1979 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JULY 26, 1979

Night Sitting

[ Page

1055 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation, Communications and Highways estimates.

On vote 211.

Mr. King –– 1055

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 1055

Ms. Sanford –– 1056

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 1057

Mr. Gabelmann –– 1057

Mr. Davis –– 1059

Mr. Passarell –– 1063

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 1064

Mr. Stupich –– 1066

Mr. Ree –– 1067

Ms. Brown –– 1067

Mr. Skelly –– 1069

Mr. Barnes –– 1070

Appendix –– 1072

THURSDAY, JULY 26, 1979

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION,

COMMUNICATIONS AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 211: minister's office, $168,872 — continued.

MR. KING:

Before the dinner hour I made the case for constituents who were

adversely affected by a policy decision by the Minister of

Transportation, Communications and Highways' (Hon. Mr. Fraser'

s) ministry to arbitrarily freeze their property under various

designations — in some cases "avalanche hazards," in other cases

"subject to slippage or mudslides," and so on. The case that I was

making is that while it's fine to take that kind of action in the

public interest for the protection of the safety of the public, in my

view the minister has an obligation to make some arrangement so that

individual property owner is not obliged to carry the single burden of

protecting the public interest in British Columbia. I made the point

that while their property has been frozen and immobilized, their

taxation has continued to appreciate. In effect, they are being taxed

increasingly on land they cannot use. It should be obvious to all

members of the House that is a highly improper situation. The minister

has an obligation to remedy it.

Some members have suggested

the cost of buying this land would be too high. Others feel that

perhaps the landowner would try to rip off the government, in terms of

cost. If that's the minister's concern, all he has to do is to submit

the dispute to arbitration and let an independent tribunal establish

fair compensation value for the property.

In many cases, and

in the cases I have dealt with specifically, owners are not all that

excited about relinquishing their property. They don't particularly

want to sell. If the minister would consider a trade of Crown land for

their property, that would be another fair way to go. But to sit, as

the minister has, on this untenable issue for three years, is

unacceptable. I appealed to the minister before dinner to think about

the matter and, hopefully, come back to the House with a commitment

that he is at least prepared to sit down and negotiate with the people

involved. That leaves him all kinds of scope. I don't think that would

unduly restrict him in any way. It leaves the options open. But it is

fruitless to go on with a discourse when the minister is not prepared

to give a commitment that he will negotiate with a view to finding a

solution. If the minister is prepared to give that kind of commitment,

I would sincerely appreciate it. I will be happy to cease and desist on

this particular issue that I feel very, very strongly about. So I ask

the minister, if he has had a chance to reflect on it, if he would at

least give the undertaking that he'll sit down and negotiate with the

people involved. A whole variety of options are open to him. In the

name of fairness, and in the name of good conscience, I strongly

request that the minister give that commitment.

HON. MR. FRASER:

To the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, I thought I had given a

commitment. He asked me before the meal hour if.... I said I would.

Then, of course, the MLA changed his position when I replied in that

aspect. However, I have a little further information on this specific

problem. I think I should relate to the committee what my ministry has

done about this area.

First they identified the avalanche

hazard. Then they denied a highway commercial access permit to the

property owner. The regional district has denied a building permit,

based on Highways' advice with respect to the avalanche hazard. The

solution to this type of problem lies in identifying (

a) ways in which

the development may be made safe by control or diversion of the hazard,

if feasible, or (

b) identification of a type of land use — and I think

this is the better alternative — that is safe, due to seasonal use or

other considerations. The policy to deal with these problems involves

other ministries — due to the range of natural hazards, one of which is

flooding — and other levels of government, with their powers to control

land use through zoning and building codes. In order to plan policies

to deal with all possible aspects, I am prepared to meet with this

property owner and any other affected property owners, so that we may

present the most complete picture to the cabinet for deliberation.

amplify a little further, I say to the member that if limited use could

be made of it, say, in the summer months when there is no avalanche

hazard.... If they can operate that way, then the Highways ministry

would certainly consider that. But they have rejected use of the

property when the avalanche hazard exists — it wouldn't exist in the

summer months, as an example. So a certain type of use could be made of

the property, if they would entertain something like that.

MR. KING:

I appreciate the minister's information, and it wasn't my intention to

try to change the groundrules of what I was asking for from the

minister, when he said he would meet with the people. Obviously there's

not much point in my advising constituents to travel all the way from

the Interior to Victoria to have a chat with the minister unless

there's the prospect of some serious negotiations and a solution to the

problem. I think the minister can appreciate that. It's nice to come

down and have a chat with the minister, but unless there's at least the

commitment that the minister is willing to negotiate a solution, then

it's an empty and costly exercise. I appreciate the minister's advice.

There might be alternative uses for the land and that could be

explored. However, the minister will appreciate that this restricts the

use. Less than the optimum use of the land, in terms of value, has an

adverse affect on the people. It should be considered.

thank the minister for indicating that it might be possible to

eliminate the hazard. In the public interest, would the minister

consider some kind of joint cost-sharing with respect to a program of

diverting the potential avalanche hazard? That is an approach that is

taken by the federal parks people for the protection of the Rogers Pass

highway. They have erected a series of earthfill piles as a method of

diverting and deflecting a slide that would conflict with the highway.

That might be a possibility. I think it would require an engineering

appraisal to determine whether that kind of thing was realistic with

the gradient.

[ Page 1056 ]

would appreciate it if the minister would at least be open to that kind

of solution, instead of imposing the total responsibility and cost

burden on the individual landowner. At least give an indication that

the ministry would be willing to assist in that kind of assessment, and

possibly that kind of remedy.

HON. MR. FRASER: Regarding the last part of your question, certainly we'd consider that, because the highway is affected as well.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I'd just like to divert the debate for five seconds, if I may. It's the

tenth wedding anniversary of the hon. the member for Kootenay (Mr.

Segarty), and I'm sure that all members present would like to express

their compliments to him, and their very best wishes and condolences to

his child-bride for tolerating him these many years.

MS. SANFORD: May I add my congratulations to the member for Kootenay, and add that the first ten years are the easiest.

have a few questions for the Minister of Highways, Mr. Chairman. I

would like to start by thanking the minister for agreeing to meet with

the residents of Denman Island, who have been very concerned about a

subdivision proposal on Denman Island which is completely contradictory

to the bylaws and the community plan drawn up by the Islands Trust and

the people of the island.

Mr. Chairman, this is a situation

in which the Minister of Highways and his staff have had to decide

whether or not a subdivision which has been ongoing since 1973 has in

fact been on stream. The decision by the senior approving officer in

the Ministry of Highways is that the subdivision was actually on

stream. The minister, following a meeting with the residents of Denman

Island — who, I might add, have been very concerned about this because

of its complete contradiction of the plan and the hopes and the

aspirations that they have for the future of the island — has agreed to

get a second legal opinion with respect to the onstream status of that

particular subdivision application.

Mr. Chairman, the

minister has indicated that the second legal opinion that he wishes to

obtain will not be available until at least September, because the

lawyer that he wishes to consult is away on holiday. Now I want to

thank the minister first of all for agreeing that a second legal

opinion should be obtained, because, based on all of my reading of all

of the documents that have been involved in this particular subdivision

application, I feel the residents of Denman Island are correct and that

the preliminary layout approval should not have been given in this

particular case. I spent a number of hours going through the files that

have been made available to me, and I agree with the Denman Islanders

that the subdivision approval should not have been given by the senior

approving officer. But I am hopeful that the minister will consider

obtaining the opinion of a lawyer whose services might be made

available before September. I know he's indicated that this particular

lawyer is away on holiday and probably won't be back until the end of

August.

Now I'm hoping that process can be speeded up

because, needless to say, people who live on the Gulf Islands are very

concerned about the future of their islands, and are concerned that a

second legal opinion might take that long, although they are very

appreciative — and I've mentioned this earlier — that the minister has

agreed that a second opinion should be obtained.

One other

issue I would like to raise with the minister relates to another very

controversial issue within my constituency, and that is, Mr. Chairman,

in relation to what is called the second crossing in the city of

Courtenay, across the Courtenay River. I remember meeting with the city

council when the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was Minister of

Highways, concerning the need for a bridge in Courtenay, and I think

the minister realizes at this stage the dire need which exists in that

community for a second crossing. The minister at this stage probably

has been informed that on July 2 of this year there was a six-mile

line-up in order to get on to the bridge in Courtenay, and I think that

he realizes that the situation is going to become more drastic and more

dire in the future. I am only urging him to give this particular

project a top priority within the ministry so that the design of the

lift bridge which has now been decided upon can proceed without delay.

The

city council in Courtenay has determined that, even though the minister

has announced that tenders will be let, probably next spring, if a

greater priority were placed on the particular designing, process and

acquisition of property that is necessary for the lift bridge, tenders

could be called earlier. I appeal to the minister to make this a top

priority. In view of the fact that we had a six-mile line-up for the

bridge one day, I think the minister would be willing to put this

particular project to the fore, even though he has so many pressing

requests put to him, I'm sure, every day of the week.

couple of questions relate to the lift span which has been proposed for

Courtenay. Will the lift span have a greater environmental impact on

the Courtenay estuary than the previously proposed bridge would have?

The other question that is posed to me time and time again relates to

the possible dyking effect that will be caused by the road which leads

off from the proposed bridge towards the Campbell River area.

Engineers, people who have some scientific background, have expressed a

lot of concern about the possible dyking and flooding effects that this

new highway, which would be coming off the lift bridge that is now

proposed for 17th Street, might have. I am hoping the minister will be

able to give me some definitive answers on that tonight so that I can

report back to the constituents in the area.

There is no

doubt that the completion of the second crossing in Courtenay will make

a great deal of difference in terms of resolving the traffic problems

in that area. But, Mr. Chairman, I was concerned earlier today when the

Minister of Highways recommended that the reporters who previously had

complained about getting dust on their cars when they were travelling

to the north Island, indeed, travel to the north Island at this stage

because that new north Island highway is finally blacktopped from one

end to the other. The only concern I have about that is that the

minister should not, at this stage, be encouraging people to use that

newly completed north Island highway, because in order to do that they

have to drive on the completely inadequate highway that now exists

between Parksville and Campbell River. There is such congestion on that

highway now.... I don't know how many successive years I have raised

this issue of the congestion which exists on the Island highway north

of Parksville. I am sure that the Minister of Transportation,

Communications and Highways is well

[ Page

1057 ]

aware, because he himself has quoted figures in this House, the tremendous

usage that is made of the Island Highway, particularly between Parksville and

Campbell River.

There

has been concern in the Courtenay area that the Minister of

Transportation, Communications and Highways intends to four-lane the

existing highway, and I would like him to confirm tonight that is not

his intention, but that his intention is to build a second alternative

route to the existing Island Highway — in other words, a bypass route

of all of those communities. I know the expense involved. I know the

problems involved with respect to agricultural land, for instance, and

the acquisition of private land. But I also have the impression that

the minister, at this stage, is not making the so-called bypass a

priority within his own ministry.

