Coquihalla Lakes — housing for the

snowploughs and so on — and I don't think it will be necessary for

people to have camps; that is, they can commute to Merritt or the

Merritt area or the opposite way toward Hope. So we haven't got quite

the problem we have in your area regarding maintenance.

I might say that there's a lot of concern — and believe me I share

that; thanks to my ministry, they've informed me — regarding the

snowfall and the maintenance of the road in general. The attitude of

the engineers in my ministry is that the snowfall is equivalent to the

Rogers Pass, and they have really no problems with the Rogers Pass and

they don't anticipate any unusual costs — in other words, about the

same as the Rogers Pass costs for snow removal. But the snow is very

heavy. I think the average in the wintertime is 40 to 45 feet. That's a

lot of snow. But I would tell the House that we're building snowsheds

to start with in the more severe avalanche areas. The tender call for

the snowshed is out right at the moment. One very large snowshed — I'm

not sure but I think it's 2,000 feet in length — covers, in the opinion

of our engineers, the worst part. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the House I

think realizes that we already have an excellent avalanche control

team, and they, of course, will be looking after that, as they look

after the Rogers Pass, the pass going into Stewart in your area and the

confined area we have on Highway 16 from Terrace to Rupert where we

have avalanches. But we have a whole avalanche staff and I might say

that their experts do a good job. This will be added to their

responsibilities.

Hunting regulations. I have the same feelings that.... I think it

was you who.... I'll pass that on to the Minister of Environment (Hon.

Mr. Pelton) — about hunting regulations and restrictions.

But I might say that before we ever decided on routes, our ministry

did a monitoring with the environment people — fish and wildlife. We

know where the game crossings are and we've provided already for that.

Hopefully that will mitigate a lot of problems with the interaction of

highway traffic and wild game, causing accidents to the wild game as

well as the people in the vehicles. We hope that we have a handle on

it. We've looked at that, but you raise a good point and that should be

brought, if it has not already been, to the Ministry of Environment's

fish and wildlife branch.

We were talking about costs. Just to spell them out again, our

estimate was: phase 1, which is Hope to Merritt, $250 million — I don't

know how we're going to make out there.

[ Page 6456 ]

Most of the contracts are let, but some things could happen. The

job's about half complete, but it looks like we're not going to be far

out. Phase 2, Merritt to Kamloops: we've let one contract and that is

estimated at $125 million. We'll have to wait and see. There has only

been one contract let. As I recall, it's for about 10 or 12 kilometres,

heading from Merritt toward Kamloops, and we have 63 more kilometres to

call to build a four-lane from Merritt to Kamloops.

You mentioned frozen ground and pavement. I just say, Mr. Speaker,

that we will not be putting any pavement on frozen ground, I can assure

you. We might be putting it on solid rock, but we're not going to put

it on frozen ground.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: Oh, I see, it's built over frozen ground.

Well, what happens there is if we have got some fill that's frozen,

it'll thaw out, and we'll have to fill it up prior to paving. That

thawing process will be going on now, and we don't plan on actually

having a paving contractor on the Coquihalla till about Labour Day.

We're in a very tight timeframe to get a first lift down prior to

winter setting in. We can't start till Labour Day because we haven't

any road to pave until Labour Day. So we're in a tight time-frame, but

our engineers assure us that we can make it.

We have already done a lot of upgrading on Highway 5, which is

Merritt to Kamloops, and Highway 8 — Merritt to Spences Bridge — to get

out to the Trans-Canada, as these will be the main arteries, on the

basis that we get to Merritt with a four-lane in '86 before we get the

four-lane completed to Kamloops at freeze-up 1987. These are the two

access roads, plus the Marnit Lake Road to Logan Lake and out. But we

will have adequate accommodation with the traffic coming off the

four-lane at Merritt when it opens in May 1986, until we get the

four-lane built from Merritt to Kamloops by freeze-up '87, by the use

of these roads — Highway 5, Highway 8 and the Marnit Lake Road to Logan

Lake.

You asked about phase 3. This is referred to as the Merritt to

Peachland. We were in Merritt last week, and our engineers have found

two routes. We're going for public discussion on those I believe this

week, with a final decision.... But the route we're looking at is phase

3, and there's been a big discussion about whether we're bypassing

Merritt. We're not bypassing Merritt, and the traffic will go from

Merritt and the Aspen Grove country straight east to Peachland with way

better type of construction than we're in from Hope to Merritt.

Again, we have not put a value on it, but I'd like to guess it's

roughly the same length as the route from Merritt to Kamloops. We're

estimating that at $125 million, and being more or less the same route,

and more or less the same type of terrain but a lot easier going.... In

other words, we're probably looking at a minimum of $125 million going

from Merritt to Peachland, and that is going to be four-lane as well to

connect with Highway 97 there.

[3:30]

AN HON. MEMBER: It's cheaper through Kingsvale.

HON. A. FRASER: Well, I don't want to get into the Kingsvale argument here. Maybe that can come up in the estimates.

I made a note here about local hiring. I might say we are already

hiring locally for day labour under the project. We're going to be

hiring more. We have another condition with our contractors that have

most of the work that they are to hire local trucks. As an example, our

paving contractors and our grading contractors are to hire local trucks

if at all possible, considering their contracts and so on. For the

information of the House, we need 450 dump trucks starting on the first

of August just to haul gravel alone for the gravel lift prior to the

paving. I think you will see that will be for a fair length of time.

Hopefully most of those machines will be local machines, not only from

Hope and Merritt but from Kamloops and so on.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: What size? Oh, now the contractors want trucks and pups for gravel, but they also will hire some standard tandem trucks.

I mentioned that all the contracts on the job are the low bidders.

I appreciate the observations of the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) that his family has had some historical

background in there, and I appreciate the remarks he made.

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) — I wasn't sure, but

I've had no less than 4,000 letters about the Jumbo Pass and why it's

so necessary in our highway system, but I've answered most of them. It

really hasn't got a priority in our ministry, but maybe that could come

up again in the estimates.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) — I appreciate

his remarks on user-pay; that's correct. It just reminds me, Mr.

