1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6833 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Establish an Environment and Land Use Secretariat (Bill M215).

Mr. Williams introduction and first reading –– 6833

Community Reforestation Act (Bill M216). Mr. Miller

Introduction and first reading –– 6833

Oral Questions

Rental housing shortage. Mr. Blencoe –– 6833

Banning of Alar-treated fruit. Mr. Barlee –– 6834

Labelling of produce by country of origin. Mr. Barlee –– 6834

Crop losses due to severe winter conditions. Mr. Rabbitt I –– 6834

Vancouver Stock Exchange. Mr. Sihota I –– 6835

Mr. Clark

Tabling Documents –– 6836

Ministerial Statement

Euclid Mathematics Contest. Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 6836

Ms. A. Hagen

Tabling Documents –– 6837

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Vant)

On vote 72: minister's office –– 6837

Mr. Lovick

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Jones

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Miller

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Barlee

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Mowat

Mr. Blencoe

Home Owner Grant Increase Act, 1989 (Bill 6). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 6857

Mr. Blencoe –– 6858

Mr. Rose –– 6859

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 6859

Income Tax Amendment Act (Bill 7). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 6860

Mr. Jones –– 6860

Ms. A. Hagen –– 6861

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REE :

I'd like to note that in the gallery today we have Chief Const. Andy

Anderson of the Oak Bay police department. This is appropriate because

this week, May 14-20, is Police Week, a week when we pause to thank and

honour the 5,900 men and women who serve us as police officers in this

province and also the 1,400 auxiliary reserve personnel. The police

officer has a unique and an important role in our society, as the

police on a day-to-day basis represent us on the streets, ensuring

safety and enforcing the rules of society. The modern police officer

has a difficult job to fulfil in our ever-changing, challenging and

complex society, a society which does not easily accept the role of

authority which our police represent. However, I know that our police

continue to meet the challenge and provide all of us with a dedicated,

invaluable service.

Mr. Speaker, through Chief Anderson, I

would ask this House to thank the police — all of the police in this

province — for the work they perform as part of their everyday duties.

MR. MILLER :

Today in the gallery are two mayors from small communities on the Queen

Charlotte Islands, Mayor Gerry Johnson of Port Clements and Mayor

Gordon Feyer of Masset, who were introduced by the Minister of

Transportation (Hon. Mr. Vant) yesterday, but were not impressed with

the minister's answers on the transportation of dangerous cargo to the

Queen Charlotte Islands. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. MERCIER :

In the gallery today are three people from Burnaby–Edmonds. They are

very active, hard-working members of my association executive there:

the president, Jake Koole, his wife, Tena Koole, and Percy Howard.

Would we please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH AN

ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE SECRETARIAT

Mr. Williams presented a bill intituled

An Act To Establish An Environment and Land Use Secretariat.

MR. WILLIAMS : The intent of this statute is to reinstate the multidiscipline

team that could advise cabinet on various land use conflicts in the province.

We face these problems currently on a scale we've never seen before, in

areas such as Carmanah Valley, Stein Valley and other hot spots around the province.

We need a non-partisan approach, and technical skills need to be applied. As

a great supporter of the non-partisan ideal, I'm sure that there will be

full consensus on both sides of the House regarding this.

Clearly

there's a need to cross boundaries between the disciplines and between

the ministries. A talented environment and land use secretariat could

bring back the quality that has been missing for a long time in

analyzing land use conflicts.

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.

COMMUNITY REFORESTATION ACT

Mr. Miller presented a bill intituled Community Reforestation Act.

MR. MILLER :

This bill requires all reforestation that is the responsibility of the

Crown to be undertaken by community-based reforestation projects,

unless otherwise directed by the district manager. Under the current

Forest Act, this program would include areas in the province currently

harvested under the small business program, areas harvested before the

fall of 1987 and areas of NSR land harvested before that time.

only the small business area is taken into consideration, it could

involve over 30,000 hectares of basic silviculture work and employ

hundreds of people in each district of the province.

The

district manager in each forest district is required to set up a

program to carry out community reforestation in the district. The

overall goals guiding each program will be: reforesting harvested areas

to acceptable standards, employing and training young and unemployed

people, encouraging incremental silviculture, and maintaining or

enhancing the quantity and quality of the forest resource of the

province.

Bill M216 introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

RENTAL HOUSING SHORTAGE

MR. BLENCOE :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for

housing. Every day that goes by we see more housing problems in this

province. Recently 45 Kitsilano tenants were served six-month eviction

notices to allow for redevelopment. Has the minister finally decided to

have decent tenant protection in the province by delaying evictions

until all municipal approvals have been obtained and by allowing

municipalities to control demolitions and conversions so that thousands

of British Columbians who are in tenancies can protect their homes? We

think that's essential.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : First of

all, I think the member should discover under which ministry the

tenancy protection rights come. It's not this ministry.

[ Page 6834 ]

MR. BLENCOE :

This minister purports to be the Minister of Housing. I would have

thought he would be interested in the thousands of tenants in the

province.

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. To meet the

minister's target of 4,000 rental housing units in 18 months as

announced in the budget, under the Crown land rental housing program,

you need to be averaging around 50 unit-starts a week. How many have

started since March 30, when you announced this program?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

This government is indeed concerned about the rental housing market in

British Columbia. Mr. Member, if you will read the budget you will note

the plans that were put into place. I am pleased to tell this House and

this province that we will build 4,000 housing units within the next

two years. We are well on our way to putting the mechanisms in place to

do just that. In fact, we will be announcing the first group of social

housing built under the federal-provincial housing plan within the next

two to three weeks.

MR. BLENCOE : That's strike two

in terms of question two. Nothing for tenants. The 4,000 units you

announced haven't even been started. We need 50 a week. You haven't

even got the program off the ground and it's nearly two months later.

[2:15]

Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister confirm that

the funding for this program — already the subject of extensive

advertising paid for by the taxpayer — had not even passed Treasury

Board as of a few days ago, and that the legislation setting up the

Crown corporation to run this program is not even drawn up and ready

for presentation to this House?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Legislation as complex as what the member is talking about is not drawn

up overnight. It is being worked on at the moment by the staff and by

legislative counsel, and it will be ready to present to this House in

this session, as promised in the budget.

BANNING OF ALAR-TREATED FRUIT

MR. BARLEE :

To the Minister of Agriculture. The perceived carcinogen Alar has not

been used by British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association apple

producers for about two years. However, our competitors from the United

States are still using Alar. Is the minister prepared to ask the

federal government to ban the importation of U.S. apples immediately

until our tests indicate that their apples are Alar-free?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

We have made representation to the federal government to ask that they

ban a lot of food articles and products that enter Canada but, under

Health and Welfare Canada regulations, are banned for use within our

own country. We have consistently asked that the same rules and

regulations apply to all products that cross the border.

the case of Alar, the hon. member is correct. We have banned it since

May 1988. It's almost a year ago now that the Fruit Growers'

Association made the decision not to use that chemical. The EPA in the

United States has now announced that they will follow the same

guidelines and cancel the use of Alar.

LABELLING OF PRODUCE

BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN

MR. BARLEE :

Is the minister prepared to ask the federal government to insist upon

accurate labelling of produce by the country of origin, at the retail

outlet? It is not done now, although certain produce is labelled. The

BCFGA labels its produce, but people don't know whether it comes from

Canada, Mexico or the United States. Are you prepared to follow through

on that?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : We have very strongly

recommended that labelling be by country of origin. Whether you define

it as a state — moreover, a specific state of the United States or a

state of any other country.... It is very difficult to do because

standard legislation on labelling indicates it is by country. As we

proceed, I can tell you that we as a government are very keen on

promoting and recognizing a B.C. product, for instance, which we should

be very proud of. I think the point you're making is that we want to

emphasize how important it is to label what we believe and know is an

excellent product in this province. We are proceeding on that basis,

and we are asking that the same thing be done on all products.

CROP LOSSES DUE TO

SEVERE WINTER CONDITIONS

MR. RABBITT :

To the Minister of Agriculture. It's apparent now that severe

conditions produced a major winterkill of interior British Columbia

hayfields. Being that this is the second time in three years, what is

your ministry prepared to do to assist interior ranchers and farmers in

recovering from the loss and in the replanting of their alfalfa fields?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I agree with you that there was severe frost damage two years back. We

were asked to participate in a joint program to help in the reseeding

of that particular alfalfa area. The area from Kamloops south into the

Nicola region was identified as a severe winterkill section. This year

the problem is not only in alfalfa; the heavy frosts in February

created havoc in several areas.

We have under discussion a

tripartite negotiating process between British Columbia, the federal

government and the producers. What we are striving for.... There is a

difference of opinion among agriculture ministers across this country

as to the share that should be borne by the farmer, the provinces and

the federal government. If crop insurance becomes too expensive, the

farming community is reluctant to purchase it to cover such losses. We

are having an

[ Page 6835 ]

depth look at not only hay or alfalfa field winterkills, but also those

in the fruit-growing industry: soft fruits, raspberries, strawberries —

the greenhouse sector. An extensive study is being undertaken as to the

total loss in that winterkill.

VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE

MR. SIHOTA :

Yesterday, while trying to talk tough outside the House, the minister

referred to "scumbag" operators on the VSE. In so doing, he of course

smeared with innuendo all operators on the VSE. Who was the minister

referring to? Was he referring to criminal heavyweights like Fats

Robertson, who had a lifetime trading ban lifted by your ministry last

year? Was he referring to notorious criminals like Gino Cicci and Bobby

"The Slick" Slichter who was involved in Chopp Computer? Could he

explain, after having been warned for two years that these notorious

elements were operating on the VSE, why even to this day he has taken

no steps to remove these criminal elements from the VSE?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I'm glad to have that broad-ranging question. It does give me full latitude to respond, and I'm grateful for that.

The

subject is important to all citizens of the province, and indeed it's

important to the future of the province in an economic development

sense. Certainly there's no question that the publicity extended to the

Vancouver Stock Exchange over the last two days has been unproductive

and does us harm. To the extent that it is harmful, I happen to believe

that every member of this Legislature must assume an obligation to

right any perceived wrongs and to deal with any remedies that are

required.

As I have indicated, I am not able to deal with

specific names of individuals or firms in this public setting. I have

statutory responsibilities to ensure that justice is done and that due

process must be followed, as I've said before.

But I am

struck by the ambivalence exhibited by comments from members opposite.

On the one hand, we have comments about how important the Leader of the

Opposition perceives the Vancouver Stock Exchange to be and how they

attempt to relate to the business community. We don't have members of

the opposition opposite; we have chameleons. They wear different

colours, depending on the ambiance in which they're seated. We have on

the one hand, from Vancouver East and maybe some other sectors, a red

complexion. As you move through Vancouver you might have some dressed

in white, but when you come down to Vancouver's business core they'll

have a blue complexion, maybe with some pin-stripes added.

can only say that if there is a genuine effort to relate to the

business community by all members of the Legislature — and I truly hope

there is; I hope it's not puffery; I hope it's a matter of substance

and a genuine desire to relate — then I suspect that what's needed is

more than an invitation to breakfast by a moustache in a blue suit,

but, much more important than that, a genuine desire to join with us in

assisting the Vancouver business community assume the higher profile it

needs and wants.

We on this side of the House are

determined to do all we can to ensure that there is a high degree of

cooperation between members of this House in that respect. I repeat the

offer I made yesterday. If there are specific suggestions which can be

made by members of the opposition to assist in cleaning up the

Vancouver Stock Exchange in terms of its perceived activities or

improprieties, then we would be delighted to hear them.

can tell the hon. member that as a consequence of the comments he made

yesterday, both in the House and out in the hallway, we will be

drafting an official response to him. If it's the wish of the House,

I'll be delighted to share it with all members of the House, rather

than just restrict it to a....