I am hopeful the minister

will indicate to this House tonight that he realizes the problems of

congestion on the Island Highway north of Parksville, and that he will

indeed commit his ministry to a priority status for the bypass route.

We're not talking about 10 or 15 years down the road. I'm aware that

even though the minister put a priority on this tomorrow, people would

not be able to drive on any bypass in that area for at least five

years. But I would like him to indicate that it is a priority, and that

we can anticipate that within five to six years a bypass will be

constructed, particularly between Courtenay and Campbell River. The

usage of that highway is very, very high.

HON. MR, FRASER:

I missed a couple of MLAs before supper, so I'll just go back to them

for a minute and to try to give them answers. The second member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), talked about the highway signing to the

ferry at Tsawwassen. We'll certainly look into that. I'd like his

colleagues to tell him it was a good idea, and that we'll do something

about it. I agree with that.

I'd like to thank the member

for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) for his kind remarks — we put extra ferries

on the Fraser River and so on and so forth. We're pleased to

accommodate. Regarding the four-laning from Haney to Mission, the

design is 90 percent complete, and we intend to get on with that. Funds

are available, and so on, once the design is complete.

the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), thank you for your remarks about

the people from Denman Island. I probably have a little better news

than I gave out before. Highways has already met the lawyer, who came

back from holidays. I think that probably by mid-August we should have

his opinion. They already, have had a meeting with him. He is back from

holidays. It's a little earlier than I anticipated. We hope that by

mid-August we can have his opinion.

Regarding the 17th Street crossing, there is lots of congestion, and I'm

aware of that. Several times I've said it publicly through Courtenay and

all the way to Campbell River. I'd like to tell the committee — I'm

sure the members there know that — that the priorities were on the new road

north in that area. Now that is completed, we can start the priorities

further south. Regarding the 17th Street crossing, the engineers decided to

go to a lift span because of the concern of the local residents over the mooring

of boats and so on. Particularly what made our mind up to go to a lift span

was that when we investigated the moving of those boats, everybody wanted about

$2 million for a parcel of land to put them in. In other words, it was quite

costly — the relocation of the boats and moorage in the wintertime — and the

solution was lift spans instead of fixed spans. That is in design. We hope tenders

can be called on that, as we said, during this winter sometime. I believe they

plan about six months on design before they can go to tender call.

Regarding

your concerns put out about the environmental impact and the diking

effect, the engineers feel a lift span will have less impact

environmentally, as well as dyking effect. It will be a benefit, not a

detriment.

Dealing with the big issue, Courtenay to Campbell

River, yes, that road is heavily used. I've said I think everybody who

lives in Courtenay works in Campbell River, and that everybody who

lives in Campbell River works in Courtenay. It's a constant stream of

traffic, 24 hours of the day, seven days a week. It's certainly a worn

road. We're fully aware of that. We are not going to four-lane the old

road. We're going to have to improve the old road, though, with

repaving and passing lanes. It's anticipated that it will take seven to

ten years to have the other road built, the reasons being that they

have to acquire the right-of-way, and I believe we're going into a lot

of ALR.

These things cause problems, but it's the same as we

have all over the province; the acquisition of the right-of way — let's

forget the cost part, which is getting very high — is a really big

problem to negotiate. They don't anticipate this area to be any easier

than any other area. But it certainly is the plan to build a road

separate and distinct and apart from the existing road between these

two communities. I can't hold out and say that, as the member

suggested, Mr. Chairman, will be five years. But in the meantime, we're

going to have to put our emphasis on the existing road to make it a

better and safer road by repaving and shouldering and improving the

alignment in some places. But there's nothing of a major course; we're

certainly not four-laning, as I know the people up there do not want it.

Then,

of course, when we move on to the new road, this road will become a

local service road for the hundreds of people who live along it.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, if I might just advise the members who are new to this

House, who have not sat through the estimates before of the.... Order,

please. Would all members please be seated? For members who have not

previously sat through the estimates of Minister of Highways, his

estimates are considerably different from other estimates in that

almost every member has a highway passing through his or her

constituency, and every member sends the Deputy Speaker or the Chairman

of the committee a note saying they'd just like to be on their feet for

five minutes.

It becomes very difficult, and at this time I

would read from page 466 of Sir Erskine May: "When two or more members

rise to speak, the Speaker calls on the member who first on rising in

his place is observed by him."

MR. GABELMANN: Having anticipated your comments, Mr. Chairman, I had some springs built into my shoes earlier this evening.

Highways

is one of those departments where, were we to spend the entire

provincial budget dealing with the minister's programs, we would still

not solve all the

[ Page 1058 ]

problems.

The minister knows that and I think every member of the House knows

that. What we're really doing in debates on Highways estimates is

determining as best we can, the minister as the responsible member and

the rest of us as members of the Legislature, which of the important

priorities are more important.

As I view my job representing

constituents in North Island, my task is to persuade the minister of

the views of my constituents. Before I mention a couple of issues that

I think are worth talking about this evening, I wanted to say first of

all that I have a lot of good to say about the department and the

minister. I'm not speaking for my colleagues because I haven't talked

to them about it and I don't know whether they share my view, but I

have found over the years that dealing with both the department and the

ministry, one is given honest and clear answers, and answers that

relate to the realities of the situation — not as so often happens when

dealing with ministers of the government, political answers.

want to say clearly and specifically to the Minister of Highways that I

appreciate the largely non-political response. That's not to contradict

at all the comments made by the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead)

when he talked about pre-election expenditures, because I think there's

a tendency on the part of governments in preelection times to make sure

that seats that can be won by the government get a little bit of extra

attention. I don't agree with that. I don't like it, but I acknowledge

that the Minister of Highways probably does a little bit of that on

occasion, although I'm not going to ask him to comment on that.

wanted to add my comments, Mr. Chairman, if you would come to order,

about the bypass — so-called — of the area between just north of

Campbell River and south to Parksville. We in Campbell River are

particularly concerned about the area between Royston and just north of

Campbell River, north of the river itself.

During the

election campaign, if I were to assess which was the major issue in the

election, apart from who were the good guys and who were the bad guys,

I would say that residents of that area would say the bypass was the

major issue. I should say to you, as I said to members or to

constituents attending all-candidates' meetings, that I saw as the

major highways problem in my entire riding the question of a bypass

between Campbell River and Courtenay, even though that bypass is

largely not in my riding. It's in that of the member for Comox (Ms.

Sanford).

It is and has been the major issue. There was

considerable concern about the possibility of four-laning of that

highway between Campbell River and Courtenay, and I was pleased to hear

the minister say tonight that it was not his intention to continue with

any additional four-laning of that route. It is not what people in that

area want. They would much rather that the money — and I realize that

we're talking about vastly different sums of money — be diverted

towards the beginning of a program to establish an alternative bypass

route somewhat inland.

I appreciate all the technical

problems that relate to that the need to keep that bypass close to the

existing highway in order to funnel traffic away from the existing

highway, the problem of doing that because of the ALR and a number of

other factors. I don't mean to stand in my place and scream for an

immediate start on a bypass under any circumstances. I think it needs

to be carefully planned, but I would like a commitment from the

minister as soon as possible — if not during these estimates, then as

soon as possible within the next few months — that the actual public

process will begin, so that people in that area know there is a

commitment on the part of the ministry to begin to do the work that's

required to construct that highway.

I do a fair amount of

driving. I'm one of those people who like to drive, and I probably do

30,000 or 40,000 miles a year on average. I've driven probably every

highway in this province, including most of the highways in the

minister's riding. I would suggest to the minister that the very worst

section of highway in this province without exception, in my judgment,

is the

section of highway between Campbell River and Courtenay. I

consider myself a good driver, but I am afraid at night in the rain to

drive that highway at more than 60 or 70 kilometers an hou, and it's an

80-kilometer limit. It is a dangerous, difficult road and must be

upgraded. I know the minister knows that, but at the same time there

must be an alternate route provided. That's all I want to say about

that. I appreciated the minister's comment that he did not intend to

four-lane it and that he does intend to proceed, I trust, with the

bypass.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr.

Chairman, that's the major issue in my constituency. I wanted to say a

number of other things. But before I get to some specific constituency

work, and small problems that relate to the Highways minister, I want

to say a couple of general things.

If I were the minister

responsible for the motor-vehicle branch and the licensing of drivers

in this province, I don't think that more than one out of three drivers

in this province would pass the test.

MS. BROWN: Shame!

MR. GABELMANN: I wasn't talking about the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) at all.

driving around this province, Mr. Chairman, I guarantee that within

every hour of driving there are three or four drivers who drive at a

slow speed in the fast lane. And no amount of horn-honking or

bright-light flashing or passing on the right seems to have any impact.

People's driving habits in this province are atrocious. I'm not one of

those people who drive fast — I haven't had a speeding ticket for some

years. I've perhaps been lucky, but I haven't had one. So I don't

believe in fast driving; but I am absolutely persuaded that a major

cause — not the major, but a major cause — of accidents is the slow and

inconsiderate and bad drivers, not the fast drivers. I know I will get

support from members who live in rural and Interior ridings, because

they drive those highways too. You're driving on an 80-kilometer

section and somebody is driving at 79 kilometers an hour, they slow

down for the curves and you can't pass them, then they move up to 85 on

the straight, and you have to go 95 to pass them, and then you get a

ticket. But the problem isn't the speeding, and the problem isn't

hghway design. The problem is that people don't know how to drive their

cars. They signal to turn left when they want to turn right, and they

turn left from a right-hand lane, and on, and on, and on. I don't have

to elaborate to the members of this House, because we've all had

similar experiences. But driving up and down the Island Highway every

weekend, as I do, and driving in the fast

[ Page 1059 ]

lane, as I usually do, I find I have to move into the slow lane to pass people.

know the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has responsibility for law

enforcement in this province, but I would hope — and I think I've heard

you talk about this in years past, Mr. Minister — that you might talk

to the Attorney-General about having the RCMP, or the local law

enforcement officers where that's the case, pay more attention to the

bad drivers. I'm not saying don't ticket the speeders, but pay more

attention to those bad drivers, because they cause more frustration and

more tension and ultimately more accidents. I wonder sometimes how

people get their drivers' licences in this province. That's not a

criticism of the staff involved; it's a criticism of the fact that

somehow we treat drivers' licences as something that everybody can

have. In fact, it's a privilege, and if you don't meet all the

standards, you shouldn't have one. Any action you take in that

direction, as minister responsible for the motor-vehicle branch, will

get my very strong support.

I have just a few, very brief

comments from here on in. We don't talk about staff often enough in

this House. I don't mean the staff who sit in the House during the

estimates, but the staff at the other levels of the ministry. I just

want to say to the minister that he has an excellent staff in my area.

