1980 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

TUESDAY, JULY 8, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3191 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents.

British Columbia Assessment Authority annual report, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3191

Oral Questions.

Emergency Facilities at Vancouver General Hospital. Mr. Cocke –– 3191

Mr. Lauk –– 3191

Open-heart surgery. Mr. Cocke –– 3192

Extended-care beds. Mrs. Dailly –– 3192

Resource Revenues. Mr. Stupich –– 3192

B.C. Research Council. Mr. Lauk –– 3193

Matter of Privilege

Alleged bias on the part of Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3194

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Deterioration of health services in British Columbia.

Mr. Cocke –– 3194

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates (Hon.

Mr. Fraser).

On vote 193: minister's office –– 3195

Mr. Lockstead

Mrs. Wallace

Division on the motion that the Chairman leave the chair –– 3198

Mr. Hall

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Lea

Division on the motion that the committee rise –– 3205

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Mair

Mr. King

Motion to adjourn.

Mr. Lauk –– 3215

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 3215

Mr. Howard –– 3216

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 3218

Mr. Lea –– –– 3218

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 3219

Mr. Lockstead –– 3220

Mr. Mussallem –– 3220

Mr. Hyndman –– 3220

Division on the motion to adjourn –– 3221

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Deterioration of health services in British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker rules –– 3221

TUESDAY, JULY 8, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are two constituents and friends of

mine from the town of Ashcroft in Yale-Lillooet constituency. They are

George Nameth and his wife Betty. Betty is also the president of the

Yale-Lillooet Social Credit constituency association. I ask the House

to please welcome them.

MR. LEA: I ask the House to

join with me today in welcoming two visitors from Edmonton, Alberta.

Sitting in the gallery are the father and mother of the chief

researcher for the NDP caucus, Mr. and Mrs. Milton McInnes. I would

like to mention to the House that this game of politics is no stranger

to Mr. McInnes. A week ago Friday he retired as a school teacher, after

30 years with the Edmonton school board. I would like to ask you to

join with me in welcoming our guests from Alberta to the gallery today.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and the second member for Surrey (Mr.

Hall) I would like the House to extend a welcome to Mr. and Mrs. Roy

Hunt, who are having a holiday in Victoria and visiting us today.

MR. D'ARCY: With us today from the garden village of Warfield are

Ken and Gail Fines. I'd like the House to welcome them. I'd also like

to mention that we have a long-time member of the House in the gallery, representing

Omineca and latterly Skeena, Cyril Shelford.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, I have two introductions to make today. I would like the

House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. José Luis Perez Sanchez, who are here

from Ottawa en route to their homeland of Spain. They have served as

trade counsellors for the embassy of Spain in Ottawa. I would like the

House to welcome them to our House today and wish them a very happy

return to their homeland and a return back to British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker, we have visitors from your constituency of Delta today, from

Ladner. I would like the House to welcome Miss Megan Garr and Miss

Sarah Garr, who are here with their grandmother from Sooke, Mrs.

Virginia Kehoe. Of course members of the House will know these two

young ladies as the daughters of Allen Garr, one of our outstanding

journalists in British Columbia. Please welcome them.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Speaker. behind you in your gallery today are the board. the

executive director and members of the Canadian National Institute for

the Blind, who were in the precinct this morning. I'd ask the House to

recognize them.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for Richmond (Hon.

Mr. Nielsen) and myself I'd like to welcome to the House an old colleague

and an old member of this House, Ernie LeCours. He came into the House with

me in 1963, and the only difference is I've stayed a little longer than

he did. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming him.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, included with members of the board of the Canadian

National Institute for the Blind are Mr. Russell Fraser, chairman of

the Board of Parks and Recreation of Vancouver, who is with us in the

gallery, as well as Mr. Okven Dolan, chairman of the board of the CNIB,

and Mr. Joseph Caruk, executive director of that organization.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today we have representatives from

the Liard–Peace River Regional District and the Farmers' Institute of

Fort Nelson. I'd like the House to recognize Mr. Jack Haan, Charlene

Eggers, Mary Eaton, Andy Bailey, Jeremy Sellors, and, I believe, his

son J.J. Sellors. I'd like the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Well, Mr. Speaker, there are still three people who haven't been

introduced yet, and I'd like to introduce one of them: Dr. Kwan, who is

in the gallery, a formerly prominent psychiatrist in Hong Kong and a

resident of British Columbia for a number of years. I'd like the House

to make him welcome.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the British

Columbia Assessment Authority annual report for 1979, including a

financial statement, and filed under the requirements of

section 17,

clauses (

a) and (b), of the Assessment Authority Act.

Oral Questions

EMERGENCY FACILITIES

AT VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker,

I'd like to address a question to the Minister of Health. The situation

in the emergency department at the Vancouver General Hospital remains

critical. Yesterday the minister told the House that he had asked for a

report from his staff. Can the minister now tell the House what action

he has taken to ensure that Vancouver residents get treatment in

emergency situations?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, my

staff have been in touch with the authorities at Vancouver General

Hospital, and are assessing the situation so that a full report can be

made to me. When I receive that report, as I indicated and undertook

yesterday, I will bring its contents back to the House.

MR. LAUK:

I have a supplementary to the same minister. In 1975 the New Democratic

Party administration authorized construction of a new emergency

facility on the old King Edward School site. The current administration

has delayed construction and instead built the Pat McGeer memorial

hospital out at UBC. Can the minister now tell the House when the new

emergency facility will be operational, so that further closures at VGH

will not be foreseen?

HON. MR. MAIR: Without

admitting any accuracy at all to any of the

preamble to that question,

because I think the question is couched in inaccuracies, I certainly

will nevertheless take the specific question as notice and bring back

the answer.

[ Page 3192 ]

OPEN-HEART SURGERY

MR. COCKE:

I have a new question to the Minister of Health. Open-heart surgery at

VGH has been cut back by nearly 50 percent, particularly for some

teams. One team that was performing 15 operations a week is now

performing eight or less. What action has the minister taken to ensure

that British Columbians who require open-heart surgery can get it

promptly?

HON. MR. MAIR: Once again, without

admitting the accuracy of any of the statements making up the

preamble

to that question, I will take the question as notice and report back to

the House.

MRS. DAILLY: My question is to the Minister of Health. In St. Paul's Hospital there are a number of people who are waiting....

AN HON. MEMBER: They're ganging up on you, Rafe!

AN HON. MEMBER: Boy! Are you all sick today?

EXTENDED-CARE BEDS

MRS. DAILLY: Well, I can assure the minister it's no joke for the people who can't get in the hospital.

St. Paul's Hospital there are a number of people who are awaiting

admission for serious surgery and cannot get in, particularly in the

orthopedic ward, where people are holding up beds simply because there

are no other extended-care and intermediate facilities. available for

them. Can the minister tell us what he is doing to alleviate what I

consider to be an emergency situation for these very sick people?

HON. MR. MAIR:

Again, I will take the question as notice and bring back details of

that particular situation to the House. I will say that we are

continuing the building of extended-care and long-term care facilities

at the rate of about 1,000 beds a year. While I have stated before in

this House that we can't expect to alleviate the situation immediately,

the program was such that we had a far greater demand for its services,

if I may say so, than we had anticipated. Nevertheless we recognize our

obligations. We will continue to build long-term beds as fast as we can

and continue to try to alleviate the situation. However, I will bring

back a specific answer.

RESOURCE REVENUES

MR. STUPICH:

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister confirm

that revenues from BCPC are now estimated to be down some $300 million

from the forecast tabled in this House on March 11?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I'm unable to confirm or deny that at this particular point in time. I

would remind the hon. member for Nanaimo that this government

introduced, under my predecessor in this portfolio, a quarterly

reporting system. Close to the end of this month we shall have a report

on the financial health of the province of British Columbia. The

information will then be available to members of this House and for all

interested members of the public.

MR. STUPICH: I

appreciate the advice that information will be coming at some future

date, but I'm simply asking whether certain information is available

today. I thought the minister would have some estimate as to just what

the shortfall is in BCPC revenues at this point in time.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to assist the hon. member today.

MR. STUPICH:

I have another question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of Finance

confirm that BCPC sales are now down to half the level of the sales of

last year, measured on a daily basis?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I think that the two answers which I have given the member

— one general and one specific — would apply in answering this

particular question. The information will be available, not at some

future date, but indeed before the end of this month, on a quarterly

reporting basis.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I am

certainly looking forward to the elaboration in the quarterly report,

because certainly previously such quarterly reports have never

indicated the daily sales of natural gas.

However, on

another question, can the Minister of Finance advise whether stumpage

revenues are down, not by any specific amount, but down from the level

predicted in estimates?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I am not

able to answer precisely, but I must say that in discussions this

morning I found the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) to be very

optimistic about the health of the forest industry in British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: Is that why he is not here?

HON. MR. CURTIS: We not only answer questions, but we attempt to give direction as well; he is over there.

MR. BARRETT: Is that the Minister of Forests?

HON. MR. BENNETT: You don't know anything, do you?

MR. BARRETT: I didn't know that, my friend.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, I believe everyone in the House is pleased that the state

of the forest industry is healthy right now, but my question was: are

the revenue estimates in line with the budget presented on March 11, or

does the Minister of Finance at this time know whether they are higher

or lower? What is his current estimate of the revenue estimates? I did

estimates. Are they up or down, compared to the figures presented in

the House on March 11?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, there may be some variation.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, we are making some headway. "There may be some variation." This is from a govern-

[ Page

3193 ]

ment

that keeps people informed. Can the Minister of Finance hazard a guess

as to which of those two alternatives we might expect? Will the

revenues be up, or will they be down?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, if one takes this to its conclusion, the member could ask

a question every day that the House sits with respect to the finances

of the province of British Columbia and its components for that day.

This government was the first government in British Columbia to

introduce quarterly reporting.

Mr. Speaker, we have within a very few weeks then....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

That party, when it was government, didn't bother to inform the people

on a quarterly basis. It ran to an election when the news was bad.

Mr.

Speaker, the answer will be coming very soon and I will assist the

member, and all members of the House, at that time. I suggest that this

government does not want to operate its finances on guesses, and I was

asked for a guess by that member who was the Minister of Finance.

MR. STUPICH:

I shall continue to try to get some information from the minister. I

asked him for estimates, but he prefers to use the word "guess," and he

prefers not even to make a guess.

I started out asking for

estimates, and this question would not have arisen had the minister not

previously chosen to comment on questions about revenue forecasts and

about steps that he might take before the end of June to deal with what

was a situation of concern to him.

The public is aware of

the questions that have been asked, and is aware that the minister is

aware that something has gone wrong, and is aware that the minister is

considering some action. I think the public deserves some answers now,

rather than sometime in the future.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that the member was not in the country when I

made the statement. I think a number of people understand that this

government has the capacity to move as situations dictate, and that is

precisely what is happening. What will be the case a month from now, or

five months from now, no one in this room knows.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Just one question at a time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the fact of the matter is that I have identified for the

people of British Columbia, to the extent that I was able at the time,

some areas of concern to the government of British Columbia. They will

be reported on in full detail when the quarterly report is released.