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Well, that's fine; I'll do that, Mr. Speaker. I'll make this response

available to all members of the House — indeed, the whole world, if

that's the desire. We can deal with some of the specific erroneous,

slanderous, misleading comments that were delivered yesterday in this

chamber, which I truly regret.

MR. CLARK : I have a

question to the Premier. Following the damaging assessment of the VSE

by two of the world's most prestigious business magazines, and in light

of the disturbing remarks with respect to "scumbags" by the Minister of

Finance, can the Premier tell us if he is convinced that investing

taxpayers' money in the VSE — as the Minister of Finance said, $40

million to $80 million — is a responsible and prudent plan?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : May I ask the questioner to repeat the last part of the question?

MR. CLARK :

It's simple, Mr. Premier. Not a nickel of public money should go into

the VSE until it's cleaned up. Can the Premier tell us whether he is

personally convinced that investing taxpayers' money in the VSE, as the

Minister of Finance said yesterday — $40 million to $80 million — is a

responsible and prudent plan?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, obviously there are many in this House who are of the

opinion that this is a very important part of the financial community;

it can certainly assist industry in all parts of the province. I

realize that possibly this view is not shared by all members, and I am

a little confused by what I heard yesterday, when the Leader of the

Opposition — the absent landlord; the one that's often gone — gave us

one particular view, yet in the House earlier we heard very different

views from the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) and the

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew

[ Page 6836 ]

(Mr.

Sihota). I think perhaps we need to carefully assess all of the

information that has been provided to us and also where the opposition

is on this particular issue. Right now it's rather confusing. We really

can't tell where they stand on this issue. They appear to be a little

confused among themselves, in their ranks, as to what they see as the

future of the VSE. We'll take all views into consideration before any

decisions are finally made.

MR. ROSE : On a point of

order, I'm really concerned about the direction that question period is

taking. Often, instead of an answer, we get self-righteous claptrap and

bombast. I really regret the innuendo that some members on this side of

the House have certain political colorations that perhaps may not be

too acceptable in some quarters. I'm very serious about this, Mr.

Speaker.

Both sides of the House, and especially this side

of the House, want a clean Vancouver Stock Exchange. That's what we're

trying to achieve by our efforts. When the minister just tries to

buffalo the House and turn our legitimate questions...

Interjections.

MR. ROSE : It's a point of order.

...around

and blame the people who are asking the question, instead of going

after the people who are unsavoury and unsatisfactory.... The old trick

of blaming the victim is not acceptable.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

On the same point of order, it's quite clear to me that the opposition

is totally disorganized in question period. They are leaderless most

every day in the House, and it's easy to understand why they can't get

their act together.

I would remind them once again to refer

to

article 47A(

b) of standing orders: "Questions...shall be brief and

precise, and stated without argument or opinion." If the questions were

stated as laid down in standing orders, perhaps the answers would be a

little more precise.

MR. ROSE : I'd like to help the

government House Leader in his reading; obviously he has a few

problems. Item 47A(

b) says that questions and answers shall be brief

and to the point.

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER :

I thank both House Leaders and hope that maybe they can discuss this

matter in caucus, which is probably a more appropriate place.

Hon. Mr. Savage tabled the annual report of the B.C. Milk Board for the year ended December 31, 1988.

Ministerial Statement

EUCLID MATHEMATICS CONTEST

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

It has come to my attention that once again students from the British

Columbia school system have done exceptionally well in a national

competition.

Some 12,000 students from across Canada wrote

the Euclid Mathematics Contest examination, and British Columbia

secondary students placed 20 in the top 50, which is certainly far and

above — about three times — what our population proportion would be.

am also pleased that the top student in the competition was a grade 11

student from Churchill Secondary School, who scored 95 percent on such

a prestigious examination. A 12-year-old grade 9 student, Erick Wong,

came seventh in the total competition. As well, Malik Kalfane of Carson

Graham Secondary School placed thirteenth. B.C. students took 40

percent of the top positions in this competition.

I take

considerable pride on behalf of our school system in the

accomplishments of these students. I acknowledge that I didn't teach

them; I may have if I weren't so busy with other duties.

would like to commend the students for their commitment and dedication

in preparing for those exams and writing them; the parents who

obviously supported them; and certainly the teachers in the system who

have made all of this possible. I think all of us have the right to be

proud that in competition after competition, whether national or

international, our students are performing very well. We can be proud

of the teachers that we have in the British Columbia school system.

MS. A. HAGEN : I hope that those students learned a bit about playing the odds in their math studies.

Certainly

interest and competence in math are very important aspects of a

broad-based education curriculum, and I want to join with the minister,

on behalf of the members of this side of the House, in congratulating

the students and those who worked with them in preparing for and

participating in this competition. It's obvious that they worked hard

to stretch their abilities and their learning, and they have done very

well indeed.

This gives us an opportunity not only to

recognize those many students who participated in this competition but

just to acknowledge that every day in our classrooms, students and

teachers are engaging in challenging activities that broaden their

understanding and learning of intellectual, social and cultural aspects

of their lives. So in celebrating these students today, I hope that we

also take the opportunity to celebrate all students, who at this point

are engaged in learning in our classrooms, and the teachers who work

with them.

[ Page 6837 ]

Hon.

Mr. Richmond tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Social

Services and Housing for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1988.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

On vote 72: minister's office, $304,242 (continued).

MR. LOVICK : Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might have leave to make a couple of very brief introductions.

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK :

I was unable, as was my colleague from Nanaimo, to make these

introductions, because we were involved in meetings up until the last

possible moment and therefore were late arriving. I want to ask the

House to join me first in passing greetings to two very dear friends

from the constituency of Nanaimo, Jack and Betty Baker, who are seated

in the gallery.

Second is a group of students, along with

their teacher, from the alternative school in Nanaimo, otherwise known

as the Five Acre School. Mr. Martin is the teacher of students who are

down here as part of their regular learning program. They are going to

be visiting the chamber to see what we do, and also, of course, having

the tour and we hope meeting with their local representative. Again, I

would ask the House to please join me in making them welcome.

Now

to the matter of the estimates. I have some good news for the minister

today. The good news is that my comments will be brief. The bad news is

that they will be as insightful, provocative and profound as always.

The other part of the bad news, in a more serious vein, is that some of

my colleagues also intend to participate in this debate. We may not get

out quite as quickly as I had planned.

The first issue I

want to raise with the minister has to do with the B.C. Ferry

Corporation: specifically, the problem of commercial-vehicle overloads

on the Horseshoe Bay-Departure Bay route. I'm sure it comes as no

surprise to the minister to learn that there have been a number of

calls over the last few months — indeed, over the last couple of years,

but especially in the last few months — concerning the problems that

commercial vehicles are having in terms of getting on the ferry.

The stories are legion and go along these lines: every year it seems to be

getting worse. The peak of the difficulty has apparently been subsequent to

Expo in 1986. Truckers from places like Surrey, for example, will tell us it

used to be a ten-hour day when they were hauling from one side to the other,

but today it's 15 hours because of the ferry waits and all of that.

There's

also the understandable complaint about increased costs and the

difficulty the truckers are having meeting those costs, because

clearly, unless they are prepared to jack up the rates for whatever

their produce is — and in many cases they don't have that opportunity —

they obviously are losing a great deal of money by having an extra

three to six hours of turnaround time and, in some cases, even a

problem with perishability of goods.

In any event, I don't

need to bore the minister with all those details; I'm sure he's

familiar with them. I simply want to ask the minister what steps are

being taken to grapple with this problem. It's one that's been around

for some time. It appears to be worsening in the last short while. I

know, because I see the minister is now consulting with the general

manager of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, that there is a partial

explanation since for the last month or so the Queen of Alberni

has been down. There has been a problem, I gather, with engine repair

as well as the normal fitting that the ship goes in for annually.

I'm

wondering what longer-term steps the corporation is taking to address

this problem, clearly a major problem and one that, sadly, seems to be

growing in its intensity. I'll ask the minister if he might like to

respond to that to begin.

HON. MR. VANT : Recently, as the member pointed out, the Queen of Alberni

was in for a refit. I'm very pleased to announce today that that very

important vessel will be back in service this Friday. It incidentally

can carry twice as much heavy-truck traffic as any of the other C-class

vessels in the system.

MR. LOVICK : The Alberni ?

HON. MR. VANT : The Queen of Alberni .

That will be back in service this Friday. We can look at extending the

length of the service day. We can look at scheduling to ease some of

the overload problems in that regard. I should remind the member

opposite, as well, that the B.C. Ferry Corporation does not have a

monopoly on moving commercial traffic from the mainland to the Island.

Canadian Pacific marine services also provides movement of truck

traffic to the island.

MR. LOVICK : I appreciate the answer, as far as it goes. I'm happy, of course, to learn that the Alberni is due to be back very soon. Certainly that will go some considerable distance toward solving the problem.

The

minister made reference to the fact that we are looking at increasing

the length of the service day and also to something about rescheduling.

I know that representations have been made for at least a couple of

years by organizations like the BCTA, the British Columbia Trucking

Association, and, I would imagine, also by a number of smaller

organizations.

I understand further that specific kinds of

recommendations, specific suggestions regarding either a later sailing

or an earlier sailing, perhaps even different destination points, and

so forth, for truck traffic....

[ Page 6838 ]

Those

kinds of suggestions have been submitted over the past while. Can the

minister be a little more specific in terms of giving us some

indication of what it is we're looking at and what results that

looking-at process might produce? That's the first question.

Apropos

of the minister's reference to alternative modes of service — i.e., CP

Marine — I would just remind him that one of the legacies of

deregulation has been the growth in numbers of smaller operators, the

so-called live-transport traffic. Clearly we have a much greater demand

on the ferry fleet now than we had before, and, I submit, it's directly

because of that deregulation process, which I believe your ministry is

on record as having supported. Given that, I don't think it's fair or

at all consistent for the minister to suggest that another mode of

transport is available. We've helped to create the problem that our

system is designed to address; therefore it is surely incumbent upon us

to make sure our system can address the problem.

HON. MR. VANT :

Once again I want to assure the member opposite that there are ongoing

discussions with the B.C. Trucking Association. We are discussing a

reservation system. We're very confident that once the Alberni

is back later this week it will take considerable pressure off; plus,

because of summer we're now into increased frequency of service — the

hourly service mode. What we have to do very responsibly is maximize

the available deck service in terms of the mix of traffic between

trucks and cars.

MR. LOVICK : The minister is quite right that our immediate problem may abate somewhat because of two things: one, the return of the Alberni ;

two, the summer schedule. But the fact remains, surely, that we are

seeing a gradual increase in commercial truck traffic and a

corresponding increase in the incidence of overloads and waiting times.

That's certainly the contention brought to me by not just the BCTA but

other trucking firms as well.

[2:45]

I tried to get some information from the Nanaimo terminal about the

incidence of overloads. I'm sure the general manager of the corporation

has heard of my requests. Unfortunately they don't have that system on

computer yet, and I was therefore informed it would take some time.

Does the minister know how significant that increase has been over,

say, the last three years, and whether there has been an ongoing

observable pattern of commercial vehicle overloads, and therefore

waiting times, for ferries? If the minister cannot give me that

information now, perhaps he could provide it for us.

