1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6485 ]

CONTENTS

Vancouver And Cowichan School Districts Restoration of Democracy Act (Bill M215).

Mr. Rose

Introduction and first reading –– 6485

Tabling Documents –– 6486

Oral Questions

Fresh-Water Export. Mrs. Wallace –– 6486

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Skelly

Pesticide control inspectors. Mr. Skelly –– 6487

Okanagan red crape growers. Ms. Sanford –– 6487

Expo 86 Corporation president. Mr. MacWilliam –– 6488

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

On vote 67: minister's office –– 6488

Mr. Davis

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Rose

Mrs. Johnston

Mr. Howard

Industrial Electricity Rate Discount Act (Bill 28). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 6502

Mr. D'Arcy –– 6503

Mr. Lauk –– 6504

Mr. Williams –– 6505

Mrs. Wallace –– 6506

Mr. Davis –– 6507

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 6507

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Rogers)

On vote 22: minister's office –– 6508

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Lockstead

THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 1985

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the

House — and hope the House will welcome them — two great school

trustees from the constituency of Dewdney: Sophie Weremchuk and Karen

Linden. I hope the House will greet them.

HON. MR. PELTON: I think it might be very appropriate if I

also welcome particularly Sophie Weremchuk to the chamber this

afternoon, since I became quite well acquainted with her in the

beginning of 1983.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, seated in your gallery this

afternoon are two very fine people, Mr. John Woods and Mrs. Margaret

Woods. John is the president of the Burnaby North Social Credit

Constituency Association. He ran as alderman, and I understand he's

going to run again in the next municipal election.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I am pleased to introduce to the House

visitors from the state of South Australia: the Hon. Dr. Bruce Eastick

and Mrs. Eastick. Would the House please welcome these honoured guests.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce Mr.

Gordon Lang, who is in the gallery today. He is the owner and manager,

I believe, of Eagle Power and Engineering Ltd., which is an oil

treatment firm. He is located in Cassidy, just north of my

constituency. I'd like the House to welcome him.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today are representatives of

the Insurance Agents' Association: Mr. Harry Geddes, president; Mr.

Barry Armes, immediate past president; Mr. Jack Lewis; Mr. Conrad

Speirs; Derek Francis; and Bill Brown. I'd ask the House to bid these

gentlemen welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm very pleased today to introduce the

House to a member of one of the North Shore constituencies, Mrs. Jessie

Cunliffe, and her friend from England, Mrs. Elizabeth Williams. I want

you to know that Mrs. Cunliffe, is an outstanding British Columbian who

has lived in all parts of our province but has contributed greatly to

the northern part of our province. I'd like all members of the House to

welcome this great British Columbian and her friend Mrs. Williams.

Introduction of Bills

VANCOUVER AND COWICHAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

RESTORATION OF DEMOCRACY ACT

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of standing order

48(1 ) to introduce a bill to restore the elected school boards in Vancouver

and Cowichan, entitled the Vancouver and Cowichan School Districts Restoration

of Democracy Act. May I have two moments to explain the nature of this bill?

MR. SPEAKER: You are entitled to two minutes, hon. member.

MR. ROSE: Recently, Mr. Speaker, the minister fired the

elected trustees and ordered an official trustee to impose a budget on

each of these districts. Now that this has been done, the local

trustees should be brought back and the official trustees terminated.

This would put Vancouver and Cowichan in the same position as those

boards who initially filed non-compliance budgets but are currently

administering the Heinrich-imposed budgets.

The official trustees are not doing a proper job for those

communities: public board meetings get cancelled; meetings are convened

in secret, without public notice; public question periods are cut short

and motions passed because the Chair announces them without discussion.

Under the School Act this is all perfectly legal, but it's certainly

neither acceptable nor democratic.

The minister has indicated, Mr. Speaker, that he had no legal means

to reinstate the fired trustees. This bill provides the legal means to

do so.

I would like to introduce the bill for first reading.

MR. SPEAKER: A division has been called, although the bells

have not yet been rung. The member seeks a point of order now. If it is

in regard to the division, hon. member, the point of order may be

heard, but if it is on a point of order other than that, it can be

heard at the conclusion of the division.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS –– 40

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Pelton

Michael

Johnston

Kempf

A. Fraser

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Curtis

McGeer

R. Fraser

Davis

Macdonald

Dailly

Cocke

Howard

Skelly

Stupich

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Ree

Reid

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Rose

Lockstead

MacWilliam

Wallace

Mitchell

Reynolds

Strachan

NAYS — 2

Heinrich

Veitch

MR. MICHAEL: On the point of order raised earlier, Mr. Speaker, would

this bill also apply to all the local unions in British Columbia that have been

placed under trusteeship by international unions for failure to abide by the

rules and regulations of their parent bodies?

[2:15]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 6486 ]

Hon. members, the Chair must at this time advise that while we have

not yet had occasion to bring forth any specific ruling on limitations

or otherwise during the two-minute introductory period allowed for a

bill, we have not done so because it has, up to this point, not been

necessary. Clearly, when the introduction aspect of a bill becomes

debate, imports argument and in fact and in essence becomes part of

second reading, the Chair is obliged to take a look at that, and will

do so and bring back what will, hopefully, be a little more guideline

interpretation for members, so that they will not stray from the clear

intention of the committee that brought forward those same

recommendations.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order, hon. member, on an observation by the Chair. If the member has a further observation...?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, was that a point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: No.

We are in the process of business at this time, hon. member, which now carries to the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose).

Bill M215 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

after today.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the 1984 annual report of the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

Oral Questions

FRESH-WATER EXPORT

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Environment.

On March 22 that minister signed an order-in-council setting fees

payable for commercial bulk export of B.C. water via marine transport

vessels. Can the minister confirm that he has received an application

to export 9,000 acre-feet of water under this

schedule from Freil Creek

in Hotham Sound?

HON. MR. PELTON: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. WALLACE . A further question to the minister. Has he made any review

of the effect that the removal of this amount of fresh water will have on the

salinity of the sea water in the area under consideration?

HON. MR. PELTON: The application is under review.

MRS. WALLACE: Perhaps this will also get a laugh from the

Socred back-benchers. Has the minister decided to hold public hearings

before approving the application?

HON. MR. PELTON: The answer is no.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the same minister. Can

the minister advise this House why he did not intervene on the issuance of this

licence prior to environmental studies being conducted? The minister will

recall that on May 15 of this year the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing

issued a licence of occupation to Mr. Beach. I wonder if the minister could

advise this House why environmental studies were not....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Are you talking to me? I thought you were talking to him.

MR. SPEAKER: That's one of the best explanations we've had so

far, hon. member. Nonetheless, the Minister of Finance has risen on a

point of order.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention rules

which have been standing for a long while in this House with respect to

question period.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you know about rules? Come on, you're eating the clock.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I hope I'm not intruding in the time

allocated for question period, but if I might finish, my point is that

it seems to me that occasionally questions such as the one by the

member for Mackenzie contain a lengthy statement — no question.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, as the Chair has stated on numerous

occasions, if we were to interpret strictly the rules applying in

question period, we would have very few questions. Nonetheless, it is

desirable to follow some guidelines.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A question to the Minister of Environment.

Will the minister assure this House that environmental studies will be

undertaken prior to that project at Freil Lake Falls and Hotham Sound

proceeding?

HON. MR. PELTON: Applications for the bulk export of water

discharging to the ocean from coastal streams are being received and

will be judged on their individual merits. Part of the test that will

be applied will be environmental impacts and other land-use concerns

and such other things as whether the water might be surplus to local

requirements. I think that should answer the member's question.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: To the same minister. The Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing has already assured myself and this House that

environmental impact studies will be undertaken, but you're the

minister in charge. I want to tell you, Mr. Minister, the company has

already publicly stated that they are going to be dumping ballast and

bilgewater in Georgia Strait. So I am asking the minister to assure

this House that environmental studies will be undertaken. Can you

advise the House?

HON. MR. PELTON: A licence hasn't been issued yet, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister advised me that he has not decided

to hold hearings. Will he advise me whether he has decided not to hold

public hearings?

[ Page 6487 ]

HON. MR. PELTON: My previous answer answered that question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SKELLY: Does the ministry have a policy with respect to the export of fresh water from the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. PELTON: I think I said previously, Mr. Speaker, that

each of the applications, or any application that is received, will be

judged on its individual merits, and the parameters which will be used

to judge these applications, I would suggest, are policies that relate

to those particular applications.

MR. SKELLY: Supplementary to the minister. Would the minister

be willing to table with this House the parameters that he's talking

about, or is he saying that water licences for export will be issued on

a haphazard basis?

HON. MR. PELTON: I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition is

assuming something that hasn't happened yet. We have not issued any

licences to this point in time, and I did state, and I state again with

all sincerity, that each one of these applications will be judged on

its individual merit. That is the policy.

MR. SKELLY: I can only assume that what the minister is

saying is that there is no policy, that it will be done on a haphazard

basis, and he's unwilling to table the parameters with this House.

PESTICIDE CONTROL INSPECTORS

MR. SKELLY: I have another question to the Minister of

Environment, if I may. The minister was responding to questions about

pesticides in the House yesterday. Will the minister advise the House

how many pesticide control inspectors are employed by his ministry to

handle duties assigned under

section 9 of the Pesticide Control Act?

HON. MR. PELTON: Knowing what a horrendous error it would be

to mislead this House, I will take that question as notice and bring

the answer back as soon as possible.

MR. SKELLY: I'll assist the minister, possibly. Will the

minister confirm that in the whole of British Columbia there are four

pesticide control inspectors operating in the field under

section 9 of

the act?

HON. MR. PELTON: The very moment that I know that is a fact, I will confirm it.

MR. SKELLY: I'm willing to believe anything the minister

says, if he says anything to the House. He very seldom reports to the

House with any knowledge about his ministry at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Question, please.

MR. SKELLY: It would be helpful to know some of the things about that member's ministry.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SKELLY: Methinks they protest too much.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: In response to a number of questions yesterday,

the minister gave the following phrases in his answer: "I would think

it prudent to wait"; "I would like to wait until the investigation is

completed"; "I really don't consider myself in a position to give any

answers"; "I would like to give that assurance, but I'm not in any

position." My question is, does this minister know anything at all

about the Ministry of Environment and about the serious concerns in the

province around pesticides, pollution, sewage disposal? This minister

seems to know nothing about the ministry....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, it is not the

intention of the Chair to have any member take his place in question

period, but when a question becomes a a statement, clearly the Chair

has no alternative but to intervene. I am reluctant to do so, but I

will if the members cannot follow the very simple guidelines which

apply to this very brief 15 minute period.

OKANAGAN RED GRAPE GROWERS

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Okanagan red grape growers are

threatened with losing this year's crop, worth about $3 million,

because a majority of the B.C. wineries have cancelled their contracts

to purchase red grapes. What steps has the minister taken to assist

growers — who entered into this industry on the encouragement of the

government — to dispose profitably of this year's surplus of red grapes?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Several months ago when concern was

expressed about a surplus of red wine, and therefore a problem for the

grape growers with this year's crop, we established a task force with

representatives of the wineries, the growers, the Ministry of

Agriculture and Food, and my ministry. That task force's work is

ongoing. With regard to the force majeur which has been put into place

by the wineries to indicate they may not accept the grapes this year,

as recently as this morning I had reported to me that the wineries and

grape growers have had discussions and they may be in agreement.