B.C. RESEARCH COUNCIL

MR. LAUK:

I have a question for the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications. Can the minister confirm that a Mr. Allan Mode is the

new executive director of the B.C. Research Council?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Can the minister confirm that Mr. Allan Mode is a nuclear researcher from Livermore, California?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Could the minister indicate Mr. Mode's scientific background and qualifications for that job?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'd be happy to provide those, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK:

Can the minister advise why a nuclear researcher was selected,

particularly from the Lawrence Laboratory, which has a reputation for

nuclear weapons research?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm afraid, as usual, the member is all mixed up.

MR. LAUK:

Can the minister advise whether Mr. Mode's appointment signifies a

shift in the Research Council's priorities towards nuclear research?

HON. MR. McGEER: I can assure the member that, as usual, he's all mixed up and all wrong.

MR. LAUK: Well, straighten us out then.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Apart from that, the member should know that the B.C. Research Council

is an independent foundation under the Societies Act. That's not one of

their objectives — in the past, the present or the future.

MR. LAUK: The minister is the chairman of the board of the B.C. Research Council, is he not? Just nod your head.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: If the minister wishes to spread the blame, that's fine.

First

of all, we know that the Lawrence Laboratory in Livermore has defence

contracts to investigate nuclear research, and that Allan Mode is a

significant scientist involved there. Does the minister deny those

facts?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK:

Can the minister help us in this regard? Can the minister advise why a

U.S. national was chosen for this important post when qualified

Canadian scientists are available?

HON. MR. McGEER: I

will endeavour to get that information, but the board of the B.C.

Research Council, which is an independent foundation, made the choice.

I would be happy to try to get the information for the member, but he

could gain that information himself if he were to seek it directly.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

On a point of order, on behalf of the member for Vancouver Centre I

would ask leave to have this question period continue, providing the

member will continue with this line of questioning.

[ Page 3194 ]

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. MAIR:

I rise on a question of privilege. Owing to the unusual nature of the

matter, I wish to give notice of my intention to raise this question of

privilege at a later time. I think a brief statement of the facts will

indicate to Your Honour why this unusual request is made.

Monday, July 7, on the BCTV 11 p. m. news. Mr. Harvey Oberfeld did a

news story concerning Mr. Speaker which contained filmed statements

from the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), the hon. first

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and the hon. member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea). These statements both implied and alleged bias on the

part of Mr. Speaker. As soon as I was able to, that is today, I

instructed my office to demand tapes and transcripts of this newscast

from BCTV news.

I raise this notice now so as to bring my

concern to this House and to Your Honour at the earliest opportunity

and to advise Your Honour that I will formally raise the question of

privilege along with the supporting evidence as soon as I am able to do

so after its receipt. I might say that I have now received a report

that Mr. Peters of BCTV is actively considering whether or not he will

release the tape. The newscast was last night, July 7, and I am raising

this today at the earliest possible time.

Of course, Mr.

Speaker is not anybody's Speaker within this House; he is the Speaker

for the whole House. Because of the difficulty I have in obtaining the

necessary evidence to raise the question of privilege and offer the

House's protection to Mr. Speaker, I make this unusual step of giving

notice of my intention to raise the question of privilege.

MR. BARRETT:

On a point of order, under what order does a member rise to give notice

that he intends to rise at a future date on a motion of privilege?

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Opposition raises a good point, one with which I must

confess at this moment I am not personally familiar. In past cases I

have undertaken, and will again in this instance, to endeavour to come

back to the House with an informed decision at the earliest

opportunity. The point raised by the Leader of the Opposition will be

considered by the Chair.

HON. MR. MAIR: On the point

of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition, may I just say that I

find myself, and of course the House finds itself, in this position:

that in order to raise a question of privilege one must have evidence.

The evidence, as I am advising the hon. members, is not available to

me. Rather than....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please,

Hon. member, before recognizing the Leader of the Opposition I must

caution members at this point that to engage in what is apparent to the

Chair to be a debate rather than a point of order would be very much

out of order. Nonetheless, the points made by the Minister of Health

will also be considered. I must say at this time that it would be most

improper to continue further debate on the subject.

HON. MR. MAIR:

I have no desire to debate whatever. Perhaps I can seek the Chair's

guidance. Presuming that I have advised the House at this point of my

intention....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will assure the

member that the House is fully cognizant of the intention and

statements of the minister. The matter will be considered in that vein.

HON. MR. MAIR:

With respect, Mr. Speaker, the point I wish to clarify I did not have

an opportunity to raise. Am I prejudiced in a future motion if I do not

raise it now, knowing of the circumstances but being unable to produce

the evidence?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is most

improper to address questions to the Chair at any time. The matter is

taken by the Chair and will be considered, and a report will be brought

back on that specific matter. I must ask that the debate be concluded

at this point.

HON. MR. MAIR: Perhaps Mr. Speaker will consider the concern I just raised.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker has instructed this House that when members stand on a

point of order they are to refer to the standing orders. That has not

been the procedure so far, and I want the House to be reminded of that.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the

House pursuant to standing order 35 to discuss a matter of urgent

public importance. The matter of urgent public importance is the

deterioration of health care services in the province of British

Columbia. In 1975 the NDP government had a new emergency ward plan for

Vancouver General Hospital, which would have increased their capacity

to handle emergency cases. This facility still has not been completed

by the Social Credit government despite the fact that they have been

able to plan and complete a new teaching hospital at UBC since then. In

light of the fact that the hospital administrators are now being forced

to shut down the emergency

section of the hospital because they can't

safely cope with further admissions, the government must take immediate

action to rectify the crisis situation.

Secondly, the

Vancouver General Hospital has been obliged to close 200 beds for lack

of staff, because of a lack of government priority for health care.

Thirdly,

open-heart surgery at the Vancouver General Hospital has been cut back

as much as 50 percent. On a weekly basis, the one Vancouver VGH heart

surgery team has a capacity to do 15 operations and is now down to

performing seven to eight operations a week.

Fourthly, the

Health minister (Hon. Mr. Mair) has made statements blaming the former

NDP government for not providing sufficient funds for ambulances and

the paramedic program. We introduced that program in July 1974 and we

built it up over the next one and one-half years. The Social Credit

government has been in power for four and one-half years and they've

done nothing to carry on the program that we started.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Immediately on being elected in 1975....

[ Page

3195 ]

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

Hon. member, there is a point at which a motion under standing order 35

ceases to become other than a speech. The member is asked to explain

briefly what the intent of the motion is and then, as the member is

fully aware, submit the full document to the table. At the point the

member is now, I must advise that we are approaching a speech and a

full debate rather than a brief submission of the points that the

member wishes to raise. Would the member now continue and come to a

conclusion?

(Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I'll conclude by saying that they're understaffed in the

emergency health services. I will send this document to you and I ask

that the emergency debate be considered at this time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Thank you, hon. member. As has been the practice of the Chair, the

matter will be reserved and a decision will be brought back to the

House without prejudicing the member's position.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 193: minister's office, $212,089.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I was just checking one final little note. It may, in the long run,

bring down the government today, but I'm not quite sure about that at

the present time. Mr. Chairman, this debate has been going on for some

time. I and my colleagues have a number of issues to raise with the

minister and the government relating to transportation and highways in

the province.

At this time I wish to introduce a new element

that comes under the jurisdiction and within the administrative

authority of this minister and probably this vote, as Minister of

Transportation and Highways. As everybody in this province is aware, we

generally export raw materials and goods from this province at quite a

great rate, and yet, Mr. Chairman — and I'm going to prove it by the

statements I'm about to make, by introducing a certain number of facts

and figures later on in this discussion.... The point and the questions

and the topic I wish to discuss this afternoon with the minister relate

to the lack of a merchant marine and water transportation in this

province.

Now, Mr. Chairman, before you reach for your mike,

I would like to remind you that I have checked Beauchesne, I have

checked May, I have checked standing orders and I have checked with

other people in this House, and I find that this debate under this

minister's estimate is perfectly in order. If perhaps the fine

gentleman to your left would do a bit of research, he could get the

correct pages in May and Beauchesne for you; but I'm sure he has them

off the top of his head.

In any event, back to the topic.

What we are discussing here this afternoon is the lack of a merchant

marine in the province of British Columbia, and, in fact, this nation

of Canada of which we are all a part. I am demanding today that this

provincial government embark upon a positive course of action promoting

development of a domestic merchant marine under the Canadian flag.

During debate of the Transportation ministry estimates in the

Legislature, he said the cabinet should reverse its present negative

and weak-kneed approach on this matter. In fact, that cabinet and that

government, Mr. Chairman. In my view, have been weak-kneed in this

whole...have not even discussed it, have not even made a serious issue

of this matter when they have engaged in federal-provincial conferences

in Ottawa. I've seen nothing come out of that ministry and government

in this regard.

I hope the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is paying attention. Well, he isn't, as a

matter of fact; but I hope he'll at least read Hansard . Perhaps his secretary could read Hansard

and she could give, him the highlights, because this does involve

federal-provincial relations as well as world-wide trade on the part of

Canada and particularly British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I'm

demanding that this government consider the operation of a British

Columbia-based merchant marine fleet by a very simple policy change.

I'm proposing that, due to the fact that in this province we export

large tonnages of coal, lumber, fish, rock resources in general,

resources of all kinds — usually unfinished products, because,

generally speaking, this government has not embarked upon a policy of

processing our products in this province — where agreements are signed

with off-shore customers, what we should be doing, in my view and in

the view of my colleagues and my party, is that we should, when we sign

those contracts, ensure that a certain percentage of the product and

goods that we sell and send from British Columbia should be sent on

Canadian ships manned by Canadians and built by Canadians in Canadian

shipyards.

I might point out in passing, Mr. Chairman, that

the unemployment rate in the shipbuilding industry in this province,

while it's not the worst it's ever been, as of this morning stood at

about 39 percent. Are you aware, Mr. Chairman. that on the coast of

this province we have some of the most highly trained, highly qualified

people in all of the world — in terms of mariners, from the master

mariners right down to the seamen? We have the technical capability of

constructing vessels in this province. The shipyards generally,

anywhere, are only working, depending on the time of the year, at

between 40 and 60 percent capacity at any one given time.

Yet

what has this government done about it? Has this minister raised his

voice in Ottawa or in cabinet? No, sir, not that I'm aware of. I

haven't heard anything about it. I have a lot of reports from our

federal members of all parties. I have extensive correspondence from

people engaged in the shipbuilding industry, from the people who man

our vessels and from the union, the Canadian Merchant Service Guild,

and from many other organizations. But I've heard not one word from

that government over there. They've been negligent in their duties and

responsibilities to the people of this province and this nation, in my

view. As I stated, this policy could be used to create work for British

Columbia shipyards and seafaring crews if only we had a government that

took an interest.

There's another tack, Mr. Chairman, and that is that we

[ Page 3196 ]

don't

have to say, when we're signing a contract — for instance, I'll just

say it's with Japan on a coal transaction.... We are shipping large

amounts of coal from the southeast sector of this province.

Someday in the future, presumably, if we ever reach $138-per-tonne

coal, we'll be shipping coal from the northeast sector as well. I'm not

saying the signed contract should say that 40 percent, or whatever the

percentage may be, must be shipped in Canadian bottoms. What I'm

suggesting is that where we sign a contract with a foreign firm — in

this case we're discussing coal — we say: "Look, the royalties....