Speaker — I shouldn't say this — that the member wants, I believe, a

tunnel to Gabriola Island.

MR. DAVIS: A ferry link.

HON. A. FRASER: Pardon me. But I've heard a lot of things in

this Legislature, and I'd remind this Legislature and a lot of you

people who are still here that I know a member of this Legislature who

said we should build a tunnel from Vancouver to Prince Rupert.

The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) said he's opposed to tolls,

and that will be on the record. I think you mentioned the poor who

can't afford that. Quite frankly, we're not asking anybody to use the

road. As I said in my opening remarks, we have two excellent highways —

in spite of your remarks — that serve the interior to the coast and the

coast to the interior. I refer to the Trans-Canada as well as the

Hope-Princeton. We're not forcing anybody to use the Coquihalla toll

road.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It's the whole philosophy of tolls.

HON. A. FRASER: Oh, I see. All these things cost money, and

this facilitates.... It takes a little sting out of it. One thing that

hasn't been said — and I'll say this in closing — is that the

government speeded up the Coquihalla to create work, but that also

meant that maybe the government might have to borrow money, and this

would help offset the increased cost of borrowing that money earlier.

That was one of the theories and philosophies.

With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

[ Page 6457 ]

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 2, Coquihalla Highway Construction Acceleration Act, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

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

HON. A. FRASER: I'd like to make opening remarks. They'll

only take an hour or so. I would sincerely like to say that this is a

prepared text that I worked on for three months.

Regarding the estimates for the ministry for this fiscal year, I

should have some staff show up here. I wanted to introduce them, but I

guess they've left.

The government's economic renewal program is emphasized in the

budget provided for our ministry for the year '85-86. Special funding

is specified for two major projects: the Coquihalla Highway, which

we've just discussed, and the Fraser River crossing at Annacis. These

two projects have generated opportunities for private sector

contractors to recover from the recessional period of the early

eighties, to provide and maintain employment for their many workers.

During the peak summer months of 1985, there will be in excess of 3,200

on-site workers, with a further 500 employed off-site, such as steel

fabrication. In addition, 800 ministry and consulting engineer staff

are engaged in the design and construction supervision of the more than

100 contracts involved.

Direct employment created by the renewal program for special highway

capital construction in '85 is 4,500 jobs. Spinoff benefits to the

private sector providing materials, transportation and other services

will result in at least a further 6,000 jobs, making a total of 10,500

persons employed during this construction season as a result of the

special highway construction program.

In addition to the economic renewal program, opportunities for

private sector employment are provided by the general highway capital

program. Construction and reconstruction of highways in other areas of

the province will create some 2,000 direct jobs and a consequent

spinoff of a similar number in supply and support industries.

Collectively, highway construction and reconstruction in the province

will provide direct or indirect employment for an estimated 14,500

persons in 1985-86.

While the thrust of the budget for 1985-86 is towards job creation

through accelerated construction programs, other services provided by

the Ministry of Transportation and Highways will not be neglected.

There will be an increased capability for emergency health ambulance

service by the acquisition of another jet aircraft. This will increase

the number of dedicated air ambulance aircraft to three, and increase

the ambulance flying hours to a minimum of 3,000 in the present fiscal

period.

As you know, the B.C. Ferry Corporation is my responsibility.

Planning for the future is an item important to successful operation,

as traffic flows and demands alter constantly. One major change this

past year was the lifting of the Queen of Alberni

and the installation of an additional vehicle deck. This ferry is

currently operating on the Horseshoe Bay–Langdale route, with capacity

increased to 300 cars, compared with the previous 145-car capacity.

Other operational changes this past year included construction at

Tsawwassen, Swartz Bay, Departure Bay, Horseshoe Bay and Langdale. New

facilities include an additional upper vehicle ramp, enlarged vehicle

holding areas, new waiting-room, and resurfacing of the vehicle loading

area.

[3:45]

In terms of future direction. B.C. Ferries introduced Adm. Andrew

Collier as president and chief executive officer, commencing December

1, 1984. Adm. Collier brings a wealth of experience in heading up a

large marine organization, as he has been both an admiral in the Royal

Canadian Navy and commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard.

New, stronger colours are evident on some B.C. Ferries vessels now,

and other vessels will be completed during normal refit and painting.

The prominent display of the Expo 86 logo on the funnels of B.C.

Ferries vessels will reinforce to visitors and residents the awareness

and excitement of the coming exposition in Vancouver.

I can tell you that the B.C. Ferries Inside Passage route is

receiving a great deal of attention this year. During the summer of

1985 all sailings will be almost totally during daylight — a change

from the past, when most trips operated during the evening for a

portion of the journey. What I am referring to there is the Queen of the North operation from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert with a stop at Bella Bella.

Significant changes are being implemented in the motor vehicle

department that will provide an improved service and a safer

environment for the citizens of the province. In the matter of safety,

child restraint legislation became effective on March 1, 1985; at the

same time a more rigorous testing program was introduced for the

testing of motorcycle riders.

Bill 45, Transport of Dangerous Goods Act, has passed third reading,

and the department has established an implementation plan to bring into

effect the provincial requirements in line with the federal

regulations. I would like to comment here, Mr. Chairman, that our Bill

45 that we passed in the Legislature is to support the federal

legislation, and there has been a lot of discussion going on about what

time it should take effect. The Minister of Transport for Canada has

said July 1 right along, but all industry is very much opposed to that

effective date because of the cost impact and so on, but it is my

understanding, through the media yesterday, that the federal minister

said he was not going to back down, and it would be law and put into

effect on July 1, 1985.

The draft regulations for a new commercial vehicle inspection

program are being reviewed by industry, and the regulations and

standards are scheduled for completion by the end of May 1985. The

program is scheduled to be introduced on a phase-in basis in September,

with a mandatory date for inspection to be established January 1, 1986.

A total of 9,500 vehicles were inspected at roadside check-points in

1984, while 2,500 school buses were checked on a semiannual basis.