They're both looking at the results of that meeting, and they may reach

an agreement which will allow for the force majeur to be withdrawn and

the contract to be maintained. But I wouldn't want the member to think

the problem has gone away. It hasn't. It may still be something that

has to be dealt with; it depends. But I can tell you that the grape

growers and wineries are discussing the problem.

Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to say that the changes in liquor policy

that we brought in dealing with the wine shops, the wine stores that

will now be coming into being, are an effort on our part to encourage

the marketing of B.C. products to maintain that grape-growing industry

in the province and the B.C. wine industry.

MS, SANFORD: We're having a lot of meetings, but I don't know that we're getting much resolved here; nor is the

[ Page 6488 ]

government assisting those grape growers very much, based on that answer.

Mr. Speaker, the contracts that have been cancelled and the minister

reports about meetings that were taking place this morning — indicate

that some of the wineries may in fact be willing to change their minds,

but the information that I have is that most of them are not. Now I am

wondering if the minister has agreed to reapply the regulations which

applied before 1977 to restrict the importation of grapes by the B.C.

wineries to 20 percent of the total grape purchases.

[2:30]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the 80-20 formula has always

been in existence over the past years, and the flexibility was that,

provided the wineries took all the crop, they could import raw product

or concentrate to meet the demands for their product. They have done

that. They have lived up to that commitment up to this point. There has

not been a grape grower who has not been able to sell his grapes to a

winery up until this particular point, and of course the crop won't

come in until this fall.

I can assure the member that I and the Minister of Agriculture and

Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) will do everything possible to make sure that

the grape growers are treated fairly; we must also recognize the

marketplace and the problems that the wineries have as well. They're

both B.C. industries which we support very strongly.

EXPO 86 CORPORATION PRESIDENT

MR. MacWILLIAM: In the strange absence of the Minister of

Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond), I'll direct a question to the

parliamentary secretary. Yesterday the Minister of Tourism confirmed

that he was unwilling to intervene in a matter of considerable public

importance involving the dismissal of the president of Expo

Corporation. Yet he was willing to intervene on behalf of the

participation of the auto club. Why is the minister refusing to accept

responsibility for the wrongdoings involving the misuse of considerable

public funds? Why is the minister not even here in the House to answer

to those questions? Where is he and what is he hiding?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question was in order; it is no longer in order. The bell terminates question period.

Hon. members, the member for Mackenzie has advised the Chair that he wishes to rise on a...

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: ...matter of privilege.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, during the course of question period, the

hon. Minister of Environment made the statement: "No licence has been issued."

May I, Mr. Speaker, just point out to you correspondence that I received from

the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, which states: "Enclosed herewith

is a licence of occupation, No: 232354, covering all the foreshore....."

It goes on to explain the acreage involved, the terms and the fees for the licence.

"The purpose of this licence is to ship and transport fresh water out of

Freil Falls, British Columbia, to offshore markets." I'll be pleased

to table this.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it would be appreciated if it would

at least be forwarded to the Chair so we can have an opportunity to

examine it.

Hon. member, I will undertake to bring a response back. Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

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

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I have a few concluding remarks.

They deal first with the Motor Carrier Act, and secondly with the

Dollarton highway in my constituency.

The Motor Carrier Act as it stands now was passed in the 1930s. It was passed....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please, hon. members. Could we

please have order. The member has taken his place and should be given

every parliamentary courtesy to allow him to continue in debate

uninterrupted, so that other members might hear him.

Further, I'll remind the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour

that debate during Committee of Supply does not allow for discussion

regarding legislation or the necessity for legislation. I'm sure the

member is aware of that and will relate his remarks to the

administrative actions and functions of the ministry. The member for

North Vancouver–Seymour continues.

MR. DAVIS: Re the Motor Carrier Act, Mr. Chairman, I

understand that studies have been undertaken in the ministry to

determine what changes may be desirable to that 1930s legislation in

order to effectively deregulate the trucking industry and encourage

competition, particularly in large areas like the lower mainland

region. This is highly desirable. I'm sure that rates will be lower.

There will be more private operators functioning in the province than

if the current legislation continues to be in effect, and I'm all for

change in that area.

The emphasis, in my view, should be on vehicle safety. We shouldn't

be regulating rates, digging into costs and setting rates; we should be

broadening the categories of carriage in that very important industry.

The Dollarton highway on the North Shore is still classed as a

provincial highway. It reaches from the north end of the Second Narrows

Bridge to Deep Cove. It should be turned over to the municipality, and

it should be turned over in good condition. It's narrow, the shoulders

are inadequate. There should be sidewalks in some areas. There is a

substantial pedestrian hazard there at the present time. I hope that as

a result of an agreement with the corporation of the district of North

Vancouver, that

section of provincial highway could be upgraded to

modern standards and that it could then be turned over to the

municipality with no further obligation on the part of the province.

That's a matter of some priority because of

[ Page 6489 ]

possible loss of life, particularly the lives of

young children who are currently walking on the very narrow fringe of

that highway.

Finally, with respect to the approaches to the Second Narrows Bridge

on the North Shore, some fine work has been done. A new crossing has

been built substantially by the provincial ministry over the Seymour

River, and the interconnector at the Coach House has been improved.

There is further need for improvement in that area, particularly the

very hazardous exchange between Keith Road and the Trans-Canada Highway

in that general vicinity. I hope that, along with the Cassiar

connector, those improvements will be given high priority by the

ministry.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, I'm on my feet again to make my annual

request to the Minister of Highways to come to his senses and finally

restore mandatory car-testing for the people of British Columbia. This

minister is showing the same stubbornness and obstinacy about the

restoring of vehicle testing as he did with the testing restraints in

the cars for children. He had to be literally dragged, screaming and

kicking, to change his mind about the importance of that.

I would like to say to the minister: I'm pleased to see that one of

his own government members has also stood in this House today, finally

— I think he said something before, in letters to the editor; give him

credit for that — and asked for some restoration. But I think it's

shameful that there's only one government member over there who has

ever stood on his feet and demanded that we have the return of

mandatory testing.

I know that the minister, in answering earlier remarks from our debate leader, said.... I have the Hansard

here in front of me. He's implying that in different states surveys

have been made, and they're not sure whether there is any real effect

on the accident rate, of having the testing stations. He says in the

United States they can't tie the two together. I ask the minister to

table those reports, for the benefit of the members of this House. We

are dealing in the dark. This minister has not given us any statistics.

He makes these statements, saying we don't have to worry: "Leave it up

to me. Everything's all right." Everything is not all right.

I know that the minister can stand up and say to the members of this

House: "Well, my statistics show that there has been a decrease in

traffic accidents since the motor vehicle stations were closed." Let me

point out to the minister that there is a major decrease also in the

number of people — particularly in that age where there were many

accidents, between 16 and 20 — who can now afford even to drive a car.

I want to tell the minister that the economic downturn and its

consequences have to take major credit in the whole of North America

for the traffic injuries and deaths being down. It's a tragedy, isn't

it, that we have to say that the recession has done something good.

Unfortunately, it's a very twisted way to look at it. Let us hope,

though, that this recession will gradually improve, although I'm afraid

we'll have to wait for the restoration of the NDP government for that.

I can assure you that one of the first moves of an NDP government would

be to restore the testing, because we believe in saving the lives of

the people of this province.

That minister has just given us some vague replies to our concerns.

May I point out that it is not just the members of the opposition who

are concerned about the fact that this government stubbornly refuses to

reopen those stations. The B.C. Automobile Association, which

represents 415,000 drivers, has come out and called on the government

to restore testing stations. Even ICBC thinks — and has said prior to

the closing — that it would mean an increase in damage claims. At the

time, of course, they were not aware of the terrible recession which

this province would find itself in, primarily because of the economic

policies of the government. Other groups across the province have asked

for the restoration of the stations, including — and this is

interesting, Mr. Chairman — the police chiefs of British Columbia. They

too, the people who deal every day with these problems, have said we

need to have it restored: yet that minister is showing obstinacy in the

face of the concerns of thousands of people in this province, and

refuses to restore them.

I am saying to the minister: even though you can stand up and reply

and show your statistics, those statistics must be taken in relation to

the economic downturn. Changes in traffic accident casualties have

paralleled the fluctuations in the employment rate; that's something I

would like the minister to be aware of. This trend has been consistent

over the last few years. The impact of these factors in casualty

accident reduction was particularly marked among the 16-to-20 age group.

There is one area where I do agree with the minister, and I think he

stated it earlier: alcohol certainly is also a major cause. But there

isn't one person in this Legislature who drives a car, as we all do,

who doesn't go down the road, back and forth wherever your work takes

you, without noting the number of junk cars that are on the road today.

Cars can come at us at nighttime with a light missing. I've talked to

garage station owners who say they have never seen so many cars come in

for their gas which should not be on the road. There is no way, except

for some casual checking when the minister decides to put on a blitz

and have some spot checking done.... That is not good enough. I want to

say to the minister that you owe it to the people of British Columbia

to do something about this now, and I ask you once again to restore

mandatory motor vehicle testing in the province of British Columbia.

[2:45]

MR. MACDONALD: I would yield to the minister in my few

remarks if he would reply to the member for Burnaby North, who has

accused him of ox-like stubbornness — and very legitimately so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, hon. member, we're really making personal

references now, and I'm sure that in terms of parliamentary courtesy we

could avoid such reference.

disappear out of legislatures, but some of us will try to keep it

alive, Mr. Chairman.

I asked the minister what.... I've looked through his yellow book

here, and I'm asking particularly about Vancouver East. I'll be brief.

Maybe it's my eyesight, but out of a projected $650 million that is

going to be spent. I can't find anything for the Cassiar-Trans-Canada

interconnect. We've been talking about it now for what? Three or four

years at least. Either it's the city dragging its feet or the planning

body dragging its feet, or it's a question of the tunnel or the open

cut, or just an improved highway.

So I ask the minister to tell me what he is doing about this. There is apparently no authorization in these estimates for

[ Page 6490 ]

expenditure at the present time. He knows what I'm talking about, so I leave it there. Is anything happening?

HON. A. FRASER: I should go back here — maybe back to front.

To the member for Vancouver East, I did report this morning where the

Cassiar corridor was at. It is still in the study stage. In March,

after all the public hearings, I wrote a letter to Vancouver city

council giving our position, and it was acknowledged by the city that

they'd get back to us within two months, which is just about now.

That's where it's at. I think we're close to making agreements so we

can get on and do some work — that's my version of it — but I have to

wait for the city coming back.

I appreciate the remarks of the member for Burnaby North, but I of

course don't agree with them; that is, our government is not going to

restore testing stations. We're hopefully going to have a new system in

for commercial vehicles. I don't know whether we can get it in before

the end of this year because we've been dealing with industry, but we

will improve on that. Of course, in the meantime we've stepped up our

vehicle inspection throughout the province with roadside inspections.

That's one thing I personally had against the motor vehicle inspection

stations: they only covered part of the province. At least with the

roadside inspections we definitely cover the whole province. As a

matter of fact, I've had criticism that now we've gone too far the

other way, and the roadside inspections are too frequent and too tough.