We'll give you just a little better deal on the price of that

product." Just to pick a price of a product out of the air, let's say

it's $85 a tonne. If that resource is shipped on a flag of convenience

from a foreign nation, charge the full $85 per tonne. However, if the

government agrees, we could say: "Look, we'll give you that product

for $83 a tonne, providing you utilize Canadian vessels, manned by

Canadian crews and built in Canadian shipyards." That's one positive

suggestion I'm putting forward from this very responsible and positive

opposition.

I wish to carry on. Let me spend a bit of time on this — not the afternoon, but a bit of time, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, you seemed to have some trepidation at the start. The

debate you're offering is quite in order under the estimates before us.

The only comment I would make to you, though, is that it would be more

in order under vote 204, transportation policy. The Chair will consider

that vote well canvassed when we come to vote 204.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

If I may, just for your edification, I would remind you that it has

been the practice in this House for the last 3,000 years — or is it 113

years? — that we generally discuss the overall items we wish to raise

in this Legislature under the salary vote of the minister. There is a

quiet agreement in this Legislature that we don't recanvass the same

material under the various votes. We don't want to be here till

Christmas, you know, or New Year's or whatever. The fact is, I can tell

you and give you my word as an honourable gentleman of this House, that

I will not recanvass the same material. I'm perfectly in line with the

custom of this Legislature. Thank you for your very good advice, Mr.

Chairman.

Anyway, to carry on, I think this would be an

appropriate time, because we are a constructive opposition.... If

the government members would listen to us, they would be in much finer

political shape in this province today. It is appropriate for me to put

forward a few suggestions at this time which embody the recommendations

and the feeling of the people in my party. We in our party do not

believe that Canadian Pacific, for example, or any other Canadian firm,

should receive subsidies and tax deferrals or that they should register

ships under flags of convenience in order to avoid paying taxes. We in

this party do not support corporate welfare burns, Mr. Chairman.

The federal government would not tell the Canadian public that the

foreign-registered fleets of Canadian Pacific, for example — and other

Canadian firms — are in fact Canadian-owned, because it would likely

prove too embarrassing to them to have to explain that Canada is

subsidizing firms to hire foreign crews and evade Canadian taxes — by

the federal government's own admission. In its published report on the

shipping policy of Canada, a copy of which I have in my possession, at

this point in time there are approximately 111 Canadian-owned ships

registered under foreign flags.

Is the government

now going to tell us that these firms are not evading Canadian taxes

and hiring foreign crews? The government seems to take the attitude

that what the public doesn't know won't hurt it. That, in my view, is

the wrong tack.

Before I continue with these notes I want to

point out that I feel very strongly that this provincial government,

along with every other maritime province in Canada, must take a very

strong position with the federal government, perhaps something along

the line of the Jones Act, where Canadian goods from Canadian ports

must be shipped on Canadian vessels manned by Canadian crews and built

in Canadian shipyards. Further to that, we in our party are fully

prepared to recommend that all Canadian companies owning ships under

flags of convenience register them in Canada, pay Canadian taxes and

employ Canadian crews. That is a proposal that makes eminent good sense

to me.

I was about to say earlier — when I was so rudely

interrupted by my bad memory — that the provincial government must make

strong representation to Ottawa to reintroduce significant and

substantial subsidies to Canadian and British Columbian shipyards to

construct those vessels in this nation. We must make every effort to

have the federal government take an active interest and represent the

best interests of British Columbians abroad, to all of the nations we

deal with. Other nations have the guts and are successful with this

policy.

Do you realize, Mr. Chairman, that at one time

Canada had the third largest merchant navy in the world? As a result of

federal government policy.... I am not blaming the Socreds for this

one, but it is people like this Social Credit government who sold the

Canadian merchant navy down the river. They sold the merchant fleet and

the fine people manning that industry down the river. I'm telling you,

Mr. Chairman — as I did last year and will again this year — this is a

matter of serious and grave concern. If Canada as a nation is to take

its place as a responsible and respectable member in the world trade

markets and world policy-making decisions, then I demand that this

government take a strong stand on this issue starting now. I guarantee

that when the party I represent returns to power, that will be one of

the first acts of that government. We will take that kind of action to

ensure that we have a strong merchant marine based in Canada, and

particularly British Columbia.

This caucus opposes the

assertion of the Minister of Transportation and Highways that Canada

has done well by shipping on foreign-flag vessels and therefore does

not need a Canadian merchant marine for deep-sea shipping. Have you

ever heard such hogwash? The government believes that by shopping on

the world market Canada can get the best transportation deals. But

Canada has not gotten the best deal; we all know that. Every thinking

Canadian on the coast of British Columbia is very well aware of that.

Canada has lost thousands of jobs and federal income tax revenues. It

has suffered a very negative impact on its international balance of

payments by using foreign-flag carriers. The government's policy is

typically one-sided and narrow. It has not considered the impact on

Canadian jobs and the economy as a whole, in my view.

The British Columbia NDP has long supported the creation of a merchant marine for Canada and for British Col-

[ Page 3197 ]

umbia.

We need a fleet of ships built in Canada by Canadians, as I said. Even

Transport Canada's own policy statement, entitled "A Policy Statement

for Canada," admits that a Canadian-flag fleet would help ease

Canada's balance-of-payment problems, would create a shipping industry

responsive to Canadian shipping policies, and could provide additional

work for Canadian shipyards and other marine-related businesses —

peripheral tertiary businesses related to that industry.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

in Canada ended 1979 with an unemployment rate of 7.9 percent. B.C. had

an even more alarming 8.5 percent rate of unemployment at that time.

That figure is approximately the same today. In effect what we are

doing, if we don't pursue an aggressive policy of building up a

merchant marine in this province and this nation, is exporting jobs

from this country and this province.

Without a Canadian flag

fleet, Canada cannot hope to institute the proposals that I have

outlined above for Canadian-flag carriers to handle at least 30 or 40

percent of these operations. As I said, Canada at the moment has the

tenth largest international seaborne trade in the world. Yet what do we

have in terms of vessels?

The federal government, in its

misunderstanding, uncaring attitude, particularly to the maritime

provinces in the area of shipbuilding and merchant marine.... It

distresses me greatly, and genuinely, that all of our governments,

particularly the maritime governments and the federal government, have

not taken more of an interest in this field. One has to ask why. I can

give you some answers and at least some opinions, but I think that

would take the rest of the afternoon. I think everyone associated with

the industry is aware of this.

If you'll pardon me, I've got

a little note here. I'm just reading a little note to myself here.

Nothing to do with these estimates. It was somebody asking me for a

date tonight. I'm sorry, whoever you are, I'm busy.

I have

at my disposal here.... I'm not going to delve at length. One of

the most interesting documents I have is entitled "Marine Transport

Policy for Canada." This program was worked out by provincial and

federal policy committees within our party, particularly in conjunction

with our delegates from maritime provinces, and with certainly highly

trained, interested, technical people who were available. The document

is very lengthy. I originally intended to read the total document into

the record, but I think I've made my point reasonably well without

taking up a great deal of the time of the House. But there are one or

two things dealing with this particular topic that I still wish to

mention.

The master mariners — once again, usually located

in the maritime provinces, with a large contingent in British Columbia

— have agreed with the proposal that I am once again putting forward

today. I won't quote them at length, but they do talk

of the "weak-kneed approach by provincial governments across Canada" —

not only this government in British Columbia. We have not taken an

approach at the federal level for various political reasons — we'll

check the outline in detail; in fact, I have the complete information

before me. We have not pursued an aggressive policy in this regard for

political reasons, which really bothers me a great deal — that is,

certain sellouts, trade-offs and political considerations for certain

large transportation firms operating within Canada today. That's part

of the reason in a nutshell, and that's not good enough. It's not good

enough for me, not good enough for my party, certainly not good enough

for this caucus.

Secondly, the shipbuilding industry in this

province — that major industry in which we have so many qualified

technical people who are capable of constructing any type of vessel

conceivable in the world today, with the possible exception of

nuclear-powered vessels, which we don't want anyway.... Various

people I quote here say the very same thing. I won't quote them or go

into a lot of length, but this is a very recent

article appearing in a

in B.C. Business Magazine for May of this year. They say, of course,

that part of the problem is due to the drop in the Canadian dollar,

inflation rates, etc.; that's part of the reason there's been this

general decline in the shipbuilding industry in Canada. But the fact is

that this very knowledgeable gentleman, Mr. McLaren, says that that is

not the primary reason. These are all factors. The fact is that the

provincial government and primarily the federal government have failed

to pursue a shipbuilding policy in the best interest of Canadians.

That's the underlying story.

Any of these documents I've

quoted from I am willing to make available to the minister, or table if

necessary. The are public documents, all a matter of public record. Mr.

Chairman, I could go on and on. I've been going through this stuff,

gathering material and researching this matter for many months. I'm

personally vitally interested in this matter.

Before I sit

down I do have one or two more items. I just want to give you an

example. The largest owner and operator of vessels.... These are

Canadian vessels owned by a Canadian firm, but based in other countries

for flags of convenience to escape paying decent wages to their crews,

to avoid paying their fair share of taxes to Canada, who in the interim

receive subsidies from the Canadian government and, in some cases, I am

told, from the provincial government in some areas. That company — I am

not going to get too personal — happens to be CP. Canadian Pacific is

making a great point — you watch their television commercials — of

saving: "Canadian Pacific — we travel the world. We do this for you.

We own and operate great hotels. We sail the great oceans," etc. What

they fail to tell you is that they are doing it at the expense of the

Canadian taxpayer and worker. This company — I can name the vessels

because I have every one listed here — operates under flags of

convenience. I'll go through it: the J.V. Clyne , the N.R. Crump based

in Bermuda, you name it — areas where you can get a crew, perhaps, and

a licence to operate a vessel for practically nothing. Great savings to

the company but a great detrimental effect to Canadians. No, I'm not

blaming CP or any other company involved in this transaction. I am

blaming the federal government and this weak-kneed provincial

government here today for allowing this to happen. That is what I am

blaming.

Another matter I wish to raise and bring to the

minister's attention, because he is ultimately responsible for these

matters, is that we now know that the federal government is embarking

upon a destroyer life-extension program because they've been tardy in

constructing new, modern vessels for the safety and welfare of Canada,

to meet its naval commitments. What I am suggesting to the minister

today is that the next time he talks to his federal counterpart in

Ottawa he doesn't ask, but he demands that the fair share of this

destroyer life extension program take place in British Columbia and

that at least half of those destroyers be modernized and refitted here

in British Columbia. We want our fair share, and in this case — I've

thought it through carefully — half is our

[ Page 3198 ]

fair

share. I want to hear the minister get up and say he is going to fight

for us British Columbians for a change instead of selling us down the

tube.

That is not all. The federal government is currently

considering this actively, and will probably in the near future let two

major contracts for the construction of two huge icebreakers to serve

Canada and Canadians. It is a good program; I am totally in favour of

that program. However, as early as this morning in my discussion with

the appropriate people in Ottawa, I find, much to my alarm, that the

federal government is considering constructing both of those ice

vessels, when the contract is let, on the east coast. I love the people

on the east coast, I have nothing against them, and I think it would

help them in every way possible. But I think, as British Columbians,

that government has a responsibility to fight for British Columbians.