The district engineer is first rate; I get first-rate cooperation from

him. I'm very pleased to be able to deal with that. The member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) knows....

MR. NICOLSON: We stole him.

MR. GABELMANN:

We stole him; that's right. He's an excellent.... That's not a partisan

or political comment. I don't know what his politics are, and I don't

care. He is an excellent highway engineer, and with staff like that the

minister will keep out of trouble for years to come. He won't suffer

the problems that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has.

want to say a couple of things about very small matters in terms of the

province, but big matters in terms of the communities. We have two

problems in Port Alice. One is the road from the community to the mill.

It's just not good enough; there needs to be some continued activity on

that.

As you drive to Port Alice from the Port McNeill

highway, on the road from the Port McNeill-Port Hardy highway into Port

Alice, I think if it's let go for another year you'll have to scrape

alder growth off both sides of your car by the time you get to the end

of the road. The maintenance is a little bit inadequate. I think you've

had delegations from Port Alice in your office concerning that

particular problem. All the road really is a road that the logging

company thought was so bad that they'd give it up to the Highways

ministry so that you could pave it and make it into a highway, while

they built a nice straight road for the logging trucks down below it.

It really is a terrible road and there have been — more seriously now,

Mr. Chairman — a number of people killed on that road in recent months.

It it really very bad, and I know that you are aware of that.

The

road to Gold River from Campbell River is, first of all, located in the

wrong place. It should not go down through the southern route; it

should have gone, in the first place, along the Elk River timber road,

a much shorter route. The logging road is faster; it's quicker, even

although it is gravel. It's a faster, quicker, easier, less

tensionproducing highway, and that's something that I'm not sure,

realistically, that I can call for. I don't think, realistically, that

I can ask you to relocate the highway, but despite the upgrading that

is going on between Buttle Lake and Campbell River, the road is in

atrocious shape and needs some very careful attention on the part of

the ministry.

The final thing I'll mention during these

estimates, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that by and large the ministry has

been very good in terms of Highways ferries. The ferry improvement now

between Port McNeill, Alert Bay and Sointula is appreciated and, I

think, for the time being is a sufficient improvement. The ferry

between Quadra and Cortes appears at the present time to be al1 right —

I'm not going to complain about those — but there is clearly a problem

between Quadra and Campbell River. The line-ups — and I've been in them

myself — wait sometimes for two ferries to go by, which means two or

three hours, depending.... And that's a problem that needs to be dealt

with. Whether it is dealt with in terms of one larger ferry or small

ones going back and forth is a problem that I would rather leave to the

technicians.

Mr. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), I

don't know whether you were making a comment to the Minister of

Highways about the fact that on Friday, July 1 — or whatever the date

was, prior to the long weekend — you may also have had to wait in line,

if you didn't walk on. You probably walked on the ferry.

AN HON. MEMBER: He drove on.

MR. GABELMANN: He drove on. Did you wait?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: You didn't wait? You were very lucky that day.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I got there early.

MR. GABELMANN:

You were very early. In any event, Mr. Chairman, as the minister knows,

I don't need to persuade him of the fact that there is a continuing

problem here.

The final thing is that there is too much

smoking going on the decks of these ferries. The member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) is as concerned about smoking as I am, for

our own personal health reasons. But there is, frankly, a more

important reason as well, and that is that there is often gas leakage.

Inevitably there is going to be gas leakage out of cars or whatever,

and people....

I'm not blaming the Highways staff. In terms

of loading those ferries, particularly when they are full all the time,

that's a difficult job, and to try to control the drivers who get out

of their car and have a smoke, standing on the deck, is difficult. But

it is a very real problem and if we're not careful, Mr. Chairman, there

will be, God forbid, a major accident with smoking and gasoline on the

decks of some of these Highways ferries.

MR. DAVIS: I

want to take a few minutes this evening because I want to talk about

transportation policy in its broadest sense. I want to talk about the

respective roles of government and the private sector in providing

transportation services for our people. I want to talk about

deregulation, and I want to stress the fact that competition,

[ Page 1060 ]

more than anything else, should determine the way in which our transportation needs are met in the future.

Technology,

fortunately, is on our side. More modes of transport are being

developed with each passing decade; some are cheaper and some are more

energy-efficient than others; some are highly specialized and some are

general purpose, moving people and products which were carried by

ships, trains and streetcars in years gone by. We now have paved

highways from coast to coast. We have aircraft which can go anywhere.

We have pipelines which stretch from sea to sea. We have power lines.

We have air-cushion vehicles. We have light rapid transit. In other

words, we have a choice where once there was little or no choice at

all. We can spend a lot or a little getting where we want to go.

Much

the same applies to the movement of goods. The cost of moving freight

has dropped dramatically, as compared to the cost of other things.

Ocean-going vessels are much larger and much more specialized than they

used to be. Pipelines move liquids far more efficiently than trains

can. Air-cargo planes move, high-value commodities from one end of the

country to the other in a matter of hours. The fact is that we as

people are much more mobile than we used to be, and freight is a

smaller component of the delivered cost of the goods we use.

Transportation

as an item of expense is continuing to decline as an element of our

gross national product. In percentage terms, it has fallen

dramatically. It has fallen from close to 20 percent 40 years ago to

around 10 percent today. It is no longer a major factor in most types

of economic development. Costwise, it's far down the list. For many

industries, it is now in fifth or sixth place behind such items as

wages, interest rates, local taxes, energy and environmental

protection. In other words, transportion is no longer a high-cost item.

Alternatives

are available, so it is not a special public good. It is no longer a

service of particular benefit to the user. As a rule, we should

therefore pay in full for our own transportation. This is a concept

which is being increasingly recognized in well-run economies the world

over. "User pay" is the term. Usually the user should pay — usually,

but not always. There are exceptions, of course; but they are

exceptions to the user-pay rule.

Perhaps I should put it

another way: transportation in Canada is no longer an infant industry.

It is highly developed; it is multifaceted; it is multimodal. Where

competition exists, transportation shouldn't be subsidized by

government. Governments should back off. This applies to regulation by

tends to perpetuate the past: it prevents change; it clings to old ways

of moving people and shipping goods. Modem techniques can do the job

much more efficiently and with greater satisfaction all around. I'm

against excessive regulation of industries like trucking, railroading

and water transport. Treating them like utilities tends to keep the

rates up. It limits the user's choice. Often it adds to our tax burden.

And it makes it difficult, if not impossible, to decide whether or not

our transportation dollar is being well spent.

There are, I

admit, instances where government assistance is necessary. Public

transit in our larger cities and towns is one; opening up a large new

area of the country is another. But these exceptions flow from

exceptional considerations — external economies, as the economists call

them, such as the need to save space and energy in our cities. The

first industry into an area shouldn't have to pay for all the

infrastructure, when other industries following in its wake will

benefit from the first road, the first rail line, or the first airstrip

to be built there.

Please note this, however. By making

these exceptions public transit in cities on the one hand, and less

than full-cost recovery from the first industry in a remote area on the

other — I'm not departing from the basic idea of user-pay. The user

should still pay for his or her fair share of all the cost associated

with each transportation initiative, whatever form it might take and

wherever it may be.

One may argue that there have always

been transportation subsidies. Tax dollars have always been used to

open up new areas of the country and to help alleviate congestion in

our big cities and towns. But our new modes of transport are breaking

away from the historic pattern. Pipelines generally pay their own way.

The tug and barge industry here on the west coast is financially

self-sufficient. Small plane operators get little help from government.

And most long-distance bus operations are commercially viable. In other

words, these modern activities are 100 percent user-pay. On balance,

they're not subsidized at all.

Our major airlines are

subsidized to a degree. Our railways are still subsidized some.

Trucking, while it also comes close to paying its own way, still gets

help from government in the form of free highways, free roads and free

streets. True, it pays a lot of taxes: fuel taxes, sales taxes, income

taxes; but they aren't sufficient to offset the expenditures of the

Ministries of Highways and the municipalities which provide the

thoroughfares across the nation.

Relatively speaking,

subsidies are more important in some situations than in others. Urban

transit is at one extreme; rarely is it more than 40 percent user-pay.

By contrast, pipelines are 100 percent user-pay. Canada's rhajor

railways, CN and CP Rail, are now about 95 percent user-pay. Air Canada

and CP Air are about 90 percent user-pay.

The trucking

industry, Canada-wide, is in the 80-90 percent category. The average

for all transport, including the private automobile, is close to 80

percent in this country. To put it another way, the typical Canadian

user of transportation and services in this country puts up 80 percent

himself. He or she as a taxpayer puts up the remaining 20 percent

through government.

In British Columbia the picture differs

only in degree. Urban transit is roughly one-third user pay. B.C.

Ferries and B.C. Rail are in the 50-60 percent category. The figure for

motor transport is less than the national average because of the high

cost of building roads and highways in this province. But otherwise we

are on a par with Ontario. Twenty-five cents out of every

transportation dollar comes from government in British Columbia, and

seventy-five cents is put up by the user. How can we move closer to the

economic ideal of 100 percent user-pay? How can we eliminate waste? How

can we conserve energy in the transportation sector? How can we get

more people into each vehicle? How can we get more ton-miles for each

dollar spent? The answer, I believe, is in competition. There should be

more competition between the different modes of transport which we use

to meet our everyday needs.

We need a provincial transportation Act like the national Transportation Act of 1967. That Act proclaimed a

[ Page 1061 ]

hands-off

policy on the part of the federal government. It set up the Transport

Commission, whose principal job was to harness "the mechanism of the

marketplace." We need a similar commission to the Canadian Transport

Commission, which would replace our present Motor Carrier Commission.

We need a commission which sees competition as the best way of cutting

costs and reducing fares. Only in monopoly situations, where shippers

are captive to a particular carrier, is the Canadian Transport

Commission authorized to step in. Otherwise government at the national

level has to be neutral. It has to let the different carriers fight it

out. It has to let rates rise or fall as the market dictates. Not

everyone has a choice, of course, so the government has to get involved

in non-competitive situations. Rates must approximate cost under those

circumstances. Profits must be reasonable. The carriers' books must be

open to the Transport Commission. These are exceptional situations.

They are monopoly situations, and they don't exist in the more mature

areas of the country. They don't exist, for example, in the busy

transportation corridor between Windsor, Ontario, and Quebec City,

where the customer has all sorts of alternatives — highway, rail, St.

Lawrence seaway shipping, and the airlines — to choose from.

Canada's

new transportation policy has worked well. As a result our major

railways are now financially in the black. They have concentrated on

long-distance hauls and big volume transport. They do their best to

avoid less than carload lots. They no longer try to compete with the

trucking industry and the airlines for products where time is of the

essence and handling costs must be kept to a minimum.

Contrast

this with the experience in the United States. There the railways are

still highly regulated. Unlike Canada they don't set their own rates.