Standards for a school bus permit system have been drafted and have

been reviewed by industry. Final changes are now in progress, with a

view to early implementation,

New federal legislation dealing with impaired driving and dangerous

driving charges under the Code will initiate amendments to the Motor

Vehicle Act, and drafting is now in progress. The Attorney-General is

also planning to introduce

[ Page 6458 ]

amendments to address challenges under the Charter

of Rights, including 24-hour prohibitions, potential blood samples,

service of notice and motorcycle helmet legislation.

The ministry is not concerned with highways alone. We'll be spending

about $80 million on ferry services this year, including a $40 million

grant to the B.C. Ferry Corp. and close to $40 million for the Highways

ministry ferries.

We'll be providing grants of $6,650,000 to the B.C. Railway. Those

grants will go towards the passenger service to Lillooet and Prince

George from North Vancouver and towards the operation of the Fort

Nelson extension. I would emphasize that the Fort Nelson extension is a

subsidy freightwise, not passenger-wise.

Our grants for airports will be increasing, with more than $2.5

million budgeted for grants under the air transport assistance program.

We have issued 150 grants to more than 60 communities since the air

transport assistance program started seven years ago. These grants have

helped communities build new airstrips and pave and upgrade existing

strips throughout the province. We have improved the safety of air

travel, opened up access for air ambulance service to a number of

communities and laid the groundwork for new scheduled air services.

With deregulation of air carriers at the federal level, there is

renewed interest in the scheduled air service in places like Atlin,

Dease Lake, Merritt, Pemberton and Salmon Arm, as just a few examples.

All of these communities and many others have benefited from the ATAP

grants in the past, and we plan to make further progress this year.

I would just say I look forward to discussion of the estimates of

the ministry. Before I sit down I'd like to introduce the people that

actually do the work: my deputy minister, Al Rhodes on my left; Tom

Johnson, assistant deputy minister; Keith Jackman, superintendent of

motor vehicles; and George Baldwin, the boss of B.C. Ferries.

MR. PASSARELL: I am pleased to see the minister's able staff

in the House. I haven't seen so many chairs being moved around since

the minister last made his speech up at Charlie Lake. I know it's

important to have his able staff here. They have been very helpful to

me whenever I've had to go to the ministry to ask questions.

I have about seven or eight provincial issues to raise, and then

I'll move onto the favourite of my constituency issues, Bailey bridges.

We'll start off first with the motorcycles. When the ministry

brought in the new regulations regarding motorcycles, that was just

about the time I was going through the testing to get my licence, and I

appreciated it. One concern I have is these little mopeds — and maybe

Mr. Jackman knows about this — that they are renting around Victoria

and other cities. You just go with your class 5 and you can rent these

little things. They have speed limits of 30 to 40 miles an hour, and

you just go in.... I see a lot of kids — teenagers and people in their

early twenties — renting these things with a class 5.

1 think the government has to bring in legislation to cover these

little mopeds that are skirting around, because they have no training

whatsoever. They are almost like bicyclists. Many bicyclists know the

rules of the road, but there are too many that don't. With these kids

just picking up these mopeds on a class 5 and scooting around Victoria,

I think we have to address motorcycle legislation, because you can be

killed just as easily on one of these hitting somebody at 20 miles per

hour as you can on a bigger bike smashing into somebody. So I would

like the government to move further in the direction of protection for

motorcyclists, and to tougher legislation on that. I don't think you're

going to find too many arguments from the official opposition on that

aspect.

The second major issue I would like to discuss is air services. I

think the air services branch provides one of the finest services of

any government in Canada. The use of government air services and the

ambulance service in the far north is something that many people in the

lower mainland and the south take for granted. But for us in the far

north this is an essential service in our health care — particularly

after we've just gone through Bill 41 and some of the statements that

were made last week concerning health care in the far north. The air

ambulance provides excellent service in the far north. With the

upgrading of airports, as in the communities of Atlin, Dease Lake and

Smithers, it's going to be beneficial to residents in rural areas of

this province to be able to be flown to the major health centres in

Vancouver to receive topnotch medical care when an accident or a

problem arises.

The third major provincial issue I'd like to discuss is the closing

of the motor vehicle inspection branch. I don't know if the minister

drives much anymore, but I certainly do. I've noticed since the closing

of the motor vehicle branch that there are a lot more junks out on the

road. There are people driving around with some pretty beat-up cars. I

think this is a major safety concern, and any individual who drives is

worried about it. After the closing of the motor vehicle branch, I

don't know if it was just that people said, "Well, heck, I don't have

to have safety on my car any longer," or if it was some kind of an

impression that went through their minds, but there are a lot of junk

vehicles out on the road today, and we've got to get them off the

roads. I appreciate it when the ministry has safety closures, where

they get six or seven ministries involved, as they did a few weeks or

months ago at Golden on the Trans-Canada. That was excellent. But there

are so many junk vehicles going around in the cities, and I don't know

how you're going to be able to have those massive inspections, unless

we have some kind of motor vehicle inspection branch reopenings,

because people are just driving around with some real bad-news vehicles

on the road.

Drunk drivers. I don't think you'll find a political party in Canada

that won't support tougher drunk-driving legislation. There's a lot of

concern out there — the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers — and we have to

have tougher legislation on drunk drivers. I would think we could use

some of the legislation that's used in Europe, in which if you get

caught driving while drunk, you lose your licence and that's it maybe

even a jail sentence in that regard.

When we get into the legislation aspect — and the minister touched

on it under the Charter of Rights — I was quite upset when Judge Van

der Pol, I think it was, threw out the suspension aspect that the

government had. If I'm not mistaken, when an individual accumulates 81

points, the superintendent of motor vehicles has to act on it. And then

some county court judge can say: "Well, that's okay. Under the Charter

of Rights you should be back out there." That man's a menace on the

highways. Anybody who accumulates those kinds of penalties for

infractions against the Motor Vehicle Act should have his licence

suspended for good. I think the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) is

involved in that case now, and I certainly hope that that would come

back. I do think the superintendent of motor vehicles should have the

right to say that an individual has his licence suspended when he

accumulates 81 points.

[ Page

6459 ]

The sale of Pacific Coach Lines. I've already discussed this issue

with the minister out in the hallway and sitting and talking with him.