If I was sitting on the other side of the House I would demand that one

of those major icebreakers be constructed here in British Columbia by

British Columbia citizens in British Columbia shipyards. That is the

least the federal government can do.

I want to tell you that

I would threaten the federal government a little bit if I were that

minister. I would tell them: "Look, Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Pépin, Mr.

Perrault, if you do not accede to our request we will only elect two

Liberal members east of Winnipeg." That would scare them.

have one or two more points while I have the floor. I know these

estimates are coming to a close. By the end of next week or the week

after we should be through so I might as well get in one or two little

constituency items. To change the topic, I am going to tell the

minister I did appreciate the $1.25 million that was expended on the Sunshine

Coast. Some of the work is in progress now. That was good. It wasn't

enough. It was better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, so

we'll accept that, but there is a great deal more to do.

spoke with the deputy about this briefly. We do have an area of great

concern in my riding revolving around the Gibsons bypass. I know that

the minister's deputy and the minister himself, I understand, have

expressed a willingness to meet with the delegation from the area to

discuss this ongoing problem, which has been a problem ever since I've

been around politics. Hopefully, once and for all he will take some

positive action to resolve that particular problem. I hope the minister

will consider that. You don't have to reply to that, because I've

discussed it with your deputy. He has all the information. A delegation

will hopefully be coming to Victoria shortly, and I hope, Mr. Minister,

you will be able to take 15 or 20 minutes to meet with them after the

debate of these estimates is terminated.

Once again, a great

deal of work was done on Highway 20, which serves my area to Bella

Coola, although most of the road is in the minister's riding. In a

lengthy discussion I had with a number of people in that area yesterday

regarding this topic, they said that for those areas that you did

something about, they thank you, and for those areas which you have

done nothing about, they asked me to get on your back to get with it

and finish the job up there.

One other area is a small

project and I cannot for the life of me understand why the minister

took such a negative attitude toward this little project. Between the

communities of Powell River and Westview — the mill site and the

populated area of Westview — there is a very, very bad, crooked hill

called Willingdon Hill, or Gravel Hill as everybody knows it. I wrote

to the minister and the ministry and I spoke to the municipal people.

It's a real bottleneck, particularly when you consider the construction

work that is now taking place by the MacMillan Bloedel Company. It is

the only link between the mill site and the community. All I requested

— it was a very simple request.... We have paving crews in the area

now, I understand. There was no reason why they couldn't have just

simply said: "Yes, let's do this project." That idea was a simple

bypass, two lanes, so that people could pass. It's much-travelled and

there is very heavy traffic because it is a bottleneck area. It would

do as an interim solution until the highway design program and the

gravel pit are worked out, which may be five to ten years down the road

according to the minister's own people and the municipal planners. It

wouldn't have cost but a few bucks; it would have got you a few

political brownie points. I might have picked up a brownie point or two

myself along the way. We would have accomplished something useful. But

the answer was: "No, we can't do it." That's nonsense. The only things

you can't do are those things you don't want to do. Anything we want to

do, we can do. I can tell you that. So I'm asking the minister quietly

— you don't have to answer this one again. I have your response in

writing already. But I did tell the municipality and the 200 or 300

people who wrote me on this topic that I would raise it in the House. I

have raised it, and perhaps the minister would be good enough to make a

commitment of yes or no. Yes, we're going to spend those few dollars.

After all, by special warrant you are spending hundreds of millions.

Surely you can take just a little bit of a chunk out of those millions

of dollars you are putting in Cariboo and put in a simple bypass while

the paving crews are there anyway.

I have a number of other

items to raise regarding water transportation on the coast of British

Columbia, but I think I'll let that matter go as a number of my

colleagues are expressing a great impatience to ask the minister some

very deep and penetrating questions.

MRS. WALLACE: I

was very interested in the remarks that my colleague for Mackenzie was

making relative to the need for a merchant marine here in British

Columbia. This is a subject matter that certainly relates to far more

people than the minister responsible for transportation and

communication. It is a policy decision that would face all of cabinet.

I've been somewhat shocked as I sit here to find not more than three

cabinet ministers in their places during this debate that relates to a

policy matter that would affect the jobs in British Columbia. Certainly

the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) should be here. The Premier

should be here listening to what we are saying. Mr. Chairman, I move

that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

[ Page

3199 ]

NAYS — 26

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MRS. WALLACE:

While the cabinet is in the House, if the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) would like to respond to the member for Mackenzie I would be

glad to yield to him, because I think we're all interested in his

comments relative to the merchant marine. Are you prepared to answer

now, Mr. Minister?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. FRASER:

I would like to answer a few of the questions posed. To start with I'd

like to go back to answer questions from the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) that were unanswered last evening. The

member asked about the Kilmalu pedestrian overpass on the TransCanada

Highway on the Island. The reply I have here is that the ministry and

school district are studying the whole question of movements to and

from the school for the local area. Crossings of the Trans-Canada

Highway are one element in the study. They expect to be able to make

the necessary decisions in a few weeks.

Regarding the

Koksilah pedestrian overpass, I would like to confirm that the

pedestrian overpass is being designed and will be installed when the

four-laning is completed. The four-laning is being held up by the

railway overpass, which requires a CTC order. They will not issue the

order, as a railway abandonment is still under review.

Regarding

the Malahat passing zones, the suggested signs "No Passing When Traffic

Approaching in Either Lane" were tried in this area and we still had a

bad accident record. Therefore the no-passing zones for downhill

traffic were created. Since these no-passing lines were painted, the

accident record has been good. The comment I have on this is that the

main offenders are the morning commuters, but we did have not only on

the Malahat, but on other parts of the highway system, passing zones on

downgrades and we eliminated some of them, because the engineers felt

it was increasing the accident hazard. That was one area — and I myself

am aware of that area that you point out — but that's the reason that

no passing is allowed — because of a safety measure.

I don't how to respond or where to start and finish with the member for

Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) regarding the merchant marine. I would just like to

say first of all that this government has no intention of promoting in any way

a merchant marine. That could well be wrong but, really, this has always been

stay there. We have our hands very full with the problems we have now on the

Pacific coast regarding ships, and I think we're only asking for further

difficulty by even considering it, so we are not considering that at all.

I'd

like to give a version of the shipbuilding industry to the House. The

Government of British Columbia and the B.C. Ferry Corporation — one or

the other, or both — are the best customers on the Pacific coast. With

we're by far the best customer.

Putting another hat on,

speaking as the chairman of the B.C. Ferry Corporation — and I know it

will go back — we can't get delivery of vessels from them in the agreed

time frame now, and that's a serious item. We have signed contracts, so

I don’t think they're doing too badly. Apparently we're employing them

up to their capacity or over when we can't get delivery of vessels. At

the present time we have two C class vessels under construction. They

have been under construction for 12 months — one in Victoria and one in

Vancouver. Right now they're telling us they don't think they can meet

the delivery dates. Because of our renovation work and building new

vessels. I understand at the present time that the B.C. Ferry

Corporation and the government employ 500 employees on a 12-month basis

in the shipyards. That's been going on for some time and it will

continue to go on. So I think the government of British Columbia and

the B.C. Ferry Corporation are doing more than their share to support

the shipyard industry on the Pacific coast.

Regarding the

subsidy that now exists amounts to about 20 percent of the cost of a

vessel. Our government certainly appreciates that. There were rumours

that that was going to be withdrawn, I believe on June 30, 1980, but

that hasn't happened. I expect it won't happen, but a subsidy comes

I really don't

know what the member for Mackenzie was getting at when he talked about

Canadian Pacific. He was talking about a subsidy. It might be the

Chairman, our government doesn't in any way subsidize the Canadian

Pacific.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: I

it clear that our government, either through B.C. Ferries or the

government of British Columbia.... I'm not aware of any subsidies

that the CPR get, whether it s marine, rail or whatever it is.

When

we talk of CPR, I might say that a policy that we're trying to follow —

and I refer to CP marine — is that our government is trying to develop

a transport policy to keep the private sector in place as well as the

public sector. I think this is a very vital issue in relation to

transportation to Vancouver Island, because, quite frankly, what I'm

saying is that the B.C. Ferry Corporation doesn't want all the business

to Vancouver Island, and we'd like to see the private sector stay in

there. That gives us another option.

The member for

Mackenzie implied that the Social Credit government had sold the

merchant marine down the river. I want to make this abundantly clear

and correct him on that. We've never had a position such as selling

them down the river at all. He was trying to get a little bit

political. The member for Mackenzie is an optimist forever. He said:

"When we return to power...." Well, my remark is that he's

forever an optimist on that.

[ Page 3200 ]

Regarding

employment, I believe the member was trying to say that if the British

Columbia government developed a merchant marine it would create

employment. Well, I guess it would. But I would like to point out to

the committee that through the B.C. Ferry Corporation we now have 2,600

full-time employees in the B.C. Ferries system, and we have 400 in the

Highways ferry system. So we now have 3,000 full-time employees in

water transportation in the province of British Columbia.

The

other irony of the member for Mackenzie's argument about a merchant

marine is that yesterday, when we were on airports, he gave me quite a

lecture to stay away from anything to do with airports. Today he argued

the opposite saying that we should get right into the marine business.

I don't quite follow that rationale.

The last item that he

brought up was the destroyer building program, Mr. Chairman. That

really is a federal matter, as he said. I believe that to get some of

that construction here, the proper place would be to take it up under

the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development. It could well

be that they are already pursuing that. I do know that the private

sector, shipbuilding-wise, are pursuing that business as well.

That

about replies to the member for Cowichan-Malahat and the member for

Mackenzie. I'll probably be able to reply later regarding the Gibsons

bypass. Yes, I've heard about the Gibsons bypass. I'm not so sure that

that's a priority on Highway 101; I doubt it very much. I think the

main road linking the communities is a bigger priority; some of it

needs rebuilding.

The last item he mentioned was the road in

his riding, Highway 20, from the ocean at Bella Coola back 50 miles.

I'd just tell the House that in 1978-79 we spent about $5 million

rebuilding that whole

section of road in the Mackenzie riding and

getting it completely paved. That was all concluded just prior to

snowfall last year.

MRS. WALLACE: I thank the minister for his answers. There were two or three things I wasn't quite clear on.

First

of all, he doesn't speak very good Salish or Cowichan — that's

Koksilah. Am I to understand that that is being held up until the CN

appeal for abandonment is okayed? If that's the case, I understand the

CN has withdrawn its application rather than make public the figures

they were ordered to make public by the CTC, relative to the amounts of

dollars they had in shipment. This can go on forever. It may be 20

years before that's resolved. I hope he's not saying that he's not

going to put in that Koksilah overpass until that time. Certainly the

four-laning is now within a stone's throw of the location of the

proposed Koksilah overpass: the proposed site is between the railway

crossing and where the highway is now four-laned. So it would be very

simple to finish that and get that overpass in without waiting for what

may be an interminable amount of time. It is critical to have that in.

I'm glad you're reviewing the one down in the Shepherd-Kilmalu. When

you get that decision, I hope that within a couple of weeks you will

let me know what the decision is.