Dealing with the Dollarton Highway — to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour

(Mr. Davis) — we're just now starting discussions with the North

Vancouver district council. In these estimates that member discussed

things that have already been discussed here in estimates. Taxi

licensing has been discussed, the Motor Carrier Act — which apparently

we're not supposed to talk about — the ferry crossing from Point Grey

to Gabriola Island, the Cassiar connector that the member for Vancouver

East has brought up. That member also mentioned inspection of motor

vehicles. I think that covers what we've had up till now in fast

replies. I think that covers the items that have been covered by the

members.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, once again I'm very disappointed. I had

hoped that the minister might have a more open mind this year. But I

want to bring to his attention that even to suggest that spot checking,

no matter how you try to improve it to some degree, could ever take the

place of annual mandatory testing is absolutely ridiculous, Mr.

Minister. I asked the minister if he would give us some statistics to

prove that....

In the United States they're saying that nothing has really proved

that mandatory motor vehicle testing makes any difference. For his

information, I would like to read into Hansard

a report from the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., January — I haven't

got the date here. I think it said January. I regret to say I don't

have the date. "It has been proven that vehicle defects do cause

accidents. Since inspection can identify and require the repair of

defects, inspection can reduce the number and/or the severity of

accidents." That is from the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration.

I'm just saying to the minister that with the stroke of a pen and

with very little money — when you compare the amount of money that this

government spends on what we consider very questionable projects — you

could improve the traffic health and safety of the people of British

Columbia. I say to you again: can you not put aside whatever your

personal ideology is about having compulsory testing? Can you not put

that aside and think of the citizens of British Columbia first?

HON. A. FRASER: I have no objections to tabling that report.

I think we're talking about the same report. The superintendent just

advised me, regarding testing tied to safety, that that same report

from the United States government says that it's thirty-seventh or

thirty-eighth on the list of priorities to improve safety. I'm

referring to motor vehicle inspections. But I'll gladly table the

report.

MR. MITCHELL: I'd like to start off the debate by

congratulating the minister for bringing in the child seatbelt

regulations. I know I'm maybe one who is joining a number of other

people and editorials in support of that particular piece of

legislation. But I want to say that the real person who should be given

the credit for child seatbelt legislation in this province is my

colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), because I know, since I

joined this House in 1979, that we've heard her speeches in 1979, 1980,

1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984. I believe it was the continual battle for

the protection of children that came from that hon. member which should

get the real credit. In each of those years there was all the ridicule

that came from the government benches condemning her positive solutions

and suggestions, led by the minister who is now taking the credit for

what should have been brought in years ago. It is a disgrace to the

people of British Columbia that that safety regulation for the

protection of children took so long, and that it took, by one person in

particular, a battle year after year.

I'll get back to some of the major items that affect my riding in

particular. The member for Burnaby North said she has been bringing up

her annual request for the reinstitution of the safety checks on

automobiles; I'm bringing up something that I believe has been brought

up in this House since the Thirties. That is the completion of the West

Coast Road into Port Renfrew, and bringing it up to a standard that is

necessary for the proper development of that area.

What I would like to do is to take the need for road construction in

its proper context. The proper context that I think we should be

looking at is that it has a community need that is going to create jobs

and create and build a better community. The minister and his deputy

know, and all the staff of that ministry know, that since the road was

first put in to Port Renfrew there is still that seven-mile piece in

the centre that has not been paved. It is not being brought up to any

highway standard. It's that centre bottleneck in that particular 20-odd

miles of road that has been a detriment to the school buses coming in

and out. It has been a deterrent for a potential tourist industry that

would go into the community of Port Renfrew if there was a decent,

driveable road for the whole area.

I cannot understand the millions of dollars that have been spent

throughout British Columbia, while they continue to ignore the

completion of that piece of the road. The main reason I am bringing

this, again, to the attention of the minister is that Port Renfrew is

changing its historical position. For years and years it was the centre

of the logging community on the west coast in the Port Renfrew area.

The main offices, the main repair shops, were located in Port Renfrew.

Since then, because of different management of the

[ Page

6491 ]

company, the major offices and the shops have moved north to the Cowichan Lake area.

There is the potential for developing Port Renfrew into a retirement

and recreational community. One of the greatest fishing resorts — I

shouldn't say "resorts"; fishing areas — is out of Port Renfrew, not

only for salmon but for groundfish, smelts and crabs. That could be a

tourist destination area. A development of that type in that area would

replace a lot of the jobs that have been lost. I know the few fishermen

who enjoy it and are not afraid to go over the rough road may be

opposed to my making this information general knowledge, but I'm

convinced, Mr. Chairman, that with the proper development of a proper

road in there, new jobs could be created, new industries, new

settlement.

A lot of people are moving out of the area to the new locations of

the logging offices, but there are homes that are affordable, that are

available, and that, with a proper road in there, would make a

retirement destination for a number of additional people. At the

present time, people are retiring out there because homes are

affordable, but there is a need to complete that road, a need to

complete the development of that community.

We can't continue to build roads solely because they look good on

political pamphlets at election time. We have to develop the highway

system so it's going to have a regional impact, a community impact,

and, in the long range, so the development is going to add jobs to

British Columbia. If the minister would look at it in consultation with

the community, with the area involved, he would find the necessary

funds to complete it, and he wouldn't continue to forget it.

[3:00]

Earlier on, Mr. Chairman, the minister talked about the great job

that private industry is doing in British Columbia. The other half of

that west coast route — Jordan River to Port Renfrew, Port Renfrew to

Cowichan Lake — is a forestry road. It's owned by a private company in

there, and it's not maintained. Though there is access for those in the

community, the condition of that road is getting deplorable.

I've attended a number of meetings with the Island Expo group that

is attempting to promote the tourist industry on Vancouver Island in

conjunction with Expo and the millions of people that are going to come

to British Columbia. They have many proposals to encourage tourists to

travel on Vancouver Island. One of the most obvious routes for tourists

to take goes from Victoria, out the west coast road, through Jordan

River to Port Renfrew, then a return trip through to Cowichan Lake,

down into Duncan and up-Island. There's natural beauty there. There's

the potential for fishing. There is camping; there are sights galore.

There has to be some coordination with the Ministry of Transportation

and Highways, with the tourist industry, with the Ministry of Finance.

Those two roads should not only be brought under one ministry, but

the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) should relinquish his hold

on that particular road. The Minister of Transportation and Highways

should look at that particular route and upgrade it so it is a circle

route for both the people living in it, and for the rest of British

Columbia's communities.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

This has been going on and on without any leadership from the government or

that minister. He seems to bow to big megaprojects that look great and can be

talked about. But they're not looking at how they're going to affect

British Columbians. It's the smaller roads that have potential to bring

in new work and new jobs that I think he should also be looking at. I implore

him.... I know that he is following in the footsteps of many of his predecessors

by continuing to ignore that road. I think it's about time the government

and the Minister of Highways, whoever he is, took a strong stand on it.

I have another road I would like to bring to the minister's

attention. That is the road into Willis Point. Part of that road goes

through a piece of DND property on which is located Heal's rifle range,

which is where the majority of the armed forces in this area go out to

practise their rifle shooting. It is also used in a lot of cases by

private rifle clubs for tournaments. I know the minister and his deputy

are aware of this particular range. The butts are located at least 100

feet below the road. There is a buffer of trees between the road and

the top of the hill. But there are regulations within the Department of

National Defence that they have what they call their funnel, and it is

unsafe for people to travel within this funnel area.

So what happens, Mr. Minister, is that every time the army or the

navy are out on the range, or when private clubs are shooting, there

are 20-minute delays on the road. I know that the minister would not

like to jeopardize anyone's safety — which I agree with. But this

particular area has been gazetted. They have sold lots in that Willis

Point area, and a lot of expensive homes have been built there. It's a

community there, but it's shut off many times a day in the summer when

there is a lot of practising going on. It's shut off for 20-minute

delays. There are times when it happens at 9 o'clock and people are

late for work, or they're late for appointments.

The people in that community have requested the opportunity to at

least proceed through the area at their own risk. I am not sure of the

legal position if someone does proceed through that area at his own

risk. Does the government or does the DND have any responsibility for

it? But from looking at the area, I think it would be impossible,

without a mortar, to put a shell from the area where they're doing the

shooting up onto that particular road. I don't know. I've looked at it.

I've walked it. I've travelled it. I've trespassed on it. When you

realize that throughout British Columbia we have hunters all over the

province shooting indiscriminately towards highways...and we still

allow hunters out in the woods. I really don't know how many motorists

are ever shot by a hunter. Maybe there is a chance that it could

happen. But I've asked the minister, his ministry and the Department of

National Defence, on behalf of the residents: why can't they have an

opportunity to proceed at their own risk?

I see I have a red light on, Mr. Chairman, so if the minister would

like to answer those questions, I will go on with the rest later.

HON. A. FRASER: Dealing with the road to Port Renfrew, you

know we.... One thing I don't think you mentioned: we have done some

work, and I believe the ministry have been concentrating more on

replacing bridges than they have anything else. I believe a bridge was

replaced last year. There is more to do. They are doing something. No

doubt the people there and you aren't satisfied with the speed at which

we're doing it, but we haven't stopped entirely; that is the point I

want to make.

Regarding the forest roads, the government has just hammered out a new policy. It will go into effect in 1986. We have

[ Page 6492 ]

forest access roads all over this province, where

people are living. Then the forestry pull out and leave the citizens

without the services of road maintenance such as snowploughing or

grading. Starting in 1986 in a slow way we, the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways, are going to assume these roads and the

responsibility for the maintenance of them. I say slowly. We're not

going to start building four-lane freeways or paving and so on, but the

way it has been, really the Crown sells the land to the citizen in a

lot of cases, they use the forest access road for access and then of

course when the logging stops, they're on their own.

I think our priorities on that will be where people are living. I

think you're talking of two different types in the area you're talking

about, Mr. Member: one where there are citizens living and one where

there are not. I'm talking about the branch road, as I understand it.

So I'm saying that we will assume the maintenance where people are

living, but it will be a pretty low priority where people are not

living. In other words, the priority will be given where citizens

exist, and we'll gradually work into and over a period of time have a

better satisfactory arrangement for citizens who find themselves in

this situation.

I haven't a great deal to say about Willis Point Road, other than

that we had it solved last year. The developer was going to fix

everything, and he went kaput. That was part of his subdivision

approval, and the developer had financial difficulties, so he didn't go

ahead. The ministry asked me to point out to the House, Mr. Chairman,

and to the member, that through the rifle range is not our road. That's

under the control of the Department of National Defence. You were

talking about shooting regulations and so on, but it's my understanding

they have complete control of that — ownership and everything else —

and of course they can do what they want with that

section of road. In

other words, we have public roads on either side, but within the rifle

range itself it belongs to the Department of National Defence. As MPs

haven't got much to do, maybe you could get hold of the MP and see if

he could solve it.

MR. MITCHELL: I can assure you I've talked to three MPs about

this particular area. The minister says it's not their highway; it

belongs to the DND. The ministry maintain it: they snow-plough it and

do everything else. I'm quite convinced it must have been gazetted at

one time as a highway, because they have sold lots and they have

developed property on the west end of the road. They have encouraged

quarter-million-dollar homes to be built in that particular area, and

there is this continual bureaucratic safety regulation that the

residents are prepared to drive through the area at their own risk.