There are some problems, as I have told the minister, in regard to the

cost, which has gone up, of the sale of Pacific Coach Lines to private

enterprise. As this

article states in the Times-Colonist for

March.... The title of the

article was: "PCL Sale — Job Total About 250

Says Union." Some problems have arisen, particularly on the Island

here, with the sale of Pacific Coach Lines and the increased fares that

have been charged. I have received letters from different individuals

on the Island complaining about the problems associated with the sale

of PCL, and saying that the new owners aren't providing nearly enough

bus service to the residents of Vancouver Island.

[4:00]

Rail. I know it's a federal jurisdiction, but I'm wondering what the

minister is doing to encourage improved passenger service between

Edmonton and Vancouver in time for Expo 86. The mayor of Vancouver,

Mike Harcourt, has spoken many times concerning improved passenger

service between Edmonton and Vancouver in time for Expo 86, with the

influx of tourists who will be coming to Vancouver. The train is an

excellent way of travelling, particularly from Alberta to British

Columbia — great scenery; it's a good old trip.

The question I have with regard to the BCR, which really doesn't

fall under the minister's estimates or under his authority, is this:

has the government made any further studies into extending the BCR up

to Dease Lake?

We have an ongoing problem in this province in regard to regulating

authorities for taxi licences. Sometimes when you go out to Vancouver

International Airport, depending on how much ice is on the road or

what, it's pretty difficult to get a cab. There are some problems, with

discussions I've had with Transport Canada, in regard to the taxi

stands out at Vancouver International Airport, as well as some problems

in Victoria with taxi service and some of the problems that happened in

the city of Victoria in regard to taxis. I would think there would have

to be some further legislation in regard to taxi services in this

province.

I know my colleague the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead)

will be discussing ferries under your estimates. Since we've just

passed Bill 2, we can't further discuss that in the House till we get

into committee on the bill, so that won't be brought up by me, and

hopefully, after advice from the hon. friend at the head of the table

there, it won't be further discussed.

Some local constituency issues. The minister is aware of the

problems with Highway 37. It's unfortunate that we can't find a buyer

for those Bailey bridges. It would be great if we could go off to Hong

Kong or something and say, "Hey, we've got a deal for you," and be able

to take all those Bailey bridges off Highway 37 that are spread out

around the province and be able to get a buck from them. They're

dangerous, those Bailey bridges. With more and more....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, yes. Back in World War II they were great — or World

War I, or whenever they were developed — but in 1985 on a major highway such

as Highway 37, it's about time that they were replaced, particularly with

the.... The minister is aware of the increased amount of traffic on Highway

37, which is being pushed as the quickest route to Alaska. Then with Klappan

coal being in operation and the shipment of coal down from Klappan to Stewart

using Highway 37, there is a definite need to have those Bailey bridges replaced.

I don't know if the minister will be able to answer this, but within

100 years or so as a ballpark figure, when can we expect pavement from

Meziadin north on Highway 37?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Not next year, but within the next 99 years,

says the minister. I'll be able to go back and tell my constituents

that the minister has said within the next 99 years we'll be able to

have some pavement on Highway 37.

The Atlin road. There has been right-of-way clearing started, if I'm

not mistaken, a year and a half ago on that. It has improved some of

the safety aspects. Those boulders that I had discussed with the

minister in his estimates last year have been replaced along the road.

With more and more tourists coming into Atlin from the Yukon on their

way to Alaska, there definitely has to be an improvement on that road.

It's only 30 miles from the Yukon border to Atlin.

There has been a big improvement, as I said earlier, concerning the

airport construction, particularly in Atlin and Dease Lake. Dease Lake

has its blacktop now. Are there any plans to blacktop the Atlin airport?

Another question is in regard to construction on the Telegraph Creek

road. I don't know if the minister ever drove that or flew over that

area. It's a very scenic road but very dangerous in a lot of aspects. I

don't know if I have the solutions or the minister has the solutions,

but I'm wondering if there's going to be any major improvement,

particularly in regard to the bridge approaches. You have two major

bridges on that road, and when you come down from the one hill —

Tanzilla Hill — you almost have to be a stock-car driver to gain the

approach onto the bridge without going off into the river.

Those were basically the issues I wanted to raise: the PCL bus sale;

bringing back the motor vehicle inspection branch — the closures on

that; drunk drivers; the air services branch — the excellent

performance they provide in the province; motorcycles — I would like to

see some kind of further licensing on those mopeds, even if they have

to take some kind of test for 20 minutes before they can get on these

little critters; the railroad; and the constituency issues.

I didn't use all my allocated 30 minutes on this, but I'm certainly

sure that if I have some more questions I'll be directing them toward

the minister.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. D'ARCY: I would like first of all to thank the minister

for recently calling a surfacing contract in my riding, which we had

wanted and greatly needed for several years — recently awarding it, in

fact. But I want to put in a plea that the minister would proceed as

soon as possible in calling a second major contract on the west Trail

approach.

His ministry was ready to go and did a lot of work in destroying a

neighbourhood in west Trail in 1979-80. Apart from the many people and

businesses who were displaced, changing the character of that part of

town completely, the city of Trail alone has been out of pocket $30,000

a year in lost property taxes due to the Crown's acquisition of those

properties. In addition, I'm not even counting whatever losses in

school taxation there may be. I suppose in a city the

[ Page 6460 ]

size of Vancouver or some of the major lower

mainland municipalities that might not be a big deal, but in a place

the size of Trail that kind of tax loss is significant.

But the main reason for proceeding is that this particular

improvement will replace a 1920s standard highway with hairpin turns so

sharp on it that ordinary-sized transport trucks can't negotiate them.

It's only one kilometre — an expensive kilometre, I agree — at the

south end of a modern 60-mile-an-hour highway, but it's the busiest

kilometre on that particular stretch of highway and is of extreme

importance not only from a safety point of view and a commercial point

of view but also in terms of operating efficiencies for the plants that

would be bypassed by the removal of the present road. The minister

knows, I think, that there is, I believe, around $1 million available

federally for railway crossing removals. There are two crossings — one

of three tracks and one of two — that will be bypassed by this

improvement.