I was also interested that

the accident statistics had improved on the Malahat since the solid

line was put in. I wonder if the minister would be good enough to let

me have those statistics privately. I would like to have them to pass

on to my constituents who have raised this problem.

One

point that wasn't touched on was my concern about the 90 km/h test

zones. I'm wondering why those zones were chosen. Is it intended to

make that permanent because of the very peculiar nature of the Island

highway?

I asked for some clarification as to whether this

report for 1978-79 made any division of funds relative to the proposed

redistribution between Cowichan-Malahat and Nanaimo. I gather that

that's not the case. That didn't become effective until April 3, after

this report was issued. That's correct; it wasn't included. For those

reasons, because it isn't that, I am wondering why in fact we have

things like this $4.50 that I talked about and a couple of $1 items

charged to Cowichan-Malahat, when in fact it would cover for the whole

year. Even more, I'm wondering why in the Nanaimo district we have a

dollar for the Cowichan Lake road and a dollar for Chemainus road

widening; they certainly weren't in the Nanaimo area. Even more, I'm

wondering how any money at all for the Thetis Island ferry terminal was

charged to Nanaimo.

The books seem to be in a very bad state

of disrepair. It makes me a bit incredulous about the other figures,

when I find those kinds of obvious apparent errors. I'm wondering if

the minister would at least clarify in writing to me at a later date —

if not on the floor of the House — just what in the world has gone on

with those accounting figures. They seem very strange.

Just

before I put this book aside, I would like to deal with the item on

page 159 which talks about the air services branch. You show the

various planes which the government has. You list the flying hours for

each of them: it comes to a total of of 5,879.6 flying hours.

Looking

down under the various subdivisions, it talks about air ambulance

flight time — 528.6 hours; air ambulance transfer — 442.1 hours; aerial

photography — 739 hours. When I add them up I get a total of 1,309.7

hours, which leaves 4,569.9 hours unaccounted for. I'm wondering if

the minister will tell the House where in excess of 4,500 hours were

spent; they're not accounted for anywhere here that I can see. If I've

missed something, I'm sorry.

From that table there seems to

be in excess of 4,500 hours flying time unaccounted for in your report.

Because this is a rather sensitive area and a very expensive one, I

think the minister should explain to the House just where those hours

were spent in actual flying time.

I want to deal just

briefly — and advise the minister — with the kinds of problems that

have occurred in connection with the double-bridging that has taken

place. He informed the House earlier that this wasn't going to be done

under this budget; it was going to be done under Bill 7, I think it

was; but certainly it is his responsibility. He will remember, I think,

that at one time he and I were in Ladysmith together and he commented

to me about the terrible conditions at the Chemainus River, and that he

was going to do something about it. And he certainly did do something

about it. He got it much more passable, because the one bridge was

closed off and it was much better. It was fixed up very shortly after

that. It might be of interest to the minister to know, if he's not

already aware, that it is only within the last couple of months — and

it was a long time ago that we were in Ladysmith — that that has been

completed.

At the same time that this has been going on,

just south of Duncan, in a very congested traffic area, on the Cowichan

River...and that's been completed even more recently. It has been a

total disaster while that particular bridge was being installed. One of

the things that made it so difficult for people trying to travel that

area was the fact that there were

[ Page

3201 ]

three different departments under the ministry involved in doing work there.

There

was one group of people doing the bridge. They would set up certain

programs and certain traffic controls. At the same time, the people who

were doing the approaches would, with no consultation whatsoever, set

up certain programs to put in the approaches, which meant additional

traffic controls. Of course, there's a stop-and-go light there as well,

which normally stops the traffic coming out onto the highway. That

light eventually was switched to a flashing light only, because along

with these two crews a third crew went in and took out a bridge on

Allenby Road, which was the only alternate route to use while the other

road was being fixed. We had a shemozzle. It was right at

Christmastime. People waited for half an hour just to get into the line

of traffic. It was just a total disaster.

It's over and it's

done with. There are complaints. I know I have forwarded one complaint

from a local merchant. That was during last summer. The access to his

restaurant was completely blocked for hours. The stores that are behind

the red and green light are contemplating putting together a

dollar-and-cents package, to try and get some compensation from

Highways because of the drop-off in their businesses as a result of

this unprecedented kind of delay and accumulation of a great many areas

of roadwork all being undertaken at once.

What I'm

suggesting to the minister is.... I know he can't do anything about

improving that one at this time, but I hope that in future, when such

projects are being undertaken, he will make some move to ensure that

the various jobs are coordinated so that you don't have those kinds of

traffic congestion.

The only thing that I'm glad of is that

there were no serious accidents — there were a lot of minor accidents,

but there was no loss of life — particularly at Christmastime when

there were no lines visible, just nothing there. I'm thankful that

there was no loss of life. But I hope that the minister will, next time

he has a project like that underway. make sure that the various work

groups coordinate their activities.

Of course, the minister

knows I'm concerned about what has happened on the Cowichan Lake road.

I started to talk about that last night, and the fact that the pavement

was torn up and left. The local people had to go in and re-pave, and

the number of accidents that occurred there with glass damage — not

just glass damage.... The ministry finally did come through and do

some repairs for glass damage. At first it was a bit difficult to get,

and the problem is that there was no public announcement of this. You

go into Youbou and every other car has a broken windshield. When I said

to them, "Well, you know, you could have had it replaced," they would

say: "We didn't know that." Unfortunately, there was no public

announcement made. The requests had to be in within 30 days, I think

the time was, or they weren't considered.

There was a lot

more than glass damage. The classic case in point was the chap who had

a brand-new car. He bought it in Duncan, drove it up over that road and

found that his paint was completely pock-marked. That was thrown out

because it wasn't considered.... So he had that loss.

Now

there's a lot of confusing evidence as to whether or not the road was

properly posted. The ministry says there were warning signs up.

Unfortunately, I didn't drive that road just at that specific time, so

I can't vouch for whether there were or were not. But there are a great

many of my constituents who drive that road every day and who maintain

that the signs were very unevident, and that you were onto the thing

before you ever saw them.

That has now been completed and

it's a good job. I thank the minister for what he's done there. It's a

nice job now, but the problems that occurred in having it done were a

bit disastrous. Also, the fact that paving equipment which was promised

faithfully by the local Highways people to go to the Cowichan Bay area

to do the paving required there as soon as the Lake Cowichan road was

completed was a promise that fell by the board. The equipment was taken

over to the mainland. I think the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) fell heir to that equipment for roads in his area. In the

meantime we have a very bad situation on the Cowichan Bay road right in

the middle of the tourist season. I understand the minister has

indicated that that will be completed by August 1 or thereabouts, but I

would certainly like his assurance that it won't be any later than

that, so that we can at least have half the summer season to have that

road in shape. It is a very bad time to be paving a road like the

Cowichan Bay road — in the middle of the tourist season. It should

certainly have been completed in early June or else done early in the

previous fall so it would have been ready to go, because that does

deter tourists from going in there. The Cowichan Bay people have been

having sufficient difficulties with the various other things that have

been going on in the Cowichan Bay area, which makes everything very

uncertain at this point in time.

I would like to deal very

briefly with the ferries, particularly the Mill Bay–Brentwood Bay

ferry. What are the plans for its future? Are there any thoughts of

discontinuing or rerouting that ferry? Also I suggest to the minister

that the

schedule should be reviewed to make it more appropriate for

people who commute, and for people who would otherwise use that ferry.

I have missed that ferry every time I've tried to catch it when I'm

coming off the ferry at Swartz Bay. It cuts a great many miles off my

route home if I can catch that ferry but I've given up trying because

the schedules don't jibe. You simply can't get off a ferry at Swartz

Bay — even if it's right on time — and get to Brentwood Bay in time to

catch the ferry to Mill Bay. It means you have an hour or two wait so

you may as well drive around. I think if those ferry schedules could be

coordinated a bit better the ferry would get a lot more use.

There

was some talk, at one time, of rerouting one B.C. Ferries ferry to

somewhere in the Hatch Point–Cherry Point area — having one run from

there, and perhaps having the Brentwood ferry come into that area

rather than into Mill Bay. There was also talk of having maybe one

ferry a day, or a couple of ferries a week — the B.C. Ferries — come

into that same dock if that kind of facility were put in. I know that

study was being undertaken because I was interviewed about the

possibilities there. I'm wondering whatever happened to that because

that was quite a while ago. I'm wondering whether it's still under

active consideration.

The final thing which I have, which is

a very minor one, is a letter from the minister assuring me that the

name the Queen of Chemainus will be considered for a future ferry. I'm

wondering whether that name consideration is still active and whether

or not it has been decided that one of the ferries will be named the

Queen of Chemainus .

MR. HALL: I first of all want to say that I've been enjoying the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and

[ Page 3202 ]

Highways.

It says a lot for the province when you consider that for all these

hours we've been dealing with a huge department ranging from waterborne

traffic to bridges and highways, showing what a complex and difficult

terrain the minister has to deal with. For that I think the whole

ministry has to receive some congratulations in grappling with those

problems. While we're offering criticism on the basis of some of the

things we find as MLAs among constituents, we realize that oftentimes

the response will be one of priority listing and availability of money.

The only time, I think, that we as MLAs will perhaps get a little bit

short about it is when we see some apparent bad administration and bad

decision-making on the part of the cabinet and the ministry itself. I

think that the estimates so far have shown a great deal of

understanding on the part of the MLAs and of the officials in the

problems that are facing us in a very complex situation.

Let

me then deal, if I may, just briefly with two or three points on the

ferries — very small points, but ones which I've often wondered about.

I suppose one could deal with these by correspondence, but oftentimes

you put these in your file to deal with during estimates. First of all,

one thing came up while the estimates have been going on. That was when

I was returning to Victoria on Monday morning. I happened to be queuing

up in the news-stand for my morning Province — not a very worthwhile

endeavour, I might add, to queue up for a Monday Province .... Of

all the Provinces produced, certainly the Monday one is probably the

least worthwhile one to queue up for. But I happened to notice I was

standing next to a chief steward who was on leave. He was obviously on

a busman's holiday. He was on the ferries although he was on holiday.

Then I talked to a chief steward who was on duty and I said: "What on

earth is going on? Why are 40 people queuing up in an area that could

only humanly contain some ten people at best to buy a 25-cent

newspaper?" I wasn't passing any value judgment on the 25 cents for the

Province . They said: "Because we only used to get 30 percent of the

revenues in the honour box."

If that is true — and I have

no reason to doubt for one second that I was getting anything but the

honest truth — and if in fact the ferries are only getting 30 percent

of what they were supposed to be getting in terms of revenue from those newspaper sales

out of an honour box, I think that should have been publicized and I

think somebody should have been prosecuted in terms of straightforward

theft of an

article in the normal commercial way. That doesn't relieve

us from the responsibility to do something about distributing a

newspaper on all the sailings per day, when we are trying to buy a

newspaper, queuing up for it and paying somebody over $1,000 a month to

sell a 25-cent newspaper. I just think somebody's going to have to come

up with a better idea than that, and I do suggest that if you haven't

already come up with it, surely to goodness we have somebody in our

ferry fleet that can.... Or else let the Province and the Sun come up with the idea. What we are doing now is, with the greatest respect, not very sensible.

have a second point on the ferries. I know that the tendency is towards

smaller and more compact cars, but as the owner of a larger car, for

more than the obvious reasons, it seems to me that one of the things

you are going to be faced with is when two large cars go on the

mezzanine floor you will always get somebody who is a little bit less

than pleased about it. I can't understand why, when the mezzanine

floor's ramps are lowered, the loading officials can't put import or

compact cars up the ramp as they are loading and put larger cars on the

basic deck until at least one line of cars have been loaded on the

mezzanine floor. That would in effect give you much more room on the

mezzanine floor. I don't see why that can't be done. It surely to

goodness would be only a matter of waving one car on with your right

hand and one car with your left hand. I don't suggest, by any stretch

of the imagination, that I am a traffic policeman but I would have

thought that could be done.