They're prepared to do it. I've talked to some of the local military

people, and as one of them said: "We couldn't hit that road without a

mortar." But the regulation is such that the highway is such.... The

last time I talked to the officer in charge in Ottawa he maintained

it's unsafe to drive through there. He's the only one, but he is the

boss. The only thing the residents request is that they be allowed to

drive there at their own risk. I don't know if that change can be

accommodated by the ministry in cooperation with the DND. I know it's

frustrating, because I was going up there one day on a Sunday; there

was a private group who had a tournament on, and I sat there for 20

minutes and walked up and down looking for something coming through the

woods and there's nothing. But there you sit on the side of the road.

He talked about having it solved at one time by — I take it — Murray

Pezim's Windmill development. He left the impression at all the public

hearings that you were going to solve it for him, and that you had

given assurance that the new road would go in and everyone was pushing

for the development because somebody besides the NDP MLA had the ear of

the minister. But if the minister is now saying that the Windmill

development is going to do it...that wasn't quite the impression that

was going to be in conjunction with the CRD and the ministry.

[3:15]

The new road should go in. There's no doubt about it. It would open

up a lot of other areas. I feel that although the Windmill development

has gone belly-up, we can't continue to have this 20-minute delay

through the summer months. It's inconvenient to the military, because

they have to stop their shooting. They can't start until 9 o'clock in

the morning, because they have an agreement with the school board that

there will be no shooting between 7 and 9 when the school kids go

through. But they are still in an area close to the city, near a

well-built-up area, and you have these unnecessary bureaucratic —

according to the people living there — shutdowns of the roadway that

everyone believed was properly gazetted and would give them access 24

hours a day. But after they've built in there and invested a lot of

money, it turns out that this particular area is still tied up with

some regulations. I sincerely hope that the minister will look at it

and talk to some of the officials to come up with an answer.

HON. A. FRASER: Your concern is justifiable, I might say.

I'll clear up something I said earlier. This road is gazetted, you're

correct. But according to our ministry, even though it is a public

gazetted road, the defence act takes precedence over the Highway Act,

and that gives the authority for the closure for shooting at the rifle

range. Our ministry has tried, with National Defence, to have this

nonsense stopped, because it's our opinion that it doesn't or shouldn't

interfere with their shooting and that traffic could move on.

Mr. Member, you'd be interested in this. As I understand from senior

officials, we did win. But I don't know if that's any consolation to

you that they will allow traffic to go through there as long as it's

rush hour, but after that, look out, you might get shot, which is

completely unsatisfactory, of course. But they did back down that much.

I'm quite prepared to pursue it further with the Minister of National

Defence and the Minister of Transport in Ottawa and maybe get some

resolution, because I think this situation is ridiculous, to be frank

with you.

Last but not least, referring to the developer out there that

promised to build the roads, I don't know what he said. People talk

about me all the time, you know, at different meetings. I can't

understand it. I don't know what Mr. Pezim said about me, but I will

tell that regarding building the roads, we had it in writing from him

that he would build the roads at his cost.

MR. MITCHELL: Could the minister confirm or give us some

explanation — and I brought this up in my debate on Lands, Parks and

Housing — that the Ministry of Highways is taking over the cost of

maintenance of the roads in Manning Park. Could the minister confirm

that that is true? What is the approximate cost per year to the

ministry of the taking over

[ Page

6493 ]

and maintenance of the roads in the park that were at one time maintained by the parks branch?

HON. A. FRASER: I replied to that question yesterday. Yes, we

have taken over the roads. I'm not clear on the costs, but we

definitely have taken over responsibility for the roads. The assistant

deputy minister advises me he thinks it's about $11,000 a year.

MR. GABELMANN: One of the things that always amuses me about

Highways estimates is that if we totalled up the value of the requests

from every MLA, it would exceed the total budget of the entire province

every year, I'm sure. I preface my remarks by making that

acknowledgement, Mr. Chairman. I'm fully aware that funds are limited

and in fact would argue that funds should be limited for highway

projects at times like these.

Nevertheless, I am going to put a few things on the table in terms

of North Island, which I know the minister understands. Before I do

that, I just want to say that I had an opportunity a couple of weeks

ago to do a four-wheel drive trip through the Coquihalla construction

project, starting in Hope, going through Merritt and coming back via

the canyon. Whatever one thinks of the appropriateness of spending the

kind of dollars that are being spent on that highway at this time, I

have to say frankly that, from an engineering point of view if not a

political one, that's a magnificent project. I just have to say that.

The level of construction, the work — and I, of course, don't have the

discerning eye that one needs to make these kinds of judgments — that's

being done in terms of looking out as best you can for that river....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Discussion with respect to Bill 2 should not be part of the estimates of the minister at this time.

MR. SKELLY: And the opposition should not be praising the government either.

MR. GABELMANN: That's right, so I am out of order on two

counts, Mr. Chairman. I'll just very quickly say that there is some

remarkable work going on, and that's going to be a remarkable route.

Going beyond Bill 2, it's clear that coming back to the canyon — and

I hadn't been on the canyon road for more than a year I guess, although

I've been on the Hope-Princeton a number of times in the last year — I

was just in general terms quite distressed — that's the wrong word —

but concerned about the state of maintenance on the canyon. I don't

know what's happened, but just eyeballing it, while driving through at

90 kph, it seemed to me that the maintenance levels are not up to the

standards that are traditional for highways in this province. However,

that may have been just an uneducated eyeball response.

Inasmuch as it seems as if we're going to have a four-lane highway,

virtually a freeway, from Alberta to Horseshoe Bay, notwithstanding the

particular section, Cassiar and Hastings — hard to call that a

four-lane — it seems to me logical to extend that freeway from Nanaimo

to Campbell River as part of this project of yours that is ongoing.

If I can lead into the Island Highway bypass in that way, I

recognize that the minister has made other priorities in terms of

construction, and I'm not arguing that we should add yet another $100

million to the construction costs for highways in the immediate future.

But clearly.... I know the member for Comox raised this issue earlier,

and I listened in my office to the minister's reply in respect of the

Island Highway bypass, but — at least, as I heard it — he talked about

the Mud Bay–Menzies Bay route and didn't seem to refer to the route

from Parksville to Mud Bay. But presumably when we're talking about the

bypass, we're talking about the entire route and also the Nanaimo

bypass. For those of us, the member for Mackenzie, the member for Comox

and myself in particular, who drive that road two or three times a

week, it's astounding. If I come through — just to give a personal

aside to it — from Campbell River to Victoria in the middle of the

night obeying the speed limit within the tolerance, I can do it in

three hours or less. In the daytime in the winter, it's three and a

half hours. In the daytime in the summer it's four hours. That's an

hour extra in a three-hour trip. It is a dangerous road. It is a

difficult road, and one that needs to be bypassed. The minister was

saying earlier that it's difficult to do in sections, and I understand

that: you're not building in the same location, and you're not going to

be able to do parts here and there, particularly the northern sections;

you're going to need to do it all at once.

I guess I'm standing to make my annual plea to the minister to give

some early consideration to that project, particularly from the Alberni

cutoff at Parksville through to Campbell River. It may be that parts of

it can be done. It may be that, for example, from Menzies Bay south to

somewhere in the Oyster River area a

section could be constructed. At

the present time we have a bit of a cow trail from Menzies Bay in to

Campbell River. A lot of tourist traffic that might head north from

Campbell River, anticipating going through to the end of the Island and

encountering that road by the Crown Forest pulp mill as it winds along

the waterfront there.... Before arriving at Menzies Bay you really

anticipate a dreadful highway. Yet once you get to Menzies Bay you're

onto a beautiful, first-rate, super, two-lane highway that goes almost

to Port McNeill. But a lot of people are turned off because of that

stretch from Campbell River to Menzies Bay.

Of course, in some ways there's not a lot of logic in spending a lot

of money upgrading that particular road, because you're going to bypass

that section. So I find it difficult to know what to argue. If the

bypass isn't going to come until some unseen date in the future, then

the upgrading needs to happen on that particular section. I think

people would be happy to wait and not have that particular

section

rebuilt if they knew the bypass was going to occur. It might well be

that you can do particular chunks like that. I think that the one from

Menzies Bay to perhaps the Oyster River area could be done earlier than

other parts of it — and maybe others. I'm not pretending to make any

engineering-type decisions about this kind of thing, because I just

don't know. But I would urge an early look at if not the entire route,

then at least parts of it, as soon as possible. The existing highway is

just atrocious, particularly going through places like Qualicum and

other small communities along the coast really impossible.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I mentioned that the minister will now have several letters, I'm

sure, from various people about that road from Menzies Bay to Campbell

River, which is part of Highway 19 and which won't be part of Highway

19 with the bypass. So I'd appreciate knowing what the plans are for

that. I see on

[ Page 6494 ]

page 1559, I think, of the book — I don't know what

you call it; the orange book, if my eyesight's right — that they were

planning what you call Duncan Bay to Menzies Bay, which is what I'm

talking about. A bypass study was done — under the

section relating to

design and survey. So I'd be interested to know what specifically the

intention is there. Is it to upgrade or is it to bypass?

On another issue — and I'll just go through half a dozen other

issues quite quickly, Mr. Chairman.... Let me just go back to the new

road that's being built. This is more than Bill 2, because with much of

the four-laning I'm in effect talking about a new route from Vancouver

to Alberta. Will that new route be Highway 1? Maybe you answered this

question earlier and I missed it. Will that be called Highway 1? What

involvement does the federal government have, in terms of Trans-Canada

cost-sharing, with any of the construction that's going on now on this

new quick route through the province? I suspect the answer is none, but

I'm curious to know what provisions.... I don't know the procedures

under those old cost-sharing arrangements — and where the upgrading or

short-cutting takes place — and why they shouldn't be involved, if they

aren't.

[3:30]

Back to North Island and, as I said, half a dozen smaller issues —

smaller in terms of the province, not smaller in terms of the people

who live there. Now that the decision appears to have been made in the

north end, if the minister will think about the Coal Harbour–Holberg–Port

Hardy end of Vancouver Island, it appears as if the decision not to

build a forest road along the Holberg Inlet from Coal Harbour to

Holberg, inasmuch as Hydro is now putting its lines in from Port Hardy

to Holberg, and one of the main justifications for going along the

inlet, apart from lack of snow, was also a shorter Hydro line route....

But now that that's not happening, and the Hydro line is going in on

the existing gravel road between Holberg and Port Hardy, it appears as

if the idea of an inlet road is dead for the time being, and under

these circumstances that makes sense.

The existing road from Hardy to Holberg is in pretty grim shape, and

the regional district has recently written to the ministry about that.

Parts of it need reconstruction; parts of it need widening, inasmuch as

it's often a single lane. There is heavy industrial use on that road,

and increasing parks use because of Cape Scott Park. In the summertime,

you've got a mix of military vehicles, moving-vans — because the

military forces at Holberg are always moving — logging trucks, shake

trucks, and the regular 1,100 residents moving in and out across that

road, plus Winnebagos and all of the other things that come with

tourist traffic, and you've got a road that is often a single lane

because of narrow spots and shoulders that are collapsing, and on and

on. So there needs to be some significant work done on that particular

road now that it appears it will probably forever be the major route

into Cape Scott and that area.