HON. MR. VANT :

Over the last couple of years our commercial traffic has been

increasing at about 6 percent per year. We don't really keep track of

the commercial overloads per se. In the course of this dialogue I think

the member opposite is, in a sense, making an excellent case for the

Ferry Corporation once again getting into a building expansion mode

with our proposed new super ferries and our two intermediate ferries.

MR. LOVICK :

I won't belabour this much further, Mr. Minister. I appreciate that

you're addressing this on an ongoing basis, and I know it is indeed

corporation policy. A couple of points, though. Are we still exploring

the possibility of an extended day — in other words, an extra sailing

late at night — or are we giving explanations as to why that can't

happen specifically to do with the contract governing the B.C. Ferry

and Marine Workers' Union? A couple of years ago that was the argument

given. I don't think it was a good explanation at the time, and I

wonder if it is still being used or if in fact we are actively

exploring the possibility of expanding that schedule.

HON. MR. VANT :

Actually, not right now, given that we're just going into the hourly

service. Later this year, when we get back to the two-hour service, we

will certainly be looking at expanding the service day of the number

one and number two routes, the main routes.

MR. LOVICK :

I wonder if the minister is aware that one of the problems causing

additional pressure on the Nanaimo-Horseshoe Bay route as opposed to

the southern Victoria-Tsawwassen route apparently has to do with

insurance coverage. The normal insurance policy that governs trucking

fleets says the company will assume liability only within a radius of

something like 164 kilometres, which unfortunately puts the Tsawwassen

terminal out of range for certain trucks that otherwise would use the

service. This is the explanation given to me by a couple of trucking

firms. I'm wondering (

a) if you're aware of that, and (

b) whether there

is any possibility that the corporation, either working separately or

in conjunction with the ministry, might be able to talk to the

insurance bureau with a view to achieving some kind of compromise or

accommodation whereby we could rewrite the rules.

It sounds

like a very arbitrary rule. We will cover you only within a

164-kilometre radius, and if we can save it as part of our

transportation system — the infrastructure we have established —

certain trucks and certain routes are necessarily going to go beyond

that if they go to the alternate terminal. I'm wondering whether we

might explore the possibility of dealing with the insurance company.

That may take off some of the pressure on that main run I've been

referring to.

HON. MR. VANT : The answer to (

a) is

no. That's the first time we had ever heard of this problem. It has

never entered into the discussions between the B.C. Trucking

Association and the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

The answer to (

b) is that we'd certainly be willing to look into it and explore that.

MR. LOVICK : I want to turn now to another matter also to do with the B.C. Ferry Corporation,

[ Page 6839 ]

and one that I know you've heard a great deal about over time.

This

is a twofold problem. B.C. Ferry Corporation deals with, on the one

hand, tax-exempt status for the corporation and its properties within

particular communities, and on the other hand, the payment-for-services

question.

I am sure the minister is well aware of this

particular problem; it's been around for some time. In 1987 there was a

brief presented by half a dozen or more municipalities, and I will just

list them briefly so we know the scope of this problem: District of

Delta, District of Campbell River, City of Nanaimo, District of Port

Hardy, District of Powell River, City of Prince Rupert, District of

West Vancouver and City of Victoria. What all of these have in common

is that they also have a B.C. Ferry Corporation terminal in their

boundaries.

The question, you recall, has been posed for

some time: namely, whether the corporation, given it has facilities

there, ought to be paying tax for the property; and in addition, the

business of services.

We had this discussion in the

Legislature last year. My understanding was that indeed the corporation

had made a policy change. Your predecessor, the Minister of Highways at

the time, told me that the policy had changed, and now the Ferry

Corporation was going to pay for services. What happened subsequently,

however, is that the policy has apparently been reversed.

base that on the correspondence — I'll make sure I've got the right

file here — to the solicitor for those six or seven municipalities from

Mr. Long, the chairman of the corporation, informing them that yes,

that was the position taken by the ministry. They would now pay for

services. But what they meant by "services" was something quite

different from what the minister had suggested in the House.

must tell you — not you, Mr. Minister, but your predecessor — in an

anecdotal vein, that I was feeling very good after the estimates last

year, because in posing this series of questions to the minister, I

thought: "Gosh, we've really accomplished something." The minister

says: "Yes, you're right, Mr. Member for Nanaimo, the policy would seem

to be wrong, and I have made recommendation to change that policy."

Unfortunately,

as subsequent events have demonstrated, the policy has not changed. For

example, my municipality is in the awkward position of providing fire

protection, water and policing services and not getting paid for them,

as well as incurring a fairly substantial and significant cost, to the

point that the municipality is taking some measures that seem at least

unusual, if not absolutely untypical.

I can show you the

headline of a recent edition of my local newspaper, Mr. Minister, and

you will see the headline says — I think you can read it from there —

"Nanaimo Slaps Capital Costs Levy on Ferries, Harbour." You don't have

to worry about the harbour; that's federal. But on the ferries.... I'll

just read you a paragraph that will make the point: "Council Monday

approved an amendment to its sewer and water user rate bylaw that

forces both" — i.e., the Ferry Corporation and the Nanaimo Harbour

Commission — "to pay for capital costs associated with the services."

The

municipality has made representations to the Ferry Corporation, to the

cabinet and to the minister. It has hired a rather expensive firm of

lawyers to work on its behalf; they've been fighting this fight for a

couple of years. Clearly they got nowhere; therefore they have to take

this rather unusual step of amending their own bylaws to the effect

that the Ferry Corporation — as nearly as we can make out from legal

opinion — won't have any say in the matter, but will have to pay some

additional money to them.

You are shaking your head, and I

hope you are going to explain that motion, because I would love to be

able to tell the municipality of Nanaimo that the minister says: "It's

not going to work, and we aren't going to pay you any more money." I

say that in jest.

Will the minister tell me whether the

corporation is reviewing its policy of having that kind of tax-exempt

status in the municipality, and the decision it has made, which is, I

gather, to refuse grants in lieu of taxes. It's a burning issue, not

only in my municipality and constituency but, I submit, probably in

those five or six others. Would the minister mind explaining for me now

where that matter sits, whether it's being reviewed and whether any

reconsideration is being contemplated?

HON. MR. VANT : I'm delighted to address briefly this old issue which keeps coming up again and again.

The

B.C. Ferry Corporation, as the member opposite well knows, is not

liable to taxation by virtue of

section 21 of the Ferry Corporation

Act, and as the minister responsible for the B.C. Ferry Corporation, I

have no intention of bringing in an amendment to the act at this

sitting of the Legislature or any one in the near future.

The

grants in lieu of taxes are not paid for some very good reasons. First

of all, the B.C. Ferries terminals and facilities in all those

municipalities you mentioned are considered part of the highway system.

Also, the corporation is subsidized — it's about $51 million this year

— as it provides an essential public service. Surely the member

opposite wouldn't want me to come to this Legislature seeking more

funds to increase that subsidy. I'm sure that all your constituents

would not want to pay increased fares if grants in lieu of taxes were

paid to these various municipalities.

There are two sides

to every coin, and you have certainly heard the municipality side. But

the other side is that the construction of the B.C. Ferry Corporation's

facilities has provided a very significant contribution to the

industrial and tourist base of those various municipalities.

I'd

like to say, too, just for the sake of clarification — I'm summing up

this response — that certain municipal services are paid, such as water

and specified sewer levies, while other services, such as

[ Page 6840 ]

garbage collection, are contracted out. Services for police and fire protection historically have not been paid.

MR. LOVICK : I want to thank the minister for putting that statement on the record. I am sure that many people will be anxious to read it.

You

made reference to the fact that, historically, things such as police

services have not been paid. Would you explain, then, the anomaly of

the municipality of West Vancouver, where there is apparently a

contract between the B.C. Ferry Corporation and some authority or other

to provide policing services in the event of traffic overloads and

lineups along the highway?

HON. MR. VANT : To my hon.

critic, the Ferry Corporation has from time to time, through contract

with my ministry, engaged certain personnel primarily for guard

services and some patrol services.

MR. LOVICK : Is

that a consistent policy applying to every municipality on the list I

read to you, or is it done on an ad hoc basis? How can one municipality

get that service and others are either unaware of it or unable to get

it?

HON. MR. VANT : It is only done when needed — for example, on a long weekend. This has happened at various terminals in the system.

MR. LOVICK :

Then why hasn't Nanaimo's Departure Bay terminal been successful in its

application for compensation for the extra cost of policing on long

weekends? We have had traffic problems as a result of ferry traffic

coming into the community that have cost the city an incredible amount

of money We've had to hire two extra shifts of RCMP constables to

patrol the area to make sure the traffic flows smoothly.

[3:00]

My information is that the Ferry Corporation has refused to pay for

any of those services. Thus we are in this long and elaborate process

of making appeal to you. It is also why we have come to the point I

talked about a moment ago whereby city council is now slapping a

capital cost levy on ferries. They're not doing that on some whim;

they're doing it because they feel they have no choice, because their

request for a simple fee-for-service has apparently been peremptorily

rejected. Can you explain that?

HON. MR. VANT : I'm

sure that the city of Nanaimo engages the RCMP when there are problems

within their municipality. We have personnel within the ferry terminal

area to assist from time to time when there are problems, but the B.C.

Ferry Corporation's jurisdiction is only within that terminal area.

When you consider all the benefits that the city of Nanaimo has because

there is that Departure Bay terminal, it pretty well balances out.

MR. LOVICK :

How about the $784 bill for the cleanup of a fuel spill at the terminal

last month? That's another bill that has been presented. It's something

that happened specifically at the terminal, not outside. Using your

argument from last time, this one would seem to be a counter example to

that, where you are not even paying, apparently, for services or costs

incurred at the terminal. How about that one? Can you give me

assurances that there will be a cheque in the mail for $784 and however

many cents? Can I get that much? Come on, Neil, make me feel....

HON. MR. VANT :

If in this particular instance the city wishes to submit a bill to the

corporation, they would certainly carefully consider the bill.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. LOVICK :

Come, Mr. Minister, you can do a little better than that, surely. Can't

you say, "We will consider, but I can assure you that there is indeed a

terrible infringement of justice here and we will take steps to make

sure that a cheque for $784 will be in the mail"? Can you get us a

little closer to that conclusion, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. VANT :

The member opposite seems to have very little respect for the integrity

of the B.C. Ferry Corporation board — to actually make the critical

decisions, such as this, regarding the corporation's business dealings.

For sure I will take this suggestion under enthusiastic consideration,

and I will discuss it. The general manager assures me right here that

they will carefully consider that bill in this particular instance,

where right on their terminal a service was rendered to the Ferry

Corporation.

MR. LOVICK : How fascinating that this

minister, who normally is perceived to be one who wants to take credit

for all things that happen within the aegis of that particular

ministry, in this case decides to defer to some other body who will

make the decision — duly noted, Mr. Minister.

Apropos of

that point, I want to turn now to the question that would seem to

illustrate the confusion regarding who is making the announcements and

who is making the decisions governing the operations of the B.C. Ferry

Corporation. I refer you to the saga of Isabella Point. Would the

minister be kind enough to tell me where that matter now sits. Is it

the case that the decision has been made — in other words, the first

statement the minister is quoted as making — despite the fact that we

have a transportation committee touring and entertaining submissions,

or is it the case that it's still under review — the second statement

the minister is quoted as making?