They are forced to carry all sorts of goods. They can't abandon losing

lines, and most of them are on the verge of bankruptcy. This is why

they haven't been able to modernize to the extent that our national

railways have in Canada. This is why they are not doing to the job that

our well-managed Canadian railways are doing.

Admittedly the

CNR and CP Rail have some distance to go before they are free entirely

from government control. The Crowsnest Pass rates, which were

politically inspired in the 1920s, are still politically maintained.

Grain still moves into Canada's export markets at tariffs which were in

effect as far back as 1897. As a result the railways only get about 25

cents for every dollar of transportation service which they provide to

the grain trade in this country. Export grain movements by rail, in

other words, are only about 25 percent user pay. How do the railways

make up the difference? They don't get a direct subsidy from the

federal government, so they charge their other customers more. They

charge more for lumber shipments, for potash and sulphur shipments, for

the transportation of manufactured goods and the haulage of machinery

and equipment everywhere. Their rate structure is distorted. It is

twisted in favour of the prairie grain farmer, and it discriminates

against producers and consumers of other goods which move by rail in

this country.

Clearly the Crowsnest Pass rates hurt British

Columbia. They penalize British Columbia's export industries, because

our rail rates are higher than they would otherwise be. They hurt us as

importers, because the railways, in recovering several hundred million

dollars a year of grain-related losses, have to get their offsetting

revenues wherever they can.

The real answer, if the federal

government insists on subsidizing the prairie grain grower, is a direct

subsidy either to the railways or to the farmers themselves. It should

be a fixed amount. Ideally it should be voted a year at a time. It

should be there for all to see. It should be tailored to meet the

farmers' needs, not left as it is to distort our rail rates in a major

way.

Turning to our own provincial scene, the B.C.

government is more heavily involved financially in transportation than

most other provincial governments are. We have B.C. Rail deficits and

B.C. Ferries deficits. We have B.C. Hydro's deficits on its bus system.

Our transport ministry spends between $300 million and $400 million a

year on highway construction and highway maintenance. We have an

airport-building program. We have B.C. Steamships, and we have an air

service of our own. Add to this the fact that our private-sector truck

and bus operators are more highly regulated than those of other

Canadian provinces, with the possible exception of Saskatchewan. You

can see that government involvement in the transportation sector in

B.C. is considerable. It is high from a subsidy point of view, and it

is high from a regulatory point of view. It is higher as a percentage

of our gross provincial product than I would like to see it, certainly

in the 1980s.

As far as truckers and private bus operators

are concerned, I believe we should do away with rate regulation

altogether. All our motor carriers should have to do is file their

tariffs. After 30 days' publication, these tariffs should automatically

go into effect. Competition, in other words, should govern it, not

endless hearings and complicated rate formulas which are dated anyway

by the rising cost uf energy, higher wages, expensive vehicles and so

on.

Still on the motor carrier side I would make the

conditions of entry into the industry easier. I would reduce the number

of regions for which operating licences are granted to half a dozen.

Each trucker should also be free to carry a wider range of goods. I

would copy unregulated Alberta rather than over-regulated Saskatchewan.

I would put my trust in the marketplace. I would deregulate our motor

carrier industry as far as possible, with the interests of the user,

not the carrier. primarily in mind.

B.C. Rail is in many

ways a special case. Parts of its system are economically viable; other

parts exist only because the B.C. government want them to exist. In my

opinion the uneconomic segments should be supported directly by a vote

or votes of the Minister of Transportation. This vote or votes should

be debated each year, as with the federal subsidy for passengers

carried by our national railways. These rail subsidies should be there

for all to see. You and I would know exactly what we are paying in

order to maintain these services at public expense. B.C. Rail as an

operating entity would also be put on notice, would have to run the

rest of its operation, its essentially economic operation, much as any

other commercial operator has to do. B.C. Rail would have to recover

the rest of its costs from current revenues. It would have to break

even on capital as well as operating account. It would have to compete

fairly in the marketplace, and our trucking industry would no longer be

able to say it was losing business in the Cariboo and the Peace River

area because B.C. Rail was being subsidized unreasonably by the B.C.

taxpayer.

[ Page 1062 ]

The

board of B.C. Rail has its own ideas. It has recommended that the

corporation's present debt of $700 million be removed from B.C. Rail's

account and assumed directly by the province. Our new auditor-general,

Mrs. Erma Morrison, also says in her first annual report that "the net

debt of the B.C. Railway Company guaranteed by the province should be

recognized as a direct debt and recorded as such in the accounts of the

province." How we deal with B.C. Rail's accumulated debt I don't much

care. It could be assumed all or in part by the province, or it could

be paid off over a period of years by way of an annual subsidy to B.C.

Rail. In the latter case, however, the subsidy should be fixed in

amount, it should be known in amount, and it should be paid off over a

definite period of years.

Then B.C. Rail's board of

directors would know exactly how to plan ahead. They would have to trim

their sails according to the business which they had definitely in

sight. Exceptional outlays may, of course, be made, but they would only

be made if the B.C. Rail had a specific assignment from the government,

and a specific vote in the Transportation minister's estimates was

there to cover its exceptional costs. Passenger services which lose

money, branch lines which also lose money, could be dealt with in, his

way.

Essentially this is what Ottawa is doing now. That is

why it created VIA Rail. VIA Rail carries passengers. VIA Rail is

financed by a separate vote. VIA Rail uses CN and CP Rail facilities,

and those two national railways are being paid in full for their costs.

But Ottawa's rail passenger subsidy is now spelled out in our national

accounts. So is the cost of maintaining money-losing branch lines on

the prairies and elsewhere. As a result, they are no longer a financial

burden to our national railways. This is the main reason why those

railways are now operating in the black. These branch lines, these

passenger services, are being maintained for sociological reasons. They

are being paid for directly by the government. This is the way I think

we should treat our uneconomic services and our uneconomic branch lines

in B.C.

Moving on to B.C. Ferries, I find its organization

and its financing more acceptable from a broad policy point of view.

B.C. Ferries subsidy is provided by an annual vote of this Legislature.

It is calculated on a highway mileage equivalent basis. It rises as the

cost of living goes up, but otherwise it is fixed in amount. B.C.

Ferries management, if it wants more money to build more ferries or add

to its operating personnel, will have to raise rates or attract more

traffic or both. It will have to manage on its own, in other words,

with a minimum of interference from government.

Such

criticism as I do have falls under the general heading of competition.

I don't think B.C. Ferries should undercut the private sector unduly.

It shouldn't carry trucks at rates which are a fraction of its costs.

It shouldn't carry drop trailers across the Strait of Georgia or up the

coast either. It shouldn't take business away from the private sector,

especially when it comes to carrying large-volume freight. B.C. Ferries

commercial rates haven't changed since the spring of 1976, but the cost

of moving freight by water has risen everywhere.

B.C. Ferries rates for trucks and trailers should therefore be increased to

competitive levels. They should at least be compensated. They should cover costs.

Otherwise this Crown corporation is going to eliminate segments of our privately

owned, privately operated coastal shipping industry, which is close to 100 percent

user paid. It doesn't get any subsidy whatsoever.

While

still on the question of freight, we say that our tug and barge

industry is the most efficient carrier we have anywhere in the nation.

It is also the biggest carrier tonnage-wise in this province. It

carries more freight more miles than all our railways and our trucking

industry in B.C. combined.

In other words, our coastal

shipping mode is the best freight moving mode we have. It is unique to

British Columbia. It gives us a big advantage, especially where

movements to northwestern B.C., the Yukon and the western Arctic are

concerned. It is much cheaper, for instance, to move goods westward

from Toronto to Vancouver and northward by water than it is to ship

them overland via Edmonton to much of Canada's northwest. It is cheaper

also to ship them via Prince Rupert and into the northwestern comer of

this country into ports like Stewart and Skagway. It uses B.C. rails,

B.C. ports and B.C. shipping. Our transportation strategy, in other

words, should be to take maximum advantage of our coastline, of our

saltwater highway, of our low-cost ocean throughway to the north.

Pipelines

are an exception. If we're talking about arctic oil and arctic gas,

then the Alaska Highway route is the best route for eastward-destined

traffic. It is the best economically and environmentally for the rest

of Canada and the mid-continent area of the United States. It means

that B.C. is the first province on line insofar as northern oil and

northern gas also is concerned.

But otherwise our

long-distance transportation strategy should have a coastal component

to it — either that or it should angle up across the province in a

northeasterly direction. Those responsible for the development of

provincial transportation policy should always bear these hard facts,

dictated by the geography of our province, our river valleys and our

high mountain ranges, in mind.

Mr. Chairman, I could go on

at length but I won't. I could urge the province to build more

airstrips and provide more navigational aids for our small aircraft

operators and small airlines. I could push hard for a STOL aircraft

take-off and landing airstrip here in downtown Victoria. I could point

out the advantages of several commuter trains running on CP Rail's

tracks from Mission to Coquitlam, the SeaBus terminal at the foot of

Granville Street in Vancouver. I could talk about the advantages of

light rapid transit on the lower mainland. But these are all subsidized

operations and my main theme is competition.

I believe in

more competition rather than less. I believe in the principle of user

pay, especially where people have a choice as to how they can get

themselves and their goods from one place to another. I believe that

government subsidies where they exist should be specific. They should

be limited primarily to big-city situations and frontier areas where no

proper means of transportation exists. Regulation of the private

sector, meanwhile, should be kept to a minimum. This way we will not

only hold public expenditures down but we will put the interests of the

user of our transportation services ahead of those of the carriers

which are supposed to serve them.

Mr. Chairman, our

transportation budget at the provincial level is now of the order of $1

billion a year. If we recover two-thirds of that amount by way of fuel

taxes, sales taxes, income taxes and fares, I will be surprised.

[ Page 1063 ]

There

will always be a gap, of course, but it should be narrowed. It should

at least be controlled; otherwise we as taxpayers will be subsidizing

those who shouldn't be subsidized at all.

Fresh

breakthroughs on the technological front will help us; so will the

drive to save energy. Unless we have more competition and less

regulation in this important sector of our economy, we're going to be

wasting resources, which many of us in this Legislature agree could be

used to supply other public services needed by our people, needed more

urgently by our people here in British Columbia.

MR. PASSARELL:

A decade ago, the first men went to the moon, and subsequently, on the

voyages to the moon, they took moon-buggies, and the whole world saw

the astronauts driving through the craters. I wonder why the Minister

of Highways is discriminating against us up in Atlin for doing almost

the same thing, for driving through craters. I guess one of the reasons

why this could be is that I finally realized today why Highway 37 is in

such bad shape. This realization came from some of the comments that

the minister made in his opening remarks today. According to the Hansard

Blues today, the minister said that Highway 37 travels 500 miles to

Atlin. Highway 37 does not go to Atlin. It goes from Kitwanga to Watson

Lake in the Yukon. Maybe one of the reasons why Highway 37 is in such

bad shape is because the ministry thinks it's going to Atlin, when it's

going in almost the opposite direction. But I think we can remedy that.

the past three or four years, Highway 37 has been allocated $40 million

to $80 million, and this has done some good. When I drove on it first

four years ago, Highway 37 was a goat trail. But now it's getting

better. We've upgraded the highway, and if we leave it as it is now, in

another two or three years we're going to have to re-upgrade it. One of

the remedies to that is to do some type of paving on it before the

gravel bed, through all the transportation, becomes worse, and we have

to redo the upgrading that we've done already.