While I'm talking about that end of the riding, let me just say

again, without making a speech, that the proposed Tahsis-Woss road

still remains a high priority. The road from the village of Tahsis to

Woss Lake rather than out via Gold River remains a high priority not

only with the residents of Tahsis; virtually every municipal council in

the regional district and every local authority has indicated its

support for that route. None of us are arguing for a superhighway

through there. We're only arguing for a logging-road type of access in

the early stages to replace that long and tortuous, difficult route via

Gold River at the present time.

I mentioned that the minister and I have talked about it every year

since I have represented North Island, so I don't need to make the long

speech again, other than to say it's still on the front burner as far

as the local residents are concerned. When I did the Coquihalla trip, I

came back via Merritt–Spences Bridge and noticed bridge construction

galore on that road — a road that I didn't think was a particularly

heavily used highway, not one that I would have thought was so high in

the ministry's priority list, except I guess for the circle route for

those people who want to make a day trip out of Vancouver and back down

the canyon. But it seems to me that if the kind of activity that can

take place in Yale-Lillooet.... If we could just have what they spill

in Yale-Lillooet in North Island, we'd be happy. Because that would

enable us to have the Marble bridge rebuilt on the way into Port Alice.

The Keogh Bridge, which is on Highway 19. It's the only traffic light

in that part of the world. People up there don't quite know what to

make of this red and green light. I've got a green light, too, I see,

Mr. Chairman. I'm very nearly finished.

In Sayward, the Sachts Bridge is very desperately in need of

rebuilding. I notice there's some money being allocated for partial

reconstruction of some bad parts of it, but the whole bridge needs to

come in. So there are three bridge projects that are quite urgent in

that constituency.

The minister and I in the last few weeks have exchanged

correspondence about the proposal for a park at Storries Beach. This is

a regional district proposal, and the minister has been quite adamant

and quite categorical in saying no to me, that this will not be turned

over to the regional district for parks purposes, or any other purposes

whatsoever, period, exclamation mark. In his last letter he says:

"There is not adequate space for regional park and off-highway

parking." The place is full of off-highway parking in the summer —

dozens and dozens and dozens of cars parked off the highway, except

they can't get off the road because it isn't developed. So you have an

80-kilometre-an-hour stretch of road with cars half on and half off the

road, because they can't get off the road properly to go to what is

Campbell River's only swimming beach. The place is already totally

full, and what we're really arguing for is some order to be made out of

this chaos that now exists. One of the ways is through a controlled

regional park of some kind.

HON. A. FRASER: Thanks to the member for North Island, who

makes some generally good observations. I just want to touch on a few

of them. I am sure engineers will be pleased at your remarks that you

made regarding the engineering of the Coquihalla. I agree with you.

It's going to turn out to be another outstanding engineering feat, and

they should be congratulated for that.

The condition of the Fraser Canyon — I hear pros and cons about it.

It's not bad, but I'll just tell you that we've let two paving

contracts there in the bad sections, and we're trying to keep up with

it. Two paving contracts have gone through, one around Yale and the

other one around Jackass Mountain. They'll start paving shortly. We

should be able to arrange it just when the heavy peak season of tourism

comes hold up the traffic for paving. But we're aware of that.

The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) brought up the bypass, and all

that. We've got a real problem. I don't want to make any excuses. I was

waiting for you to say where you

[ Page 6495 ]

thought it was the worst. One thing we haven't

mentioned is Nanaimo. We have suggested so many things, and we never

seem to get together. Now the council is trying to get their act

together. It seems to me that that's one of the biggest bottlenecks to

start off with, and that's a mammoth one in the way of acquisition of

property and so on — to get better access. We're meeting with those

people now. Whether we'll ever conclude, I don't know. I think the

community is getting paralyzed by it, so I think that some action has

to be taken.

The same thing applies at Parksville. It seems to me that three

years ago we were all ready to go, and then Parksville said that they

didn't want us around there: "Get away from here." This is on a curb

and gutter job. They are now back, so I'm not standing here saying that

we're going to start anything right away.

The one thing that you brought that is interesting, and that I'd

like to get on the record here, is the cost-sharing — cost-sharing by

the federal government with the province on road construction. Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to get it on the record that they don't share five

cents. They had a sharing agreement, I guess, years ago for the

rebuilding of the Fraser Canyon Trans-Canada. That's long since gone.

But you know what else has happened? It's gone in reverse, and I

resent it very much. During the previous federal administration they

imposed an excise tax. Now that excise tax that you pay in a litre of

fuel is deriving $250 million to $300 million a year, and it's all

going to Ottawa. I want to tell you that we're real good citizens. Our

highway system is completely maintained by British Columbians — and

built — and yet they're using it as a revenue source. I want to repeat

that we're real good Canadians. It's in reverse. They're not sending

anything back. They're taking it all back there, and of course, there

are rumours that that's going to advance further. I think it's two

cents in September, and so on. So we are now starting to make

representations, but again, I don't think.... The point that I'm trying

to make is that vehicles that burn the fuel wear out our highway

system, and part of the tax in that fuel goes to the capital of Canada.

It doesn't come back to British Columbia; that's the point. So we have

a complete cycle change in the period of 25 years with the government

of Canada.

The Port Hardy road, as far as I know, is a public road. I guess

maybe our maintenance is inadequate. We will certainly look at it,

because that's another community in the province. Maybe we can improve

our maintenance. Tahsis, Woss Lake: I appreciate your remarks, but as

you know, that's a costly undertaking, according to our engineers, and

we're not really looking at that.

Your comment regarding Highway 8, from Merritt to Spences Bridge,

when you're on your trip.... That's correct. We're replacing three

bridges there. They are old-style bridges. Two things happened. We're

concerned about where the traffic goes. When the four lane opens at

Merritt, we'll use part of Highway 8 and part of Highway 5 to disperse

it. But the other thing that's been there for a long time is, believe

it or not, that they're hauling logs from Gold River in the Bridge

River country all the way to Merritt. These bridges — we had load

limits on them — were impairing jobs in sawmills and in logging.

Between the two, and under the umbrella of the Coquihalla, we're

getting the thing resolved. That's what brought that up.

I'm not clear on Sayward. I think there's been something.... That

again is another inadequate bridge. Stories Beach — I think you put a

little different light on it. We are saying we won't turn that property

over for a park, but if your problem is access, I don't see why we

can't do something. If we're having a problem. as I gather from what

you said, getting the traffic off the road into a park area — if that's

the problem — I'd like you to clarify that.

MR. GABELMANN: To clarify that — the request from the

regional district is to make a regional park. That's the initial

request, and they would like to be able to have that area as a park for

swimming and beach-related activities. When I was asked to come to the

minister, Mr. Chairman, to help in this project, I came at it from a

slightly different angle, and that was the angle of safety and of the

present situation there. There are other sections on the Island Highway

— and I think of south of Union Bay near Fanny Bay, in fact — where you

have a rest stop, where there is an equally narrow area between the

road and the high-water mark, and you just paved the whole thing and

made a rest stop. I don't think we need a rest stop there. There's a

rest stop at Oyster Bay, which is four or five miles south of Stories

Beach.

But what we do need there, and it seemed to me that Highways could

authorize..... Highways could do the planning; there's no problem with

that. Highways could authorize the regional district to look after the

toilets and the parking and the maintenance of that particular area,

just by turning it over to them under some strict controls in terms of

the Highways' needs for the proper highway control. The fact is that

the area is heavily populated in the summertime, because, as I say, it

is the only swimming beach around. There are people there renting those

windsurfers, and there are all kinds of activities taking place, and

it's all taking place virtually on the shoulder of the road. People

drive into the driftwood and try to get off the road, and you can't. I

live a couple of hundred yards from there, and it's not safe. I'm sure

your people in that area would concur with my comments about that.

So what we're looking at is some ability to regulate that particular

area a little bit. I thought the regional district proposal made sense

— that they look after it. They wouldn't want to call it a park or

whatever, but I don't see that that precludes Highways from saying: "If

you do, it will be under these strict guidelines." Maybe it will be on

a lease basis so that if you need it for future purposes, you've got

that particular freedom at a later time. But something has to happen in

there, whatever it is.

[3:45]

The only other comment was on the Holberg road. Half of it is now a

public road, and half of it is a logging road which has public use.

Your highway graders are on there spending thousands and thousands of

dollars operating highway graders full-time, trying to maintain a bad

road, and in parts of it trying to maintain a dangerous road. I'm sure

that your local people — the Highways foremen in Port Hardy — can

verify that to your staff, that there is an urgent need for not just

maintenance but for some basic construction to bring it up to level.

I'm not talking about even putting a paved road in. I'm talking about

bringing the gravel up to a reasonable standard for the level of

traffic that it has to handle now.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to keep an eye on the clock.

I'd first of all like to give a few kudos to the minister. It's very gratifying to see the old trusses from the old Taghum

[ Page 6496 ]

bridge being recycled and used in the Slocan

Valley, replacing Bailey bridges and some old Howe truss bridges. Also

it's very nice to see that Lower 6 Mile Road has a new bridge. It's a

very small bridge, but it leads to.... I have occasion to travel on it

once in a while, as I also live on Lower 6 Mile Road, so I thought I'd

mention that.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest when the minister

mentioned the ATAP program and $2.5 million. I know there's great

demand for the program. In my riding we have four municipal airports,

and two at the present time are in discussions with your ministry. I

have in my hand a letter from Syd Carroll, pointing out the condition

of the Nelson airport: the way the pavement is breaking up. It's beyond

mere resurfacing, and something major has to be done. The city of

Nelson is prepared to act. There is an excellent chance that they can

bring back some of those federal dollars that the minister talked about

us losing, through the MILAP program, and take advantage of what's on.

At the present time the proposal is for resurfacing. His ministry

has cooperated in terms of some of the testing, and I think that things

are ready to go. So this is a project which I think is almost

immediately ready to go and would not be a phantom project if it were

approved for this year. So I would ask the minister about what plans

there might be for Nelson. Also Nakusp; I'd like to put in a good word

for Nakusp. There is very important trade in terms of helicopter skiing

out of Nakusp. There is a proposal now to further develop the Nakusp

hot springs, and a lot of money could be poured in there. Some

improvements have to be made at Nakusp. I would urge that the ministry

work in close conjunction.... . I know that the Nakusp council has been

in touch with the minister.

That's number one. Number two, I would like to bring up once again

the resurfacing of what is the main street of Salmo. It is not called

Main Street — Main Street is one street over, for some odd reason — but

the former Highway 3 through Salmo. The minister is familiar with it.

Last year he authorized some immediate work to be done in terms of

planning. The village just has to go ahead with putting in storm sewers

and gutters, even if the ministry is not in a position to do its part.

But I think that would be undesirable. After five, six or seven

successive years of people picking their way through about a foot and a

half of slush in early and late winter months, flooding into adjoining

buildings.... A considerable amount of provincial and local money has

been spent on the Main Street program — another government program —

which I think is reason to give this a very high priority, even though

funds are very limited. This has been waiting for many, many years. So

I would urge that that go ahead in Salmo.