HON. MR. VANT : I would just remind the hon. member opposite that I represent the chief shareholder regarding the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

Regarding the Isabella Point issue, the regional transportation advisory committee is certainly going

[ Page 6841 ]

do a lot of consulting with the residents of Saltspring Island. Indeed,

I want to remind the member that on February 8, to be exact, senior

officials of the B.C. Ferry Corporation met with some very prominent

citizens of Saltspring Island.

I should mention some of the

key people who were there, where the possibility — and I underline

possibility — of the relocation of the ferry terminal from Fulford

Harbour to Isabella Point was discussed. At that particular meeting, if

Isabella Point was mentioned once it was mentioned about 20 times. Some

of the gentlemen at that meeting were: Nick Gilbert of the Islands

Trust; also of the Islands Trust, John Stepaniuk; Syd Wigen of the

South Saltspring Residents' Association; Mike Marshall of the school

board; Ron McQuiggan of the Capital Regional District; Robert Andrew of

the Sierra Club; the Island Watch transportation committee; Danny

Evanishen, chairman of another transportation committee; and Jack

Cherry of the chamber of commerce. Those are a few of the prominent

citizens who were at the consultative meeting.

I am

mentioning all these people for the record. Many consultations have

already taken place. The regional transportation advisory committee has

in its mandate hearings on Isabella Point and other transportation

initiatives in that area. There are adequate opportunities for

consultation and input by the local residents.

MR. LOVICK :

A few moments ago the minister offered us one of his more profound

observations about there being two sides to every coin. Let me give you

the other side to this particular coin.

The minister makes

reference to the fact that a wonderful consultative process took place

on Saltspring Island. Let me just remind you how the other side

perceives that. Let me quote to you from a letter — sent to you, as a

matter of fact — from one of the participants, which describes that

meeting:

"On February 10 corporation

representatives met with about a dozen individuals in Ganges. I" — this

is Nick Gilbert writing — "was left wondering why the meeting had been

called. Of significance is the fact that the Saltspring guests wished

to speak about a range of alternatives, but were directed by Chairman

Long to limit discussion to Fulford Harbour and Isabella Point."

Parenthetically, Mr. Minister, that's why Isabella Point was mentioned so many times, I suspect.

"Rod

Morrison" — the letter goes on — "informed us that the project was

simply in the conceptual stage and that there wasn't a lot of detailed

information available. There had been no feasibility study, only a

professional guess as to costs. We were told that the Long Harbour run

would not be removed at this time. Whenever information was requested,

we were directed to make our request through the regional

transportation task force. We were to take our transportation concerns

to that committee."

There are a couple more brief paragraphs, and then I'll let you respond.

"The result of that meeting was that there was no

endorsement of Isabella Point. We were left with a lot of unanswered

questions. Clearly there was no information available on which to base

a response. Since that meeting, the Islands Trust and community groups

throughout the island have worked hard and fast to prepare submissions

for the regional committee, who have their public meetings next week,

some ten days after your" — the Minister of Highways' — "announcement.

After all, this is the only process available to us" — the minister

looks perplexed; the reference is to the transportation hearings — "

and all our hopes of being heard have rested on this. You have totally

undermined that process with your decision."

Two sides?

You're arguing a consultative approach? These people are arguing that

they have been put in the position of a mouse about to nibble the

cheese and then discovering that as he or she — the mouse — gets close,

the cheese is snatched away. Would you care to respond to that, Mr.

Minister?

HON. MR. VANT : Once again I have to

emphasize that no announcement was made regarding Isabella Point. It

was referred — not only by myself but by the Ferry Corporation — to the

regional transportation advisory committee. In the meantime, due to the

consultations that had already taken place, it would be reasonable for

the Ferry Corporation to do a feasibility study, so that there would be

a little more concrete information available to assist the people most

affected in making the ultimate decision.

I can assure the

member opposite that no final decision has been made. We value the

consultative process; I can't overemphasize that.

MR. LOVICK :

I will simply accept for the moment that the final position — you

stated it very emphatically, and I appreciate that — is that no final

decision has been made. Let's accept that.

I want to ask a

very direct question, and I am happy to see that the member for Comox,

the Minister of State for Advanced Education, is here.

HON. S. HAGEN : Minister of State for Advanced Education?

MR. LOVICK :

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to give you a demotion. The Minister of

Advanced Education, I know it's a minor role for those ministers of

state. Their hopes were up for a moment there.

The question

I wanted to pose has to do with sonic statements made in the House

yesterday. In response to a question from my colleague the second

member for Boundary–Similkameen (Mr. Barlee), the minister began by

saying that he was pleased that the member had done his homework and

that his question was based on traffic volumes — as a justification for

some construction work. Another comment made on your side in the

Legislature yesterday, from the first member for Vancouver South (Mr.

R. Fraser), was a kind of pitch for the Parksville–Qualicum bypass.

That's the question I want to pose to the minister.

If in

fact you are now actively working towards constructing a

Parksville-Qualicum bypass, how do we justify it, given that we have

already spent a considerable amount of money putting a five-lane

[ Page 6842 ]

road

through that area? Can the minister tell me what traffic volume studies

and other documentation have been presented to justify the construction

of the bypass? Is the bypass at the moment about to proceed — or

proceeding, for all I know? What are the studies that support that

proposition that that should proceed before other parts of the Island

Highway that, I would submit, on the basis of traffic volume, have

greater claims?

HON. MR. VANT : It's not an either-or

situation, hon. member. We still need good access through the various

communities. I don't want to interpret your remarks as being against a

bypass per se or as being against improving access through an existing

community. It's not either-or; I would prefer to think of it as

both-and.

[3:15]

MR. LOVICK :

How about the specific question? Let me pretend I'm the member

representing Comox and ask the specific question: can you tell me

what's happening with the bypass? This is for you, Stan.

HON. MR. VANT : Very simply, the bypass will be built and will be starting this year.

MR. LOVICK : Is that in keeping with the construction

schedule that was announced last year at about November 1988?

HON. MR. VANT : Yes, indeed, it is.

MR. LOVICK :

Is that particular stretch of road going to begin,

whereas the

stretches of road that were enunciated and described in the southern

part — namely, around my constituency, around Ladysmith — are not

going to begin, but rather, we're only going to be doing some design

work and property acquisition work?

HON. MR. VANT : Yes, Mr. Chairman, to the best of my knowledge, the same

schedule as originally announced would apply.

MR. LOVICK :

Excuse me. I want a clarification of that. You said the same

schedule

would apply. Does that mean that the construction on the southern end

of my constituency around Ladysmith as originally described in the

construction

schedule for the Vancouver Island project will, in fact,

begin this summer as was stated?

HON. MR. VANT : I'm

amazed that the hon member asks this same question, because it seems to

me that we were into this several days ago. I believe I answered the

question at that time.

MR. LOVICK : Do it again for me, if you will.

HON. MR. VANT : I can just reaffirm my previous answer.

MR. LOVICK : Just say yes.

HON. MR. VANT : Yes.

MR. LOVICK :

Will the minister also share with the House whether there have been

some traffic volume studies that indicate why we are proceeding in area

X as opposed to area Y, and so forth? Do we have that kind of study for

the entire project? That's my question.

HON. MR. VANT : Yes, we do. Indeed, a good case can be made for the entire Island Highway project based on the traffic volumes.

MR. LOVICK :

I'm aware of both studies. What I was asking, and I'm sorry if I didn't

make it clear, was for specific parts. In other words, is the

construction

schedule based on a needs basis, on some kind of

prioritization of traffic volumes and other demands? Is that the case,

or are we doing it on some other basis — some other agenda, dare I say?

HON. MR. VANT :

There are many variables in determining a construction schedule.

Certainly the volume of traffic is one of them. We are ready and

willing to proceed where we can: where the right of way has been

acquired, where all the various other elements to start a project are

in place. But one of the most significant variables is the volumes of

traffic. Of course, there are also the environmental concerns which

have to be properly addressed before construction begins. We want to do

it right.

MR. CHAIRMAN : just before recognizing the

member for Nanaimo, I might ask the member for Prince Rupert (Mr.

Miller) to look at the nineteenth edition of Sir Erskine May, page 434.

I'll provide him with the book if he'd like.

MR. LOVICK :

That rather cryptic announcement has us all, of course, wondering. I

find it intriguing that you are about to edify my colleague on the

niceties of parliamentary procedure. I have no idea why that may be the

case, but I'm intrigued.

I want to turn now, if I might, to

another matter. Again, just a few questions, Mr. Minister. Would you

explain to me please the current status of the Robson ferry in the

Slocan Valley area around Castlegar? I think I'm outside the Slocan

Valley in Castlegar, actually, but you know the area of the Kootenays.

As you know, there is a considerable sense of hardship among members of

that community. They've been fighting that fight for a long while. I

understand that we have recently had the anniversary — about a week ago

— of the cessation of that particular service. When I traveled in that

area, I was asked specifically by a committee of people struck to fight

for the retention of that ferry service to pose the question to you

about whether the ministry is indeed reconsidering that decision, given

the apparently well-demonstrated need and justification for that

service.

[ Page 6843 ]

HON. MR. VANT :

The matter is under appeal to the courts by the citizens' coalition in

the Castlegar–Raspberry–Robson area. Meanwhile, of course, the whole

situation is under review.

I'd like to remind the hon.

member that I believe it's only eight kilometres to drive from

Raspberry around into Castlegar. I can think of many situations

throughout this great province of ours, where — as we heard from the

hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) — it would be over 100 kilometres

to drive around if there weren't any ferry service.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANT : At Franois Lake, that's correct.

MR. LOVICK :

Your answer, Mr. Minister, seemed to have two parts to it. You said, on

the one hand, that yes, indeed, there's a process of litigation going

on, with which I am certainly familiar. But you also said, I think I

quote you: "Meanwhile, it's under review." Do you mean that currently,

then, the ministry is examining, independent of the legal system,

whether there might indeed be a retention or a resumption of that

service?

HON. MR. VANT : First of all, we don't

presume the outcome of the court case. Naturally, we can't just have

that ferry sitting in limbo forever. But I'm not indicating in any way

that we're considering reactivating the ferry.

MR. LOVICK :

When you say "under review," then, do you mean you're presently

searching for a buyer, in the event that you win the court case? Is

that really what you meant?

HON. MR. VANT : No.

MS. EDWARDS :

I hate to let the Robson ferry go past without telling the minister

that I'm sure that if he made some good decisions now, the court case

would disappear. I'm sure he's as well aware of that as anyone. And

he's probably also well aware — although it needs to be made public

fairly frequently, I think — of the number of people who use that ferry

regularly, and use it to avoid owning cars and to avoid other methods

of transportation which are particularly onerous to our environment, as

some of the people feel.

However, Mr. Chairman, I want to

ask the minister some questions. I'm going to start off by trying to

clarify just exactly the process of deciding what money is going into

what budgets for highways. I don't think anyone has really given you a

hard time on Highway 3 yet, Mr. Minister, so I think it's time. I want

to know how you are going to make your decision as to which of the

projects are going to receive funding. A certain degree of expectation

has been raised by your government, and I want to put this to you, Mr.

Minister: this being the case, would you agree that this is a

reasonable reflection of how you see the case about highway improvement

matters?

One of the councils in my area has sent a letter

in response to your invitation for comments and input in highway

improvement matters: "We understand that the provincial government has

embarked on a study which will address each and every concern brought

to its attention, with the objective being to set priorities and

formulate short- and long-range programs." Is that correct, Mr.

Minister, that this process — which of course does not go to your

ministry, but goes for the allocation of Highways dollars — will in

fact address each and every concern and then set priorities and

formulate spending? Would you answer me as to how, in a word, you

expect to respond to these expectations for each area in the province?