I'd like to

make another comment on the road to Telegraph Creek from Dease Lake. I

don't know if the minister has ever driven that

section of the road.

Very few people do because they really don't like to take their lives

in their hands driving to Telegraph Creek. I don't know if that

section

is even registered as a provincial highway. Is it?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes.

MR. PASSARELL:

What's the number of it? I've never seen a sign. I thought it was just

a logging road. But, Mr. Chairman, you drive on sections of that where

you're on a plateau, a single-lane road, and if you're driving, you can

look out your window and look down maybe 1,500 feet to the Stikine

River. When you turn the comer, if you look out the right-hand side,

you can see the Tuya River maybe 1,500 feet below. It makes a very

interesting drive. I've heard there's a highway up in the Yukon called

the Top of the World Highway, and I don't think we should give this

distinction to the Yukon. I think we should give this distinction to

the Telegraph Creek–Dease Lake Road.

I know a few weeks ago

$15 million was allocated for Highway 37. The minister stated in the

newspaper that $15 million was going to upgrade Highway 37. Living up

there and having to drive on it, I would like to see this money go for

paving. Mind you, $15 million isn't going to pave very much, but maybe

we could start something at least on some of the good sections that

have been upgraded, mainly from Dease Lake up to Good Hope Lake. They

haven't been paved and they have been upgraded.

The second

topic I'd like to talk about is communication. There is a need for

earth receivers in the highway camps in the north. I know that there's

one being set up at Honeymoon Creek, which might be a good place for

the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing to go and get some moccasins.

I know of some of these earth receivers that you can buy in Terrace for

$50,000. There's no transportation involved in taking them up. I was

talking to some of the people in the highway camps today, as a matter

of fact, and they said it would be very easy with a pickup truck and a

trailer to pull up one of these receivers. I certainly hope the

experiment at Honeymoon Creek becomes a reality for the other highway

camps up north.

A television system was set up in the

community I am from, Good Hope Lake. The Highways ministry maintains

it. In three years we've seen television, I think, for an average of

four or five months. The system is constantly on the blink. Landslides

come down the mountain and rub out the cable. Helicopters have to be

brought in from Watson Lake to remedy this situation. A lot of money is

being allocated for this system and if we can put together $50,000 for

an earth receiver, I think in the long run it would be beneficial and

save the taxpayers some money.

I noticed on vote 226, Mr.

Chairman, on telecommunications, there's been an increase of $3

million, to $15 million and the cost of putting in a television fee for

the four highway camps up on Highway 37 estimated at $200,000. Maybe

$200,000 of the money could be allocated.

One of the reasons

why it would be beneficial to put in television in some of the highway

camps is the employment. At the present time, many of the highway camps

ato having a low attrition rate. Men come up with their families, stay

for a short time, and then leave. Maybe television in these camps could

remedy this situation. It would also provide comfort and relaxation for

the employees themselves.

The third question I would like to

ask the minister is: could he give me some of latest developments on

the Greenville bridge? I know we talked about this previously. School

starts in September, and I know the people of Greenville find it not

acceptable, but they can take the situation once the Nass River freezes

in December. I'd like some comments from the minister on that if he has

them.

The fourth question is ferry service to Stewart. I

know this has been kicked around, Mr. Chairman, concerning ferry

service. The benefits for Stewart in the north is tourism. The second

one is freight transportation in the north. It would help cut the cost,

and I think the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis)

talked a little bit about this when he mentioned Stewart as a port.

Stewart is the most northerly ice-free port in British Columbia.

the next few years Alice Arm is going to be a big community up in Atlin

with the new mine opening up, and Kincolith might be tied in on a new

ferry system, helping out Stewart, Kincolith and Alice Arm.

The

fifth topic I'd like to address to the minister is the bridges on

Highway 37. To say the least, sometimes it makes driving difficult when

there's no bridge. But they are

[ Page 1064 ]

becoming

better. If you've got a four-by-four, it's okay. You just drive down

through the water and back up onto the road. But sometimes, if you're

in a small car, you get a little hung up in the water. That's becoming

alleviated, because I have seen Highways put in two bridges at French

Creek, and both are operational. That makes a good thing, because when

you're driving down Highway 37 you have your choice of two bridges to

go across French Creek instead of driving down through the stream. I

would rather see one bridge put in than two, but I think we can get

this fixed up.

Some of the bridges that are in — not the

multiplates, but some of the old wooden structures — pose a safety

problem. Some of the timbers on the bridges have broken over the years

and they have a difficulty...breaking your tires. I know in the north

it's beneficial to have busted up spare tires in the back of your

truck, especially in winter when you have to burn them.

The

sixth topic I would like to talk to the minister about is the air

services branch. I notice that on the budget for this year there has

been a bit of a reduction and I would like the comments from the

minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, on the reduction. The air services

provide a very necessary health situation for the people of the north.

When there aren't hospitals or first-aid stations you have to be flown

down into the mainland.

The seventh topic I would like to

talk about is the big increase in local airport assistance through your

ministry budget — the airport assistance program. Maybe the minister

can tell about the increases for Atlin. I'm talking specifically in

regard to the rumour that Cassiar might have a grant of some sort for

jet services from Cassiar to Prince George.

MR. BRUMMETT: Where are you going to land the planes?

MR. PASSARELL:

We'll work that out with a big grant. I've just noticed the Premier

here and if I could, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read a letter I

received the other day. This is addressed to Al Passarell, MLA: "In

recent weeks I had to travel the Cassiar road to the Stewart cutoff.

The road, to say the least, is undriveable — the worst I've seen in

four years that I've lived in Cassiar." It goes on to say how much

Cassiar pays in taxes — $26 million — and so on. "In addition to the

Cassiar Asbestos Corporation, what about the 2,000 residents in

Cassiar?"

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL:

Just wait a minute, Mr. Premier; we're coming to your part. It's a

lovely part, and you'll love it. "Al, I have but one wish this year" —

and I hope the Premier can help him out here — "I want to give Premier

Bennett a ride in my truck with his head out of the window on a hot,

dusty day following a semi-truck when that semi-truck passes another

semi-truck going the other way." I don't know why this man — and his

name is Mr. John Harley — would say something....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL:

Yes, sir, I will give this as notice. I want you to see it because Mr.

Harley really wants to take you for a ride to Cassiar — and maybe even

farther, as some other members have taken you.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. The Chair presumes this has something to do with the

administrative actions of the Minister of Transportation,

Communications and Highways.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, yes. The road conditions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good. Carry on.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL:

Oh, no. We're honourable about the situation. There is some honour left

in this House, mainly from this

section down — and my friend over there

in the corner.

The second letter I'd like to read into the

record is addressed to Hon. Alex Fraser, Minister of Transportation,

Communications and Highways. This is addressed June 26, 1979. It is

from Local 31 of the Teamsters. Have you received this?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I believe so.

MR. PASSARELL:

Oh, then I guess I don't have to read it. But I will. The letter is

written on behalf of 50 employees, Mr. Chairman, of Arrow

Transportation. They say the sad truth of the matter is that the only

new construction on the highway is nothing. They tell about the

terrible conditions for truck drivers driving on Highway 37.

"Arrow

spent in excess of $45,000 for tire chains. Now that we are into summer

driving conditions, the big problem is dust. Even though these trucks

are travelling at low speeds, the dust cuts visibility to near zero,

which has already this year accounted for one fatal collision and

several other vehicles going off the road. Is the dust control so

expensive that people may die because of its absence?"

goes further with some terrible comments, and it hurts me personally to

read this letter about the conditions that the people up there have to

relate to.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: No, no. Copy the letter fast. I want it back before you take off.

The

last comment I'd like to make is on vote 216, Mr Chairman, and that

concerns the government-owned residences. I know that in many highway

camps highway foremen have their residences provided for them. This can

also apply to mechanical foremen. The question that I ask the minister

is: why the cut from $186,000 to $50,000? Those are the eight questions

that I have. I appreciate talking tonight; it's been a real fun time.

Thank you very much.

HON. MR. FRASER: I think it is about time we answered some of the members' questions here. I'll start with the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell).

First

of all, Mr. Chairman, for the information of the member for Atlin, I've

driven the whole road from Kitwanga to the north British Columbia

boundary, including the branch from Dease Lake to Telegraph Creek, and

I'm aware of the road and I'm aware of how it was then and

[ Page 1065 ]

I'm

aware of how it is now. It's a long way and a beautiful part of

northwest British Columbia — lots of country and not too many people. I

think we're talking about over 500 miles, mostly gravel road, and our

whole province had that a few years ago. I would say that a lot of work

has been done. You were estimating pretty broadly there — $40 million

to $80 million. I believe that since 1976 about $50 million has been

spent on that road. I'm talking about Highway 37 from Kitwanga north.

And I am aware that to get to the community of Atlin you have to go out

on the Alaska Highway and follow along it and then take another of our

roads from the Alaska Highway down south to get to the community of

Atlin. I've been on that road.

Currently the major roadwork

that is going on — and maybe we can be criticized for this — and will

continue is from Kitwanga to Meziadin Junction. We have a large

contract there that will be completed this year. There is another large

one that is just really started. These are the rebuilding of existing

roads, what we call "grading contracts." I don't know whether it will

please the member or not, but the first paving contract on the south

end has been awarded, and they are starting to pave this week, and will

be paving from Kitwanga to Kitwancool, hopefully, before Labour Day.

That contract is awarded. So that's not very much out of 500 miles.

This

year the other emphasis on roads is going to be on the

section from

Meziadin Junction to Stewart. This member asked me the other day if I

had given a commitment to the hauling contractor. I answered yes. I

should have said that I also gave a commitment to the community of

Stewart. It's their wish that

section of that long road be upgraded. We

are going to upgrade it by putting on crushed gravel. Hopefully we can

get it on from Stewart to Meziadin — that's around 60 miles. Then from

Meziadin north we are going to do some more crushed gravelling. The

only answer is to put a binder in the crushed gravel in order to bring

some of the dust and some of the loose gravel under control.

Regarding

bridges, when I went up there I was amazed to find four major

structures, beautiful bridges, that had never had a deck put on them,

They had loose planks on them and $5 million worth of steel below them

— it was a long way down. Just recently, at a cost of $2 million, those

four bridges have all had adequate and safe steel decks placed on them.

We've certainly moved on that. I believe there arc about 30-odd Bailey

bridges on there yet as well.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Airy, fairy bridges — mostly air is what they were. That has now been corrected.