A third thing is New Denver. New Denver and the mayor of New Denver

have been in touch with the minister asking for assistance. They want

to build a sidewalk through New Denver. I realize what the provincial

government programs are, and that they would require curb and gutter;

it would probably be beyond the tax base capabilities of New Denver. I

would ask the minister then if they could not at least look at

resurfacing, perhaps paving and marking a shoulder, or doing something

that would improve the safety aspect in New Denver.

The next item is north shore improvements. There has been a lot of

improvement work done on alignments, a lot of cutting of banks, yet I

think there is some worry that there isn't enough money to really

finish the job. This leaves some residents in a rather hazardous

position, with inadequate access because the jobs aren't quite

finished. Also, of course, it would be desirable to have the work

completed and the paving and so on go ahead at the earliest possible

opportunity. There is also a road just south of Lardeau and a bridge

which again has been relocated. A Bailey bridge has been put in. The

alignment is all off. Believe me, it's very dangerous. The first time I

went up there.... I don't think it's even marked anymore; it has become

part of the permanent highway. It's only been in that condition for

about a year or so, but it would be desirable to get that put into

proper alignment again and get it completed.

Those are the items. The ATAP program, both Nelson and Nakusp; I

think Nelson is certainly ready to go right now. The Salmo program of

resurfacing, and Salmo is probably going to go ahead with the curbs and

gutters. I think the paving aspect of that really should go ahead this

year. It has been delayed just too, too many years. I would hope there

could be some help for New Denver. I think resurfacing would be timely.

It needs it anyhow. I've discussed that with local officials, who tend

to agree with me. Improvements on the north shore road — that is,

Nelson to Balfour — and even various improvements going all the way

through to Kaslo.

I would appreciate the minister's comments on those items.

HON. A. FRASER: We are just looking at all the ATAP program

allocations now as related to Nelson and Nakusp. I haven't a note here,

but I'm sure their applications are in there. As I said yesterday, a

lot of rumours got flying around that the program was being eliminated,

and that's not so at all. The government will continue to fund that

quite popular program in the province.

We've had correspondence from Salmo regarding the problems there,

and we're going to work with them. We've indicated to them that we'll

have elevation available so they can install their utilities. The

design work is not yet complete, but we're apparently on top of that

now.

I got lost a bit on the others: New Denver, the road south to

Lardeau and Nelson to Balfour. We'll just look into your comments; the

senior staff are here. I think that pretty well covers what you brought

up.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, as distinct from my colleagues and

many other people in the House, who are always asking the Minister of

Highways to come into their constituency and do something, I would beg

the Minister of Highways to stay the blazes out of New Westminster.

Every time he comes it's an utter disaster.

You know, I just can't believe the highway structure in B.C. After

using New Westminster as the funnel for all the traffic from anywhere

to everywhere in the province....

MS. BROWN: That's Burnaby.

MR. COCKE: That's Burnaby, my foot! It's New Westminster. We've got a six-square-mile area and....

That Ministry of Highways has the temerity to move into New

Westminster — take a look at their motor vehicle office in New

Westminster — and then they move out. Even they can't stand the traffic

in that town. They moved the motor vehicle office from New Westminster

to that illustrious riding of Maillardville-Coquitlam, I understand

it's called, thinking that they're going to put it into a good Socred

riding. Well, it's

[ Page 6497 ]

not going to be Socred very much longer. In any

event, what a ridiculous thing! We've got a government that on the one

hand says, through the ministry of small business and one thing and

another: "Let's get New Westminster rejuvenated. Let's get things going

in that town...." Every time they turn around they try to destroy it.

You know, just moving that office.... And the minister says: "Well, it

was too small, and there were no alternatives." I can take him around

that town, and I can show him more alternatives than Carter has pills.

Columbia Street is virtually empty as a result of this government's

policy. Moving that motor vehicle office was, as far as I'm concerned,

the last insult that was necessary from that ministry.

I just don't know. The city council wrote to him. As a matter of

fact, there was no warning in the first place to city council until it

was an accomplished fact. But they tried their darndest to get

something happening there, and nobody has had any success whatsoever.

So what did they do? They moved it out to the Lougheed Highway next

door to Mother Tucker's. Big deal! You know, I just can't believe their

attitude to our town.

Mr. Chairman, I was also listening to the minister pontificate about this whole

question of stopping motor vehicle testing. He said: "Well, we didn't

have motor vehicle testing everywhere. Therefore we'll cancel it everywhere.

These roadside checks are great."

I saw a car.... I tried to get a picture of it; unfortunately I

couldn't. This car was bought by a young entrepreneur next door to me

in New Westminster. Remember, no motor vehicle testing anymore. He

bought it from another kid who finally gave up on it. Now let me tell

you what he bought it for. He bought it for the transmission and part

of the motor. They brought it into the yard, and the father of this

young genius calls me over — I'm talking about the guy who repairs cars.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I don't know the guy who sold the car. But the kid

that bought it didn't care about its condition. Let me tell you

something about that car. It was an old Honda or Mazda, or one of

those. Underneath the driver's seat it had a piece of sheet metal —

tin. That's what the driver's seat sat on. It was totally rusted out,

and the only way you could keep the seat off the ground was on that

piece of tin. There was no way that car would have got by motor vehicle

testing.

Now it's not very likely that that car is going to find its way up

to the summit at Rogers Pass and be stopped for motor vehicle testing,

because it never gets outside New Westminster. But while it's in New

Westminster it's a danger to every person there — an absolute hazard.

This is the kind of thing that's going on on our roads since that

minister closed down his motor vehicle testing stations.

[4:00]

If you can't afford it in the outlying areas, then why not get some

local garages or roadside testing or whatever you want. But in the

large urban areas we still should have motor vehicle testing. It's

sheer nonsense to say that there is no difference. I can take you right

now by the hand, and I will lead you around the densely populated areas

at night. You watch. Every fifth or sixth car has one of its headlights

off.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Getting back to that car that was probably sold by the member for Surrey....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the hon. member comment from his own seat. Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Getting back to that car, it had no brakes on two

of the wheels. It was an absolute disgrace on the road, and yet that

car was driven until finally the kid gave up and sold it to this

neighbour's son, who needed the motor for another car. But that's the

kind of junk that's out on the road, since he quit motor vehicle

testing. It's absolute sheer nonsense.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I'm not attacking the police, Mr. Minister; I'm

attacking this worthless government in British Columbia — the most

worthless government that ever occurred in this province, and that's

saying a lot, because there have been plenty.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I would hope that the minister and this government will look again

at that crazy idea of stopping motor vehicle testing. It's worth it.

ICBC warned you to begin with that you shouldn't do it. I want to hear

the minister promise to restore motor vehicle testing in this province.

MR. REID: Private sector stuff.

MR. COCKE: You know, here's a person who sells cars, and he should know better.

MR. REID: Private sector can look after it.

MR. COCKE: The private sector can look at it, but they don't, as usual. They never do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The second member for Surrey will come to order. The member for New Westminster continues.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for protecting me from that marauding member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the estimates, please. Thank you.

MR. COCKE: One other thing I would just like to leave the

highways department with is this land robbery that takes place every

time a person wants to make some changes with respect to subdivision. I

had occasion to deal with that department for some three and one half

years with....

AN HON. MEMBER: Which government?

MR. COCKE: This government, this highways department. I have 600 feet of beach on Skaha Lake.

Interjection.

[ Page 6498 ]

MR. COCKE: That's right. I'm one of those Cadillac socialists — Mercedes socialists.

Anyway, because it was 600 feet long, we decided we would divide it

into three lots instead of two, which it now is. It would just work out

in the family situation just nicely. Anyway, I've put up with it for

just too long. They said that they wanted to take one-third of that

property all the way along for road allowance. It was narrow enough to

begin with, because the road is fairly close to the lake at that point.

I have asked every practical person that I've met, including the

Premier of the province, whether or not they thought that there would

be a highway down that side of the road at that particular area. Of

course there won't be. The road goes like a snake. Behind that next

ridge is a clear valley, but that particular area being used for a

highway is sheer nonsense. They know it's sheer nonsense, but they

insist on getting their pound of flesh, and you know what? They're

never going to get it, because I'm going to leave the property the way

it is. If you want that land, you'll darned well buy it if, a hundred

years from now, you decide to build a highway there. You know, that's

the kind of preposterousness that people in this province put up with

with that bureaucracy. It's just a bit much.

In any event, having told the minister how I feel about him and his

department, I will now sit down and hope that he will at least say

motor vehicle testing will be reinstated in B. C.

HON. A. FRASER: After that vicious attack, I'm a little

shaky. I'll first of all apologize for moving the motor vehicle office

from Westminster to Coquitlam, but it serves more people there and

that's apparently why that decision was made.

On motor vehicle testing, I've told at least three MLAs we're not

bringing it back. We'll be bringing back a different type of commercial

vehicle testing but not motor vehicle testing.

Talking about substandard vehicles on the road, Mr. Chairman, I've said before in the estimates that that's against the law.

Interjections.

HON. A. FRASER: We have officers out there enforcing the law night and day.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: No, sir, we sure haven't on RCMP. But they're out everywhere.

As I said here earlier today, we're now getting the reaction that

there's too much enforcement. We're always going to have people who

break the law; and it's a question of time when we catch up with them.

You people know that.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: Well, when they do that, they're breaking the law, and they get caught.

Mr. Chairman, I'm really concerned about that member's remarks about

this government and the great old Royal City, New Westminster. He's

trying to portray us as having forgotten the Royal City. The only thing

he didn't say is that he wanted the capital moved over there. You never

asked that, and I think you're deficient as the member for there. It

used to be there, and you should be asking all the time, if you're on

the job, to move it back over there.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: No, but just a minute now, you gave all the

downsides about New Westminster. I want to remind you of some of the

good things we've done — and you never said a word about them. That's

what really upsets me. You've got a new courthouse over there. Is that

correct? This government gave you that. And a billion-dollar ALRT

system. You didn't say anything about that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If he had, that would have been out of order, because it's not in your estimates. To the vote, please.

HON. A. FRASER: The last item — and I really enjoy this, Mr.

Chairman.... I'm sure this falls within the parameters of the debate.

That member attacked our approval process for subdivisions. It's what

I've always been told, and it finally came out here: there's no bigger

capitalist than a socialist. Imagine having 600 feet of waterfront

property! And he said here today, right in the Legislature, that he

isn't going to give up one foot of it for the poor public they're

always talking about. That's what our approval process is doing: trying

to protect all the public interest, not just the fat-cat socialist

capitalists.

Anyway, I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Member, and look forward to

them again at some future time. I know what you say. But, you know,

Burnaby says the same thing — that all roads dissect their community —

and New Westminster.... I guess, maybe, to summarize the thing, it's a

matter of your location being so excellent that everybody has to move

through and around there. The last thing I recall — and I don't know

what happened — is that we offered to make the odd street in the city

of New Westminster arterial, and I don't know whether we did it or not.

We have offered the city arterial designation for some of the major

roads, and I don't think they accepted our offer. But maybe you could

pursue that.

MR. COCKE: Yes, it's in process right now.

HON. A. FRASER: Thank you.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, after that spirited exchange by the

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), followed by a vicious attack

and rebuttal by the Minister of Highways, my intervention will be

relatively mild. I was thinking, while the member for New Westminster

was speaking, that the car he was describing I'm driving — and I bought

it from the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid). So I'm a little

pleased that we don't have these testing stations any longer, because

surely I would be picked up for that. Even though I might be breaking

the law a little bit, so far I haven't been apprehended — at least

caught red-handed; nobody did to me what they did to Michael Bartlett.