MR. CHAIRMAN :

The question is somewhat out of order, because this deals just with the

administrative responsibility of this minister; yet, I gather, this

task force you are referring to is really the responsibility of someone

else. But the minister may wish to answer it. I realize it's a grey

area, and the Chair can't be of too much assistance. But I think you're

correct in that there are several people taking responsibilities for

this. The minister may wish to respond.

HON. MR. VANT :

I look forward to hearing from each region of the province what both

the short-term and long-term priorities are regarding improvements to

the road and bridge system, as well as suggestions regarding other

modes of transportation. It is indeed my ministry that will be

integrating and coordinating that, so that we emerge with the blueprint

for action, the transportation plan.

I know that during the

course of my debate we've heard from a number of MLAs who have a

special wish-list for their own particular constituency. So this is

kind of a both-and process; there is both the careful planning process,

plus this sort of ad hoc process, where the MLA, naturally, has

particular priorities.

I have heard already from the second

member for Boundary–Similkameen (Mr. Barlee) about some urgent needs on

Highway 3; that, of course, would be a little way west of your

situation there. But I'm always willing to listen to what improvements

you suggest.

MS. EDWARDS : Mr. Minister, could you

tell me then which is going to take priority? Is it going to be the

task force recommendations to your ministry about spending on highways,

or is it going to be those recommendations with an overlay of what I

myself might say as an MLA for that area? How shall you make those

decisions about spending on highways and bridges?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Again, this may not be the responsibility of this minister, but we'll ask him to answer it anyway.

HON. MR. VANT : Mr. Chairman, I would take suggestions from both.

[ Page 6844 ]

MS. EDWARDS :

I guess that's probably what has created the considerable degree of

disaffection among some of the members of the highways committee who

made recommendations. I'm trying to be very careful in putting this to

the minister, who is taking this input for his spending. I'm trying to

keep it on that particular area, because there was some considerable

disappointment about the response of the Minister of Transportation and

Highways to the work the highways task force did in my area last year,

and some considerable worry that we should have some answers from the

minister about what budget will be allocated this year for new work and

what budget will be allocated for maintenance. Can the minister give

any answers to those two questions?

HON. MR. VANT :

On the contrary, the feedback I'm getting is that the very wide variety

of people serving on these committees are indeed very delighted to

participate and to have the opportunity to give input to this planning

process.

I would remind the member — if she wants to update

herself on my budget for this year — that both the capital and

rehabilitation spending are printed in the budget book.

MS. EDWARDS :

Maybe the minister is misunderstanding what I'm saying. I think that

any of the people from my area are very happy if they had input. It has

been extensive and made with a great deal of effort. Their

dissatisfaction has rested with the response and the actual spending

plans that your ministry put forward.

[3:30]

It seems to me, again, that they asked rather specifically what

would be the new money and what would be the maintenance money, and you

have referred me to a global budget which is no help at all, as far as

my area is concerned.

I would like to make very clear — and I hope this is coming through from the

other methods besides the method of hearing from the MLA — that spending on

Highway 3 is one of the most urgent desires and demands of the people in my

riding. Every municipal body in the area has made representations to you, Mr.

Minister, for that kind of spending. They have also made fairly clear that it's

been a long time since there's been any serious rehabilitation or maintenance

and it's been a long time since there's been any of the work that they

are suggesting of straightening curves, realignment, grading, changing widths,

looking at particularly sharp corners, and those kinds of things. The statements

from the people in the riding are extremely clear and extremely forceful as

to the need for upgrading on Highway 3. I would hate to leave without saying,

in the strongest terms, that the people in my riding expect that some work will

be done and recognize that no matter what other highways and highway projects

the minister may approve in my riding, upgrading on Highway 3 is extremely important

to the welfare of the area, to the expansion of the tourism industry, and to

the continuation of the use of the highways needed by the industry that is already

there.

would also like to ask the minister about the next project, which is

Highway 43. As the minister knows, the Highway 43 proposal is not

universally accepted inside the riding. There are some communities that

don't want it and some that do. However, the position it's in is that

an economic study was done and a former Minister of Highways made what

was accepted to be a commitment to proceed with an environmental and

social impact study once the local communities had done an economic

cost-benefit study. We need to know whether the ministry is going to go

ahead with that. If the very difficult decision is going to have to be

made about whether the area itself wants the highway — divided as it is

— the more information it has on which to base its decision the better

off we will be.

I will first ask you whether the ministry

has decided to proceed with an environmental and social impact study

for the Highway 43 proposal as it now stands.

HON. MR. VANT :

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the member that there will be

considerable work on Highway 3 this fiscal year. There will be well in

excess of rehabilitation work on over 100 kilometres of Highway 3.

Touching

on Highway 43, I believe this is the highway that could possibly go

through over to Alberta. I did have one meeting with the Hon. "Boomer"

Adair, the minister of highways for the province of Alberta. Indeed, I

was informing him that some of the mayors from that region who had

previously met with me also wanted to meet with him so that we could

get both British Columbia and Alberta involved in that proposal. We're

awaiting a consensus of all the municipal leaders in that area, which

doesn't really exist at this time. Some of them are very much for it,

and some are against this highway link to Alberta.

MS. EDWARDS :

May I ask in more specific detail what the minister of highways for

Alberta said? Was he personally willing to pursue it if there were a

consensus? Is he willing to look at it as a highway from the Fording

Pass area rather than further north through the Kananaskis?

HON. MR. VANT :

Yes, he is, like myself, willing to look at it. As I recall our

meeting, some of the people on the Alberta side had some environmental

concerns — the sensitivity of the proposed route. Nevertheless, he is

certainly willing to look at it.

MS. EDWARDS : Am I

to understand as well that you will not consider doing an

environmental/social impact study until such time as there is consensus

among the southeastern communities?

HON. MR. VANT : If the transportation planning process identified that as a priority in the area,

[ Page 6845 ]

certainly we would take the next step, which would be an impact study.

MR. JONES :

I'd like to raise with the minister a few transportation and highway

items that affect my riding. As the minister might appreciate, I don't

have a lot of provincial highways in my riding, so he can probably

anticipate some of the concerns I might have. Actually, because Burnaby

and North Burnaby are central to the lower mainland and the Greater

Vancouver Regional District, decisions made in that jurisdiction

strongly impact on my riding.

Although I'd like to talk

about the Cassiar connector, the Hastings-Gaglardi connection and a few

other areas, I'd like to back up for a minute and make a few comments

on why we're facing the kind of problem that we are today. I think it's

primarily because of decades of neglect, not just in highways and

transportation but in the entire infrastructure of the lower mainland.

If we look at a graph of highway projects in the area, we see that in

recent decades there have been fewer and fewer major projects to

alleviate transportation and traffic problems in the area that serves

half the population of this province. Insufficient funds have been

spent on highways, on spaces in post-secondary education, on keeping up

with transit needs and on the basic infrastructure of other aspects

such as water and bridges.

So as a province, we're trying

to play catch-up as a result of those decades of neglect. I think the

Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen) understands that. We

have the Delcan study and "Freedom to Move," but I think that study is

basically trying to address problems that we have perceived for these

decades and to make up for the problems created by the province's lack

of proper planning and investment in the area. It still goes on today,

and I think there's a serious problem, partly because of a lack of

cooperative regional planning and partly a result of lack of

cooperation between the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and

other ministries.

Let me give you an example. It's my

understanding that by now there is a major purchaser for the Westwood

Plateau property. This major property — I think it's something like

seven times the size of the Expo lands — will be developed for some

4,000 or 5,000 housing units in that region east of my riding, on top

of a 1,000-unit development in the area. There has been an ongoing

process of expansion of the region. Clearly the province is interested

in this kind of expansion; clearly the province has to respond to the

kind of development needs that the region has; but there is a total

lack of integration and cooperation to meet the infrastructure needs.

The

Minister of Advanced Education is looking at spaces in the eastern part

and is having Simon Fraser study that area, but at the same time we had

to anticipate that these kinds of things were happening for years and

years. I assume the Minister of Transportation and Highways has not

been involved in this planning and has not recognized that the existing

arteries connecting Port Moody and North Burnaby are already clogged to

the hilt. The government, particularly the minister responsible for

transit, has been looking at commuter rail and I think is now, after

many years of the opposition pressing for it, serious about commuter

rail.

There needs to be a coordinated approach of highways,

transit and planning of major developments in the area. I think the

regions have lost that opportunity for regional planning and the

opportunity to really meet the livability requirements of the region.

My involvement in North Burnaby has gone on for a number of years, and

there have been major concerns expressed by the constituents there.

served for five years on the traffic safety committee of the

municipality of Burnaby. The one major concern that people had, because

we are a connector between where people live and where people work —

they live in the east and they work to the west of us — is that we are

the traffic corridor for commuter transportation.

So the

major thrust that I had in trying to represent North Burnaby on that

committee was trying to get traffic off neighbourhood streets and onto

Hastings Street. I want the minister to hear this, because central to

the whole theme is getting the traffic off neighbourhood streets and

onto the reasonable arterial of Hastings Street.

The

history of the problems in Burnaby has been monumental in terms of

upsetting local neighbourhoods whose needs for safety and a quiet

neighbourhood are not being met because of the transportation lack that

we have in this province, So we are looking to improvement. We are

looking to commuter rail and improvement of the freeway, as the

minister mentioned in his introduction. We are also looking to solve

some of the other problems that are going to be impacted.

Let

me raise the Cassiar connector, the intersection that the minister

described as the most congested west of Toronto. I agree with that.

There is one sticking point that I am sure the minister is aware of,

and that is the question of the Cambridge overpass and the Skeena

Tunnel.

Let me refer to a letter written by the deputy

minister to a citizens' committee in North Burnaby. Keep in mind that

the thrust from the constituents I am concerned with is getting

commuter traffic off the neighbourhood streets. The response to this

citizens' group from the ministry was suggesting that the "ministry had

strong concerns that the closure of both the Cambridge overpass and the

Skeena Tunnel would cause legitimate community access traffic to be

concentrated on the Hastings corridor, in particular at the

Hastings-Cassiar intersection."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

me, that's the whole idea of the Cassiar connector, to make Hastings

the major arterial, to get traffic onto Hastings Street, to make that

traffic flow more smoothly. The deputy minister goes on to say: "I am

concerned that closure of both the Cambridge and the Skeena will

compromise travel along the Hastings corridor."

[ Page 6846 ]

Again,

the thrust of the residents I am representing here is that we do just

that: get that traffic onto Hastings Street, flowing smoothly through

Cassiar and Hastings, and try to remove commuter traffic from

neighbourhood streets in the area.

[3:45]

Interjection.

MR. JONES : We are finding out. I

believe the city has taken a position. We are concerned that, and I

quote: "The Skeena Tunnel will be closed to public access." That quote

comes from pages 57, 62, 84, 95, 119, 129, 147 and 236 of the

Fenco-Lavalin report. I'm sure the minister is familiar with it; it was

part of the terms of reference accepted by both the city and the

provincial government, according to the Vancouver city manager's report

of March 9, 1989.

The city manager's report accepts the

idea of the closure of the Skeena Tunnel except for emergencies — and I

expect the city does too, then. I think it's an appropriate compromise

that in emergency situations emergency vehicles have access to the

tunnel and the overpass, but that the tunnel and the overpass be closed

and we not create a further east-west artery that will allow commuter

traffic to travel from Vancouver through North Burnaby and

neighbourhood streets and disrupt those streets as they have for many

years. The tunnel and that overpass should be closed.

assume there have been ongoing discussions between the ministry and the

city of Vancouver. The minister suggests that construction will begin

this winter, and that the Cassiar connector will be completed in 1991.