There are also significant benefits from a safety point of view to

the city of Trail due to the relocation of services and improvements

made on the culverting of Trail Creek. I'm sure the minister will

remember in 1969 that there was significant damage in the city of

Trail. It was not the ministry's fault, but there was significant

damage due to flash-flooding on Trail Creek in west Trail. The city and

the ministry have long since agreed that as part of this project

they'll make significant improvements here. That again is an urgent

need to proceed with.

But the main need, Mr. Chairman, is that the public in that area

have returned a great deal of revenue to the province over the years.

This is not just a 1940s or 1950s highway we're talking about

replacing; it's a 1920s highway that ordinary vehicles can't negotiate

— ordinary licensed vehicles. Standard-sized trucks can't negotiate it

at all and have to take a detour to get around.

One contract has already been completed for a number of years now.

The public looks at that one contract, at the ravaged part of west

Trail, and they see a scar on the hillside and a brand new bridge built

for the CPR, and say: "What the heck is going on? There's nothing more

going to happen here." That's what that first contract did. It removed

a lot of property improvements and built a new bridge for the CPR.

Another constituency point I want to bring up with the minister is that the

Pass Creek Road, due north of Castlegar, originally and perhaps still intended

to be a day labour project.... In fact the urgency and gravity of this particular

project no doubt should warrant a contract job. When I inquire about it, I keep

hearing from ministry officials and from regional officials: "Well, we've

got a water problem with Raspberry-Robson, and we're doing more studies."

Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with the water problem in the Raspberry-Robson improvement

district, but the fact remains that the public have to use the road, and it's

way overdue to be improved. It's very narrow; it's very dangerous. It

was never properly constructed in the first place; it's essentially a grader

mix over the top of a fairly primitive road which was never properly constructed

from the point of view of compaction and the correct placing of materials. It's

heavily travelled by logging trucks. The residents who have to use that road

consider it a major hazard, particularly in winter.

I have one other point I want to bring up here — without taking too

much time of the committee — and that is the Trail bridge. The bridge

itself is very functional, but partly because it's in the immediate lee

of Cominco's smelting operations it has a real corrosion problem. Even

though it was repainted in the mid- 1970s, it is in drastic need of a

repainting job. I don't know how bad these things have to get before

there is structural damage to a bridge; but it's gone beyond a point

where it's an eyesore, Mr. Chairman, to the point where, I believe,

structural damage could occur if the cancerous parts of the girders

aren't sandblasted out and refinishing done, urgently. I want to point

out that part of the problem — I think everybody concedes — is the

proximity of the bridge to the Cominco smelting operations. But

certainly if you have to start having to replace steel work, it's going

to be very expensive.

One general comment, Mr. Chairman. Because the ministry and Treasury

Board have decided to put essentially all projects into two baskets,

the Annacis crossing and its attendant highway improvements, and the

previously discussed Coquihalla route, the rest of the highways all

around the province — and I'm not just talking about my riding; I'm

talking about everybody's riding, on both sides of the House — are

being neglected. I do a fair amount of travelling, and there are a

tremendous number of major routes which are in dire need of resurfacing.

[4:15]

There are a major number of projects which are outstanding, from a

traffic flow and a safety point of view, throughout the province. I

know that the minister simply can't call up Treasury Board and request

funds; but the fact is that the decision to do these two major projects

and put all of the resources into them has denied whole areas of the

province. I'm not just talking about the West Kootenay; I'm talking

about the East Kootenay, the central interior, the Okanagan, Vancouver

Island, the Fraser Valley, the north, the northwest, the Peace River.

All are being denied highway funds for outstanding projects because of

the tremendous commitment of resources. I do believe that megaprojects

may rate the headlines, and he may get columns written in the

newspapers about them; but everybody pays the bills, and only some

areas benefit. We're past the time where we can continue to deny large

areas of the province any highway construction, even though there are

pressing traffic needs that have been there for a number of years, and

a deteriorating highway system in which the people of this province

already have a very large investment.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: First I was going to do something else here,

but just to follow along with the member for Rossland-Trail, the point

of my earlier remarks, when we were debating second reading of Bill 2,

which I'm not going to discuss, was that it's my personal feeling and

view that other areas of the province are being denied certain

reconstruction jobs — I'm going to mention some in a few minutes — that

should be done, in my own riding at least, while we're spending massive

amounts of borrowed money on a large megaproject in the Coquihalla.

I wanted to open my remarks, Mr. Chairman, by saying that this

particular minister and his staff.... Because of the nature of my

riding — all kinds of highways, some good and some very poor, and lots

and lots of sideroads — I get a lot of highway and road problems and

ferry problems. The fact is that when I do write to the minister or to

his staff, I get a prompt and long and detailed explanation. So I want

to say off the top, before I get into the other part of this debate,

that I

[ Page

6461 ]

appreciate that kind of response from that minister and his ministry.

However, I want to talk, first of all, about a couple of

constituency problems, and then perhaps we'll get into some of the B.C.

Ferries stuff.

Mr. Chairman, I know I bring this matter up every year; but we've

had no major reconstruction on Highway 101, up the Sunshine Coast,

since 1976 or possibly early '77. I know that there's band-aid work

being done there all the time; it has to be, as the highway is

collapsing here and there from time to time. Once again, I just want to

go on record as suggesting to the minister continued reconstruction of

that particular stretch of highway north of the Jolly Roger up

eventually to Earls Cove and then into Powell River. It is not only

required but would provide jobs for local contractors and local people

who are out of work. In that area, we have at least 24 percent — I'm

advised 26 percent — of the population out of work and receiving

government assistance of some kind or other — UIC, welfare or whatever.

So not only would we be improving the highways but we would be

enhancing the opportunities for tourists that come into the area by

improving those highways — and ferries, which we'll get to in a while —

and providing local work. So there's one project.