Regarding

the earth receivers, I hope to get back to you on that. But about

television, you are certainly in the right ministry. I'm interested in

your remarks about the upgrading of television to the rural areas. To

help communities, we make grants for television. They are on a

one-third basis, but that might not be too helpful for that area. But

there is a grant system to upgrade that situation. We also have very

excellent engineers to help. I found that out recently when they

couldn't get a decent picture on the Queen Charlotte Islands. I brought

it to the attention of the engineers in this ministry, and they had it

solved in ten days so that the people could get a decent picture

instead of just snow.

Regarding the Greenville Bridge, we

have offered to build a bridge at Greenville. We've offered that to the

native band, and we have to have permission from them to build it.

We've asked them for the right-of-way within the reserve. We have not

had an answer. Possibly you could help us get an answer. But we are

prepared to build a bridge at Greenville to overcome that very bad

situation.

You mentioned a boat service regarding Stewart

and Kincolith. I believe Kincolith is one of the communities where we

have recently put on a freight service. I'm not sure about Prince

Rupert, Port Simpson and Kincolith. To be quite frank with you, I

haven't heard any discussion regarding Stewart, other than that there's

a tug and barge in the private sector going in there, which is

connected with this haul which is causing all the problems — or causing

some problems to some people. I'm referring to the hauling of asbestos

from Stewart to Cassiar, which I'll get to in a minute. That barge

service is carrying in the fuel. The same trucks that haul from Stewart

to Cassiar, a distance of about 300 miles, haul the fuel into Cassiar,

and then bring the asbestos back and ship it out from there on the tug

and barge service.

Air services reduction. I'm not sure, and

I haven't had time to check that, but we haven't any plan for any

severe reductions in air services; but I'll have an opportunity to look

at the money part of that.

Regarding the airport assistance

program, I think, Mr. Chairman, that was a new program last year — and

a very popular program — to upgrade rural airports, as I mentioned in

my opening remarks. I want to give credit tonight to the minister of

that time who looked after it. He did a fine job and I want to thank

him for it. That was the Premier of British Columbia, when he had

charge of the airport assistance program. He got it going. Regarding

your area, Stewart has had help under that program. Dease Lake is

certainly scheduled — I don't know where they're at, but they're

certainly on the list.

Government-owned residences. I'm

going to double-check that, but I don't think the reduction in that

vote is going to have the effect you think on Highways residences. I

believe other reasons are behind what you're concerned with, but I'll

have to double-check that.

While I am up, I would just like

to thank the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), who gave

us a very excellent talk on transportation generally. He's certainly

bang-on on a lot of things. I'm going to ask the staff to get a copy of

the Blues for when they are talking about the transportation policy

that we're developing, because there were a lot of excellent ideas in

that.

I might say, in dealing with just a detail or two in

the member's remarks, that I'm inclined to agree with him regarding

ferry rates as they apply to freight. At the present time on B.C.

Ferries we have a rate of $1.10 a foot for trailers, and I believe it's

double or two and a half times that in the private sector. I can say,

on behalf of the B.C. Ferries board of directors, that we are looking

into that now.

MR. LAUK: I'd leave that alone.

HON. MR. FRASER: Thanks for your advice, sir.

The

member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) is concerned about the new

road. So are we. I might say that we've done a little more talking

about it, and I understand our planning people are now dealing with the

planning

[ Page 1066 ]

people

in the regional district to get these things identified, and hopefully

we'll get something settled. I'm not saying when, but they are working

with the regional district on that. One thing you didn't mention is

that there is something we could do just beyond Campbell River. I

believe there's a bad intersection connected with the pulp mill that

feeds into it. The engineers want to get something done about that in

1979. Maybe they heard what I said. We're really trying to get

something done there. That's a very difficult situation.

I'm

inclined to agree with some of your observations on driver habits and

bad driving. I might say that when I first became minister I said that

I thought we should be going after the slow drivers. I believe that

they cause some of our accidents. Certainly the fast drivers do too.

Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I haven't been very successful in that.

The RCMP say there is great difficulty in getting slow drivers. But you

are quite correct and it is getting worse. They get into a fast lane

and occupy it and don't let other traffic maintain the speed limit.

Highways are going to have more intensified aircraft patrols, and that

is going on now. It has had some good effects, but we intend to keep

that up.

Regarding Port Alice and the clearing of the brush,

I understand that is going on now. That will be looked after right away

because that shouldn't have happened.

I appreciate your

observations on smoking on ferries, and will take a look at that. You

didn't really say to ban it entirely, but maybe that's what we have to

look at. I'm referring now to Highways ferries, not the B.C. Ferries.

If it's going to cause a fire hazard with gas fumes and so on around,

maybe it should be banned, because they don't have really long trips on

Highways ferries as they have on the others.

I think that covers most of the MLAs.

MR. STUPICH:

I promised my colleague for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) that my questions

and answers would be confined to a period of ten minutes in total. So

I'd appreciate the minister's cooperation in trying to meet that

deadline.

I sent a list of questions to the minister's

office, and I do appreciate getting the reply today. While I'm

expressing appreciation, may I say that in the last three years, I have

taken to dealing with the minister's administrative assistant, Mr.

Sproule, whom I've found very cooperative and very helpful in every

respect, and I'd like to keep on dealing with him. I hope that my kind

remarks will not hurt him in any way at all in the ministry.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Then we'd lose him. No, I wouldn't want that to happen.

Mr.

Chairman, with respect to the questions I did put to the minister, I

don't intend to deal with all of them, but I would like to ask him

again about this question of a bypass for Nanaimo. In my letter to him

I questioned the practicality of a bypass and the need for one. The

answers I've had from the Ministry of Highways over the years have been

to the effect that very little traffic, in proportion to the total, is

actually driving through Nanaimo. Most of it is going into town or

coming out of town. I question whether a bypass is really the answer. I

take it from the minister's answer, if it is the answer, that it is a

very long range plan. It will be a long time before anything happens,

and I raise the question again, as I did in my presentation about more

arterial highways. I think something has to be done about the traffic

into and through town. I don't think the answer is a bypass; I think

it's an arterial, and I wonder if the minister would just comment about

that.

There is the question about the road change at

Cassidy, the main road to the highway. I know the people in the

community are not particularly happy with what the minister said is

going to happen there. I would like to ask him to agree sometime in the

not-too-distant future to meet with the committee from that community.

I'll follow that up.

In regard to the pedestrian crossing at

Transfer Beach in Ladysmith, the signals and the warning signs have

been provided. There is some concern expressed by the members of the

council in Ladysmith that these have actually done more harm than good.

They didn't go so far as to say they would like them removed. Their

concern is that the warning signs give the children a false sense of

security in crossing the Island highway. It's not so much that they

want something done immediately, but rather, if that highway is going

to be improved, and that is from the point of view of the Island

highway, when any improvements are being undertaken on that stretch of

highway, that they be preferably an underpass. I don't know whether the

minister has anything in mind in the near future for improvements to

that particular

section of the Island highway.

I was going

to comment on the question of slow drivers, but that has been handled

very well by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). I have just

one more thing; I'm intrigued by the plans, to start after Labour Day,

on the intersection improvements north of Nanaimo. If I could just

quote a line from Robert Service: "It's like a bunch of snarled piano

wire." I don't know what you have in mind. I'm not even going to ask to

look at the plans for that intersection, Brecon Road, Estevan Road,

Departure Bay Road, the Island Highway. I don't even want to see the

plans; I'll wait and see what you do with it. I just don't know how you

can improve that short of doing away with the whole thing.

There

is one other thing that I did want to raise, and I didn't have this in

my letter. I understand there are to be some boundary changes between

the Nanaimo and Alberni highways districts. I may not have the right

description. Included in that change will be the transfer of the

Lantzville community from the Nanaimo jurisdiction to the Port Alberni

jurisdiction. Lantzville is just barely outside the city limits. As a

matter of fact, it should have been within the city limits. There are

some people in Lantzville who won't like me saying that, but it should

have been that way. Whenever they have a question of the Ministry of

Highways — and people in those communities always have questions — they

will have to deal with the Highways manager in Port Alberni. Every call

they make will be a long-distance call. The equipment, the men and

everything else will be headquartered in Alberni rather than at the

Cassidy yard or in Nanaimo. It's going to make it extremely

inconvenient, and, if nothing else, from the point of view of

representation, the boundary for the Nanaimo riding is just north of

Lantzville. North of Lantzville we get into the Comox riding. Alberni

is in a third provincial riding, and I wonder if it hasn't gone too

far. Could some consideration be given to moving the boundary of the

Nanaimo Highways district or area or whatever it is so that it includes

Lantzville? Take

[ Page 1067 ]

up to the constituency boundary at least. It isn't much of a change,

but it would make it so much more convenient for the people in that

community to contact the Highways ministry and also the MLA when they

feel they have to go further than the Highways ministry.

MR. REE:

We have a very short highway in our constituency. It is approximately

three and a half miles long. I hope my comments will be as short as the

highway. We have many thousands of people who come to North

Vancouver-Capilano daily. They come there because it is an excellent

location and an excellent constituency. They come to visit people, and

we like them to come and stop and visit. But we have also many other

thousands who are forced to stop in North Vancouver–Capilano by

mechanical devices, These are located at the Westview and Upper Levels

intersection, and at the Lonsdale and Upper Levels intersection. It's

interesting to note that in the 150-mile stretch of highway from Hope

to Squamish, there are five stoplights. There are three in Cassiar,

which I understand are being looked at. Depending upon the stadium or

complex construction — if it's decided to go in the PNE.... There are

the two in a mile and a half stretch on the Upper Levels in North

Vancouver–Capilano.

These are two of the longest stoplights

in the province, I think. That stretch of the Upper Levels is one of

the busiest stretches of highway in the province. If it is not the

busiest, it is one of the busiest. We have in excess of 40,000 cars a

day travelling on that portion of the Upper Levels Highway. I suggest

that the slow-up time or the waiting time or the delay time caused by

these stoplights, at a very conservative figure, might be three minutes

for each vehicle. I might extend that in mathematics. If you had the

equivalent of one and a half persons per vehicle and 40,000 vehicles,

you would have 60,000 people. That's 180,000 minutes a day of delay or

holdup time on that portion of the highway. Extended in working hours,

it is one and a half years per day in working days on the highway. If

we extend that further to average salaries on the low end, as MLAs are

paid, it works out to roughly in excess of $1 million per year of

waiting time that's wasted sitting for stoplights on that portion of

the highway.

I might also extend that to the wasted energy

on that portion of cars sitting there starting, stopping, and the

depreciation and wear and tear on the cars themselves. I feel that

overpasses at these two intersections would be economically feasible,

as well as desirable. The people of North Vancouver–Capilano seem to

feel that this portion of the highway is there only to get from one

place to another. We happen to be between two areas, and it has not

been constructed or designed to service the people of North Vancouver.