I would like to suggest, though, that the minister's argument for

removing the testing stations because they did not serve certain parts

of the province, and therefore we should remove them all, is a bit like

saying: "We don't have any schools in Quesnel, so we should close down

all the schools in Vancouver." It's a fallacious, ludicrous kind of

logic. It's

[ Page 6499 ]

based on some kind of lewd and archaic ideology,

that somehow we're going to let private enterprise protect us from all

possible transgressions. I just don't think it will work.

I would also like to ask the minister — since he has been actively

prodded, kicking and struggling, into child restraint legislation, when

he couldn't avoid it any longer, and imposed upon the poor people of

British Columbia this great expense of child-restraint seats — if he

would like to look into the business of laws protecting young children

who are up there in those cab-over campers, who are lying on their

little bellies looking out of the window while they are going 60 and 70

miles per hour down the highway. Anytime an accident occurs, then they

would fly out the window just like a projectile. That's extremely

serious. I'd like to prod him, kicking and struggling, into doing

something about that, forbidding people to carry children in those

cab-overs looking out the window. I think it's extremely dangerous.

I've seen a few of them hit and they just break like matchboxes. I

recommend that for his consideration in terms of traffic and child

safety.

I do applaud him for coming to the conclusion that child-restraint

seatbelts are extremely important. The former Leader of the Opposition,

Mr. Strachan, once said, "Never give a guy hell for doing what you

wanted him to do in the first place," so I don't want to do that. I'm

guided by that advice. So I like what's happened there. I don't think

it's a denial of freedom. Certainly there's a health and safety aspect

to it that I think overcomes any particular loss of freedom. Frankly,

people are ignorant. Until there's a law there, they're ignorant of the

dangers. I see horrible examples all the time of young mothers with

their kids in the front seat, and it scares the living daylights out of

me. Making it illegal to transport children like that without

child-restraint seats seems to me one of the best educative devices we

could have; like the police stopping people regularly for seatbelts. I

approve of that, because I happen to wear a seatbelt all the time

anyway. It helps keep my back up against the seat of the car.

[4:15]

I agree with the member for New Westminster too, when he talks about

the difficulties of getting yourself involved in subdivisions with the

Highways department, or any other group of civic and civil bureaucrats,

including the sanitation departments. It can be very time-consuming.

Anybody who can streamline municipal subdivision applications while

still protecting the public will certainly have my support. It's a lot

of trouble, and it's extremely lengthy. My concern is that there are

excessive standards applied in certain areas. For example, to bring a

dead-end road up to Highways standards makes it $10,000 extra. It's

ludicrous, unless your aim is to deter the subdivision, and I wouldn't

think that any government with a developer's mentality like this one

would want to do that.

I haven't got the subdivision complete yet, so I'm not going to

identify where it is, although I will say that I had a very cordial

relationship with the Highways department and all their personnel. They

smiled as the thing dragged on for weeks and weeks. The longer it

dragged on, the wider their smiles became.

Okay, now to get back to my riding. There are two or three little

problems; they're called municipalities that I represent. I'd like to

say a word or two about each.

In Port Moody, I understand, confirmed by either the deputy minister

or the assistant deputy minister a few moments ago, the hope for a

solution to their highway problems is a long-term proposition. I

understand there are other priorities up around Merritt that are taking

a lot of funds these days. Therefore some of these other places.... As

far as they're concerned, the minister doesn't become the Minister of

Highways; he's the minister of potholes. There are some serious

problems in the lower mainland, especially with Port Moody, because

Port Moody is almost like the hourglass, or the egg-timer: it's a very

constricting access between two large population centres. Hundreds of

thousands of cars go through there each week. We need some kind of

bypass in that area. I understand it's long....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Charge them tolls.

Also, you have an occlusion there, and as the Minister of Energy

(Hon. Mr. Rogers) will know because of his experience with B.C. Hydro,

they have a lot of problems there in terms of air quality. Not only is

it in an area of some difficulty of occlusion; adding gas fumes to it

daily doesn't help any. We need something there. We need to improve the

Barnet. I understand that there are plans — and the minister can

elaborate on them — to improve the intersection of Clarke and the

Barnet to four lanes. I think that's important, because it's terrible

during rush hours. It's absolutely maddening for people to be caught in

that stuff. Besides that, it's very, very slow. I mentioned the

pollution aspect. But the Barnet, once you get out of Vancouver, or

just outside of Burnaby there, and start going down the hill by what

used to be called Cass Corners — the cement people — is two lanes. It's

virtually impossible there to go more than about 10 miles an hour

during the rush hour. Improving that would be a big help in

anticipation of more major work that I understand is going to be

carried out in the long term — it will come down over the hill from

Westwood — and some of those problems will be relieved. Of course, the

immediate solution might be to put in commuter rail and try to

encourage people to get out of their cars and onto the commuter rail,

which is all set up for the people. Again, we've spent so much money on

ALRT that there may not be any money for commuter rail, because the

extension into Port Moody or the north part of Coquitlam by the ALRT

system appears to be, again, a vision of the future the long-term

future.

The Belcarra Park incident I raised in the statements period about a

month ago. The people of Belcarra were somewhat encouraged by the

minister's words. They were kind words. I would like to ask the

minister if he would care to comment further on any further

negotiations or discussions he's had with Mayor Drew on the subject.

They just opened a new municipal hall there a couple of weeks ago and

they were most grateful for the minister's encouragement, but would

like to see a little more than just encouragement. Hopefully something

might be done on that.

The Mary Hill bypass stuff. I believe the contracts have been let

for both the overpass and the bridge over the Coquitlam River. If

that's the case, I'd like that confirmed, along with the completion

date. I understand too, from the deputy minister or the assistant

deputy minister — I'm not quite sure of his title — that the contracts

have been let for the hookup in addition to the two structures, one an

overpass and one a bridge, and the completion date aim is something

like December 1985. So with those few remarks, Mr....

Interjection.

[ Page 6500 ]

MR. ROSE: Well, it was, until it washed out. It's been the

Bailey bridge ever since, but.... And that's been, I think, two or

three years.

Anyway, it serves an increasingly large population and I think it

frustrates a lot of Social Crediters, because they're all driving in to

Dewdney, you see, so they get very, very mad at the government when

they have to go across that old Bailey bridge that's been there for two

years, with a light on each end of it. Massive amounts of.... I haven't

stopped for the car count. I know it takes usually at least three

lights to get through it at a normal time of day, so in rush hours it's

even worse. And I wouldn't want to see any of those Social Crediters

from Dewdney be angry at either the Minister of Highways, who's a jolly

fellow, or the member for Dewdney (Hon. Mr. Pelton), who is jolly most

of the time. He wasn't very jolly today, but you know we all get our

jollies in different ways. But any way that the minister can enlighten

us and give us some encouragement on these highway problems — these

highly vexatious yet sometimes boring highway problems — I'd be

grateful to hear.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'll attempt to answer what he has brought up.

The occupation of campers. I agree with your remarks completely and

I've asked the superintendent to look at that. I think we can allow the

occupation of campers by people if there are seats in the camper with a

seatbelt, but I agree with you, they shouldn't be up on the top deck,

and I think we should look at it and do something about it. So I agree

with you there. What we can do I'm not sure, but it shouldn't be too

complicated. It sounds to me like just an amendment to regulations.

The problems at Port Moody. Yes, you bet there are problems at Port

Moody, and the long-term plan was a bypass. I was out there a while ago

and they said when I was out there that they hadn't seen their MLA for

a year or so. But I don't know whether that's correct.

MR. ROSE: I'm sorry, I missed part of that.

MR. A. FRASER: I thought you'd missed it. I said I was out

there in Port Moody a while ago, and one comment they had was that they

hadn't seen their MLA for quite a while.

MR. ROSE: I can't get through on the road!

MR. A. FRASER: That's a good one! No.

Mr. Chairman, the long-term plan involves a new roadway along the

Port Moody waterfront. I want to emphasize that it was real long term

when I looked at it. I think we've got to go through a few grain

elevators and a few railroad tracks and part of the ocean and so on.

MR. ROSE: You'll never see it, Alex.

HON. A. FRASER: You and I'll never see it, that's for sure. But that sounds like the long-term engineering side of it.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: Yes, we want to get better additional

capacity in what exists and that's on the intersection. Our engineers

feel they can do that. Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member, the

Barnet Highway designed for the east half of the two-lane

section is

being completed now, and that design is for four lanes, so we want to

get something started there.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: I was afraid you'd ask that, but.... Well,

we'll try to get it on a program, say, next year if we can get it in. I

don't know what we're talking about in funds here.

The Belcarra Park. I want to clear up something there. To you, Mr.

Member, that's correct that the.... What I said at the time — and maybe

you could convey this so there's no misunderstanding.... I asked them

to get hold of us, and they haven't done that. So maybe you could....

That was our understanding — that they would contact us. It's my

information from senior staff that they haven't done it. But I would

think that it's a misunderstanding, and maybe you could clear it up by

contacting them and telling them to get hold of us.

The last item that the member brought up is a big item. I don't know

where I put it here, but I'm referring to the Mary Hill bypass. Your

observations are correct. After $15 million or $20 million and a long

time, all the contracts have been awarded, including the bridges and

overpasses. In the construction of the grade, it includes the pavement,

which has to be done. We hope to open the whole Mary Hill bypass by

December 1985.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I have a couple of questions for the minister

with regard to problems I see in my area and my neighbouring

constituency. The first problem that we have in Surrey, which seems to

be taking a great deal of time to resolve.... I think that it is

partially because of a lack of immediate response from the

municipality. I would ask the minister when they are going to look at

prohibiting the overnight and longer parking of semi-trailer rigs,

particularly on the King George Highway in the Newton area and in other

residential areas serviced by provincial highways. It's a very serious

situation, in my opinion. There have been many accidents, not on the

provincial highways but with these rigs that have been allowed to park

on municipal roads. I think the sooner we get them off the provincial

highways in residential areas, the safer it's going to be. I would like

to have a response to that.

Secondly, I would like to know when we are going to institute the

reverse flow at the Massey Tunnel. It seems to me that we've had enough

studies done to suggest that we should be reversing the flow in the

evening, and I would like to see that looked at.

Mr. Chairman, it's very interesting to hear the members opposite

speak of the motor vehicle testing stations. If you recall, when the

matter was up for discussion originally we checked some of the vehicles

in the parking lot, and we found that even though it was the law to

have a testing sticker on your car if you lived in an area that had a

station, many of the MLAs did not have stickers on their cars. Just

because you have a government-operated motor vehicle testing station,

it doesn't suggest that everybody is going to abide by the law. I think

it's something that members of the opposition should refresh their

memories on when they bring this subject up again. But I would like

those two concerns addressed by the minister.

[ Page 6501 ]

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I am not right up to date on

the overnight parking of commercial vehicles. Maybe it's a combination

problem with the municipality and ourselves, but we'll certainly look

into it. I don't think it's according to the law on a provincial

highway like the King George, but we'll just have to look into that.