While we're discussing Highway 101, the highway through the

municipality of Powell River — and I know the minister has been there;

it may have been two years ago, but things haven't changed at all; in

fact, it's getting worse — has a

section that is actually falling into

the ocean. I know that the planners from the municipality of Powell

River and people from the Ministry of Highways meet from time to time

and attempt to perhaps outline or designate an alternate route through

the municipality. But that has not been done, and I don't know why. It

is either because Highways doesn't have the money, or the municipality

doesn't have the money, or they can't reach agreement for some reason

or other. That may not even be necessary.

I am informed by one of the Ministry of Highways engineers that for

a relatively lower cost, although it would be quite a massive job, that

highway along that route could be stabilized and perhaps be usable for

many years to come. I'm not kidding you when I'm telling you of the

tons and tons of rock and dirt.... As erosion takes place next to the

ocean, this highway is falling into the ocean. There have been a few —

and I'm happy to say not serious — accidents that I'm aware of on that

particular stretch of highway. but nobody has been killed to date, as

far as I know. So I hope you will take that into consideration.

There is another minor problem I've written to your ministry about.

I haven't had a response yet, but I haven't perhaps had time to receive

a response. This wasn't too long ago, but I want it on record. There's

a large subdivision just north of quite a large Indian village called

Sliammon involving lease lands. The native Indian people have control

of the access road to that quite large subdivision along the

waterfront. So just for the record — and I know this will eventually be

brought to your attention, Mr. Minister — it is my understanding that

the native Indian band is prepared to turn those access roads over to

the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. I know that hundreds and

hundreds of residents in that subdivision would prefer that the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways maintain those roads, so I hope

you will give that matter serious consideration when it comes to your

attention.

I have one other matter dealing with gazetting of roads at Manning

Park approximately a year ago, and I'm not going to go through the

whole Manning Park charade here again this afternoon. But I just want

it on record, Mr. Minister, that when a government agency was operating

that park through the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, one of the

major costs, and the reason that operation was losing money, was that

the parks branch at that time was responsible for the maintenance and

snow clearing. It was a large item, up on the top of those mountains,

as you well know, to the ski lifts and that kind of thing.

However, before the government decided to privatize the operation,

to relieve the major burden of cost to the new private owner, those

roads were gazetted and placed under the jurisdiction of the Ministry

of Transportation and Highways, thereby removing that cost from the

private owner and placing that burden of cost onto the provincial

taxpayer. I'm not going to go through this

chapter and verse, because

I've already done that in this House, but I wanted the minister to know

that.... Well, why did you not gazette those roads when the Ministry of

Lands, Parks and Housing controlled that operation? They would not have

shown a loss, and there would have therefore been no need to privatize.

In effect, we sold anywhere from $12 million to S18 million worth of

taxpayers' assets for $500,000. I'm still very unhappy about that, by

the way.

One or two other items while I have the floor, Mr. Chairman. There

are two single-lane bridges in the Bella Coola valley. I wrote to you

about this last year. Since the floods about two years ago, they've

been single-lane bridges. I think they are the Nusatsum and the.... I

don't have the name of the other in front of me, although I can easily

obtain it; but your people will know it. They're single-lane bridges,

very inconvenient for people travelling up and down the valley, since

there is only one road up and down the valley. Perhaps the minister

would this year consider including in his budget some money to replace

these bridges. They're not big, long, expensive jobs. In fact, one was

a three-month temporary bridge, and has been there now for about two

years. It's a wooden structure, and the next flash flood of course will

wipe it out. We can expect a so-called minor flood up there once every

three to five years, a bigger flood every ten years, and a monster

flood every 25 years on the average.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You think I'm kidding. The Ministry of the

Environment, Mr. Member, has projected flood stages in that area up to

200 years — 200-year cycles. I just hope I'm no longer a member when

the next 200 years comes around. There'll be nothing left in that

valley, I can tell you.

Mr. Chairman, I want to change the topic a bit right now and discuss

with the minister the B.C. Ferry Corporation. I happen to be debate

leader at the present time for that. It has not changed a great deal

since last year, except that the subsidy has been reduced.

Consequently, there have been some further layoffs within the

corporation over and above the 600 people who were originally laid off.

There have been fare increases. As a matter of fact, our leader put

forward a proposal a few months ago, which naturally I agree with. What

else can I say? He's right in front of me. I'm being facetious;

actually, Mr. Chairman, our leader put forward a proposal that fares on

the B.C. ferries be reduced to increase usage of those vessels. You

know, you're really working

[ Page 6462 ]

against yourself. Every time you increase those fares, fewer people use the vessels. Right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Come on now. Don't be so hard to get along with.

Anyway, fewer people use the vessels, so what do you do? You reduce

the sailings and increase the fares again because you need the money

because you've reduced the subsidies. Why don't you try doing the

opposite? Reduce the fares. There are no tolls on the highways into

Kelowna or the Cariboo.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: Not yet.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, I guess there will be.

There are no tolls on the highways into Prince George or Kamloops.

People up and down the coast are paying tolls, and pretty hefty tolls.

In these hard economic times, people find it difficult. People on the

lower-income level are making less and less use of those vessels.

Therefore you have reduced usage, reduced traffic; so you reduce the

number of sailings and increase the fares, thereby making it more

difficult, and the cycle begins all over again.

You might want to consider that aspect. On the other hand, you might not. Who knows?

Also, Mr. Minister, for some time now you've had before you a

proposal. In fact, your ministry has carried out a study relating to

water transportation — i.e. ferry service — to Bella Coola. I know a

study has been done on the cost of a roll-on/roll-off ramp for that

area. On this particular question, I know you've written to the chamber

of commerce, I think, or somebody up there, saying that because of

restraint we can't do it at this time. But I just want to go on record

as saying that people up there have not forgotten that proposal. I know

that on one of your visits about two and a half years ago, you said you

would give the matter serious consideration.