The last point on the ferries is

one which I have a certain vested interest in, as Mr. Gallagher will

know. Why on earth have you changed the name of the Queen of Surrey to

the Queen of the North ? Isn't that going to jinx the boat or something?

How many times can you change a boat's name? That ship, when

recommissioned, was renamed the Queen of Surrey . I can understand their

changing the name from Stena Danica to the Queen of Surrey , but why

change it from the Queen of Surrey to something else? If I don't get an

answer to that question, you are going to get a letter from my wife.

I've got the picture of her throwing the bottle of champagne at the

sharp end, and she is rather upset, Mr. Minister, so I really would like

an explanation of that.

May I now turn to something a lot

more serious than the last question. I engaged in correspondence with

the minister, starting some eight months ago, regarding truck safety.

When the minister first arrived here in 1969, following the resignation

of one of the Attorneys-General of the previous government, he will

remember that from time to time I, as an opposition member, used to

talk about commercial transport, truck safety and minimum commercial

safety standards very frequently. I was very concerned and I wrote to

him about certain happenings on our highways and investigations that he

was dealing with. He was good enough to respond to me and tell me that

he would keep me posted on certain investigations. He has kept me

posted on one. I've not been posted too recently, but that's not the

point of my conversation.

Interestingly enough, when he

found out, earlier on this year, that some 80 percent of the trucks he

had seen travelling the B.C. highways were defective, I was already in

possession of the information from last year based on some research I

was doing with the Washington State Patrol with Governor Dixie Lee

Ray's office and other areas which indicated that that kind of figure

was going to be the figure that he would find out. May I apprise the

House of some of those kinds of figures? We all know what the figures

said when the Highways minister of British Columbia announced that 80

percent of the trucks were defective and some of them should have been

and were ordered off the road. The Highways minister was suspicious and

asked for overloads, mechanical safety, load security and so on to be

checked.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair, ]

If we go

back to last year we'll find that in September we could have foreseen

that kind of situation in reports that were available. According to the

intergovernmental surveys and correspondence that go through the

minister's office from the state of Washington, nation-wide figures

from the federal Department of Transportation were indicating that the

incidence of defective equipment in truck accidents was growing in

Washington state. The Washington State Patrol, along with the utilities

and transportation commission, had been working for safer trucks

through intensive inspection programs. Their findings have been

startling.

[ Page

3203 ]

In May 1979 an inspection found that 185 out of 296 units were defective —

severely enough to require them to be taken out of service. An inspection in

the Kennewick area in July took 154 units off the highways until repairs could

be made, and during the past week — this is the week of September 8 — an inspection

at the federal weighscale resulted in 103 arrests out of 156 units inspected.

One of the arrests involved a flatbed truck loaded with twelve 500-gallon containers

of chlorine gas. That also links up with another problem that the minister was

looking into regarding dangerous loads.

What

we're dealing with here is some method of inspection of commercial

vehicles, because I know that we will be an exact reflection of what

happens in the United States. Indeed the kinds of defective equipment,

lack of a maintenance program and lack of supervision that we've seen,

which I've referred to before in speeches, takes place in this country

just as it takes place in the States. We don't have in this country or

this province the kind of inter-commerce inspection levels that they

have there, although theirs are obviously now becoming inadequate

compared to what they used to be some years ago.

As witness,

the report I have from Colonel Landon, the chief of the Washington

State Patrol, says, for instance, that traffic accidents involving

heavy trucks claimed 4,624 lives in 1978 — a 40 percent increase since

1975 in the United States. Last year heavy truck-related deaths

accounted for almost 10 percent of the 50,000 traffic fatalities. It's

my contention, Mr. Minister, that that will be scaled down to equal, on

a 10 percent basis, the kind of figures that we will see in British

Columbia.

I don't want to take up the time in the House by

reading all of this correspondence. I'll certainly pass it on to you if

you're interested. We're dealing with the kinds of fatalities, things

going wrong, defects, and things that they're finding out in their

inspection and it means that we have to set into operation the kind of

inspections that they have. I'd like to hear from you what your

investigations have shown and what kinds of inspection you think should

take place either at our weighscales or at some suitable point on our

highways in British Columbia. If you look at a map of British Columbia,

it seems to me that if we could set up five points in British Columbia

in which we would supervise some 90 percent of all the commercial

traffic, we'd be able to check 90 percent of all the commercial traffic

that would be on the highways and byways of British Columbia.

I don't know what the cost is of a program such as that. That is one of

the difficulties of this kind of research — trying to work out the cost. However,

I do think that we should be very leery of putting too much weight on the kind

of a cost — looking at cost problems in terms of safety and lives. I call upon

the minister to continue with more vigour and, frankly, more public....

I don't want to use the word ''openness," because that would

suggest that the minister isn't an open person and I believe he is, but

to certainly continue with a pragmatic development of this kind of plan and

research. Because I think there's been a myth for some years about the safety

of commercial vehicles and commercial drivers. I hope I'm not offending

any of my teamster colleagues or anybody else by saying that that is a myth.

Anybody who has driven as many miles as, I'm sure, the minister has would

agree with me that it's a myth. I trust that he would take my advice for

what it's worth by making this one of his strongest personal points — to

make sure that those things are done.

want to carry on by telling him I've also done a lot of research into

traffic and highway fatalities in urban areas — a very unpleasant

subject, a terrible subject, and one which I'm forced to do because I

happen to represent Surrey, an area which has got one of the worst

records in the country, one which seems to be cursed by this kind of

traffic problem, along with its adjoining neighbours in the western

part of Langley and north Delta and, to a certain extent, the

approaches from Burnaby–New Westminster.

Mr. Minister, there

is not a weekend that goes past — and I think the Chairman would join

me in saying this — without us hearing of some young people in our area

being killed in Surrey and Delta, through misadventure and sometimes

stupidity. One is very hesitant to use words in a pejorative sense like

that, but one can only use those words, because often it's speed in the

wrong place; sometimes, of course, alcohol is involved; but more

frequently it's just what I can only consider to be incredibly bad

driving behaviour, discourteous behaviour, stupid behaviour. And at the

time of night when you would wonder...sometimes, as the years pass

and we all get a little older, you wonder why on earth three or four

cars are out speeding through those areas of Delta and Surrey.

don't have any magic solutions. You know, Mr. Minister, because you

have made your home not that many miles away from Prince George, they

had some success with the program in Prince George. I'm told that that

program is transportable; I'm told it's being resisted by some areas,

and I don't know why. I would like to see you, along with your

colleague who is the minister for ICBC, the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt), have another look at that program and try to involve

both the motor vehicle branch and ICBC in a revival of that program.

have a suggestion to make. I believe that the vehicle pounds, the

places where vehicles which are involved in accidents are taken —

either the ICBC compounds or the municipal compounds which accept these

wrecked cars — should be the subject of tours by students, by people

involved in accidents, by people who get 10 or 15 points. I think it's

a very salutary experience to be taken around and shown the last five

cars that had five fatalities involved in an accident at the junction

of No. 10 Road and 136th Street, and a fire and four deaths on a

Saturday night — that's happened twice in Surrey in the last 15 months.

Maybe that's what we should do.

Maybe we should look at some

of our highway engineering. I, for the life of me — and I can't blame

the Minister of Highways — don't know why we have a 40-mile-an-hour

speed zone at four-way intersections, uncontrolled intersections. I

just don't understand it. That's not your fault; that's municipal. I

know I'm making the right speech in the wrong place. but I'm not too

sure how you can carry on with those kinds of complications.

But I do know that if we start somewhere with a kind of safety program or preventive maintenance program.... On

the commercial side of it, we can get hauled off, because of our

licences, the Motor Carrier Commission, because of our inspection

facilities, and all the rest of it. It may slowly trickle down. If we

can get some of that Carnage program, or whatever it's called — I

forget the exact names; the minister will remember; I think one of our

members made a speech about it not too long ago.... Have a look at

that and get that revived. Do some work, as I say, by looking at some

of these vehicle pounds and some of those disincentives perhaps; that

may be a way of looking at it.

[ Page 3204 ]

I'm

very concerned over the fact that we seem to be accepting the death

toll on our highways with equanimity. If somebody dies of a disease, we

get very upset; but if we hear of somebody who dies in a road accident,

we accept it as almost inevitable and we accept it with calmness. "Oh,

a road accident," you say, "oh, well," and then you carry on working.

Mr. Minister, as I said in a speech earlier this year, if we'd had the

number of fatalities and the number of serious accidents on a mile of

airstrip that we've had on the mile that contains within it the

Pattullo Bridge, we'd have had headlines three inches high in our daily

newspapers. We accept the fatalities and the road accidents on the

Pattullo Bridge with.... It doesn't even faze us; we listen and all

we do is go a different way home. I implore you to make this your

number one.... This is what you should be remembered for — not for

another speedway through Creston, not as another blacktop minister;

we've had one of those already, Mr. Minister, and he'll be remembered

for that, the minister from Kamloops, 1952 to 1972, the blacktop

minister. I would prefer to remember this minister as the minister who

made our highways safe, I really would — and I mean that as seriously

and sincerely as I can.

Let me now move to some local

issues. They're local in the sense that they're the kinds of things you

have to deal with in terms of correspondence. May I ask you distinctly

and particularly, regarding the King George Highway — for the excellent

attention to which I thank you, as all members do. When you started

work in April 1979, I immediately put my signs up, saying: "Look at all

the work; there must be an election coming." My four-by-eight plywood

signs went up almost as fast as your first men were working. I think

that's why we got fifty-fifty results: one member over there and one

member over here. Be that as it may, you proceeded with the King George

Highway with remarkable speed. I want to congratulate the contractor.

He must have made a fortune out of it because he had such a good run at

it; he never had a day's stoppage. It was probably the best contract he

ever signed. May I ask you now what the final funding arrangements have

been regarding (

a) landscaping and (

b) street lighting? That's question

number one. My municipality is still curious.

My second

question, Mr. Chairman — to the minister and then to his staff — is

about the crosswalks at the intersection of 96th Avenue and 176th

Street. We're having a lot of trouble with the parent-teacher

association and the school, trying to get a safe situation for school

children. What is the latest situation at 96th Avenue and 176th Street?

My next question: what is your latest information on safe loads as distinct from safe trucks?

last question: what are the basic highway engineering standards the

engineers are using for exit and entrance lanes? It seems to me that on

all the cloverleafs, exit ramps and entrance ramps on our older

highways we have not allowed enough room to decelerate and accelerate.