I assume, then, that there has been a decision on the tunnel and the

overpass, and I'd like to hear the minister's response to the need for

closing the tunnel and overpass, and to get some appreciation of his

understanding of the people living in the neighbourhoods of north

Burnaby.

HON. MR. VANT : The hon. member for Burnaby

North made several points. I certainly agree with the mayor of

Coquitlam, Mayor Lou Sekora, regarding the Westwood Plateau

developments. He, like you, is concerned that the transportation

infrastructure be in place, because with that development, more and

more people put more and more stress on the system. We plan to start

this year, in conjunction with that, the Johnson-Mariner overhead that

would connect Barnet Highway to the Dewdney Trunk Road; that is very

important in that area. We also plan to start this year the connection

from North Road to Gaglardi Way, along Broadway. I appreciate too that

the hon. member for Burnaby North is very conscious of the other very

worthwhile modes of transportation, such as commuter rail.

I'd

like to say too that in terms of the regional transportation planning

process, I as minister can't get to every meeting, because they are

going on throughout the province, but my regional director of highways,

Dave Cunliffe, and other ministry staff are usually present to render

any assistance necessary.

And of course they have that firm foundation: even though it's not absolutely

perfect, the Delcan study gives a pretty good base to take off from.

appreciate that you also seem to recognize the definite need for this

transportation planning process. In the lower mainland, short-term and

long-term planning is critical, because we certainly have to make the

right decisions at the right time and implement projects some of which

take a long time to actually complete once you start construction. We

have to proceed with careful planning and do things at the right time.

understand that city council of Vancouver are on record as wanting the

Skeena Tunnel closed. As I understand it, they would only want it to be

opened for emergency purposes. I certainly agree with the hon. member

opposite that we should keep traffic off neighbourhood streets. We

should discourage commuters from taking off from commuter routes and

trying to take shortcuts, because it leads to all kinds of problems and

upsets quiet neighbourhoods in the city.

As you well know,

we're determined to get on with the Cassiar connector, to at long last

complete that last two-and-a-half-kilometre gap in the TransCanada

Highway.

I thank the hon. member for Burnaby North for his concerns and comments, and they will be taken very seriously.

MR. JONES :

The minister confirmed Vancouver's position as far as the Skeena Tunnel

and the Cambridge overpass are concerned, but I'm still not clear on

the minister's position. Before my question I read a letter from Mr.

M.V. Collins, deputy minister, to the Vancouver Heights Citizens'

Committee. The letter indicated that the ministry has strong concerns

about the closure. The minister sounds very pleased about the Vancouver

position, but the position of his own ministry, as indicated by his

deputy minister, is strong concerns about the closure, for the ironic

reason that it would force traffic onto Hastings. Well, that's the

idea, Mr. Minister: to get the traffic off the neighbourhood streets

and onto Hastings. What is your position, Mr. Minister, on the overpass

and the tunnel?

HON. MR. VANT : Mr. Chairman, my

position is that we have very great concerns about the tunnel being

closed, in regard to being able to open it up in case there is an

emergency. That is our primary concern. We certainly support the city

of Vancouver in.... I guess the correct terminology would be to

partially close it. This would satisfy the neighbourhood. It would only

be used in an emergency. As I understand it, if the tunnel was closed

per se, then the only alternate route for, say, emergency vehicles

would be through the PNE grounds. If there was some problem down at the

docks or something, we would want to be assured of access through the

tunnel.

[ Page 6847 ]

MR. JONES :

I just want to ask the minister to clarify. If I hear him correctly,

he's saying that he favours closure and the only problem he sees is

that he wants to ensure access of emergency vehicles. If there can be a

resolution to that problem of access for emergency vehicles, he would

be quite satisfied with the closure.

HON. MR. VANT :

No. There also has to be access out of that dock area in the event that

there might have to be, say, an evacuation. We would only agree to what

I guess you'd call a partial closure. We want to be assured that the

tunnel could be opened if indeed there was an emergency,

MR. JONES :

I think I understand the minister now. He's not opposed to closure.

It's just the emergent situation he is concerned about, and he's

looking for ways to resolve that situation so that it can be opened

only in the case of an emergency. So there is light at the end of the

tunnel.

I'd like to raise another question with the

minister. It has to do with the Hastings-Gaglardi connector. I have

here three letters, signed by the minister, on that question. I'm a

little confused as to the minister's position, because it seems that in

every letter he takes a different position.

The minister,

in his letter to me last August, pointed out a little background, that

the minister was aware that this was a concern of Burnaby in the

seventies and that when the major street plan was drawn up which was

adopted and accepted as part of Burnaby's official plan, we had a

proposal to connect Gaglardi Way — named after that famous former

Minister of Highways — to another provincial highway called Hastings

Street. The minister points out in his letter to me of August 23:

"However, that proposal to connect...did not receive provincial

endorsement." I think the minister is clear on that. That was Burnaby's

official plan, and although it was approved, that particular connection

did not receive provincial endorsement. I appreciate the frankness and

the candour of the minister in that statement.

In his next

paragraph the minister goes on to point out something that was very

upsetting to people in my constituency: "The ministry's position is

that the traffic served by the Curtis-Parker corridor is mainly local

to Burnaby." If the minister had looked at the traffic counts for

Curtis-Parker, he would find something in the range of over 20,000

vehicles per day. I'm not sure of that figure, but I'm sure it's at

least something like 20,000. I think the minister was clear in the

first part of his letter but showed a real lack of understanding of the

problem for those residents in his next statement.

He goes

on to even further clarify his position as minister: "...this ministry

has no intentions of building the Gaglardi-Hastings connector and will

not support an application for funding assistance under the Revenue

Sharing Act."

I have another letter dated roughly two weeks

later, September 9, 1988, written to a constituent of mine, in which

the minister takes quite a different tone. He points out to this

constituent that his ministry is currently in the process of developing

a long-term transportation plan which will determine and provide for

the transportation needs of British Columbia into the 1990s: "...be

complete by the middle of October, at which time my ministry will

consult with various committees, regional districts and economic

development regions with a view to establishing the priority of all

proposed highway improvement programs throughout the province. The

relative priority of the construction program for the Hastings-Gaglardi

connector and the completion of the Barnet Highway from Port Moody

westward will be determined through this process."

So two

weeks earlier the minister was telling me that he will not support an

application for funding assistance under the Revenue Sharing Act and

has no intention of building the Hastings-Gaglardi connector, and then

two weeks later he's telling a constituent that it's all part of the

planning process and the priorities will be determined by that process.

It seems to me that there's some confusion between those two letters

two weeks apart. After sending a petition to the minister.... I'm not

sure if I sent it to the minister or the Minister of State for

Mainland–Southwest (Hon. Mr. Veitch). There were several hundred

signatures on that petition. I got a response back just the other day,

even though I sent the petition some time back.

The

minister says again: "I understand that the road network currently

being evaluated by the Greater Vancouver Regional District subcommittee

on transportation includes the Hastings-Gaglardi link." We have three

letters with three different responses; the first two being two weeks

apart and diametrically opposed, and the third one a slight shade of

the second.

I'd really appreciate clarification from the

minister, because I think within a two-week period.... Maybe he was new

to the job, and it was confusing to him, and he has had time to reflect

on the Hastings-Gaglardi connector since. I'd be very interested in

hearing whether he still believes that he has no intentions, or whether

its priority is going to be determined by a local process.

[4:00]

HON. MR. VANT :

At the time I wrote that first letter, it was not identified by myself

or the ministry as an urgent priority. We have this necessary overview

where we decided to go ahead with the upgrading to four lanes of North

Road to Gaglardi Way along Broadway. If, however, the local

transportation committee identifies the Hastings-Gaglardi connector as

a priority, I would most certainly give it careful consideration.

MR. JONES :

I suppose that's encouraging, given that the minister is willing to let

the democratic process and the regional decision-making determine the

relative priority of that small stretch of highway which would give

important relief to a large number of constituents in my riding, and

that he would be

[ Page 6848 ]

quite willing to back down from his earlier statement that he has no intentions of building the Gaglardi-Hastings connector.

I'm

pleased to hear that. We await the work of the regional transportation

committee, and hopefully they will recognize the priority of that

project.

[Mr. Crandall in the chair.]

I have one further question

to the minister, and then I'll pass on to a number of colleagues who

also wish to ask questions of the minister. That has to do with the

freeway, which the minister announced in his opening remarks would be

upgraded, I assume, to three lanes each way between the Cassiar

connector and the Port Mann Bridge. It seems to me that when that

highway was constructed 20 to 25 years ago, it was planned to allow for

that kind of expansion. The land has been purchased and graded. It

certainly — although not necessarily a short stretch of highway — could

be accomplished in reasonable time. The minister calls the Cassiar and

Hastings corner the most congested corner west of Toronto. I call the

freeway the longest parking-lot west of Toronto.

The

minister indicated in his opening remarks that there would be

preliminary engineering studies done on that highway within the next

year. My guess is that — if I wanted to be completely political — I

could just take the minister's statement verbatim, make a big sign and

stick it in front of all those commuters stuck on the freeway morning

and evening and get a very strong political response to that minister.

I'm

wondering if the minister can elaborate a little bit at this point. My

hope is that in that elaboration, I'll hear that the minister is

interested in proceeding with a little more alacrity than he indicated

in his opening remarks.

HON. MR. VANT : We are

proceeding this year on conceptual design of the improvements necessary

to the Burnaby freeway. That's a very valuable corridor. The hon.

member is quite right. It was quite a number of years ago that the

Social Credit government built the Burnaby freeway. We have to proceed

to this conceptual design stage, because we have to make a very

critical decision as to whether we would just add two more lanes — make

it a six-lane — or if we would go a step further and make it an

eight-lane freeway.

There are advantages to going to eight

lanes, where we could have the centre two lanes for high utilization

vehicles only during the rush hours. That's a very valuable

transportation corridor. We want to make the very best decision and get

the very best design possible for upgrading. We are working very hard

on that this fiscal year. You are correct that in some sections you

could easily add just one more lane. There are some bridges along that

system even before you get to the Port Mann Bridge — some overpasses

and so on. Once we get to the Port Mann Bridge we have to decide if we

could tack a couple more lanes onto it, or whether it be better to twin

the Port Mann, go the full eight lanes and have two four-lane bridges.

have to make some very careful decisions. We have to be fully informed

from an engineering and conceptual point of view to make that important

decision. We will be stuck with whatever decision we do make for a long

time to come.

MR. JONES : Certainly the decision is

an important one. As the minister pointed out, his government has had

20 years to make that decision. Clearly the engineering studies have

been done. My guess is that all the data is in to make that decision.

What the minister is doing, by saying that it's a very complicated

decision that has to be made, is stalling. I appreciate that the

government has limited funds, and it can only do so much in one year. I

would have appreciated a much more candid answer of that kind than your

saying that we have complicated decisions to make.

What's

going to happen on that freeway is that there's going to be one lane

added each way. That's been in people's minds in Burnaby for a long

time; it's been a long time coming. Whatever government does that —

whether it's this government prior to the next election or an NDP

government after the election — it is going to reflect very well on

whoever puts forward those added lanes and resolves that tremendous

bottleneck of traffic on the freeway.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

First of all, I would like to apprise the minister of the progress of

the proposed inland Island Highway: the link connector. That's one of

the various names given to the proposed highway that is being

undertaken and spearheaded by the economic and transportation committee

of Alberni.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

believe the member for Cowichan–Malahat (Mr. Bruce) spoke on this issue

last week and mentioned that we were going to have a cavalcade from

Cumberland to Alberni and from Cowichan Lake to Alberni. In fact, that

took place last Sunday, and 88 cars made the trip from Cumberland. I am

sorry to say — I am sure he had reasons for not being there — that the

member for Comox was unable to make that trip.