[4:30]

Also, Bella Bella has for some years been asking for.... As you well know, the Queen of the North

stops in twice a week at that community — passenger service only, as

there is no roll-on/roll-off service. That's Indian band property

that's under primarily Indian band jurisdiction, along with the federal

government. But I do believe that the band has made a proposal to

yourself where they would in fact turn over a piece of property to the

provincial government to be used for the purposes of a roll-on/roll-off

service. I happen to know that before cabinet very shortly there will

be a recommendation regarding the future of Ocean Falls. If that

recommendation is to completely terminate that community, which it may

well be for all I know — they wouldn't tell me what the recommendations

are, but I know it may have gone to cabinet this week, as a matter of

fact — then that ferry ramp that is currently in that community should,

in my view, be moved to Bella Bella. However, maybe the government is

going to reopen Ocean Falls and put in a big sawmill and pulp mill.

That may be the recommendation. I hope it is, but I doubt it very much.

1 see my time is up, Mr. Chairman, so I'll take my seat, because I have a whole pile of questions to ask the minister yet.

HON. A. FRASER: I'd like to go back and try to respond to some of the questions that were brought out. I appreciate the questions.

First of all, the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) — motorcycle

regulations, mopeds and so on. I have a note here from the

superintendent on that subject: "The entire issue of mopeds is under

review with Transport Canada and other provinces as the industry has

introduced new types of small motorcycles. Issues under review include

driver licensing and classification." I just might comment, Mr.

Chairman, that the superintendent of motor vehicles isn't a very good

writer; I can't read it. "An operation...moped requires a driver's

licence." This is not the case in all provinces, but it is in British

Columbia. They do require a driver's licence.

Inspection was commented on: it previously applied to Vancouver,

Burnaby, Richmond, New Westminster, the North Shore, Victoria and

Nanaimo areas of the province. Aside from the major roadside inspection

programs, many checks are being carried out by police, and on trucks by

motor vehicle inspections.

While I'm dealing with the motor vehicle things, I'll just share

with the member for Atlin his concern regarding the case of the driver

of a vehicle that can, by the Charter of Rights, be thrown out of court

when he has 80 points. I agree with your remarks completely, that he

has no business on our road system whatsoever. My colleague the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) went to court and was the prosecutor

in the appeal, and he won. So everything is back in place. The Leader

of the Opposition says that's all politics. Well, maybe he might be

correct, but I'm real pleased to see that the law is back in place

where it should have been in the first place, thanks to the

Attorney-General.

The comment was made by the member for Atlin regarding the air

ambulance service. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm real proud of the air

ambulance service. We have three jet aircraft now confined...and that's

all they do. I pay great credit to all the members of the air services.

Whether it's Fort Nelson or the Queen Charlotte Islands, or it's the

holiday season, 50-below-zero snowstorms, rainstorms or you name it,

they go and bring higher medical care as requested by the medical

people. In most cases they bring the patient to the lower mainland.

They have some real experiences, I can assure you, but we're proud of

the work they do. Their service is increasing all the time — the demand

on that service — but they're proud of the work that they do for the

citizens of British Columbia, and I certainly am as well. I'm sure we

all are in this House.

You commented about vehicle checks and the condition of the vehicles

on our highway system. It tied into the lack of motor vehicle

inspection. I know that is generally conceived, and there may be

something to it, but the point that I want to emphasize to the members

is that it's against the law, Mr. Chairman. It's in the Motor Vehicle

Act that you must have your vehicle in good condition at all times.

There have been some surveys made — I've seen them where in the

United States in different states they have had vehicle inspections.

They can't tie the two together, the experts, that there is really any

difference. The point that I want to make is that it's against the law.

I deal with the superintendent in the RCMP of the traffic control

branch. I

[ Page 6463 ]

meet him two or three times a year, and we get

excellent cooperation and enforcement of our laws. Maybe we should be

asking the superintendent of traffic for the RCMP, which goes out to

all the fine officers, to pay more attention to the mechanical side and

maybe de-emphasize catching people going to work ten kilometres an hour

faster than they should and getting three points. It is against the

law, and I notice the same thing myself.

You mentioned Pacific Coach Lines. Pacific Coach Lines was

privatized by our government, and that was a philosophy or government

policy. I understand Pacific Coach Lines are making money. You say that

in the private sector they aren't providing the service, and they've

got their rates up and so on. I would just say that I'm delighted with

the operation of Pacific Coach Lines in the private sector. I think

they're giving good service, but I remind the member that all their

increases are approved by the Motor Carrier Commission, as well as the

adequacy of their schedules. If people have a complaint, I'm sure

they'll find that they will be attended to by the Motor Carrier

Commission, which, as you know, is part of this ministry.

You mentioned the Edmonton-Vancouver rail service. Yes, that's

right: a lot of people made a lot of noise about it. I didn't, but on

behalf of the government I congratulate the Minister of Transport for

reinsituting VIA Rail from Edmonton to Vancouver. Of course, that has

taken place, and we fully support that. But I'd just like to make a

comment, Mr. Chairman, that there are going to be horrendous costs

involved, and I don't know how long that will last, but we're certainly

going to have better and more frequent VIA Rail service starting now

and through Expo and so on. I think we're all thankful for that.

You mentioned B.C. Rail. The only responsibility I have for B.C.

Rail is in our inspection branch. We're responsible for the safety of

B.C. Rail, their tracks and equipment and so on. I think I can safely

say on behalf of our government that I've never heard any discussion

about any further work on the Dease Lake extension. I'm not saying that

that might not come up, but it's a fairly dormant issue now.

Regarding the taxi service, whether it's in the Vancouver airport or

Dease Lake or wherever it is, there are a lot of things that can be

desired, in my opinion. As you know, we have city licensing authority

and we have provincial authority with taxi services. I might say on

behalf of the Motor Carrier Commission that they've had a look at the

taxi operation in the greater Vancouver area and they were not prepared

to recommend going to a regional licensing system at this time. I've

had complaints from MLAs and from citizens about the condition of the

vehicles, the condition of the drivers, and how they operate, and I've

passed those on to the authorities and know they've had vehicle checks

and so on — as a matter of fact, as recently as this current year,

particularly around Vancouver airport.

We have a situation that the Vancouver-licensed cabs don't want to

see any cabs operating from Burnaby or the North Shore, and there are

lots of problems there. I haven't got a resolution to the problems, but

I think we're going to have to come up with a solution somehow before

Expo 86 so that our visitors to our country anyway get better service

than it appears they're getting. It's a highly involved subject.