In some areas you seem to be extending those lanes. I can think of one,

where the King George Highway comes onto Highway 499. What is the basic

policy? Are you improving them all, or are you picking them out one by

one? What is happening? I think that is where a lot of the trouble lies

with Highway 401 and with the Deas Island throughway north of the

tunnel.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the Minister of

Highways regarding his position as director of the Urban Transit Authority.

There is a golden opportunity to prove the efficacy of rail transit in this

province by making use of the Canadian Pacific Railway system that traverses

the constituency of Dewdney, particularly, as I mentioned, from Mission to Vancouver.

There has been great debate on whether or not the rail system is more efficient

than the bus system. By all reports, the weight of evidence is that rail will

carry more people and will get more automobiles off the road than the bus system

could ever do. Apparently the bus system's maximum input is about 40 percent

of the traffic involved.

Mr.

Chairman, I would like to read from a report referred to as the

"Northeast Sector Commuter Rail Feasibility Study." Without going into

great detail in this report, I would like to bring to your attention,

and for the minister's consideration, item 4(2) on page 11: "For the

conventional bus option, it is assumed that transit's share of the

market will remain at a projected level of 40 percent."

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, a member has questioned the quorum.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a quorum. At this time, hon. member, I count ten members in the chamber.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

The report goes on to state: "The commuter rail option would provide

greatly improved reliability and comfort compared to conventional

buses, in which case the model shift from auto to transit may occur."

That's an important point; it's what we're all after: to get the

travelling public moving on transit systems. That's something buses

cannot do, because each time a bus fills up with 40 passengers, we

require another bus. I would like to bring to the minister's attention

that this is the problem with buses. Today on the Barnet highway, which

is one of the corridors, buses are already creating congestion, which

defeats the purpose of transit. This must be considered as an ultimate

factor in the testing of rail efficiency.

I will go further

and refer to what the report refers to on page 29 as economic

efficiency. It says this: "In parallel with energy consumption, the

rail option becomes more efficient with increasing ridership, as the

marginal cost for adding capacity is comprised mainly of the cost of

extra passengers. The bus option, on the other hand, requires an extra

driver for each bus added. Thus the marginal cost of capacity expansion

remains near constant in real terms."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Now

it will always be an unending argument: which is the best system? To me

it seems obvious that the rail system is the best. But how do you prove

this point? Mr. Chairman, this is how you prove it. The rails are

there. Instead of spending many millions of dollars in creating a new

railway corridor on the south side of the river into Vancouver, we

already have a rail corridor to Vancouver in the Dewdney area. We have

a growing municipality, in Mission, Maple Ridge, Coquitlam and in the

Barnet area, and there the test can be made at very little cost. What

we require then are merely the vehicles — the transit cars. Budd cars,

or whatever they call them, could be used. This would be a factual

test. Instead of talking of spending millions of dollars on rail,

[ Page

3205 ]

monorail,

all these various kinds of rail, rights-of-way and tunnels, here is a

railway that is there. The CPR have already indicated their

consideration of such a.... And the report says that CPR has

accepted the probability of a test.

Here we have an area

where 50 percent of the workers move to the city every day,

whereas on

the south side of the river the number is 40 percent. I suggest to the

minister that here is an excellent opportunity that should not be

missed and that could be done now, and could establish the efficacy of

transit systems by rail. Everything is there.

Now

consideration has been given to the system running from Coquitlam to

Vancouver alone. This would defeat the purpose of the test. The test

must run the entire 40 miles to discover what the acceptance would be.

I predict that it would be tremendously accepted, and I suggest to the

minister that we have no delay in getting it started and having test

runs made.

Such a little cost to prove so much! Tunnels are

talked about, monorails, new rails, new rights-of-way — all these

millions of dollars of expense beyond consideration, beyond the ability

of this province to sustain today, because you do not know what effect

it will take, but here's a railway that can be established and prove

its efficacy. It's so simple, and at such little cost. I recommend

sincerely that this be tried immediately.

MR. LEA: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 26

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. GABELMANN: In continuing the discussion on the estimates of the

Minister of Highways, I would just like to say that one of the things that's

important to members of the opposition at the time they're discussing estimates,

and discussing problems in their own constituencies and throughout the province,

is to have the attention of the government. We have had the attention of the

Minister of Transportation and Highways; he's been very faithful in attending

during his estimates. But we know, and he knows, that for many of the proposals

we make to receive serious consideration and approval it requires cabinet decision-making.

We therefore wish and hope that members of the cabinet would stay in the House

during the estimates.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'm

not that concerned about backbenchers on the government side: if they

choose to work in their offices I'm not that concerned. But during the

estimates of this ministry and others I would hope that cabinet members

would see it as their duty to be here in this House. I have a lot of

confidence in the Minister of Transportation and Highways and his

ability to persuade his colleagues in cabinet, but I would like them

also to hear us when we present the problems that we have in our areas.

so that they know when you go to cabinet with presentations that they

come from some serious comments made by members of the Legislative

Assembly and that they are important, that it's not just the member for

Cariboo who's making the presentation, but in fact many other members

as well. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I find it pretty disgraceful that

cabinet minister after cabinet minister leaves this chamber. We had

them all in here a few minutes ago: now we're down to a handful again.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I call all hon. members to order, and I will remind the

member for North Island that we are discussing the estimates of the

Minister of Transportation and Highways. Debate must be relevant and

pertain to that ministry.

MR. GABELMANN: There are a

number of concerns that I want to express to the minister and his

cabinet colleagues this afternoon. First of all I want to thank the

minister for the way in which he relates to personal requests for

meetings about emergency problems in constituencies. Frankly, his

record on that matter is much better than most of his colleagues. I

want to say that I hope in the next few days we will be able to solve

the problem that I raised on Thursday last concerning the roads in

Tahsis. I won't say anything more about that this afternoon.

think that during these estimates the important thing for us to do is

to lay out to the government and to the minister concerned what the

problem is and needed solutions are in the particular constituencies.

When the cabinet is considering next year's budget and its budget in

years after that, they need to have some indication of what the

concerns are around the province. I would like to use this opportunity

to give the House my assessment of the highways and transportation

priorities in the northern part of Vancouver Island for the next few

years. Aside from the Tahsis situation I would say there is one

particular matter that requires immediate and urgent attention. There

are a whole variety of other matters that require attention over the

next few years.

One that requires immediate and urgent

attention was mentioned a few days ago in the House by the member for

Comox (Ms. Sanford). The minister knows I'm talking about the bypass

from south of Nanaimo through to north of Campbell River. I drive that

road every week and even allowing for the extra traffic in the summer

the road is absolutely disgrace-

[ Page 3206 ]

ful.

The urgent need for an immediate start on that bypass is long overdue.

Some of us now who learn how to drive the Island Highway in fact are

finding our own little bypasses here, there and everywhere. I found one

just north of Qualicum that takes me down to the Port Alberni bypass,

rejoining the Island Highway at the intersection south of Parksville,

using back roads.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gee, I'm glad I stayed in the House to hear that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Boy, that's heavy stuff! For $29,000 a day, that's real heavy stuff.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will all hon. members please come to order. The member for North Island has the floor.

MR. GABELMANN:

The first member for Surrey criticizes me for raising what he considers

to be not serious stuff. I am talking about a problem that causes

deaths in this province. People are dying on this island because the

road isn't good enough and the member says it's not serious stuff. It's

a typical response from that government, showing their lack of concern

for serious issues in this province, the fact that they don't care. He

should be the second member for Surrey. They don't care about serious

issues; they don't care about highway fatalities; they don't care about

people's lives.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Rubbish!

MR. GABELMANN: All you care about is your million-dollar fortunes.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You haven't done a positive thing in your life. Negative socialist!

MR. GABELMANN: It makes me pretty tired. I hope, Mr. Chairman, you'll shut that member up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will all hon. members please come to order. The member for North Island.

MR. GABELMANN:

I'm talking about, as the member for Surrey would say, a trail through

the bush. I am just simply pointing out that many of us try to avoid

driving the Island Highway because it is so bad. The need for a bypass

is probably more urgent in this case than in any other part of the

province. I, like the minister and member for Mackenzie (Mr.

Lockstead), have driven most of the roads of this province and I would

suggest that that is the most urgent need. It applies not just in

Nanaimo and Courtenay but also between Courtenay and Campbell River.

won't say anything more about that now. I would hope the minister would

be able to answer the question of the member for Comox about some date.

I appreciate you've got a study. I appreciate the concern that that

demonstrates, but we must speed up the process. Enough about the bypass.

In considering Highways ministry programs over the next few years, I hope the

ministry staff will have a look at the problem we have between Gold River and

Tahsis, 42 miles of logging road which is maintained, as the minister noted

the other day, by money from the Highways ministry. There is a simple 18-mile

route out to the main highway via Woss Lake — not as high, not the same kind

of snow problems, not as many bridges. When the day comes to paving the road

from Gold River to Tahsis, as the Tahsis Company wants you to do, you are talking

about paving 42 miles of bad logging road with many bridges which need to be

upgraded. It would be much more sensible to build a new road, much of which

is already constructed, from the community of Tahsis out to Woss via Woss Lake.

That is a much shorter route and much cheaper in the long run and one the ministry

should consider. I'm not suggesting you consider it for next year's

estimates or anything like that, but as part of long-term planning I think that

is an important consideration.

The

member for Mackenzie raised earlier questions relating to airports. One

of the problems, apart from airports themselves, is access to airports.

There is a continuing problem in Campbell River about the

responsibility for the road from the Island Highway to the airport. Who

looks after it? Does the province look after it, does the municipality

look after it or does the federal government? I know that the Air

Transport Assistance Program is available from the federal government

but I would urge that the ministry take some immediate action to get

together with that branch of the federal government and with the people

in the municipal government in Campbell River and do something about

the terrible state of that several-mile road up to the airport in

Campbell River. It is causing a great deal of distress, particularly to

people who have to drive it every day. Their automobiles just cannot

stand the pounding that occurs on that particular section.

Just

to go through a list of concerns that have been raised in my

constituency, I know there is some work progressing on the problem with

the bridge over the Campbell River. It is a two-lane bridge that is

absolutely insufficient to handle the traffic, particularly during

shift changes at the Elk Falls pulp mill. I appreciate that some

realignment is going on, but that won't solve the immediate problem of

there not being enough lanes across the river. I would urge that in

consideration of the bypass, if the ministry is able to determine at

which point on the river that bypass will eventually cross — and I

think you are fairly close to determining that — perhaps that

section

of the road could be started earlier than other sections. Rather than

trying to funnel more of that traffic into downtown Campbell River and

building another bridge parallel to the one that now exists, it might

make more sense to move it up to the eventual bypass route and put the

bridge in up there. I urge that some consideration be given to such a

method of solving that particular problem.

On another issue,

I want to thank the minister for putting in the extra Highways ferry

over to Quadra Island. That has been very well received by residents of

Quadra Island. One of the inevitable problems — we have discussed this

in other contexts — with adding either more lanes or more ferries is

that you generate more traffic just because you add the service. There

is no question that has happened to Quadra Island. People are taking

their cars on the ferry when they might ordinarily have walked. I

acknowledge that as a problem. Nevertheless, the problem was so bad

with one ferry and it is so much better with two.