HON. S. HAGEN : I did it last year.

MR. G. JANSSEN : I did it last year also, Mr. Member.

The

member for Cowichan–Malahat, however, did make the trip. There were 88

cars going from Cumberland to Port Alberni on that route, and I think

53 from Cowichan Lake to Alberni. We met at the Harbour Quay in

Alberni. It shows support by the communities in those three valleys:

the Cowichan Valley, the Alberni Valley and the Comox Valley. I am sure

the minister is aware that it also had the support of every Vancouver

Island municipality, regional

[ Page 6849 ]

district, labour council, and of everybody it was presented to.

The

road was sought after as early as the 1920s, and nothing has been done.

I know that four-laning the Island Highway is a priority with the

Ministry of Highways. So it should be; we have no qualms about that.

However, when the transportation hearings were held on Vancouver

Island, there was interest expressed in making that a priority. Seeing

as it has the support of many of the communities on Vancouver Island, I

hope the minister does make it a priority.

When the groups

met on Sunday in Alberni, there was a contest to name that road — to

give it a name so that we knew, and the ministry would be aware, that a

road with a name had a better chance of being referred to by the

ministry than one without. The name chosen was the Three Valley Link

road. I want to make sure that the minister is aware that that is the

name of the road, and I would also like to present him at this time

with a hat that was specially made up — "Valley Link" - that he can

wear, so he doesn't become the missing link when we talk about this

road.

Mr. Minister, I hope you wear this. When you get up

in the morning and look in the mirror — and have this hat on, hopefully

— it will remind you of the priority that the Port Alberni region — and

I'm sure the other two regions, Cowichan and Comox — have placed on

this road, and you do not become the missing link.

I'd also

like to ask the minister just a few short questions about areas of

concern to Alberni and to the Island. I think that at the time the

report was issued to the ministry, an engineer was appointed to help

study the feasibility of this road. Could he advise me of the progress

that that person is making?

HON. MR. VANT : Yes. Both

Neville Hope, my regional director, and Mr. Richard James have been

instructed to have a look at what you refer to as the three-valley

link. I'm awaiting the results of their assessment and their work. They

still have not reported back to me. But I am certainly aware of the

annual cavalcades now, and indeed I have looked over the route between

Alberni and Cowichan Lake. Currently, of course, a big part of both

those roads and the one over to Cumberland is under the Forest Service;

they are forest development resource-use industrial roads.

MR. G. JANSSEN : I hope that when the next cavalcade takes place, you will be able to join us on that trip.

the minister is undoubtedly aware, I live in the member for Comox's

(Hon. S. Hagen'

s) riding, and I see a lot of progress happening on the

roadwork in that member's riding. I wonder if he could advise me as to

what the costs are of four-laning, or perhaps five-laning, the

section

through Parksville and the work that's being done on the entrance to

Courtenay.

HON. MR. VANT : That is a very specific question. In just a few seconds my staff will have the cost of those two particular projects.

I've been informed that for the two of them it's approximately $8 million.

[4:15]

MR. G. JANSSEN :

Thank you, Mr. Minister. The reason for the question is that we, of

course, saw announced in the budget a $30 million project for

four-laning of the Island Highway, and I wanted to relate that to the

$8 million being spent in the Comox riding for the much-needed work and

the bottleneck faced in the Parksville and Courtenay areas. I

congratulate the minister from Comox for securing those contracts. I

wish I had the same influence in the Alberni riding. I am sure it would

ensure my re-election.

I would like to ask the minister: is

the $8 million part of the $30 million that was promised for

four-laning the Island Highway over the next period of time? If it is

not, could he apprise me as to what sections of the highway will be

receiving that $30 million?

HON. MR. VANT : I can

assure the hon. member for Alberni that none of that $8 million was

part of the $30 million allotment for the Island Highway. Actually, a

good portion of that $30 million is for every portion of the Island

Highway. A lot of it is for right-of-way acquisition, engineering,

acquiring proper alignment, soil testing, and doing environmental and

social impact studies, as we very carefully reach the stage later this

year where we actually commence construction.

MR. G. JANSSEN : Will there be any four-laning of the Island Highway this year, and at what part will that take place?

HON. MR. VANT :

We've actually already released the construction

schedule for the

Island Highway. I'm not too sure, though, of the hon. member's

question; whether he's talking about the new highway or the existing

highway. We're doing work on various parts of the old highway and, as

well, we'll be commencing with sections of the new.

MR. G. JANSSEN : Which part of the Island Highway, new or old, will go from two-lane to four-lane this year?

HON. MR. VANT : Those portions where we start construction will be four-laned.

MR. G. JANSSEN : The minister obviously has trouble with his answers.

The

Island Highway is condoned by everybody on the Island, and the

four-laning is in fact a priority item. Highway 4 into Alberni passes

through part of the Comox constituency, and where it enters the Alberni

constituency it goes over an area of highway known as the hump, some of

which is two-lane and

[ Page 6850 ]

some

three-lane. In the summertime, some 500,000 or 600,000 tourists drive

over that highway to Pacific Rim National Park, and a great number of

bottlenecks occur on that hump section. Motor homes, campers and

vehicles pulling boats come to take advantage of the excellent fishing

in the Alberni Canal.

Counting in both directions, there

are only 6.1 kilometres of three-laning left to be done to make that

entire hump

section over the mountain into a three-lane highway. I've

been driving that highway for 20 years, and I know that a number of

surveys have been done — I think there's been one every year — on

making that hump

section three-lane. Is there any proposal to actually

complete the very short distance of 6.1 kilometres and make the entire

mountain area three lanes from one side to the other?

HON. MR. VANT :

First of all, I thank the hon. member for the lovely red and white

"Valley Link" hat. Also, I would be very happy to make this Vancouver

Island Highway construction

schedule available to the member if he

doesn't already have it; I thought it was widely circulated. For sure

I'll send one to his office.

Naturally he is concerned

about Highway 4 which runs from Parksville over this hump down to

Alberni. It will be very interesting if the transportation committee

under the very able chairmanship of Mayor Gillian Trumper identifies

the addition of a lane to that hump as indeed a priority for the area.

Certainly the MLA seems to indicate that it's a priority, so I'll

carefully consider it.

MR. G. JANSSEN : I'm surprised

that the minister is calling it a highway, because given the condition

it's in and the amount of lanes on it, it hardly deserves that

designation. Most people prefer to call it a road. A highway, I

thought, was something that you drove on safely and at a consistent

rate of speed. Even if that road from Port Alberni to Long Beach can't

be called a highway, as I just mentioned, 500,000 or 600,000 visitors

per year take it to visit the wonderful Long Beach area, and I hope

that number will be the same this year despite the disastrous oil spill

that took place there.

There are still a number of very

narrow two-lane areas on that road. Most of it is two-lane except for a

very short four-lane portion in the centre. Logging trucks, motor

homes, boats, trailers and so forth use that road, and the original

wooden logging bridges are still in place there. Last year the Canoe

Creek bridge, which in fact had nails sticking out of it and pieces of

plywood nailed over the holes, was replaced with yet another wooden

bridge. Could the minister and his ministry consider making that

highway a little safer for the travelling public by making the road a

bit wider and replacing the wooden bridges with concrete bridges?

HON. MR. VANT :

I'm surprised somebody from the Alberni Valley is against the

construction of things out of wood. He talks about this hump as

though.... I've actually driven over that highway, and it's nothing.

It's a mouse hill compared to the hill in my constituency down to the

Bella Coola Valley, for example. I'm envious too of the member for

Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) because about 75 percent of the public roads

in his constituency are paved. Wow!

Anyway, certainly his

observations and suggestions will be considered in due course in the

context of our transportation planning process.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Minister. However, even if you call it a

molehill, I apprised you earlier of the 500,000 or 600,000 visitors per

year who drive over that hump, and I doubt if that many people actually

go to Bella Coola. If they did, I am sure you would have paved the road

by now.

However, a final question to the minister regarding

the inspection stations for motor vehicles that have been promised for

so long. I wonder if his ministry is making any efforts to see, either

through private or public inspections, that vehicles travelling on the

highways in British Columbia do meet a standard.

HON. MR. VANT :

I realize that the hon. member for Alberni is fairly new to the House.

I would just inform him that motor vehicle inspections come under the

Ministry of Solicitor-General.

MR. G. JANSSEN : I know I am new, and hopefully I bring some new ideas to a tired old side of the House opposite.

think the Ministry of Transportation and Highways should be making

every effort to see that the other ministries involved do comply and to

make sure that safe vehicles use the highways that he is responsible

for.

HON. MR. VANT : I am in frequent contact with my colleague the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree) in that regard.

MR. MILLER : Mr. Chairman, I thought my turn would never come.

want to canvass briefly with the minister some critical transportation

issues in my constituency. I promised my colleagues no more than ten

minutes, and if the minister would respond with one-word answers that

begin with "y," we can get this out of here pretty quickly.

First

of all, I want to tell the minister I appreciate the funding that has

come from ATAP, $75,000 for the study of helipads in the remote

communities in my constituency. It's a natural move in terms of the

establishment in Prince Rupert of the Medivac helicopter by your

colleague the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck). It really makes

sense, and I hope the study will show that we can establish helipads.

That is an ongoing project.

I guess almost every community

in British Columbia at one time or another gets into the question of a

bypass. Prince Rupert is unique in the sense that it is the end of the

road, but we do have a very dangerous

[ Page 6851 ]

condition

in the community: the increasing traffic going to the port. And it is

increasing; the port is currently spending $40 million on expansion,

and we expect that it will lead to much more traffic. We have trucks

carrying lumber, ore and sulphur going down through the middle of

Prince Rupert because the highway goes down and takes a sharp turn at

the end of McBride, which is the Yellowhead Highway, then down 2nd and

on to Park Avenue.

I personally witnessed a lumber truck

spilling its load just over the McBride Street bridge. I don't want to

be alarmist, but it was, I believe.... I was coming home from work, so

it would have been about a quarter to five. Had that load been spilled

at a time when the high school students were getting out — they all

come across that corner — students would have been killed; there is no

question in my mind. That is not the only incident. We have had loads

spilled at the Five Corners intersection, which is a very tough

intersection farther down through the community.

Would the

minister please comment on what specific plans the ministry has for a

bypass. I know much of the design work was done many years ago.

Possibly it needs updating. I would appreciate it if the minister could

indicate if there is any tentative

schedule to commence work on the

bypass.

Secondly, we have now had an offer, after years and

years of trying to improve transportation to the airport.... Believe

me, that is a bottleneck. With that bottleneck removed somewhat,

economically we could do a heck of a lot better. Just as an

illustration, there have been discussions with the airport in

Bellingham about the shipment of fresh-caught seafood directly from

Prince Rupert into markets in the United States. It's the kind of

initiative I believe the government has said they are interested in

promoting.