Highway 37. I'm sure that's in your riding, Mr. Member from Atlin,

and I can tell you this. You mentioned Bailey bridges. I wish I knew

Mr. Bailey, because that's the best device — I'm sure the chief

engineer will tell you — that we have. When one of our fine bridges

falls in the water, and it does, Mr. Bailey comes along and gets them

across pretty fast. I think they're a great thing, but they're one of

these things, Mr. Member, that are put in on a temporary basis and

sometimes they become.... Somebody told me once that there's nothing

more permanent than anything you call temporary. We have lots of Bailey

bridges on Highway 37. Our program really is to eliminate about three

per year. I think we've held our word on that for two years. I don't

know whether we can.... Certainly the program is to get them eliminated

wherever we might have them. Certainly we have our share of them on

Highway 37.

With Highways 37 and 37A, just for your information, Mr. Chairman,

we're talking about a highway 800 kilometres in length, and at the

present time we have half of it paved — 400 kilometres. That has

happened in the last ten years. We intend to keep up with that, but it

will probably slow down a bit from the pace we've had.

The Telegraph Creek road. I've driven the Telegraph Creek road, and

you're right, it is quite a challenge. At the present time we haven't

got any plans to upgrade it, so we'll have to continue to negotiate the

road........ As long as you drive it according to the posted speed, you

can make it all right. As you know, we maintain it.

You mentioned the Atlin road from the community of Atlin up to the

Alaska Highway. You're right, we have done some improvement on it, but

there's always room for more, in my opinion. I'd like to see that road

paved someday, but I don't think the local citizens are that concerned

about it. But we are going to continue to upgrade it.

The Atlin airport. As you know, we spent a lot of money developing

the airport. We have no plans to pave it for this year, but we have a

good gravel strip now, as you know.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy).... We've

got the west Trail approach, as we call it in our ministry. We started

on it, and we certainly have Smelter Hill.... We have had the pause

that refreshes, as I call it. To answer some of your other questions,

the railway overpass is complete. The next phase is to move the

utilities to Cominco, rechannel Trail Creek and build a new road. Our

engineers estimated the cost of carrying that out to be $8 million.

[4:45]

The member for Rossland-Trail said something about federal dollars.

I think the House should know that we had the urban transportation

assistance program with the federal government. That applied to all

provinces, to help eliminate railroad crossings and so on. It

disappeared, along with the Liberal government from Ottawa. When they

went down, so did the UTAP program. I have personally been to Ottawa to

talk to the new government about renewal of UTAP, or whatever, and the

sharing of this important program. The answer I got from the present

Minister of Transport for Canada was: "Surely you, Mr. Fraser, don't

want us to renew a Liberal program." We're still negotiating, and

they're promising — of course, they have to look Canada-wide — that

they'll have a program to replace it in the fall. But the way it's

working in our province and, I guess, in most other provinces is that

there certainly won't be a bean for the fiscal year '85-86. So that's

where sharing with them on that is.

On the observation that the highways we have are neglected because

of the megaprojects, I'd say that it's not the intent of the government

for that to happen. I don't think it is. Half our budget is for the

existing highway system, if you

[ Page 6464 ]

look at it that way, and the other half is for the

two projects to improve the highway system — for Annacis and the new

extension to it.

The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) said Highway 101 is falling

into the ocean at Powell River. I'm not sure what they say about it,

but I know this has come up before. It is settling toward the ocean and

we're continuing to monitor it. It reminds me that my home in Quesnel

is slipping into the Fraser River and they're monitoring that, but

they've got to do more than that fairly soon or it will be in the

river. Maybe it's the same case at Powell River and the ocean. The

engineers don't consider it a problem, but a stabilization program will

definitely be required.

There was another comment from the member for Mackenzie, but I

didn't quite catch it. I wrote down a note to myself, "Subdivision,"

but I don't see....

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: I don't know whether I got an answer on that, but I will get it.

But I do have the roads in Manning Park. As you know, Mr. Member,

this came up in the House earlier. The answer I have here is that these

roads were made public to provide year-round access to the public

campsite near the ski area. The answer is definitely that they were

made public, and I guess that was around the time of privatizing that

operation.

Regarding the bridges in the Bella Coola valley, design work has

been done. They're not on this year's program. Existing bridges were

jointly put in, sharing with the forest company. They are structurally

adequate, but I emphasize "structurally" adequate. That might not say

that they're adequate for the traffic, but they're structurally

adequate as far as the engineers are concerned.

I would say, though, regarding the Bella Coola valley, that we have

replaced all kinds of bridges, and we still have a few left to go.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: Yes, the timber ones, and we'll get around to

them. But you know, we have replaced a lot of them with concrete

bridges in the last ten years.

I want to say something about B.C. Ferries. The member for Mackenzie

commented that we continue to raise the fares. That is correct. But you

suggested, and it's a popular thought, that we reduce the fares to

increase our loading and it would have the same effect. I don't think

we agree on that philosophy.

The facts with B.C. Ferries are.... I hope to be able to table the

annual report in the Legislature this week or next for the year ending

March 31, 1985 — fairly current information. You will note from that

that the usage of the ferry system is going up, not down. There are a

lot of changed things going on in the utilization in the B.C. Ferry

system. As an example, route 2, which is Horseshoe Bay to Nanaimo, is

now a busier route most of the time, certainly commercially, than route

1 from Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay. That's a new change in the last couple

of years.

A lot of things are changing, but generally speaking, thank you very

much, business is fairly good. Admittedly, we could haul more. You

mentioned the poor people, and I would just say that as long as they're

65 or over, I don't know how much freer we can get. They travel free. I

qualify:

Monday through Thursday they travel free as passengers but not their

vehicles, as I understand it. But I don't know how free we can get. In

other words, we do consider those sorts of things.

Getting to Bella Coola and the ramp there, I just recall that they

had a fire at Bella Coola, and the Minister of Transport for Canada

replaced the dock there. We almost demanded that we would go in with

them on a roll-on, roll-off for a replacement, and they just said: "Get

out of our road, and we're going ahead. We're not going to help in any

shape