The

ministry has said they are going to build a new ship and have one

vessel on that particular route. I would urge you not to do that. I

would urge you to spend that money somewhere else. The solution

proposed by the ministry would have the result of dumping too much

traffic into downtown Campbell River all at once in a very bad

location. It would

[ Page

3207 ]

cause a number of other problems. First of all, the frequency of

service is reduced by one-half. The fact that we now, in most parts of

the day, can travel every half hour is very much appreciated. I would

urge you not to give up on that particular part of the service.

There

are a variety of other reasons why the two ships work out. There was

some fear of crossing in that narrow channel. I think the skippers will

tell you that is not a problem. I would urge you to keep the present

solution.

I wouldn't suggest that you run the two ships all

winter. I don't think that is necessary. One is enough in the winter.

Your suggested close-down date of, I think, September 7 for the second

vessel is too early. The tourist season on Quadra lasts well into

October. Thanksgiving is probably a more reasonable close-down date for

that second vessel. I would urge that that be given as serious

consideration as possible. Perhaps we can talk later about that

suggested date.

I want to say a couple of other things. I

will leave the safety question to last and deal with one other matter

first. In my constituency — and I guess it is true of a lot of coastal

constituencies — a lot of people work Monday to Friday out in logging

camps. In fact, I would say in my riding there are 4,000 or 5,000 such

people, when the logging industry is working at full bore, working in

various logging camps. When they come out they come out on weekends.

Quite a number of them have drivers' licences which expire while they

are in camp. When they come out on weekends they can't renew their

drivers' licences. I have had a series of complaints about that,

because the offices aren't open on weekends.

I appreciate

that it is not just the Ministry of Transportation and Highways — it is

also the Provincial Secretary inasmuch as the public service is

involved — but I wonder if some consideration couldn't be given to

having the offices open on Saturdays in the larger communities where

they now exist, rather than necessarily opening up more offices for

driver testing and licensing in all these communities. I think that

would be a very useful innovation. Certainly it is very difficult for

people who have been in the bush whose licences expire. When they come

out they can't drive and they can't renew their licences, because on a

weekend they can't go and get their photographs taken and all that goes

with that. I have had quite a number of people write to me on that

matter.

I want to conclude by talking about safety. The

second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) stole a bit of my thunder, but I

want to re-emphasize it. Let me start by quoting a few figures to the

House. In the years 1977, 1978 and 1979 there have been between 640 and

738 highway fatalities per year. We are talking roughly about 700

highway fatalities per year. In the same period there were, on average,

60 aircraft fatalities each year from airplane crashes in B.C. So we

are talking about more than 11 times as many people being killed in car

crashes than in plane crashes. I appreciate that probably more miles

are driven by car than flown by plane. Nevertheless, what we find in

this society is that all of us get concerned whenever a plane goes

down. There are major inquiries each time a plane crashes. I'm not sure

that the way those inquiries work leads to the best results sometimes,

but there are inquiries, there is serious public concern and there is

always shock. But when 10 or 11 times more people die on our highways,

there is no similar outrage or shock or inquiries.

Maybe we

should develop a system somewhat similar, but improved, to the aircraft

investigations when planes go down. What's the difference if a plane

crashes and four people are killed, or if a car crashes and four people

are killed? Shouldn't we treat it just as seriously? I think we should,

and I would urge that that be an idea that's considered. If only we

would find out more precisely why the accidents occur, we would also

focus more public attention on the fact that these people are dying.

you pick up a Monday paper after a holiday weekend and read about

the number of people who have died in car accidents over that weekend.

you'll see lists sometimes of six, eight or ten people who have been

killed. If they had been in one plane it would have been on the front

page and the papers would have sent out a photographer to take a

picture of the plane that had gone down too. So I think we must put

extra emphasis on that.

Another

matter I don't understand on

safety is why I can go in every five years and renew my licence just by

posing for a photograph. What does posing for that photograph and

paying my $10 or whatever it is I pay demonstrate about my ability to

drive a car? I appreciate it's going to cost a lot of money to test

everybody every five years or even every ten years, but wouldn't it be

cheaper in the long run if we got some of these jokers off the road who

are on now? I made a speech last year in this House about driving

behaviour and I made some comments earlier this session about it.

I'm

absolutely persuaded that there is a significant percentage of drivers

driving who shouldn't be on the road, for a variety of reasons. And

there are people driving our freeway systems, in greater Vancouver in

particular, who took their testing before freeways existed and they

don't know how to get onto a freeway. They stop on the on ramp instead

of getting up to speed, and on and on and on. I could go on for half an

hour about all the incredibly bad driving practices that exist, many of

which lead to accidents.

I wish that instead of getting a

ticket for driving 70 kilometres per hour in a 60-kilometre zone,

somebody would get a ticket for driving 70 kilometres per hour in an

80-kilometre zone. I don't see very many policemen stopping slow

drivers, but they cause.... I shouldn't say they cause more

accidents than fast drivers, because I can't prove that, but I have a

hunch that the frustration level on the highway that is created by slow

drivers is a major contributory factor toward highway accidents. The

slow driver is probably not even involved in them, because they're left

behind and the accident is caused somewhere down the road because

somebody has lost his cool.

There's a whole other topic

there about why we act the way we do when we're behind a wheel of a

car. Maybe we should have investigation into that too, and some driver

education about the need to treat that vehicle and the road itself with

some respect.

I could go on and on. I like the Highways

ministry ads on long weekends, and your voice, Mr. Minister, is on the

tail end of those clips. They're good, but I think you should expand

the advertising program and spend a significant amount of money on

advertising, talking about how to drive and safe-driving practices.

Maybe an advertising campaign that's geared to teaching people about

driving at speed, access to freeways, that you're supposed to signal

before you turn and not as you turn, and on and on and on. You know

what I'm talking about, Mr. Minister. The problems are mass.

HON. MR. FRASER: I do it myself.

[ Page 3208 ]

MR. GABELMANN:

Well, we all do on occasion, I guess, but sometimes it's pretty

frustrating, and it's bad, because you wind up needing more roads

because of the traffic jams that are caused by the kind of bad

behaviour in driving too. So I would urge a major campaign on better

driving and safety, and I would to urge you to consider seriously

testing those of us who keep renewing our licences without ever having

to prove that we can handle the vehicle. Some people learned to drive

in a very, very different era, and even if their abilities haven't been

impaired over the years, conditions have changed so much that they may

not be able to handle the current situation.

I think I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. I'd appreciate listening to the minister's answers.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I have a lot of good queries here to reply to and I'll go through them

as fast as I can. I need help, first of all, from the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) on pronouncing that word Koksilah

pedestrian overpass. I just want to say to the member for

Cowichan-Malahat that I agree with her remarks that I don't think we

should wait while they fuss around. We will follow up on that overpass.

It could be two to three years before they settle that, and I don't

think we should wait that long.

I have some engineer's

report on how we arrive at the speed limits; that is 90 km/h or 80

km/h. We have about equivalent mileage posted in the province at 90 and

at 80. They are upgraded from 80 to 90 strictly on the basis that the

road has probably had an improvement to it; in other words, it is

capable of the higher speed. We are not doing it on a temporary basis.

Where they have been posted at 90 they are on a permanent basis because

of an improvement to the road. I think I could safely use one road that

I have in mind: the new North Island Highway. I think it started right

off at 90, if I recall, because it was built to a better standard than

one built 15 or 20 years ago. There are definitely engineering changes

as the years go by, and better quality comes out of it, hopefully.

Here

are the notes from the engineers. The 90 km/h were not experimental. On

the trunk highway system, the speeds are as follows: on 5,234

kilometres of the highway system there is 80 km/h and 4,463 kilometres

are posted at 90 km/h. We have a little more 80 than 90, but they are

getting closer, because they are upgraded to a standard which will

accommodate 90 km/h zones. The two zones mentioned, I believe by the

member for Cowichan-Malahat, Highway 1 from Mill Bay to south of Duncan

and Highway 19 to Henry Road — I don't know just what that note means,

but you probably do.

Now on the $4.50 that appeared in the

accounting, the next time our accountants put an item like that in a

financial statement, or before they do, I am going to give them the

$4.50 so they don't have to put it in. I have an explanation here. The

amount of $4.50 shown under "Surveys — Island Highway section" is not

an allocation as suggested but is an actual expenditure of the year

1978-79. It is an expense item for G.R. Forgaard, probably a meal cost

or miscellaneous expense, a portion of several projects worked on on

that particular day.

The other item you mentioned a couple

of times, the amount of $1 under rights-of-way, in this case Phipps

Road, is also an expenditure. It is the legal consideration necessary

to bind a contract and allow for property taken. That is the reason for

that from the accountants.

Now I would just like to deal for

a short time with the operational side of government air services,

which comes under the responsibility of this ministry. You were

questioning the hours. It works out this way; I am talking about the

hours for 1978-79. There were 971 hours flown on air ambulance, 739

hours on photography and 3,893 hours of passenger service. That would

be for staff and for ministers and so on. That makes a total of 5,603

flying hours. There was a total shown of 5,879 hours, but the ministry

has a simulator and it is included in those hours. The number of hours

used on the simulator were 276, so you subtract that from the 5,879

and it will balance out with the 5,603 that I've mentioned as flying

hours for the various aircraft in 1979-80.

You might be

interested to know that the flying hours for ambulance service in the

following year of 1979-80 increased substantially by 527 flying hours

to 1,498 over 1978-79.

MRS. WALLACE: What were the passenger hours?

HON. MR. FRASER:

The flying hours in 1978-1979 they have listed here as 2,880, and

quite a drop in flying hours in 1979-1980 to 2,360. For aerial

photography in 1978-1979 there were 739 hours, and in 1979-1980 there

were 1,006 hours. So that's a rough idea of what has gone on for

1979-1980.

The overall picture on flying hours for the air

services in 1978-1979 was 5,879, as I mentioned before. The flying

hours for 1979-1980 were 6,407.

I'd like to comment on one

other thing that the member for Cowichan-Malahat brought up regarding

bridges and the completion of them. I might say, quite frankly, that

I'm not very happy about that, and we are trying to tie things together

better. I think what happened in her riding was a bad scene. Our senior

engineers did the best they could, but where we could get our act

together, then the municipality was involved, but I think we have to

have better coordination. We're certainly working on that for the

benefit of everyone.

The second member for Surrey asked

first of all regarding the naming of the Queen of Surrey . Mr. Chairman,

I appreciate your concern regarding that, but the board of directors of

the Ferry Corporation decided to rename the Queen of Surrey the Queen

of the North because of the area it was going to serve, and I guess as

a broad-brush line that's the way the other vessels were named. As for

how we can do this, well, much to my amazement I found out that there

is no problem at all: as long as you notify people you can change the

names of the boats. I believe there is some registry in Ottawa, but I'm

not sure of that. That was the ship put on that run, as you know, and

because it was running north they renamed it Queen of the North .

Mr.

Chairman, the second member for Surrey has the same concern as I have

about commercial vehicles. I suspicioned a lot of things last fall, and

asked the ministry to do some checks. While I think all governments

have zeroed in on the drivers over the years, and rightly so, I don't

think that all the fatalities on our roads are necessarily due to the

driver. I think the vehicle has something to do with it, and

specifically the mechanical condition.

Following that we set

up mechanical insp