[4:30]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

On the other item, that's a major item that has been brought up —

the reverse flow of traffic in the Massey Tunnel. As you know, our

ministry, about five or six years ago, put in the...so we can expand

the capacity of the tunnel in morning and move the northbound traffic

into the city. It has been a great improvement. But our engineers still

believe that it won't work going southbound. They are convinced of

that. But recently we changed the hours somewhat, I understand, where

they were reversing about 8 o'clock in the morning, going back to the

normal traffic lanes. They were doing it at 8 o'clock in the morning,

so they extended it to 8:20, and now we have a problem with the

southbound traffic building up, so we created our own.... And that

basically is it.

I, quite frankly, can't convince the two members from Surrey on

this. I appreciate their.... But all the facts show that it won't work.

We've looked into it quite extensively and don't mind discussing it

again, but we've had traffic counts taken and everything. We moved the

switch a little further, and the engineers say that it vindicates what

they feel that it won't work. You just have a buildup going southbound.

I think that motor vehicle testing has been discussed quite fully during the estimates.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I think first I'd like to, in an

open, formal way — I did it with the minister by a note at one time —

express my own appreciation for the fine work that the regional office

and the district office in Terrace do in responding to requests for

action from the Ministry of Highways. They don't always please

everybody, of course, because they're not always able to respond

favourably to the requests. But where it can be done, it is done.

That's very much appreciated by me. It's certainly appreciated by the

residents in the area who benefit from that kind of action.

I had occasion at one time to discuss a certain matter with the

minister on the telephone, and if he had not have been available and

been so generous and kind in his discussion with the people he spoke

with, there would have been the acceleration of what could have been a

very awkward situation for the community, the regional office, the

district office and my own constituency office. I want to publicly

thank the minister for taking the time to deal with that situation, and

he knows of what I am speaking. There may not be any need for him to

comment further, but I wanted to publicly acknowledge that.

I have two or three matters of community interest that I'd like to

deal with again publicly, even though they've been dealt with at other

times. One of them relates to the Haisla people and a Bailey bridge

that is across the river into that village. It's something like a

relative coming to visit and saying: "Look, I'd just like to stay for a

couple of days." And then some years later, you find out that the

relative is a permanent part of the family, when you didn't want him

there in the first place.

That's what this Bailey bridge is into the Kitimat village to serve

the Hysla people. It's been there so long that they feel it's almost a

part of the geography. But it was temporary, as a result of a washout

some years ago. It is becoming more permanent as every day goes by, and

it's a very awkward situation for the people who live there. More

people are building in the community. The use of that connecting

highway is increasing. The village wanted to expand and establish a

subdivision on the other side of the river front where the community is

now. They had to proceed to do that in a way that they would not have

ordinarily done if the bridge would have been replaced with a permanent

bridge. So that's a crucial question. Even though the bridge is still

holding up and is still usable, it doesn't make it any more satisfying

to the people who have to use it. This situation has been going on for

more years than many people can remember. So that's an urgent plea to

the minister to deal with that question.

Rosswood is a community that the minister knows of because he was

there at the ceremonial opening of the blacktopping of that particular

road as a part of the connecting highway from Highway 16 north to the

Nass River. There have been a number of difficulties with a portion of

that road. Shortly after it was paved, it slid off into the take, and

there has been another sloughing off in that area. I know the regional

people and engineering people are looking at it and dealing with it,

but it's going to require an extensive amount of work in order to

correct that situation and to ensure that the roadbed stays in place

and doesn't keep sloughing away and keep falling away and creating a

half-a-width road where there was a two-lane road once earlier.

Some years ago, the road from Hazelton out to the Kispiox area was

paved as far as the Kispiox village and has come to a dead stop since

that time. The road continues further and serves quite a number of

people further up the valley. It has served and will continue to serve

the logging and the movement of trucks and the like, but more

particularly the residents who live there. I've argued with the

minister before in the House here that additional attention should be

paid to the secondary roads and the back roads, more so than has been

the case in the past. There was a move made in that direction, but it

doesn't seem to have proceeded beyond that initial move. That is true

with respect to the road farther up the valley. The roadbed does need

rebuilding to blacktopping standards. If you could get started on that,

you might be able to have it blacktopped in a reasonable period of time.

The other thing I'd like to ask the minister about is Carnaby

crossing. A few years ago I raised Carnaby crossing, which is a railway

grade level crossing on Highway 16 between South Hazelton and Kitseguecla .

Two or three years ago the minister told me here in the House that yes,

Carnaby crossing would be fixed within a year; that the road would

proceed on the upper side of the railway track and cross below it down

there. I went around and told a lot of people that. I said: "At the end

of the year it'll be done." Now they keep asking me why it isn't done.

I feel embarrassed to go back and say that the minister told me that,

and so on so I'm trying to cover up as best I can for the minister

giving me one bit of information and then not carrying through with it.

Seriously, it is a question of some concern, from my way of thinking

anyhow, because it has persisted in being there for such a long period

of time and no sort of apparent attempts — visually anyway — to deal

with it. as is the case further down the Skeena River, where a road

relocation and overpass systems are being put into effect. Apart from

that I consider

[ Page 6502 ]

the Carnaby crossing to be the most dangerous one

in the whole highway system there, because there are two extreme

right-angle turns running on to and off of it across the CN Railway

track. There have been accidents there, not involving trains, that I

know of — at least not in recent years — but certainly automobile

accidents. People are not able to negotiate that sudden switch in an S

turn, and not being able to get through the second turn they end up in

the ditch or against the guard rail, or against the cement buffers that

are there; damage to their cars, injuries to individuals. That needs to

be addressed as well.

I leave those with the minister. I'm sure each one of his responses

will be positive and will say yes, that will be fixed very soon.

HON. A. FRASER: First of all, I appreciate the comments of

the member for Skeena about our staff up in that area. They're

excellent people working in difficult climatic conditions, and in types

of climatic conditions different from a coast climate: 40 and 50 below

zero and 20 feet of snow, all in a few hours. But they do an excellent

job throughout the year for all citizens in British Columbia.

The Bailey bridge at Kitimat village — I call that community Kitimat

village — happened with the 1978 floods, when we had $50 million damage

in the general area up there in the northwest. I think I said myself

that we'd replace the Bailey bridge, but we haven't got around to it. I

don't think we should be very far away from the time that we do get a

permanent bridge there. As you pointed out, the Bailey itself is fairly

safe, but I think we should clean it up and put it back on a permanent

basis. The other thing there is that that community is also concerned

with the whole road, from there back to the main road. That presents

another problem. I think the least we could do is replace the Bailey

either with a culvert or a small bridge — I don't know what the

engineers plan there — and get on with it.

Kispiox village: we did pave to the Kispiox village and then stop.

The reason for that was.... I'm aware that logging and so on goes

beyond that, but there weren't a lot of citizens living there and at

least we got started. Right now we haven't got it as a priority item to

go any farther.

On the Camaby crossing — that's on Highway 16 with the CNR — you're

correct that that's an unsafe crossing. The reason we couldn't carry

out our promise to eliminate the crossing.... This doesn't need an

overpass, as you're aware; it's just taking Highway 16 and going

straight ahead rather than going this way. But we've run into land

acquisition problems and we haven't got it resolved. I can't promise

when it will be. The ministry tells me that we're negotiating with the

Indian band, and we're further behind with them than we were two years

ago on acquisition and right-of-way. That's the situation there. It's

one of the easiest level crossings to eliminate as far as we're

concerned; but of course we must own the ground that we build the other

road on, and we haven't been able to negotiate a settlement. That'll be

done just as soon as we can.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you use

section 4?

HON. A. FRASER: No, we can't use

section 4.

Vote 67 approved.

Vote 68: administration and services department, $10,814,278 — approved.

Vote 69: highways operations department, $478,803,665 approved.

Vote 70: motor vehicle department, $32,456,912 approved.

Vote 71: Motor Carrier Commission and branch, $2,693,472 — approved.

Vote 72: transportation policy department, $57,454,633 — approved.

Vote 73: air services branch, $8,446,603 — approved.

Vote 74: economic renewal, special highway capital construction project — $456,055,000 — approved.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

[4:45]

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 28.

INDUSTRIAL ELECTRICITY

RATE DISCOUNT ACT

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's my privilege to stand and move second

reading of Bill 28, the Industrial Electricity Rate Discount Act. This

bill authorizes the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to receive and

approve applications from industrial customers who are large consumers

of electricity for rate discounts on surplus hydroelectricity. The rate

discounts authorized under this act will be a key element in the

government's program for economic renewal.

The rate discounts will be available to firms which increase their

output and thus increase employment by either of the three following

things: increasing the capacity or utilization of existing plant,

expanding plant capacity, or undertaking new investment. To ensure that

the rate discounts fully serve our economic renewal objectives, they

will be used only to support incremental economic activity — I would

like to stress that — in other words, activity that would not occur

without the incentive provided by this discount. On the other side of

the coin is that the discounts will assist B.C. Hydro to market its

surplus electricity, thereby improving Hydro's financial position and

reducing the general rate increases.

Since the discounts will be available only for incremental

electricity consumption — sales which would not otherwise be made —

B.C. Hydro's total sales and net revenues will not be increased. It is

clearly in the public interest. By strengthening Hydro's financial

position in this way, the need to derive additional revenues from

existing base-load customers is reduced and everybody benefits. The act

also permits

[ Page 6503 ]

discounts for incremental electricity sales

resulting from plant modernization or from the displacement of crude

oil or related products. However, such sales are unlikely to result in

immediate job creation, so they will be assigned a lower priority.

British Columbia is in a position to offer significant rate

discounts because of surplus hydroelectricity. It is a characteristic

of a hydroelectric system that, once capacity is in place, the

operating costs are very low. It makes good economic sense to sell this

surplus, even at a low price if necessary, when the alternative is to

spill water and lose that energy potential forever. The discount sales

will cease when this province's surplus is exhausted.

This legislation refers only to B.C. Hydro's surplus. That is simply

because no other public utility in this province has a surplus which

could be used to support discount sales. However,

section 6 of this act

provides for discounts to qualified customers in the service areas of

other suppliers, which is West Kootenay Light and Power. That means

that regions of the province not served by Hydro will not be

discriminated against by this act. In fact, Hydro may supply discounted

electricity to other distributors to pass on to their final customers.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The Utilities Commission Act, which governs utility pricing in

British Columbia, requires that all customers in a given class rate be

given uniform treatment with a rate based on costs — and this should be

under normal situations. However, this does not suit our purposes at

the present time, and new legislation is required to achieve our

objectives. We need to be able to offer discounts on a highly selective

basis, in order for the government to have the leverage it needs to

effect the production and incentive decisions of industry. A few key

discounts may be critical in attracting job creation and investments in

this province.

This act provides the legislative authority we need to go out and

negotiate with both existing and new industries to make the best

possible deals to create new economic activity in British Columbia.

B.C. Hydro's firm electricity surplus will exist for the next three to

four years. In this period it is possible to make a number of discount

sales that will benefit the province. As the economy continues to grow,

the base-load electricity consumption will increase and the surplus

will diminish. Although some surplus may remain into the mid-1990s, the

quantity will be small.

We have the opportunity now to use our surplus in a constructive way

to provide incentives needed to make British Columbia the first choice

of new industrial investments. However, every time we make such

commitment we b