Proper access and egress from the highway would be of major value to

the people of North Vancouver. It would cut down the chances of tragic

accidents at those intersections, which are not unusual, and it would

further improve the quality of life.

On the Upper Levels

Highway just east and west of Lonsdale, there is parking on the north

side, and I feel this should be remedied. It should be remedied fairly

soon, or we're going to have a fatality at that location. This is one

portion of a four-lane highway in this province where you have

residential parking. There is no protection for the residents on that

street.

You'll recall that approximately a month ago I was

speaking to you about this problem. You indicated at that time that you

would initiate a feasibility study with respect to overpasses at these

interchanges. I'm now asking whether this has been initiated. If it has

been initiated, Mr. Chairman, what does it involve? I ask that if it

has been initiated, this parking problem on the north side, east and

west of Lonsdale, also be included in that feasibility study.

have one further problem with respect to the highway in North

Vancouver–Capilano. That is the question of beautification, Mr.

Chairman, along the highway. With the traffic lights there, we get loud

noises from trucks starting and stopping. This carries throughout the

whole municipality. I understand there is a beautification project to

be commenced soon on that portion of the Upper Levels Highway. I ask

that this be implemented as soon as possible, in order not only to

improve the aesthetic value of that portion of the highway through our

residential area, but also, possibly, to reduce the noise level of

transportation travelling the highway.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps we can solve this problem once and for all.

MS. BROWN: No, I'd prefer it not be solved right here or now.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I would ask that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds address the Chair in

the standard fashion which has been enjoyed by all parliaments for some

great period of time.

MS. BROWN: I thought I'd collect them all at once.

I'm sorry the Chair is not in step with the changing times....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are discussing the estimates of the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I will concentrate on that, and we will deal with....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. That applies to the cabinet benches as well as the

opposition benches. Perhaps if you wish to discuss this matter, it can

be discussed under a substantive motion or under vote 1. It certainly

is not appropriate under this ministry. Please proceed.

MS. BROWN:

I certainly accept the ruling of the Chair. Through you to the

minister, as you know, Mr. Minister of Highways, the riding of

Burnaby-Edmonds is one of those very strange ridings that,

unfortunately, has five major throughways running through it. I just

want to ask a couple of questions about the ministry's plans for some

of those major throughways. I'm talking about the Lougheed, and Highway

1 and Kingsway and Canada Way and, of course, the new Marine Way.

MRS. JORDAN: When were you last there, Rosemary?

[ Page 1068 ]

MS. BROWN:

Actually, I'm there every weekend, for the benefit of those who would

like to see me in my constituency office, which is certainly more than

can be said of many of the members of this House.

However,

the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) has stated during the election that

he was going to resign his seat unless a third crossing was completed.

I'm wondering whether the minister will tell me whether the member for

Delta is going to have to be forced to resign his seat. Is there really

going to be a third crossing? Where is it going to be located? When is

it going to be started and completed? I would like some kind of

information about what it is going to cost.

I also want to

know what is going to happen to Kingsway. As you know, Kingsway is

essentially a one-way street. There is a light at every intersection

and everyone is allowed to make a left turn at every intersection. It's

one of the slowest highways — one of the slowest throughways — in the

province today.

I want to know if the ministry has any plans

for Kingsway. Are you going to upgrade it? Are you going to do anything

about the congestion? I haven't gone to the trouble of the member for

North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) to prove that it costs $1 million

every time you stop at a stoplight on Kingway. But I'm sure it's quite

expensive. So maybe the minister will respond to that too.

What's

happening with the new Marine Way? A number of letters have gone to the

minister about the new Marine Way. The last reply I received from him

was at the end of February of this year, and at that time no decision

had been made as to where the exits and entrances were going to be. I

want to find out whether any decisions have been made at this point in

terms of the actual design. In your letter you said that you had not

actually started a design of the facility and you couldn't really say

anything about it in terms of where the exits and entrances were going

to be. We are kind of interested because, of course, this impacts right

on Burnaby South.

Is there any plan for upgrading Highway 1?

Are you planning on putting on any additional lanes, maybe just for

buses only, not specifically for automobiles? If so, when are you

planning on doing this and what would be the cost involved? But we are

primarily interested in knowing if you are planning on upgrading

Highway 1, and when you would be planning on doing this.

The

same thing applies to the Lougheed Highway. It is really very difficult

for the member for Point Grey to be concerned about highways, because,

of course, Point Grey has no highways running through it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You should know.

MS. BROWN:

Yes, I should know, I've lived there for 14 years. I don't know why the

government is so concerned about me leaving my home, but I don't intend

to do that. That's where I live and that is where I intend to continue

living, despite all the efforts on the part of the Premier to have me

do otherwise.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I want you to live in Burnaby.

MS. BROWN:

I live where my family lives, Mr. Premier, and if that upsets you I'm

sorry, but that is precisely what I intend to continue doing.

any event, I'm interested in knowing what plans there are for the

Lougheed Highway. As you know, there is quite a bottleneck on that

particular highway; it shouldn't even be called a highway at this

point. It has turned almost into a country lane, and I want to know if

you are going to put a bus lane on that would not be accessible to

automobiles so that we could have some kind of fast transit on it.

What

is in store for Hastings or the Barnet Highway? Have you made any

decisions about those highways? If you are going to be doing any

upgrading along there, we would like to know about that too.

The

major concern, of course, to the people of Burnaby at this time is the

whole Newcombe-Stormont interchange. There is a tremendous amount of

opposition to the completion of this, and I want to know what decisions

the department has made. Have you got any plans for a tunnel or are you

going to insist on pushing that through? Exactly what plans do you have?

your department, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairperson, or Mr. Chair — whatever

you want to be called — through you to the minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. The matter of members addressing the Chair has now

reached a time when I as the Chairman must make some type of

recommendation to the House. It's not a matter of my personal

preference. That has nothing to do with my decision. My decision is

based on what is in the standing orders. The standing orders clearly

refer to the fact that the member occupying the chair is to be referred

to as the Chairman. As such, I would ask that all members in Committee

of Supply, in addressing the Chair as they are required to do by our

standing orders, refer to the person occupying the chair as "Mr.

Chairman." With that, we can proceed.

MS. BROWN: Am I to understand that the person occupying the chair, even if it's a female, is to be referred to as "Mr. Chairman" too?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Unless the House is to determine a change in the standing orders, that is correct.

MS. BROWN: Well, of course, I'm not going to challenge the Chair on this issue, but I want to say that I am totally opposed to it.

MRS. JORDAN: We'll rewrite the rules again.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. member, there are methods for members to change the

standing orders, and if that is what is desired by the member, that is

up to the member. However, I am duty-bound by this committee, which

elected me to take this job, to enforce the standing orders, and I'm

going to do so.

MS. BROWN: Well, as I have stated, I

am not going to challenge the Chair, but I want to repeat that I am

totally opposed to that ruling. In any event, I'll just refrain from

saying anything to the Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you respect the rules of the House? Who do you think you are?

[ Page 1069 ]

MS. BROWN: I know who I am. Unlike you, I know exactly who I am, Mr. Minister. I have no questions about that, unlike you.

want to know whether the government is going to be involved with any

cost-sharing in the construction of Edmonds Street or whether this is

going to be done completely by the municipality and if there is

anything that can be done to ensure that this is not pushed through to

be hooked up with Newcombe in terms of the final plans for the

Newcombe-Stormont interchange.

What plans have the

government made, Mr. Minister, regarding Highway 1 and Cassiar to the

Second Narrows? I want to know not only what the plans are but when

these plans would be implemented and what the cost involved would be.

Has the government had any negotiations with the city of Vancouver

regarding making access to Vancouver if the roads and highways in

Burnaby are upgraded?

In any event, Mr. Minister, certainly

the voters of the Burnaby constituency are totally opposed to any major

construction going on in that particular area, but we would like to see

some upgrading done on the existing roads. Of course, our commitment is

to light rapid transit.

MR. SKELLY: I have very few

questions to ask the minister. I would like to express my thanks the

cooperation the minister and his staff have given to me over the past

three or four years in helping to solve the problems of my

constituents. I have been down to the minister's office. He told me on

that occasion that I was the only member of the opposition ever to pay

him a visit. There may be other reasons for that, I don't know, but I

did appreciate some of the things he has done for me over the past few

years.

The minister came to my riding during the last

election. I was very unhappy about some of the things he said and did

when he came to visit my riding. First of all, he didn't call on me. He

had his picture taken with some upstart from the Social Credit Party in

the riding. He went out on the highways and byways of the Alberni

Valley and looked around and said he was going to fix this road and fix

that road and blow up Angel Rock and attend the Coombs Fall Fair....

It's no longer in my riding; they've switched the boundaries on me. But

the minister did say at the time.... We had a number of ministers

through the riding at the time, and it looked like my riding was being

declared a priority area — something like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You mean a disaster area.

MR. SKELLY:

Yes, during the period of the election it was a disaster area. The

Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair) came in on the only day it

rained, went to a crabfest, got crabs, came home and gave the riding a

bad name. Then he got on the radio and he said he counted me among his

personal friends and almost lost me the election.

Really, there are some things I'd like to ask the minister.

The

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) came down during

the nominating convention for the party of the other side. He took a

look at the Cumberland Road, and he said that it had been allowed to

become a bit rundown during the past few years.

So obviously he has never been up there and doesn't know a dammed thing

about the Cumberland Road. But right there, on the spur of the moment, he promised

to turn the Cumberland Road into a highway connecting Port Alberni and Cumberland.

I thought this was the best thing since sliced bread, and so did the mayor of

Cumberland. Then the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways

came into town the next day, or shortly thereafter, and he was concerned about

what the forest companies might think of him if he turned this road into a public

highway, especially when MacMillan Bloedel is running trucks with 14-foot bumps

over the road, and there is some danger to private cars attempting to use it.

The

minister didn't appear for the 1978 estimates, but I asked him a

question in 1977 about improvements to the Cumberland Road. That road

promises to be an exciting tourist circle tour for people visiting the

Alberni Valley. It opens up that whole southern area of Strathcona Park

and Forbidden Plateau. It opens up areas leading out to the west coast

near Tofino, Hot Springs Cove and Della Falls — the highest falls in

North America. It's a very exciting area of Vancouver Island, one that

should be opened for the tourists. I asked the minister how much money

he was going to spend on the road that year in order to bring it in to

some condition so it could be used by private passenger cars, rather

than by 14-foot burnp logging trucks and motorcycles and four-wheel

drives. He did say he would spend $10,000 or less on the road that

year, which caused me some concern, since Mr. Vander Zalm said they

would turn it into a highway within a few years. If you are planning to

spend $10,000 or less a year, I estimate it will take 1,500 years. I

realize you have trouble developing long-term plans in Energy and

Environment, and I appreciate what you're doing with long-term plans in

Highways, but we don't want it to take that long, Mr. Minister. Every

time we call an election in Alberni the Social Credit Party and the

Chamber of Commerce resurrect the Cumberland Road. They don't even want

it to take three years. We would like you to take a look at the

Cumberland Road and the vast tourist potential of that area. Spend a

little more money on that route so that it can become a promising

tourist circle, as it is, and has been identified as such by your

ministry and by the Ministry of Tourism and other people in the

province.