[4:30]

We have a tremendous bottleneck in terms of the airport. The city is

required to run the ferry. That was an old agreement that they entered

into in order to get an airport in Prince Rupert. There is a letter —

and I can give a copy to the minister if he likes — from the federal

Minister of Transport authorizing the expenditure of up to $2 million

for relocation of the ferry dock and the road on Digby Island. I

believe we are looking at possibly about a $5 million bill to do the

complete move. It would allow the ferry to be run on probably a

five-minute run. I am sure that it would open up portions of Digby

Island to residential development, thereby increasing the use of the

ferry and thus lowering the operating costs. I would ask the minister

to give consideration to the provincial government's coming in on a

cost-sharing basis to solve that transportation bottleneck problem in

my community.

I canvassed with the minister previously the

ice fall where a Rupert resident was killed by a huge chunk of ice

coming off a very dangerous, treacherous corner. I don't know if the

minister has had an opportunity to view it personally. Perhaps his

officials have. They can certainly describe accurately the dangers of

that corner. The rock bluff comes out in a big curve and overhangs the

highway. Water is constantly dripping down, and of course, during the

winter months there's the danger of ice. I see that a coroner's inquest

has just recommended that the bluff be removed. I would ask the

minister to give consideration to giving that priority, for the safety

of the travelling public on that highway.

Finally, I just

wanted to canvass the minister about the issues that now will go

through the regional transportation committee. I have confidence that

the committee will make intelligent decisions about transportation

needs in the region and will forward them on. At the same time, would

the minister advise us what the procedure is for urgent matters,

speaking particularly of Five Corners? Perhaps some agreement has been

reached on doing some work on that section. If an emergent situation

arises, is it still required to go through this transportation

committee and wait for meetings and all that, or is the minister

prepared to operate independently to meet the needs, particularly where

safety of the residents is concerned, not just in my constituency but

right around the province?

HON. MR. VANT : First of

all, I'm glad that the member for Prince Rupert is aware of the good

work of my air transport assistance program. Not only are we willing to

assist with these helipads along the coast and remote areas of the

province, but we have expended considerable funds to improve the Masset

airport on the Queen Charlotte Islands, and we're willing to continue

with the improvement of that very vital and important airport.

have currently identified a tentative bypass route in the Prince Rupert

area. It would be very interesting to see if in the northwest region of

the province that bypass is identified as a priority.

Your

suggestion about cost-sharing on the new arrangements regarding Digby

Island and the ferry dock and road thereon, certainly we would

entertain an arrangement with the federal government. We might try to

do a bit of a trade-off. If they're willing to assist with the

completion of the Trans-Canada Highway — I'm thinking of the Cassiar

connector — we would be willing to enter into cost-sharing on other

very worthwhile projects.

We were very concerned, as I said

to the hon. member — or maybe he's forgotten — the other day when he

mentioned this ice fall. I understand that the person killed was

personally known to the member. We will certainly consider the removal

of that rock bluff, as he suggested.

I thank the member for raising his concerns; I have taken note of them. Your input is very important to me.

MR. MILLER :

I was just going to remind the minister of one other issue that I

brought up, which was the situation in an emergency. Is it still

required that the regional transportation committee be used as the

vehicle to get action on such situations, or is the ministry prepared

to deal directly with municipali-

[ Page 6852 ]

ties

— specifically, in my community, an area known as Five Corners, where

five streets come together? It used to have one of those old-fashioned

roundabouts that the British seem to handle but Canadians can't.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : We used to have one here, too.

MR. MILLER : That's right. The Minister of Social Services and Housing points out that we had one in Victoria.

The

biggest complicating factor, Mr. Minister, is that these transport

trucks I referred to have to make a left turn at that intersection.

I've had my heart in my mouth when I've seen those little kids out

there. The crosswalks are extremely long, and you can imagine the

difficulty of trying to get traffic from five separate streets

channelled across that intersection.

In those kinds of

situations — I have no idea of the cost, either — do we have to go

through...? Not to suggest that everybody in the regional

transportation committee is a bureaucrat, but do we have to go through

the bureaucracy of a regional transportation committee, or is the

ministry prepared to deal directly with municipalities?

HON. MR. VANT :

I perceive that instance as a purely local issue, and certainly we're

prepared as a ministry to deal directly with it. I can assure the hon

member that in terms of regional transportation committees, there are

very few bureaucrats on them.

MR. MILLER : I didn't say there were.

HON. MR. VANT :

I had that bit of inference. They are people suggested sometimes by

local or regional politicians. Some of them have a major stake in our

transportation systems, and we value their advice on setting regional

short-term and long-term priorities.

As I said, on any local issue the direct approach to my ministry is always most welcome.

MR. D'ARCY :. I understand that one of the objectives to come through

the regional transportation discussions is a five-year plan. I'll bet the

minister and his associates didn't have the idea that the five-year plan

would initially be the 1989 Transportation and Highways estimates getting through

the House here. I have to appreciate the fact that the minister and his people

have shown a great deal of patience with members from both sides of the House

in getting their concerns on the record here and passing them on to the minister.

I'm

not going to go through all of the concerns we have in Rossland–Trail.

I have already made those quite clear at the regional transportation

hearing that was held in Castlegar. I included a number of items which

are of a transportation nature but aren't actually under this

particular ministry — perhaps they should be, but they're not.

However,

starting with "a," I'll begin with airports. In my constituency I have

two airport concerns. One is the microwave landing system and

night-landing facilities at the Castlegar airport. Although aircraft

reliability has improved immeasurably in recent years due to the use of

sensible aircraft instead of 737 jets by the airline companies, the

fact is that in difficult weather conditions we have a major problem

there. It is a regional airport. The name of the airport is "Castlegar

Airport," but it is in fact the regional airport for the West

Kootenays. That's an issue that we are concerned about. I know there's

a federal component; however, I think the provincial ministry should be

concerned about it, and certainly the transportation committee has

earmarked that.

The second airport matter I am concerned

about is simply the paving of a runway extension at the Trail Municipal

Airport at Columbia Gardens. While there are no scheduled aircraft

normally using this airport, it is an alternative airport and has been

used by Air B.C. and Time Air when it is open and the Castlegar Airport

is not. Perhaps more importantly, that airport is closer to the Trail

Regional Hospital than the Castlegar Airport is. From the point of view

of air ambulance services — both for the delivery of seriously injured

or ill patients, as well as the evacuation from that regional referral

centre — I think it's very important that the ministry proceed with

extending that runway so that both provincially operated and chartered

air ambulances can use that particular strip.

By the way,

the ministry has already done a cost study and an engineering estimate;

this was done during the tenure of the second member for Vancouver

South (Mr. Rogers) when he was Minister of Highways, and we're still

hoping for financial assistance for that — primarily for the safety of

the public using air ambulances.

No discussion of

Rossland–Trail transportation and highways would be complete without a

request for immediate action on the West Trail approach. This is a

project which has been promised by Highways ministers going back to the

1960s, through four different premiers and at least that many highways

ministers.

I would point out that this was a promise of the

current Premier, once again, during the 1986 election campaign. Since

then it has been promised to the city council and some work has been

done, particularly on the culvert, and the advance signs have been

raised to raise public expectations that a major project will take

place. There is a project manager in the area. It is tremendously

important to the community, as well as to the economic health of the

area, that this project be recommenced — because it's over a third done

now — and carried to its completion as soon as possible.

This

has been canvassed before in the House, but the fact is that of Highway

22 between Trail and Castlegar, 19 miles of it is first-class 1980s

highway and the last mile, and the most heavily used, is 1920s

standard. It was built in the 1920s. We are getting increasingly like

the man from Missouri: you're going to have to show us, and we would

very much like to be shown.

[ Page 6853 ]

have a general comment, with a particular reference to the Pass Creek

Road and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. The well-known

roads are the numbered highways; I guess they're the glamour roads. But

some of the most heavily used and most in demand of upgrading are what

I think the ministry often would call "townsite roads" or unnumbered

highways.

The Pass Creek Road is in terribly substandard

condition not only for the weight of traffic on it but also for the

numbers of vehicles on it. I know the regional district people have

raised this question, parents have raised the question and the school

district has raised it with the ministry and with myself over a number

of years. Property acquisition, like the West Trail approach, was

done at least five or six years ago. There has been an entire secondary

industry of survey parties created for doing location surveys. The

ministry had intended it as a day-labour project, but it's incredibly

important that it become a contract project and be carried out as soon

as possible. The existing road was essentially inadequate before it was

paved over. It used to be impassable in spring breakup, and it still

gets nearly impassable because of the patching that is constantly

needed on it. But the biggest problem is the alignment and the

narrowness of it relative to the amount of traffic.

[4:45]

I hope that survey and location work will continue to be done

on a proposed route that the local people are concerned about, a

connection to Highway 6 at Fauquier, from the Castlegar, Syringa Creek

area. It's tremendously important that the southwest Kootenays have

direct access to the Monashee Highway, and ultimately through that

route to the Coquihalla. Certainly with the enormous public expenditure

which we have seen and are still seeing on the Coquihalla and the route

by Peachland into Kelowna, it's tremendously important that people from

the southeastern interior have relatively direct access to that, as

well as to those major cities of Vernon and Kelowna on the north

Okanagan. This connector is very important, and I know that many local

people have already spoken to the ministry on it.

I can't

let these estimates go by without making a quick reference to the

Castlegar-Robson ferry. I'm not going to canvass all the issues; the

minister and his deputies are very familiar with them. However, the

government has taken the position that as long as there's some question

of its operation being before the courts, it will take no action. I'm

not going to bicker about that in the chamber here, even though I think

it's a somewhat specious position. But I would like a reassurance from

the minister that when and if that aspect is resolved, he will be

prepared to re-establish that ferry on some basis. I'm not going to ask

him to pin himself down as to what basis, but it's my understanding

from a number of local people that they have submitted bids to operate

that ferry, and I would like an assurance from the minister, on behalf

of the general public, the school district and industry in my area,

that the ferry will at some point be re-established on some basis.

We'll get down to the details of what basis, if we can get a commitment

that it will at some point be operated.

I've got to put in

a quick plea. This goes back to something that you were talking about,

Mr. Chairman, a hundred years ago when we first started these

estimates: the question of railways. I am really concerned about the

tendency of both the railways and industry to take loads off the

railways and put them on highways. Once they're off the railways — I

think you referred to this — it's very difficult to get them back; but

the wear and tear is on the highway. We have seen a deliberate

depletion, in my view, of the loading on the Midway-to-Castlegar route

of the CPR with the abandonment of the chip haul by the Canadian

Pacific Railway. We are continually concerned about the health of the

car loadings on the Burlington Northern through Salmo and Fruitvale.

It's tremendously important that the enormous number of loadings —

nowadays, 100 to 150 tonnes each — now on the railways be kept there,

because once they move off the railway, the impact on the highway is

going to be absolutely enormous, and in some cases it already is.

This

leads me to the general condition of the highways. I alluded to this

during the budget debate. The condition of highway surfacing in the

southern interior is absolutely atrocious; it's outrageous. I know the

ministry considers this as capital work; the public considers it normal

maintenance. Whether you call it capital projects or maintenance

projects, it's enormously important that Highway 3, particularly, but

also many of the other highways have their surfaces renewed, because

they're in terrible condition. This is not just in the southeastern

part of the province but also on the Anarchist Mountain

section — Rock

Creek, Osoyoos and particularly the eastern

section of the

Hope-Princeton Highway, which is still in its 1948 condition, or worse,

both in terms of alignment and paving. It certainly needs to be looked

at.

Those are only the worst examples. The surface of the

highways — the whole highway plant — in the southern part of the

province is in terrible condition, except for those that have been

resurfaced in the last few years.

With those items put

before the minister, I'm wondering if he would give me at least an

update on them. I thank you for allowing me