I would like the minister to give some priority to

that Cumberland road to create that tourist circle and bring all those

people from other parts of the world into the Alberni Valley to see the

exciting attractions that we have there. So I would like to know what

the minister has in his plans for the Cumberland road during the coming

year. We don't want another $10,000 or less. We'd like to see a little

more money spent on that road in order to develop its tourist potential.

Just

a note in passing. When the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm) came to Port Alberni he also promised to turn back tidal

waves; so the less we see of him down there, the better it is.

Also,

just before the last election a great deal of activity began to develop

in the Alberni Valley around highways and highway construction

projects. Suddenly just before the election was called, the minister

announced that the

section of Redford Street between Third Avenue and

San Mateo Boulevard would be widened — sidewalks would be put in and

storm sewers and all that kind of thing. I appreciate the fact that the

minister awarded that contract, because we've been waiting for that for

about three years now. It's good to see those improvements being done.

[ Page 1070 ]

But

the minister also began a day-labour project on the Sproat Lake

section

of the highway, from the new highway construction between Tofino and

Port Alberni. Between the end of that construction and the city we have

a tortuous road there along Sproat Lake and along the Somass River, and

the minister began a day-labour project in that area. But I noticed in

the Albemi Valley Times of

July 11, 1979, that the project ran out of money shortly after the

election, and there is no work being done there at all. We wouldn't

like to wait until the next election to get that project finished, Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, because there is still a lot of

rock and dirt. A lot of the grade construction has been done, and

because of the rain problem on the west coast it will probably wash

down on the existing road and make it even worse than it is.

I'm wondering what plans the minister has to complete the construction

of the Sproat Lake

section of the Alberni-Tofino highway which he

began, coincidentally, just before the last election.

I went

out to the chamber of commerce at Ucluelet just after the last election

and they gave me a list of projects that they would like to see done in

highways in that area. One of the sections of the Tofino-Alberni

highway that's deteriorating is the one that wasn't based on new

construction. A large part of that highway was totally new construction

that was done around 1971 and 1972 before the previous election, but

the old

section is basically logging road and the grade isn't all that

good. It's a very winding

section of highway. A large part of it fell

into Kennedy Lake just after the 1972 election, and it needs a lot of

upgrading to both the base of the road and to the pavement. We'd like

to see the minister take a look at that

section of highway and make

some improvements to it. As the minister knows, there's something like

700,000 tourists visiting the Long Beach Pacific Rim National Park area

each year, and that road is pretty heavily used compared to other roads

in the province.

I've also received just within the past few

weeks letters from citizens in the Ucluelet area who live south of the

village boundary in the area of Amphitrite Point where the Coast Guard

has just put in its new vessel-traffic monitoring station. A large

number of Canada Department of Transport employees are working there

monitoring oil tankers and shipping that come in through the Strait of

Juan de Fuca in order to prevent the kind of accidents that we've been

talking about should the Port Angeles oil port go in, or the Cherry

Point oil port be expanded. Just within the last few days, 75 letters

have been received from people who use that road on a daily basis and

are complaining about the quality of the road.

Canada

Department of Transport has built paved roads on their property up to

the provincial road, and the road is paved within the Ucluelet village

boundary, but there is a

section of road that's pretty rough going, and

it wouldn't require very much in the way of funds to pave it. The

minister wrote me a letter on July 23, which just arrived today, in

which he said that the road has been maintained consistently over the

past two years, and he has no plans to pave the road within the next

couple of years. Mr. Minister, I don't think that's good enough.

The

problem with the west coast, again, is that it has a tremendous amount

of rain, up to 200 inches of rain a year. Any type of maintenance you

do out there in the form of grading of gravel roads is quickly eroded,

and you end up with potholes a few days after the maintenance takes

place.

I don't think the maintenance management program that

you have for the whole province sufficiently takes into account the

weather conditions on the west coast of Vancouver Island. As a result,

we receive a lot of complaints about road conditions out there,

especially gravel road conditions.

I would like the minister

to take a second look at the situation between the Ucluelet village

boundary, and Amphitrite Point and Spring Cove. As I mentioned to the

minister, a tremendous number of people from Transport Canada use that

road on a daily basis, and a tremendous number of fishermen also use

that road. So it's quite an important thoroughfare, even though it's

located on the far west coast of Vancouver Island.

There was

another question. I received a letter from a lady in Beaverdell, and

she talks about the fact that where uranium is being explored for in

the Beaverdell area, Highways ministry trucks are taking some of the

overburden as gravel, and I understand that some of that overburden has

radioactive particles in it. Will the minister advise me what that

gravel is being used for? Has he investigated the problem of the

radioactive particles in it? The minister will know that after uranium

and that type of mining in Colorado, the mine spoils or tailings were

used to build buildings, to pave roads and that kind of thing, and now

the government of the state of Colorado and the American federal

government are being forced to pick up a lot of that overburden and

remove it because it constitutes a radiation hazard to the people in

the area. So I'm wondering if the minister has investigated this

situation, and what conclusions he's come to, and what he plans to do

with that radioactive material.

MR. BARNES: I'm only

standing up because I want to talk about cycle paths in the

constituency of Atlin. [Laughter.] I hear there's a place there called

Eddontenajon, and I hear they have a problem there with their cycle

program.

However, on a more serious note, Mr. Chairman, I'd

like to thank the minister for accepting the suggestion that something

be done about the sign problem that tourists face when coming to

Victoria from the United States and seeing signs that say "Ferry to

Victoria," when, in fact, it's a ferry to Swartz Bay. That's going to

be straightened out, and I'm very pleased about that.

would like to just briefly comment on the situation existing with

respect to the Massey Tunnel. I hope that time doesn't run out; but I

would just like to tell the House that in 1957, during my early years

as a new Canadian, I was working on that tunnel with the designer, Mr.

Ole Bentzen, who is a Danish citizen who happened to graduate from the

University of Copenhagen in 1929, the year I was born. I was very

pleased to have been part of that. That tunnel has considerable

North America, and it was put through the Fraser River. Many people

perhaps don't know the history of it.

The point I wanted to

raise is that, notwithstanding the fact that it was a marvel of its day

when it was completed in 1959, it didn't look forward to the day the

bicycle would be a problem. In 1973, when the New Democratic Party was

elected, the former Minister of Highways (Mr. Lea) was very responsive

to this member — who was at that time a backbencher of that government

— suggesting that there

[ Page 1071 ]

should be some way by which people on bicycles could have a way of getting across the Fraser River.

the present time we still have that service, Mr. Chairman, but it has

been somewhat restricted in that there are only four crossings per day

between the hours of 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., and this is seasonal. We had

an odd-hour program going the year round, and I would suggest that our

thinking was that in time it would catch on, that it would promote

itself and would be utilized more. This is why we fought the critics

who said it was too costly, and that the program would eventually pay

for itself. If it had been continued at the pace we had established in

1973, we would today have a lot more volume going on. But the problem

today, Mr. Chairman, is that the tunnel is not known to cyclists.

People heading south, in fact, have to face a sign which says cycling

is not permitted through the tunnel. If you're heading north, you have

signs saying there are cycle paths and a route which you can follow.

However,

you've got to get there between 9 and 3 o'clock. Otherwise you have to

come back the next day. I think the minister should take a look at the

trends of the times. More people are riding cycles. We are trying to

encourage people to be more energy-conscious. Also, philosophically, we

have found B.C. Hydro was incorrect in cutting back on transit services

on the basis that the ridership was down. What happens, in fact, is

that people use their cars more.

That philosophy is

backwards. It's backwards with the Deas Island tunnel. Because the more

you cut back, the fewer people know about it. Therefore the less use it

gets.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest you advertise the tunnel

by making it available, by doing an experimental project, by forgetting

about the cost at least for a full-year period, and by spending some

money to promote the idea that the tunnel is available. Let people know

it is available and give it a chance to catch on. You've got to spend

money to make money. You've got to let the people know the service is

available. Otherwise, it's not going to succeed.

Mr.

Chairman, would you ask the Attorney-General to please stop

interrupting? I think a man in his position should recognize the

importance of the subject I'm trying to bring before the House. He

should not show the discourtesy to this member who has struggled very

hard to retain his seat over the years, and suggest we should terminate

debate before I've made my point.

However, under the

circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that the committee

rise and — is it progress or resolutions? In any event I move that this

happen [laughter] and that we ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The motion "that this happen" would be out of order. I suggest the

motion is that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Speaker, with leave, I have the honour to present the fourth report

of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

I move that the report be read and received.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

hear some nays. Sorry. The reason why I requested leave was because the

ordinary time for this business to take place is after petitions and

reading petitions. I don't have my order in front of me. I'm just

taking it from memory. Let me just see whether not leave is required.

Yes, I'm afraid leave is required, and it has been denied.

Leave not granted.

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled an answer to question 8 standing in his name on the order paper. (See appendix.]

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:05 p.m.

[ Page

1072 ]

APPENDIX

8 Mr. Nicolson asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing the following questions:

Do the Directors of the British Columbia Housing Corporation receive

any form of remuneration and/or expenses or per diem rates?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (

a) in what form and in what amount and (

b) in the case of each director what is their name and the total amount paid them

in 1976, 1977, and 1978?

The Hon. J. R. Chabot replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. (

a) Directors fees were established on the following basis and remained

unchanged for the period in question:

Attendance at Board Meetings

$250

Attendance at Executive Committee

Quarterly retainer

plus out-of-pocket travelling expenses.

(

b) Fees

Expenses

Salary

Kenneth Browse

$3,750.00

$202

---

4,350.00

---

4,100.00

---

Robert Clauson

4,000.00

---

6,000.00

---

4,350.00

---

Charles Ellington

2,233.00

---

4,150.00

---

Edith Gunning

2,916.67

---

3,950.00

---

1,750.00

---

Gordon Lee

3,500.00

---

3,700.00

---

3,900.00

---

Werner Paulus

15,000.00

$5,000²

Alan Spiro

3,750.00

---

5,000.00

---

---

4,750.00

---

Thomas Toynbee

2,750.00

---

12,400.00³

1,163

---

19,650.00³

1,866

---

Murray Hardisty

---

---

27,085¹

Walter Webb

---

---

54,169¹

---

---

60,000¹

---

---

57,200¹

"¹ Salary as President and Chief Executive Officer.

"² Salary as Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer.

"³ Salary at rate of $200 per diem as Chairman and Chief Executive

Officer."

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1979,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada