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)

FRIDAY, JULY 4, 1980

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3147 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 193: minister's office –– 3147

Mr. Lea

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Hanson

Division that the committee rise –– 3162

Tabling Documents.

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills fourth report.

Mr. Strachan –– 3162

FRIDAY, JULY 4, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy), I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming two of

what we can call, I am sure, some of the truly independent and free

business people in British Columbia. These gentlemen are involved in

log salvaging in the Fraser River and Howe Sound. Would the House

please welcome Gordon and George Moore.

MR. BRUMMET:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two friends of mine from Fort St.

John. They are combining a vacation and business trip to the Island.

I'd like the House to welcome Jim and Margaret Little.

MR. SEGARTY:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this morning is Mrs. Wendy Hardy, my

constituency secretary from Cranbrook. I would like the House to

welcome her.

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. LEA:

I'd like to touch this morning upon marine transportation off the coast

of our province. I'd like to go back to the signing of the agreement

between Canada and the province of British Columbia, in regard to what

at the time was an $8 million subsidy for marine transportation, and

some of the wording in that contractual arrangement between Canada and

the province.

I'd like to go back to the immediate time

after the signing of that agreement and relate to the Legislature a

meeting that was held between the Premier — the member for Kelowna — and

members of various regional districts from along the coast questioning

the contract and asking what that contract would mean. Up until that

time the federal government had been the agency responsible for marine

transportation.

As we all remember, that agreement changed

it so the province had the jurisdiction. But one of the most integral

parts of that agreement was the part dealing with just exactly what

this province was letting itself in for by signing that agreement.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, there appears to be an awful lot of conversation here.

The member for Prince Rupert has the floor. Could you come to order,

please?

MR. LEA: One of the key sections in that agreement was that this province

would take over the responsibility for two items — passenger and freight movement.

In that agreement the province agreed to give reasonable service to the residents

of the coast for passenger and freight, in terms of marine transport. At that

meeting of the regional districts and the Premier, the Premier, I'm sure,

had not been made aware of exactly what it was the province was signing, because

the Premier made it clear, in front of a great many witnesses, that his government

was opposed to the subsidy of freight and that in terms of the freight

section

of that contract this government was not ready, in any way, to honour that agreement.

They obviously didn't know what they'd signed. Mr. Chestnut had negotiated

the agreement on behalf of the previous Minister of Transport, the member

for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), and I think the Premier was quite

surprised when he saw freight in it, and he acted surprised. At that meeting

he told us — the regional district people and myself — that the government was

not interested in subsidizing freight.

Therein

lies the crux of our problem for marine transportation along the coast:

the rigidity and the stubbornness of government in not realizing that

what's good for one area of the province — subsidized freight on the

BCR — should be.... And I'm not saying we should take away that

subsidization of freight on the BCR. The BCR can be a tool that can be

used socially and economically for the benefit of all of us. But it

seems to me that what's good for the BCR and the people who live along

that line must also be good for the people who live along the marine

highway and the lifeline that takes their goods and supplies into those

communities along the coast. The province has never lived up to that

agreement they signed with Canada. They say that they are only

responsible for using those subsidy dollars from federal government for

passenger transportation, not freight.

There have been times

when political pressure has meant that this government had to live up

to that freight contract, but they've never done it willingly and

positively. They've always been dragged, kicking, into living up to

that freight agreement within the entire agreement.

Now we have had a series of disasters that have followed because of

that stupid misconception of what they signed in the first place. I was

on "Capital Comment"; it was being taped. This was some time ago. One

of the reporters said: "What is your reaction to the government's

announcing that they're going to send the Queen of Prince Rupert into the

Queen Charlotte Islands?" I didn't believe the reporters. I said: "If

that is indeed an announcement made by government, it has to be one of

the stupidest things I've ever heard of." Lo and behold, I found out

that yes, they'd done one of the stupidest things we'd ever heard of.

No one I know thinks that the Queen of Prince Rupert should go into the Queen Charlotte Islands. They want a ferry service, but we have to define their needs and desires.

For the most part, for instance, when people who live on the Queen

Charlotte Islands are going to transport their bodies off, they fly to

Vancouver or Prince Rupert. But the thing that they face every day of

the year is the high cost of those items they have to buy such as

groceries and lumber supplies. All the things you have to buy in order

to live on the Queen Charlotte Islands are affected every day because

of the high freight rate. Those are the items they are concerned about.

All along the coast they are crying, telling the government: "For God's

sake, passenger service is not the main priority. It is freight." This

government continues to make passenger service its high priority, when

it's not the service that's needed and wanted. The main priority must

be freight.

[ Page 3148 ]

must be the priority that deals with everyday life for the residents

along our coast, as the BCR supplies those goods and services needed

along its line, going up through the centre of this province.

Out

of these fiascos has come one stupid decision after another. Once they

lost their balance on the marine transportation system in terms of

policy-making, they have been stumbling ever since and cannot regain

their balance. Now one of the stupidest things they are going to do is

to take the Queen of Prince Rupert , when it is finished here, they say, and put it on the Queen Charlotte Islands run.

Do you know how many people live on the Queen Charlottes? About 6,000. Do you know what the passenger load of the Queen of Prince Rupert

is, and the crewing that is needed because of federal regulations in

order to run that boat over there? Economically and socially it is

stupid. In a survey of the people on the Queen Charlotte Islands, 70

percent say they don't want that service as it is planned by government.

went in to meet the minister. It was a good meeting, and the minister

has cooperated wherever he can. But this minister has tried to pull out

of the fire the stupid mistakes of this government before he was given

the responsibility for some of the items he has — stupid, stupid

mistakes that they won't admit to. If they would admit to them, then

they could rectify them; but you cannot rectify those stupid decisions

until you admit that they've taken place.

The Queen of Prince Rupert ,

as I understand it — maybe it has changed somewhat since the conversion

— has a capacity of about 450 passengers. That is a 450-passenger

capacity to deal with islands that have residents in the number of

6,000. You could take the whole population off and on every two weeks.

Is there going to be that kind of demand? The answer is, obviously, no.

So if there is a demand for high capacity, where will that high demand

come from? That high demand will come mostly from people from the

mainland in the northern area at certain times of the year. It will

come from people who want to go hunting and camping on the Queen

Charlotte Islands, and this government has done absolutely nothing to

prepare the Queen Charlotte Islands for that possible influx.

We're

afraid, on the Queen Charlotte Islands, that we will become the garbage

dump for people who come there for their recreational facilities,

because this government has not done any planning whatsoever — no

parks; three hotels burned down. There have been no studies. There has

been no work done to prepare the Queen Charlotte Islands for the kind

of influx that could happen. Out of the 70 percent who say no ferry,

there are people who say we should do those sorts of things first. Then

43 percent say that yes, then the ferry wouldn't be a bad deal. Then at

least we would be prepared on the Queen Charlotte Islands for that kind

of influx that is going to happen to us.

There are other

ramifications to this. At the present time, the freight that's going to

the Queen Charlotte Islands is subsidized by the government. The

subsidy works through the RivTow barge company, who does the hauling of

the goods from the mainland to the Queen Charlotte Islands. I'm afraid

that that main item of concern, the cost of freight, groceries and

lumber, is going to go even higher with the advent of the ferry. I find

it very hard to believe — and I'd like the minister to comment on this

particularly — that once the government feels it has met its obligation

by putting the Queen of Prince Rupert into the Queen Charlotte Islands they will continue to subsidize RivTow.

you take the freight subsidy away from the Queen Charlotte Islands and

put on a streamlined, over-capacity, passenger service, you're going to

have freight rise in the grocery store, hardware store and everywhere

you go to buy those goods that you need to survive. Once the subsidy is

taken away from RivTow and all the subsidy goes into this crazy

passenger service that the government is deciding, then the freight is

going to go up. It seems to me pretty simple economics. Take the

freight subsidy away from RivTow, and the freight is going to go up for

the residents of the Queen Charlotte Islands.

You could say: "Well, if the Queen of Prince Rupert

has all the capacity to haul all of those people and vehicles —

somewhere near 80 vehicles — then surely we can take freight across on

the ferry. " But that's not true. The Queen of Prince Rupert ,

as other boats on the fleet, has a rule. You can't drag a

tractor-trailer on, drop the trailer and take the tractor off. So it

becomes very, very expensive in the procedures of loading and unloading

and carrying when you have those kinds of rules.

There may

be an out somewhat on this. If the Ferry Corporation would bend its

rules.... They shouldn't bend them, because I've talked to a number of

people, and they don't know why the rules exist in the first place.

They just seem to be rules that everybody is afraid to change because

they've always been there. As far as I can make out, nobody's ever

examined who did it, why those rules apply or whether something could

be done if there's a valid reason for those rules. Why couldn't there

be some changes made so that validity does no longer exist?

It seems to me that it's stupid to run a boat of the size and capacity of the Queen of Prince Rupert

to the Queen Charlotte Islands and have rules that make sure that the

freight can't be packed along with those passengers on that boat —

unless, of course, the government is afraid of setting a precedent. If

they do it there, they'd ask: "Well, what do we do in other areas?" I

don't think government should be afraid of precedents. They should make

rules of common sense to fit specific needs and not be afraid to say

that's exactly what they've done.

The Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing

(Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) should

all be involved in taking a look at the Queen Charlotte Islands and

saying: "Exactly what's going to happen here when we put the Queen of Prince Rupert on

the run?" For instance, there's an application to the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) for a water-sewer system for

the Queen Charlotte Islands and Queen Charlotte City. The Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) has to be involved, because unless that

water-sewer system goes in, any facility that's put up there is going

to have a very difficult time meeting the health requirements in terms

of water supply and the disposal of sewage. So there are all sorts of

things that have to be done on the Queen Charlotte Islands before this

stupid decision to put the Queen of Prince Rupert in there can be carried out.

also talked with people on the job, the people who run the ship. I

said: "What kind of a vessel is this that we're planning to run over to

the Queen Charlotte Islands? Is it the kind of vessel that should be on

that piece of water?" They said no. Some of the crew said: "We're sure

glad that we're in the crew, because we wouldn't be riding down below

in some of this weather that that ship is going to face going over

there. "

[ Page

3149 ]

The repairs are going to be high on the old Queen of Prince Rupert . It's

going to be literally torn apart. The repair bill for keeping the Queen of Prince Rupert on the Queen Charlotte Islands run is going to be horrendous. Not only

that, but docking at both ends is going to be changed. On the Queen Charlotte

Islands side a lot of money is going to be spent in land acquisition, and a

lot of money spent in construction to build dock facilities to meet the Queen of Prince Rupert , which is not the ship that should be there in the first place.

Once that's done, once the money is expended, a decision to disregard that

money that's been spent and to put the proper vessel on may be much harder

to come to in the future. Once that service is in, it will be damned hard to

take it away because of the money spent and because of the facilities designed

to meet that specific vessel.

ask the government to take a second look at this. The ferry board

director from Prince Rupert also knows it's not the proper ship, but

he's scared; he's afraid that if he doesn't get that Queen of Prince Rupert

somehow, we're going to lose it permanently to the south. So even

though it's the improper ship for the Queen Charlottes run, he's going

to go along with it, because he doesn't want to lose the Queen of Prince Rupert .

Now

we all should know what's going on. When I saw the minister in his

office I said: "Look, if it's politics you're interested in, then here

is the scheme that you should put in, because you'd make yourself and

your government heroes, and maybe you could knock me off next time. But

why, for God's sake, do you do something that's going to make me look

like a hero? Giving me the opportunity to attack you for stupid

decision-making is beyond my ken. Why do it?"

Now everybody

who lives along that coast knows what's needed, knows that freight is

the priority. They say that through the government service we should

either acquire or build — and to build is the proper way to go, because

we have shipbuilding businesses in this province, both in Vancouver and

Victoria, that should be stabilized.... If this government would go to

design and go to tender to build ships to meet the job for the 1980s,

they would indeed be heroes along the coast. What is needed are freight

vessels; I suggest two freight vessels are needed — maximum freight,

some passenger facility and some vehicle facility. When people really

do want to travel by marine transport to get off the Queen Charlottes

or out of some of the other communities, it's usually at vacation time,

and they'd like to take their vehicles with them. But they don't take

their vehicles with them when they go to see the doctor in Vancouver:

they don't take their vehicles with them when they go on business to

Prince Rupert. The one time in a year that they may need their vehicles

is when they're going out on their annual vacations or when, possibly,

they're being transferred there in the Armed Forces — we have an Armed

Forces base — and when they go there on that transfer they might want

to take their vehicles with them. So those are the times when they want

passenger and vehicle service. It's a minimum demand on the system. The

larger, maximum demand is for the facility to carry freight at a

reasonable rate along the coast, in the same way that the BCR supplies

the central areas of this province.

The minister should know very well what I'm talking about; his community

in Quesnel, in Cariboo, is serviced by exactly the same kind of service that

I'm talking about, only by rail. Transfer your policy in terms of freight

over from the BCR to your marine. Why have two separate policies? Are we

second-class citizens along the coast?

is it because the Premier dug his heels in when that contract was

signed with Ottawa, and said: "We're not in the freight subsidy

business''? He said that in that meeting, even after the government had

signed the contract with Canada to take up the responsibility for

delivering freight. The province hasn't lived up to that agreement;

they played fast and loose with those government dollars coming in;

they made a stupid decision early on in their governmental career to up

the rates so much on the southern runs that they had to use some of our

northern subsidy dollars to take the political heat off them in the

south. Fine, we all understand politics; we all understand how things

work. But it seems to me that over and beyond the political arena this

government has a responsibility to deliver the kind of service that's

needed along the coast in marine transportation, and that main

responsibility has to be freight.

If this government went

about it in the correct way, adding stability for probably a five-year

period in our shipyards in the southern part of the province — economic

activity jobs created. stabilization of a shipbuilding industry that

badly needs to be stabilized — and built the two ships to do the job

along the coast, designed to meet the needs and the desires of coastal

communities and the economic activity along the coast that has somewhat

been thwarted by this stupid marine policy, or lack of marine policy,

that this government insists must go ahead....

What's wrong?

If this government can go into the BCR and do that kind of job in the

interior, why can't this government do that kind of job along the

coast? You don't have all passenger cars and one freight car on the

BCR. In fact the ratio is the other way around, and the ratio should be

the other way around on the northern and central coastal communities.

You, as a government, Mr. Chairman, are going the wrong way. You're

wasting money. You're wasting the time of your civil service. You're

wasting the patience of people along the coast. We know what's needed.

I'm

not asking you to do something that will make you look politically

stupid. For you it's perfect, Mr. Chairman. For the government it's

perfect. You can do the proper thing, and at the same time it will be a

maximum benefit to the government politically. It's one of those crazy

instances where the proper thing to do would be the political thing to

do. So often they conflict, but in this case there's no conflict

between the political and the proper thing to do. They are in perfect

harmony. If the political, economic. social and proper thing is all in

perspective and harmony, why is this government so stupid not to

realize that? Is it stupidity or is it stubbornness'?

believe, Mr. Chairman, that minister would like to do the right thing.

I have no indication in front of me that he would like to do other than

the correct thing. Taking into consideration that even though he is a

cabinet minister and he does have some political leanings, I, for the

life of me, can't understand why this decision has been made — the big

decision for passenger instead of freight — when it's not needed, when

the obvious choice is the obvious political choice. So, after having

said that, they've made that wrong, fundamental decision that overrides

the whole situation. Even going along with the decision they've made —

the wrong one — they've handled it badly. It was the wrong decision to

go to passenger priority instead of freight, but now they're going to

put the Queen of Prince Rupert on a run that it's not suited

for, that it's not wanted for, and that it won't work on. It's costly.

Are we actually going to have a ferry with a 450-passenger capacity and

an 80-vehicle capacity

[ Page 3150 ]

to serve an island of 6,000, with the money that's needed to build the facilities on each end? I mean, it's stupid.

just don't believe, Mr. Chairman, that if this government changed its

mind fundamentally and set its priority and its policy according to

where it should be, they would suffer politically. Indeed, they would

gain politically. The only thing they would suffer is the bent pride of

the Premier, who is a stubborn man. Once he's made up his mind, it's

very, very difficult to get the Premier to change it. He feels it's

some point of pride. He feels it's a human trait that's admirable to be

stubborn instead of to consider and maybe change your point of view as

new facts come in. The Premier obviously figures that's a weakness in

the human makeup. I think most people would agree that it's not. That's

the Premier's personal problem to work out. It's just too bad that we,

as the residents of this province, have to suffer with that kind of

stubbornness and personality makeup of a man who is stubborn and won't

deal with the problems in reality, but is afraid he is always going to

lose face.

I'd be very surprised this morning if the

minister, when he takes his place, could assure me that the cost of

freight on the Queen Charlotte Islands won't increase once the Queen of Prince Rupert goes in. I believe it will.

just had a note from one of my colleagues that says that now, after the

renovations, the ship carries 800 passengers. Well, that's getting

better. You can move the island off and back in one week if you have

two runs.

It is nuts. It is a nutty decision, and for this government to

continue to make this crazy policy, which doesn't meet the needs and is

bad politically and in every other way, is quite honestly beyond me. It

is like the Marguerite .

In our caucus we sat down and said: "There must be a hidden motive

behind all this. There must be politics at play here that in our

ignorance we can't fathom, because the decisions they are making are

stupid decisions. They are bad politically and bad because they're not

the proper decisions. Why are they doing it? They've got a plot." But

as time unfolds, there is no plot. There doesn't seem to be a political

plot or any other. It just seems to be a stumbling, bad decision-making

process that the government is going through. If the minister can stand

up here and justify to me the decision to put the Queen of Prince Rupert on that run, boy, I would be glad to hear it.

There is another thing. Yesterday the minister was relating to us the passenger load on the Queen of the North . You know something? You are leaving people behind. There is no doubt that the time has come for two north-south vessels, the Queen of Prince Rupert and the one the government just put on — no bitch about your putting that one on; we need it. But we also need the Queen of Prince Rupert

on the north-south run, possibly one plying to Port Hardy and the other

one maybe coming down as far as Tsawwassen, at certain points of the

year at least. I am surprised to see all the money this government

spends trying to get people to go on that northern run, and then they

take the ship off to deal with the kind of business they're getting

through their advertising, That doesn't seem to make sense either. I

said, "Well, God, maybe there's another political plot here that I

don't understand," but as time unfolds you just can't understand why

these decisions are made.

The Queen of Prince Rupert is the wrong vessel for the Queen

Charlotte Islands. We need two freighters, with limited passenger and

vehicle service, mainly freight for the coast, to give the kind of

service that Northland did, only an upgraded service with vessels to

meet today's needs and docking facilities to match. We need to take a

look at the Queen Charlotte Islands, probably through the Environment

and Land Use Committee secretariat or maybe some other agencies. We

don't have parks there to take the influx that will come with the Queen of Prince Rupert .

We don't have the hotel and restaurant facilities. We don't have any of

the facilities that are needed for a sudden influx of tourism. There

has been no study done that I can find. I've written to the Minister of

Environment a number of times. He is so vague you may as well not do

it. I realize he is a new minister. There just hasn't been a job done

to see what the impact is going to be on the Queen Charlotte Islands of

putting this kind of vessel in there.

It is a mess. The first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) described

the marine policy of this government as stupid, a mess and a bungle,

and it is. It's not unusual. It is a group of human individuals who

make those kinds of mistakes for one reason or another in their

decision policy. There is no crime, politically or any other way, in

making a mistake. The social crime comes in later, when the government,

which I believe fully understands the mistakes it has made, will not

turn its ability to rectifying those problems. From the Princess Marguerite to the Queen of Prince Rupert

to the fundamental bad policy of marine transportation in this

province, the government is wrong. Everyone in this chamber knows that

the government is wrong. Every resident of the coast knows it is wrong.

I suspect, in marine transportation matters, everyone in this province

believes that this government has bungled it.

Mr. Minister, you and your government have a chance to put it right.

Politically you'll come out of it very, very well. You will have done

the proper thing, and this province will be served. I ask you to

consider taking a look at the fundamental marine policy of this

province. It is a mess.

HON. MR. FRASER: I appreciate

the remarks of the member for Prince Rupert. I sincerely believe that

he has a real concern because it affects his riding.

Before

I attempt to reply I would like to make a brief announcement, with the

permission of the House, one I think we're all concerned with: that the

Highways ministry got the Bear River bridge completed last night at 12

o'clock, and traffic started moving out of that community. On behalf of

us all, I want to pay credit to the bridge crews of the Highways

ministry from the northwest part of the province. They were all used.

For

the information of the House, they worked for 40 hours with four hours'

sleep to accomplish what they did. They spanned the Bear River, a

distance of 300 feet. They worked night and day. I congratulate them

all on behalf of us all. In closing I say that the Bailey bridges will

handle the highest and heaviest traffic for an indefinite period of

time. It is planned that that will be approximately 12 months. We'll be

calling a tender for the permanent replacement shortly, we hope, and it

will take, I would say, a minimum of 12 months to get that bridge

built. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman and members of the House, that

the new bridge will be fireproof.

Getting back to discussing

marine transportation, I'd like first of all to go back a short way as

the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) did, regarding the history of

marine transportation on the coast as I see it. As I understand it, a

very able private-sector firm, Northland Navigation, served that area

for years. They were subsidized, I think, latterly, to the

[ Page 3151 ]

amount

have that increased because of economics, and the government of

Canada.... I'm never clear what their answer was, but they certainly

wouldn't increase it, or gave no answer, or even withdrew what they had

been putting in. A former Minister of Transport did that, by the name

of Otto Lang. He is no longer on the political scene, maybe because of

some actions like this. But referring to those days, I doubt that

Ottawa knew where the Pacific coast was, let alone its problems, and

that's how they reacted.

In any case, Northland Navigation

disappeared. Along came our government in December 1975, and this

problem was there. I'd like to make the observation, Mr. Chairman, that

I think some members of the government that preceded our government

must have known about this imminent problem. I haven't been able to

find out anywhere where they did anything about it. If they didn't

know, they should have known that we had a disaster coming up regarding

marine service on the coast because of the Northland Navigation problem

I might be a little wrong

here, but not far out. This government decided with this coming on that

they would assume responsibility for marine transportation — freight

to help. I want to emphasize that our government was the first one that

approached Ottawa on this basis. On April 18, 1977, the agreement with

concluded. I'd like to pay my respects and admiration to the minister

at that time, Jack Davis, the present member for North

Vancouver–Seymour, who did all the hard work — he and the Premier of

our province — and got the agreement signed which provided, among other

things, for an $8 million subsidy to supply passenger and freight

marine service to the Pacific coast.

What took place after

that? This is my version again, Mr. Chairman. Immediately before this —

I don't think this was mentioned — the government of British Columbia

had been running the Queen of Prince Rupert from Kelsey Bay to

Prince Rupert since, I believe, 1968. This service had been put in by a

previous government and was becoming very popular. So they already had

some service on the Pacific coast. Following the legal agreement signed

Since April 1977.... I would like to emphasize this, Mr. Chairman; I

said this in my opening remarks. One part of the legal agreement — and

I want to have it on the record for the benefit of the House — reads as

follows: "...it being further agreed that future provision of subsidies

shall be entirely within the discretion of the province." In other

words, the province has the discretion, and along with that the

responsibility, to upgrade the marine services.

Since then

service has been put in at Bella Bella, and required port facilities. I

This is always our problem.

We have also extended subsidies to the private-sector operators in different

areas of the Pacific coast. I'll have difficulty with some of these names.

Kyuoquot Freight Service is subsidized by the B.C. Ferry Corporation. Ahousat

Freight Service in the Tofino area is subsidized. The Nootka Sound freight service

is subsidized; it operates in Gold River and other areas of Nootka Sound, I

mentioned that improvements were made at Bella Bella. Ocean Falls was involved

in the upgrading. Also, as you know, a new dock has been built at Port Hardy

for a terminal.

Now

we get into the area that the member for Prince Rupert is interested in

— and rightly so because it is his riding. Again, service through

subsidy to the private sector has been extended since this agreement to

private operators in Prince Rupert — Port Simpson and Prince Rupert —

and Kincolith. They are operating a passenger and light-freight service

in those particular instances. I think we should get to the nub of the

concerns of the member — and, I would think, all of us — getting

service to the Queen Charlotte Islands. With the withdrawal of

Northland Navigation, they weren't left without water transportation.

but it was certainly depleted. Tug and barge services go in there from

the private sector, but they were without a scheduled marine service.

Of course, the only way out of that community for people was by

aircraft. I might say that I recently took a look at the air fares

being charged. They are advancing at a phenomenal rate. Even I was

surprised, and I don't surprise very easily. It is quite a fare the

citizens of the Queen Charlottes Islands now have to pay to go from

Sandspit to Prince Rupert, Vancouver, Port Hardy or wherever. It is a

costly item.

Speaking on behalf of the B.C. Ferry

Corporation and the government of British Columbia, I might say that

decisions to serve the Queen Charlotte Islands were put off for a long

period of time, but the policy decision was made to take service in

there after many, many requests from the citizens of the Queen

Charlotte Islands. As the member for Prince Rupert pointed out. they

are 6,000 — British Columbia citizens being denied basic

transportation. That's really what we are saving. So the decision was

made by the Ferry Corporation to take ferry service in there.

Regarding

that, impact studies were done by the Acres Consulting Services firm.

They were done by the B.C. Ferry Corporation. They were done from a

marine standpoint, certainly, and social impact as well, I understand.

But the emphasis really was on marine impact. When the policy decision

was made, with this information.... I would like to give credit to Mr.

Gallagher, who is here on the floor this morning. As the general

manager of B.C. Ferries, he conducted public meetings on the Queen

Charlotte Islands. I don't know whether that was in 1978 or 1979. He

kept in close touch at all times with the local elected people, the

community of Masset — an organized municipality — and other organized

municipalities, as well as the regional district for that area.

There

was no question in our minds that the majority of the citizens on the

Queen Charlotte Islands wanted an upgrading of their system, but a

great argument went up as to where this service should be. I might say,

on behalf of all of us who worked on it, that there is no question in

my mind that the citizens of the Queen Charlotte Islands wanted us to

come into Masset. To relate this to the distribution of population, the

village of Masset and the surrounding area has about half the

population of the Queen Charlotte islands.

Naval engineers had told us, because we were planning on the Queen of Prince Rupert

at that time being the boat going in there, that we couldn't rely on

the Masset Harbour. We certainly could rely on the Skidegate Harbour,

so the decision was made to go into Skidegate and distribute from

there. The contract is underway now to the low bidder to develop the

dock at a cost of $4.7 million. As said earlier in the debate, we will

have the service in there, hopefully, by October 1980.

[ Page 3152 ]

The service we will have — and this is where I think there's disagreement — is a passenger and freight service with the now Victoria Princess , which will probably again be called the Queen of Prince Rupert when it goes back there.

Again, I think we're dealing with policy. The B.C. Ferry Corporation

have a policy of roll-on, roll-off freight service. In other words,

your freight has to be on wheels and that, of course, is what will

happen with the Queen of Prince Rupert . It will be roll-on, roll-off freight service as well as passenger service.

don't think that the citizens in any area of our province are exempt

from the high cost of freight charges. They are really high, and this

is caused by inflation and the cost of equipment and fuel. There

doesn't seem to be anything in sight to show it's going to stabilize.

That's the concern I have.

In other words, I can relate to

the Legislature that a diesel freight truck with a van on it today

costs approximately $100,000 to purchase new. Three years ago the same

unit was $60,000. Tires for that machine used to be $120; they're now

$300. Parts for that machine for maintenance have doubled in the last

three years, and I don't have to relate to the Legislature what's

happened in wage costs for drivers and warehouse people. I guess the

biggest one of all is the ever-escalating cost of fuel.

The

point I'm trying to make is that while l realize that people from the

Queen Charlotte Islands have high transportation costs, so has

everybody else if they don't live at the base where the goods are

coming from. In our province, I guess, it's Vancouver that would be the

greatest base for distribution. As you get away from that area, up goes

your cost of living. I'm aware that it has a big impact on the cost of

living, but the facts of life are there whether you live in Prince

George, Dawson Creek or Masset on the Queen Charlotte Islands.

a matter of fact, Bella Coola, in the member for Mackenzie's (Mr.

Lockstead'

s) riding, has the same type of problems. I believe they're

now charging 7 cents or 8 cents a pound for freight from Vancouver to

Bella Coola by freight truck. If you go the water side, it's roughly

the same thing. You can get one operating at 10 cents a pound and

another at 6 cents. Their costs seem to be there. Of course, these

costs are naturally passed on to the consumer.

I would like to dwell on the Queen of Prince Rupert for a minute. The reason that the Queen of Prince Rupert

is going on the service is that it's an open, substantial water vessel,

and we have to have a substantial vessel on that run. We have to cross

the Hecate Strait from Prince Rupert to get to the Queen Charlotte

Islands. Talking to marine people, I guess it's one of the most

difficult pieces of water on'the Pacific coast, and you cannot cross

there with a bathtub. Maybe Frank Ney might think that he can use one

of his Nanaimo bathtubs, but you cannot do that. You have to have a

substantial vessel. This has the combination of both, and of course, I

have been told that even for odd stormy weather the Queen of Prince Rupert will have some difficulty. I think these things should be said. We can't get along with a small vessel.

You know, there is irony in this debate, where there is no question about. It that we will have over-capacity on the Queen of Prince Rupert

passenger-wise and maybe freight-wise. When the member for Mackenzie

talks, he talks in the opposite direction — not enough capacity. It is

an ongoing problem that you try to settle on a rational and economic

basis, and it is very difficult.

I would just say to the

member for Prince Rupert, regarding the Queen Charlotte Islands, that

while their costs are more than they are down in the lower mainland, I

think they have terrific assets on the other side that they don't tell

us about. I think it's a great area to live in, and they offset those

other things. They have not got costs as, for example, an urban citizen

has in transportation who has, in my opinion, a high cost when dealing

with traffic jams going back and forth to work. They don't have that in

the Queen Charlotte Islands. They have a lovely climate and lovely

beaches on their asset side. In this world of ours the individual

citizens make these choices, and I don't think any government wants to

interfere with that. The facts are there. There are 6,000 people there.

They are entitled to an upgrading of transportation services, and we're

going to get that to them in the best way we see. That is how the

decisions were made.

I might add that our government believes also the private sector can

help with transportation, but they've been lacking. In fact, they've

pulled out of a lot of these areas; Northern Navigation is a good

example. That is where we feel, then, that the public sector has to get

in. We would like to actually see both. The tug and barge service is an

example. We don't want to run them out of business, and I hope this

doesn't happen.

To the member for Prince Rupert, the decision has

not been made to suspend the tug and barge service to the Queen

Charlotte Islands. On that, RivTow towing has a contract with the B.C.

Ferry Corporation, and the net cost of that after the freight fares are

collected is, I am advised, about $600,000 a year. The decisions, I

want to make it abundantly clear, have not been made. This decision has

been made that we're not going to interfere with the tug and barge

service at least until the spring of the year, if we do anything about

it then. It will stay in place. We have an agreement with RivTow, and

we intend to honour it. I am not sure when it expires, but there is a

debate going on now in the board of directors of the Ferry Corporation,

but at this moment I'd say it will probably extend at least until

spring. There is no intention of suspending the tug and barge service

as well as running the Queen of Prince Rupert .

I would like to expand, a little further the member's concern of a

large vessel going in there. I don't deny that for one minute. I hope

I've convinced the committee that we have to have a substantial vessel

to get across the Hecate Strait in safety. That was the other thing

that I haven't told the committee — that we are now, for the first

time, the proud owners of docking facilities at the city of Prince

Rupert. We have worked with other people, and it hasn't worked out very

well. Our ship, previously the Queen of Prince Rupert and now the Queen of the

North ,

can arrive at Prince Rupert and have to stay in the harbour waiting its

turn to unload. The board of directors have bought property in the city

of Prince Rupert and we are going to develop that for our own terminal

as soon as possible. We have purchased the property from the CNR, and

we intend to develop our own port. I don't want to put a time frame on

it, but I hope we'll have that in place at the very latest by this time

next year.

The reason I gave that background is that it is correct that we have the Queen of Prince Rupert

headquartered at Rupert to service the Charlottes and we are looking at

an expansion of that service using Prince Rupert as a base. I would

like to philosophize. We have to get agreement for subsidization when

we expand and that approval has to come from cabinet,

[ Page 3153 ]

but we are looking at expansion of, say, a boat like the Rupert ,

based at Prince Rupert and maybe tied in to a run up to Kitimat. I

think when you talk about over-capacity and you're looking into the

future, if that decision is made, that would be more use of this vessel.

We have another community on the coast that would love to see boat

service: I refer to the community of Stewart. I'm not saying that in

either case we will get in there in a hurry, because we're only looking

at those things now. Again we have the same problem we always have with

docks; we have to build our own roll-on, roll-off dock at Kitimat, as

an example, to get in there, and I've got to assume it will cost $4.7

million, as we're currently building one, and that's what it costs.

With

the fire recently at Eurocan, I sent a senior engineer to Kitimat the

next day to deal with Eurocan, to go in on a shared basis with them on

the replacing of that dock, and they said: "No, thanks. We've got to

get back into business; we're losing $50,000 a day. We would like to

help the government, but we really don't want your ferry traffic

through our backup facilities." So that's where that's at. We're now

looking for our own, and maybe if we're successful we can expand that.

Dealing with the facilities for the Queen of Prince Rupert , we

see that happening. I'd say one thing I didn't say, some information I

just got — again, Mr. Chairman, to the member for Prince Rupert: you

made the observation that the cost of freight to the citizens of Queen

Charlotte Islands would go up, and the senior staff have advised me

you're correct; according to their calculation it will go up one-third

of a cent a pound using the roll-on, roll-off facilities. I think I've

covered a lot; no doubt I've missed some. The other observation I think

the committee should know, Mr. Chairman, is regarding the crewing of

any of our vessels, and specifically the Queen of Prince Rupert .

Whether or not we like it, they're dictated to the B.C. Ferry

Corporation by federal regulations, as you pointed out: that's correct.

A crew of about 60, I think, is required on the Rupert , and if

we wanted to economize and go to 30, we couldn't get a ticket to run

the vessel. There's probably nothing wrong with that. We are dictated

to and do observe all the federal marine regulations.

guess I could make another comment in closing. Mr. Chairman, I can't

understand the member's opinion regarding passenger service. He has

really said that the citizens are happy with only air service to get

out of there. We're saying that they'll have an alternative way by

water. If we went with the member's suggestion that we stay with air

transportation only, the only alternative the people of the Queen

Charlotte Islands would have to get out is by swimming the Hecate

Strait, and that's a long way — I understand it's 90 nautical miles.

Citizens whom I know in the Queen Charlottes are very concerned about

the air fare; they can't afford it. We're not going to have a fare on

the Queen of Prince Rupert that will try and to compete with

the air fare. In other words, we'll have an economic fare. I don't

think it's been settled yet, but I'm almost sure, knowing the fares on

the rest of the system, that it won't come close to the air fare. So

that's the advantage I see of giving them an alternative type of

transportation.

I think I've covered pretty well everything the member Mr. Prince Rupert brought up, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEA:

After listening to the minister, I'm convinced that it's true: he

doesn't understand. The political makeup of the province breaks down so

that the Social Credit holds interior seats and we on this side, for

the most part, hold the coastal seats. It would really pay, I think,

for the government to listen to what we have to say instead of thinking

they know better on this one,

The minister said the member

for Prince Rupert would like them to swim to get out or would like them

to pay high air fares. It's not like Prince George; it's not like

Quesnel. If you want to get to Quesnel from Prince George, you have a

number of ways that you can do it. We don't have those options.

HON. MR. FRASER: You can't take a ferry.

MR. LEA:

Well. you could. You don't understand the options that the people on

the Queen Charlottes or along the coast have, and that's the basic

problem.

There's something I forgot to mention — to have the

freighter service with limited passenger service, with limited vehicle

service, supply those needs that you were wondering about. When people

go out, normally they don't want to take their vehicle. I mean, where

are they going to go? You can get on the plane at Sandspit and go to

the Queen Charlottes return for approximately $200. What you have to

remember is that the Queen Charlotte Islands, for the most part, use

Vancouver as their supply and service base, not Prince Rupert. They

don't want to go to Prince Rupert; that's not where they're going. So

what the minister and the government are going to allow these people to

do is take their car onto the ferry at Skidegate, go to Prince Rupert

and drive a thousand miles to Vancouver. or put their car on the ferry

in Skidegate, go to Prince Rupert and catch the plane down to

Vancouver, which costs the same amount as it does from Sandspit. It

doesn't make sense.

You don't understand what the problems

are. That's why your solutions are in error. People don't want to take

their vehicles off the islands unless they are going on vacation, or

they are being transferred in or out, or they are moving in or out on a

permanent basis because they've found a job somewhere. They don't want

the ferry for that reason. When they say ferry, they're really

expressing themselves incorrectly in a way. They want a freighter

service with limited ferry service. That's what they need, and that's

what they want. If the minister understands what I just said, he'll

realize the folly of what the government's doing. I mean, what in God's

name would they want to use the ferry for if they are going to

Vancouver? There would be no sense in it. It just wouldn't make sense.

You say that the freight will go up a third of a cent per pound. That's not really true. Maybe the new rate of the Queen of Prince Rupert

will be that much more. But you say that you have no immediate plans to

withdraw the freight subsidy from RivTow; I understand that. But when

you do, the Queen of Prince Rupert won't handle the freight

going onto the Queen Charlottes, with the best of intentions. So the

RivTow service will still be in place without the subsidy. The freight

is going to go up drastically for the Queen Charlotte Islands because

the Queen Charlotte Islands residents are now going to have to pick up

that $600,000 in their freight bill that you are talking about paying

RivTow. That's going to go. The Queen of Prince Rupert will not

be a substitute for that RivTow service. Freight is going to go up

horrendously when you put that service in and stop your subsidy to

RivTow. There's no doubt about it. You're going to put the cost of

living on the Queen Charlottes up by probably about 50

[ Page 3154 ]

percent. That's what you're going to achieve with this well-intentioned move. It does not make sense.

Now the other thing is that when you talk about this kind of ferry service and these little offshoots and using the Prince Rupert

as a transportation mode, again, you're doing it wel-intentioned, I

believe, but misinformed. One of the beauties of having the system that

we had, and the one that I'm saying we should have — the freighter

service with limited passenger and vehicle service — is that you can

take a basketball team from Hartley Bay to Klemtu; you can take a

businessman from Klemtu to Skidegate. In other words, you tie those

communities together socially and economically, a desirable goal. So

this plan is going to — I prophesy — put the cost of living on the

Queen Charlotte Islands up 50 percent, and they'll have a ferry that

they can take to Prince Rupert if they want to get the plane from

Prince Rupert to Vancouver instead of from Sandspit. It doesn't make

any sense, but maybe somebody will want to do that.

The

impact study from Acres — I've asked the government for that. All I've

gotten is a runaround. I'd like the minister to tell me whether he will

obtain a copy of that Acres study for me. I've gotten the runaround

from other ministers, not yourself. I'd like to get that study.

By the way, the regional district is now on record by a resolution as being opposed to the Queen of Prince Rupert . I'll read it to you.

"A resolution passed by the Graham Island Advisory Planning

Commission and supported by the regional district at their meeting of May 24,

1980. The commission strongly recommends the development of basic utilities

and services, as well as the facilities and necessary infrastructure for a viable

quality tourist industry paralleled, if not preceding, the development of the

ferry landing and service.

Also they recommend:

"...that the regional district encourage the Parks department

to develop the island parks before the ferry service begins."

you're putting that in in October, there's no way it can happen. The

Acres report and everything goes down the tube. It doesn't matter

whether you've got the report done or not, because there's no time. I

think I've pointed out again the folly of the decision. Try to put

yourself in the place of someone living in Masset. Where do they want

to go if they want to get off the island? They're usually going —

unless it's for their annual vacation — to see a doctor. Why would they

want to take their car down to Vancouver to see a doctor? Why would

they take the ferry from Queen Charlotte Island to Prince Rupert and

then drive a thousand miles, when they can fly from Sandspit for a

couple of hundred bucks? It doesn't make sense.

There isn't anything about this Queen of Prince Rupert

plan of going to the Queen Charlottes that makes good common sense. It

was a decision that was made, I believe, in political panic to get the

political dogs away from the door of all those communities along the

coast upset by the lack of service.

I'd

like to have the Acres report, Mr. Minister. I'd like — although I

guess it wouldn't be worth a pinch — the government's word that putting

in the Queen of Prince Rupert

to the Queen Charlottes won't put the freight rates up by about 50

percent. It will. There's just no doubt about it. Do you think RivTow

is going to pick up the subsidy? Do you think the private enterprise

corporation going in there is going to say, out of the generosity of

their pocket-book: "Oh, that $600,000 that the provincial government

was picking up and they're no longer picking up, we'll pick it up

ourselves. We like supplying the Queen Charlotte Islands. We get a

feeling of pride out of it. Profit be damned"? It's not going to

happen. You can't convince me that once the provincial government puts

the Queen of Prince Rupert into the Queen Charlotte Islands,

they won't say to themselves and to others: "We've met our obligations

under the contract with Ottawa, and we're now going to cancel our

subsidy for freight to RivTow.

The Queen of Prince Rupert

won't handle that freight even if it wanted to. So the one-third of a

cent per pound is absolute hogwash, Mr. Minister, because it isn't the

problem. I don't know whether I can't articulate it or what, but I

cannot seem to get through to this government, nor can friends of mine

who are mayors of those communities and the aldermen and people on the

regional district. We don't feel angry any more, but we're damned

frustrated that we can't seem to get through to the government on the

thing that's needed and wanted. You demand that you spend a lot of

money to give us something that isn't needed or wanted. We're thankful

that you're taking the effort to give us something, but for God's sake,

spend the taxpayers' money in the method that it should be spent in.

Give us the service that's needed. It won't cost you any more. You'll

make more political points. The community will be served. Boatyards and

the shipbuilding industry in the southern part of the province in

Vancouver and Victoria will be served. It will create a stabilization

and jobs. It's the kind of service that we need on the coast. I do

believe that it's the landlubber mentality on this one that's driving

us to absolute distraction. How can we get through to you? It's not

what's needed; it's not what's wanted. You're blowing the money. You're

making stupid decisions based, I'm sure, on good intentions. It just

isn't needed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do anything. He might sit down.

MR. LEA:

It's okay for you to talk, Mr. Member for Penticton. You've got rail

service, freight service and air service. You've got all of the kinds

of services. People from the north know what I'm talking about. Jack,

you know what I'm talking about. Stand up and make your voice heard.

You backbenchers quit sitting there like a bunch of burnps on a log and

get up and try and convince this government that they're going the

wrong way. It's your job too. It's not only the government

backbenchers' job to protect the government; they're damned well here

to serve the community as well, and they're not doing it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I must tell you that we have one of our members who is frantically

running down the halls to get here because he has to catch an aircraft

for New York and wishes to speak for five or ten minutes. The minister

has very graciously agreed to reply to the member for Prince Rupert's

questions after our member has had the opportunity to make a statement.

Where are you, Lorne? Get in here. I must remind the House, Mr.

Chairman, that yesterday the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams)

intimated that the debate was getting kind of dull.

I fully

intend to liven things up a little bit this afternoon, but I'm going to

wait until the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) has had

the opportunity to pose his

[ Page 3155 ]

questions

to the minister. Then, Mr. Minister, we will liven up the debate. He is

a slow runner, Mr. Chairman; I hear he was running down the halls.

There are three or four people tracking him down now.

In any

event, I might pose a couple of questions to the minister while I have

the opportunity. I wish to explain to the House that as much as I

enjoyed my visit to Williams Lake last weekend, and met with the

minister and various people, I did contract a most terrible cold, so I

hope the House and the minister will bear with me. I don't blame the

minister for giving me this cold. I know that that government over

there does make people sick occasionally, but I am not going to blame

this particular cold on the government.

HON. MR. FRASER: It was that screech you drank.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It wasn't the first two shots; it was the second three shots that got to me.

have a question or two on very routine items that I did promise to

people throughout the province I would raise on their behalf. You may

wish to make a note of this, Mr. Minister. We still seem to be on water

transportation and things, but I am going to switch the topic very

briefly here. I did promise a group of people in the community of

Penny....

A brief interjection here, Mr. Chairman. I find

that the member for Nelson-Creston has run out of time and must leave

immediately for his aircraft, so we didn't quite make it. I do express

his regrets on his behalf, and another member in the House will be

raising the constituency matters that I know he wishes to pose to the

minister on behalf of his constituents.

I started on Penny

so I guess I'll just ask this one question, and then we'll get into the

exciting part. Having explained that, I hope that the member for

Nelson-Creston will represent British Columbia and this caucus in the

very fine manner that he always does. I was going to continue on with

this question of the small community of Penny, as the minister is very

much aware that this has been an ongoing problem for some years.

must say that I did receive a reasonably good response from senior

people within the ministry about this community that was cut off —

people falling through ice bridges and things. The ministry came up

with a program that did not appear to be acceptable. There is a Mr.

Stewart who seems to be the fellow who does most of the writing on

behalf of the residents of that community. I should tell you right off

the bat, Mr. Minister, that they do not accept in that community your

earlier written reply to them, where you state.... It may not be your

personal reply; it may have come from someone in your ministry. But the

fact is that the correspondence states that half or more of the people

in that community don't want a road into that community, As a result of

that statement, I did take the trouble to make personal inquiries and a

great deal of investigation into that particular allegation. Quite

frankly, it is not correct. They are not asking for a paved highway.

They were originally asking for a bridge at some point across the river

to connect with the highway, but the fact is that that plan did not

appear to be too feasible and a Bailey bridge in that area probably

would not have been successful. The ministry has come up with a

proposal to eventually construct a highway to and through that small

community of lumbering and agricultural people. Having raised the issue

in the House...perhaps the minister could reply briefly when he

gets the opportunity.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Minimum. That's if some of you people get up. We could be here another

three weeks if you guys get up to speak. You'd better or, by gosh,

you're not going to get re-elected.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Threaten, threaten.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, I wouldn't do that. I am just giving you fair warning, Mr. House Leader.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As much as the committee enjoys the traditional Friday morning levity, I think at this point we should get back to the vote.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

On this question of the community of Penny, I would appreciate it if

the minister could indicate to this House when they expect that project

to be completed and perhaps give a rough estimate of the cost of the

transportation plight of the people of that community.

What

I really wish to discuss this morning, Mr. Chairman, is a much more

serious matter: that is to deal, primarily, with the total spending of

the Ministry of Highways. We seem to have finally got away from water

transportation, at least for the time being, and we're going to direct

our attention to the Highways portion of that minister's portfolio.

think I'd like to open my remarks by saying that that ministry has had

a consistent record of overspending through the years. I have a lengthy

record of that overspending before me at the present time. I won’t go

back to 1976, but I intend to start off with this year's overspending

of the Ministry's estimates in terms of highway capital projects, day

labour projects and a number of other items. In fact, I happen to have

copies of the special warrants — orders-in-council — with me, and

there's no point in giving these to the minister, because the minister

is very familiar with them. In fact, they were signed by the minister,

so I'm sure he must know all about them.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

want you to understand, Mr. Chairman, that the figures I'm utilizing

here are the figures of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and

are not facts that I made up on my own. During the 1979-80 fiscal year,

which by the way happened to be an election year, a total of $95

million of Highways special warrants were issued for capital

construction programs. In fact, when you add that to other special

warrants, the total overspending for that ministry is somewhere in the

neighbourhood of $119 million, just on that one item alone. I'm talking

about over the budget passed in the House last year. Furthermore, there

was a further $5,086,000 highway maintenance overrun last year, which

was an election year. For the same period the year before there was $2.5 million on the same program.

So what we have here, Mr.

Chairman, is quite a clear indication that the Ministry of Highways not

only is blacktopping where and when needed, but is certainly using

that ministry for sheer political purposes, as I indicated in the House

in my speech last Wednesday. It is a very political ministry.

It just so happens that I have in my possession the costs of

[ Page 3156 ]

the

day labour projects for that particular ministry. I was astounded to

learn, as I was going through the various annual reports dating back

through the years and studiously working until morning — this morning I

was reading these manuals, books and reports by candle-light — that,

first of all, you must understand that day labour projects are not

necessarily let out to tender but are almost solely under the

discretion of the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

I'm

not charging politics. Far be it from me to charge politics in this

august assembly. However, what we have when you compare the figures....

I won't go through them, because it is long and boring and there are

many pages of it here. The total breakdown or analysis of what has

happened, I find, is that if you happen to be an MLA from a Socred

riding you get piles of money for capital projects and day labour. I

might just cite a few examples for the record. If you happen to be from

an opposition riding, well, you're lucky if you get anything; the

relative figures are extremely low. I'll give a couple of examples

right now for the edification of the House, Mr. Chairman. Let's use my

own riding as an example for starters. That way I can kill two birds

with one stone — get in some constituency stuff and knock the minister

at the same time.

The total spending on day labour projects

in my particular riding amounted to about $170,000 — from the

minister's own figures; I have them right here.

HON. MR. FRASER: Too much.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That remark could cost you another 10,000-name petition, you know. You better cool it.

Let's

compare that with day labour projects in the minister's own riding. You

might as well say it is $16 million, as compared with $170,000 in my

own riding. Can you believe that, Mr. Chairman? I know you can't.

Almost $16 million on day labour projects in the minister's own riding,

as compared to the paltry $170,000 in my riding. But that isn't the

worst. I got off great for an opposition riding. I have a figure here

for one of the ridings. Can you believe this? The poor little riding of

Burnaby-Willingdon — a paltry $137,000. I cannot believe it. But that

isn't the worst.

That minister, as a good MLA, is probably

fighting for the best transportation system he can get in his riding;

and that's what he should be doing. However, he does have a little bit

of an advantage; he controls the purse-strings. We'll pick out a riding

at random. Let's pick the riding of Mackenzie. There's a random riding

for you. The grand total of Highways expenditure — it's a very

difficult terrain with winding snake-trails up, down and through the

riding; side roads are in disrepair; pot-holes are coming out of our

ears — is about $7,500,000. That's approximate; I can't find the figure

offhand.

HON. MR. FRASER: What riding is that?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mackenzie. I just picked a riding at random.

HON. MR. FRASER: Draw me a map.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We may get into that.

Last

year when I raised this topic in the House, I pointed out that overall

Highways capital expenditures in the minister's riding far exceeded

that in any other riding. I thought that after that little tirade,

drawing public attention to this matter, the minister would reconsider,

be a little bit more fair, reduce the Highways expenditures in his

riding, and perhaps distribute it around the province a little more

evenly. But what do we find? We find, in fact, that the minister has

increased in excess of $40 million in one fiscal year the total

expenditures on highways in his own riding.

I don't want to

listen again to this old reasoning that his riding is 18 times as big

as any other riding in the world, or something like that. We have heard

all that before. That is not a good enough reason. I say that fair play

is called for here. I am not talking about my riding versus the

minister's. I am talking about every riding in the province. It's the

same story. You can go through page after page of the ministry's own

figures. The ridings are all clearly indicated. When you come to an NDP

riding.... By the way, I should say that I appreciate the fact that, in

terms of Highways expenditures, the ministry does list these

expenditures in terms of constituencies rather than regions. It makes

it much easier for us to debate these estimates.

I know that

the minister is going to give the same explanation for what I consider

to be a serious, unfair situation as he did last year and on a

television program a few months ago. I personally resent the fact that

because an MLA happens to be a member of the executive council he will

take advantage of that position to overly favour one area over another.

Look

at poor little Vancouver East. I see the Leader of the Opposition has

just walked in. I went over these figures last night; it's a paltry sum

being spent there, and I don't know why. We've got the Leader of the

Opposition and a very excellent member in the former Attorney-General

representing that riding, and they've done an excellent job in this

House over the years. I think they should be entitled to the same

consideration as the people in Williams Lake. I don't want to deny the

people in Williams Lake and Quesnel and 100 Mile, who are fine people

with hard-working councils and very active chambers of commerce — and

80 percent Socred, but I know that wouldn't have anything to do with

the minister's figuring out and going over his estimates; I know that

wouldn't have any bearing on the case. I think the minister is a fair

minister.

The day labour projects bothered me not because of

the unequal distribution of funding. I don't suspect this minister of

doing anything underhanded; although, quite frankly, he did better than

I in the bull-throwing contest, and he was underhanded then; but I

could throw it further than he, so we were even in that category. Mr.

Minister, by preparing your estimates and your expenditures in this

manner, day labour projects, which are almost totally under the your

jurisdiction, are questionable. People do question them, and wrongfully

so, I think. I think you leave yourself open to charges of patronage —

probably not true, as far as I know; totally incorrect — by handling

the situation in that way. Next year — if you're still the government,

that is — when we come in to debate this very same topic as we do every

year, I wish to be able to stand up and say: "The minister has taken

some sound advice from a very responsible opposition. He has decided to

change his ways, and there is going to be equal distribution of funds

throughout the province for these projects."

I have a very

detailed breakdown.... Oh, the member to my immediate right has said

he's having a breakdown as well. Just bear up! I'm sure he'll be able

to survive the next

[ Page 3157 ]

hour

or so. I have an itemized breakdown of the funding and the

overexpenditures, not only riding by riding but ministry by ministry,

department by department, and I would hope that the minister will heed

my advice and all these figures. I'd make them available to the

minister, except that I got them from his ministry in the first place,

so he does have all this information.

While I have the

floor, there are a couple of other items. We did discuss, Mr. Chairman,

the problem at Penny. I want to raise a couple of other items which

don't relate to my riding. I will be getting into the problems of my

own riding in a short while, I hope.

First of all, there was

the question of the aerial tram at Boston Bar; the minister is very

familiar with this. Right at the outset, I keep complimenting the

minister from time to time on action. There was no action on that

thing. That aerial tram has broken down. People were stranded;

potential heart-attack victims were in a sad state; children couldn't

get to school; occasionally the thing would break down over the middle

of the river and you'd be dangling over it. For one or two hours at a

time we'd have 16 or 18 children dangling over the middle of the Fraser

River while they were waiting to repair this aerial tram. When this

matter was brought to my attention, I talked to the minister personally

as well as to people in the ministry about this matter, and I received

an explanation in this House as to why these things were happening. But

the fact is that the problem still exists. When the minister gets up to

reply, I wonder if he could tell us now that that situation has finally

been resolved, that once and for all the necessary repairs have been

made on a permanent basis — not the band-aid type of thing, that the

thing would run for a day and break down for two days and they would

have to rush technicians in. I promised the people at Boston Bar I

would raise this issue in the House, and I look forward to the

minister's reply. It's not an earth-shaking matter, and it won't bring

the government down; none of those things will happen, but it's an

important matter to the people living in that community, and

particularly if you happen to be under medical care. Perhaps the

minister could discuss that matter for a moment as well.

What else do we have here?

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Oh, no, don't resign until I finish my speech. Then you can resign. It

took me 15 or 20 minutes to prepare this material. I don't want to

waste it.

Onward and upward here. The minister, I think, may

be aware of this because there is a Mr. Riste of North Vancouver who

has written letters all over the world, to every MLA, I think to every

senior person in the ministry and to the minister himself. I am going

to just discuss this particular topic for a couple of minutes because I

promised these very fine people that I would.

I think I'll

just read this very short résumé because the brief that was forwarded

to all of us in this Legislature, pretty well, and to your ministry and

to yourself, was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 75 pages long. I've

attempted to reduce the problem down to one single page so it wouldn't

take up too much time in this House.

"Marjorie and George Riste are in their late 50s and

own an apartment at 2429 Lonsdale Avenue. Their mortgage on the

building is almost paid off, and they see their building as a source of

income and security which they will eventually pass on to their

children. The problem with the Department of Highways began about ten

years ago when the ministry told their tenants that the apartment

building would be demolished to make way for an interchange at Lonsdale

Avenue and Upper Levels Highway. Since then they have lost hundreds of

dollars in rent and have had their windows broken by a company that was

hired by the government to demolish a neighbouring building. They have

never been reimbursed for that damage. To date the government has not

built any interchange at this location. According to a January 3, 1980,

letter from the minister, the ministry hopes to commission a new

design, which may or may not affect the property."

There are two questions right there — compensation and the new design — that this family would like answered, Mr. Minister.

priorities. They wonder why the government persists in huge highway expenditures

instead of investing in light rapid transit and improved bus service."

Well, we have been through that in this House, and we will be going through it again, but this is the question they pose.

"In view of all the discussion about energy shortages and

rising gasoline prices, they feel that the government should not be pouring

more money into projects that serve car users at the expense of public transit

users. While the Ristes have received an answer from the Highways minister,

they are not satisfied. They, are afraid the government will try to force them"

— question no. 3 — "to sell their apartment building in spite of their determination

to hold onto it. It is unclear just what the Ristes expect us in opposition to

do for them."

Well,

what I am doing for them, I am doing right now: looking for answers. I

think they would like to see me press for a decision on this

intersection with the minister and perhaps even raise the issue in the

House — which I am in the process of doing now. "The Ristes still

expect a reply to their last letter in which they included their

telephone number," etc.

This is dated March 20, 1980. I am

presuming that by now the ministry has replied to their most recent

correspondence. They say they have contacted the MLA for their area, and

while they personally are not criticizing their MLA, they tell me here

that their MLA was unable to do anything for them.

This

general problem of government priorities should be pursued during the

Department of Highways estimates as well. The government's indecision

on this intersection has gone on long enough.

MR. GABELMANN:

In order to give the opportunity to the member for Mackenzie to

continue with his comments, I will act as the intervening speaker.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I don't have too much to go on this particular matter at this time.

We've got weeks ahead of us, but at this particular point....

continue the résumé of the Riste correspondence, the column points out

that when the NDP were in power, some traffic designs that would have

eliminated the need to acquire

[ Page 3158 ]

any

further property were worked out. They were scuttled by the Social

Credit government when they came to power. That's their view of the

situation. Mr. Minister, when you have the opportunity to reply to

that, I'd appreciate it very much.

I have a great deal of

information on the matter of the transporting of dangerous cargo, Mr.

Minister. I was hoping that you would be good enough to make a public

statement on that matter today when you rise in your place to comment

and reply to some of these questions. This matter is not only of

concern to large urban areas, but it is becoming an area of increasing

concern to other smaller communities throughout the province.

You

will recall that some years ago in my own riding four huge chlorine

tanks were lost somewhere in the Malaspina Strait between Texada Island

and Powell River. They never have been located. In my view, and in the

view of many people who are familiar with these matters, they are a

time bomb ticking away under the ocean. It may well be that if those

huge tanks of chlorine rust through, or if something else happens, it

could be a major disaster on the coast of British Columbia.

I'm

just using this as an example, Mr. Chairman. I know that the federal

and provincial governments did expend quite a bit of money to try and

locate these chlorine tanks, but they were never located. The people

responsible were hoping that people would forget about the matter, that

it would go away and nothing would ever happen. That could well be, if

we're lucky.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I thought I told the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Chabot) that if he cools it and doesn't interject we'd be out of here

and out of these estimates within two or three weeks. If he's going to

carry on like that, we'll be here until Christmas. Besides, I'm trying

to get that minister up to Okeover to personally view the very fine

mariculture area, and he refuses to go. He keeps saying something about

pairing. I don't understand. What's this pairing stuff he's always

talking about? Okay, back to the estimates, Mr. Chairman.

any event, what I'm asking the minister in terms of the transport of

dangerous cargo at this time, not only in North Vancouver and the major

localities throughout the province, is what steps the government has

taken or will be taking to assure that we don't have another

Mississauga in British Columbia. But, you know, it's not necessarily

the big disasters; it's also the smaller disasters that could occur in

any community in British Columbia, particularly where we have a

pulp mill or a facility of that kind. So I would ask the minister to

comment on that.

I must take a few minutes to discuss a

couple of constituency matters. First of all, Highway 101 is primarily

the only highway link for my constituents from Lund, Powell River,

Texada Island south to the Sunshine Coast and Vancouver. Of

course, the minister will recall that when we were the government.... I

didn't ask for $500 million to build and reconstruct that whole highway

in one year. All I asked of the minister at that time was that a

certain amount of funding — $3 million to $6 million — be set aside

every year to upgrade that Highway 101, and eventually we would have a

decent road for people to travel on. You must remember that the total

population of the Powell River regional area, including the Sunshine

Coast, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of about 32,000 people, with

17,000 people in municipalities, if I recall correctly. I think the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) will agree with

that. He's familiar with those figures. But the fact is that in order

for people to get to the lower mainland — and they must pretty well go

to the lower mainland, no matter where else in the country or the world

they may be going — they have to utilize that highway. While a few

dollars have been spent taking a few of the worst curves out, we have

somewhere in the neighbourhood of 22 miles of what I can only describe

as a very good cow trail or a very bad snake trail, one of the two. But

work should continue. I'm not asking the minister right now to expend

$100 million on that project.

All I'm asking is that he

announce the policy that a certain amount of reconstruction will take

place on that particular highway every year, that's all — three to six

miles, at least to Pender Harbour, a major community with an area

population of about 2,400 people with hospital facilities, etc. That's

all I'm asking of the minister at this time. I personally don't agree

that just going along down that highway and knocking out the odd corner

is going to solve the problem, particularly now that ferry schedules

for the summer are designed in such a manner that people are going to

speed. They're going to speed, and they are speeding. They're taking

their lives in their hands, and we've had some pretty serious accidents

on that highway, although no deaths yet this summer — not yet, but for

sure there will be. So I'm asking the minister to just consider giving

us a reasonable amount — if he could just transfer, say, $3 million.

His riding would hardly miss $3 million; that's a drop in the bucket to

the Cariboo riding, and it could be of such great benefit to the people

in my riding.

Furthermore, while we're on to righting a few

constituency matters here, I want to ask the minister as well if he

would consider again Highway 101. We discussed this topic last year,

and I must admit that a few loads of blacktop were dumped in, but it

has not solved the problem. This is Highway 101 within the municipality

of Powell River. I know that the council has met with your senior

people on this matter — Mr. Stewart and others. But the fact is that

the highway there is caving into the ocean and will continue to do so.

You can drop blacktop into those cave-ins and holes until hell freezes

over, but the fact is that it's going to continue to cave away because

of the undermining of the ocean in that area. There have been some very

bad accidents, although to my knowledge no fatalities in the last

couple of years in that area. What I'm asking the minister and the

ministry to do at this time is, in conjunction with the municipality of

Powell River, the council and the planners, to look at the possibility

of alternate routes for this fast-growing community. There are

alternate solutions to that problem. There are three or four. There's a

bit of controversy, as there is over any proposal, but I think we

should be seriously considering an alternate route. The reason we're

continuing that route through the municipality and putting up with some

traffic jams and things is because it's cheaper. That's the only

reason. There's no other reason. It's not the best way or safest way;

it's the cheapest way, and that isn't quite good enough. Perhaps the

minister could tell me today, when he gets up to reply to some of these

questions, that he will ask the senior people in his ministry to meet

in a serious way with the planners and the Powell River regional

council on this matter.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 3159 ]

Having

had the opportunity very recently to once again traverse Highway 20

between Williams Lake and Bella Coola, which serves a large proportion

of my riding, although the majority of it is in the minister's riding,

I have to admit there have been vast improvements on that highway.

Certainly you don't take your life in your hands nearly as badly as you

used to a few years ago. I can tell the minister that from various

representations on my numerous visits into the Bella Coola area,

highway work is appreciated. In fact those highway improvements have

decreased the travelling time from out of that community to the

Williams Lake area — or to Vancouver and the lower mainland area, where

most people go — by two and a half hours, approximately. I'll tell the

minister now that that work was appreciated.

But there's

still a great deal of work to do, not necessarily on Highway 20 so much

as in the Bella Coola valley itself. Some of the major side roads in

that valley are terrible. In fact you need four-wheel drive vehicles to

utilize some of the roads in subdivisions. Subdivisions within the

valley itself, because it is a flood valley, have been totally banned —

rightfully so — because once every 10 or 15 years the whole valley

floods out and there's multi-million dollars worth of damage. It was a

good policy that was brought in to disallow any further subdivisions on

the flood plain; it makes sense. It upset a few developers and things,

but you can't please everyone in politics, as you well know. However,

as a result of that, people are compelled to build on up the side roads

and in the valleys, and so I hope the minister and the ministry will

consider improving some of the side roads in those areas.

I'd

like to say this — one last item on this. I'm going to ask the minister

to pay attention to this last remark — through you, Mr. Chairman. Some

time ago I wrote to the minister, with copies to senior people within

the ministry, requesting this year's anticipated and total highway

projects — capital projects, day labour projects and routine

maintenance projects — that were set in my riding. While I said earlier

in this debate that the minister was quite good in answering his

correspondence, I have not received a reply on this particular matter

from anyone within the ministry. When I wrote and asked you for the

anticipated capital expenditure programs for this fiscal year — for the

day labour projects and the routine maintenance-type programs — I

received no reply whatsoever.

What kind of bothers me about

this — and I'll just mention it again; I did mention it the other day —

is that when I go to the local road foreman — it depends on the area;

if it's a small community, I go to the regional engineer based in

Gibsons or to the regional highways manager based in North Vancouver —

the answer I get on these items is one of two. One answer is: "I can't

give this answer to you. You must get this information from the

minister." Okay, I accept that; that's why I wrote the minister. But I

still haven't received a reply. I'll grant the minister this: going

from memory, I only wrote that letter approximately one month ago, so

he may not have had time to get the reply to me. I certainly didn't

anticipate debating these estimates this early in the game. I thought

we'd be in October or November before we got into transportation.

any event, I would appreciate the minister replying to that

correspondence — not in detail here in the House; we won't take up the

time of the House with a constituency matter. But I would appreciate it

if the minister would reply to that particular important piece of

correspondence.

I know we have a lot of people here who have

comments and speeches to make. I have a great deal more material to

discuss with this minister, which we'll get into next week. Did you

finish your little job? Yes, you did. With that, Mr. Chairman, I await

the minister's reply and took forward to his answers.

HON. MR. FRASER: I will attempt to answer, to the best of my ability, the questions that were asked, but I've got so many notes here.

For

the benefit of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), regarding an

item that was not clarified on water transportation on the Pacific

coast.... I would like to tell the committee that we are looking at a

vessel of about, I believe, 350-tonne capacity that would be built in

B.C. shipyards. I didn't mention that before, but the member for Prince

Rupert did — that we create work in shipyards. I'd just like to say

this. At the present time the B.C. Ferry Corporation has two jumbo-type

vessels under construction in B.C. shipyards, one in Victoria and one

in Vancouver, at a cost of approximately $30 million apiece. They've

been worked on for a year, and we hope that they will be ready for

service and launching in March and May, I believe it is, of 1981. I

want to tell the committee that this government, through the Ferry

Corporation, has supplied more work to the shipyards than any other

whoever. I think that we are doing 101 percent as far as trying to

maintain our shipyards and the work created there.

As a

matter of fact, we've had difficulties getting our vessels out of the

shipyards with the work we want done. That happened in 1980. Business

is so good, because of the amount of business we give them, that they

are not meeting their delivery dates. Those are the facts of life, and

I get quite a kick when I see the press writing up that they're

concerned about work in the shipyards. I give them a message now. We'd

appreciate them delivering on contracts on time. They haven't been

doing that. This might be an internal problem, but it appears to me

that we're already giving them too much work, as they can't meet these

deadlines. So don't get carried away with the fact of lack of work in

the shipyards, because our experience in the year 1980 alone.... I can

relate some horror stories to you on their promised delivery dates that

didn't take place.

Dealing with this other vessel, the board

of directors of the Ferry Corporation are looking at the possible

expansion of the ferry fleet with a 350-tonne vessel. I forget what the

cost was. I think it was estimated at $5 million or $7 million, but

there is nothing definite. It will be a combined passenger and vehicle

service for areas on the coast that are partly served now, and some

that aren't at all. We haven't made any final determinations on it, but

the areas that we are considering servicing that have no service are

the communities of Kitkatla and Hartley Bay, and we are considering

improving the service we have going to Port Simpson and Kinkolith now.

We are certainly looking at a smaller-type vessel to service the

smaller-type communities that I referred to, but no decisions have been

made on that so far.

I will try to deal with the member for

Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) — I will go from back to front as quickly as

possible — regarding his letter to me regarding the day labour

estimates or any other plan for Mackenzie riding. He said he wrote the

letter about a month ago. I imagine it is in the system, and we will

certainly answer it. That is about the

[ Page 3160 ]

length

of time it takes in our ministry to get all the accurate information

pulled together to reply to a letter like that. I am aware of our road

trying to fall into the ocean in the community of Powell River. So are

our engineers, and we have had senior engineers looking at that

problem. Hopefully, they will have a solution to it. I think you

mentioned that maybe we should desert it and have another area.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: An alternate route, possibly.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I've had experience with that, dealing with councils. If we abandon

that and create another one, we'll end up with two because surely they

won't accept any responsibility for the one slipping into the ocean. Of

course, we will have that one as well as the alternate route. These are

problems we deal with every day, but we are aware of that. There has to

be more specific geotechnical work done to come up with an engineering

resolution of the settlement there. That really is what I'm saying.

They plan on doing that.

You had a fair amount to say about the Sunshine

Coast, Highway 101. We are doing work there, probably not fast enough.

As a matter of fact, I had to get the mayor of one of those communities

out of bed one Sunday morning a short time ago because his community

was all up in arms because we were paving. You can't win, no matter

what you do. They were mad because we were paving and they were going

to get some tar on their sandals. He wanted our paving contractor to

shut down because the merchants of that community didn't want the tar

that we have to have for paving tracked into their places of business.

So we shut the contractor down. What I am saying is that we are doing

work to improve the road and we will go on and cooperate with all

citizens. I know about that improvement job from a personal standpoint.

are looking at an area now, hopefully funded — a difficult

section that

you would know better than I do, Mr. Member, from Secret Cove to Garden

Bay. They are planning to do some work there, and that is difficult rock

work. One thing that I find, dealing on the islands in the province, as

well as the coast, is that we either have solid rock to contend with or

a muskeg or both. It makes it very difficult but we gradually, with our

fine engineering and that, get them resolved and get the improvements

done that are so necessary.

I have a note here about — I

think these are the people you brought up in North Vancouver — Mr. and

Mrs. Riste. The information I have on that is that they do not wish to

sell. The ministry offered to move the building. This was refused. The

ministry is presently redesigning this intersection. We have no

knowledge of any specific claim from the Ristes. We expect to have the

design completed within a few months. We will advise these people at

the earliest possible date if their property will be affected.

a larger item, on a national and provincial basis you brought up a good

subject, the transportation of dangerous goods, whether it be in the

province or nationally. I think another reason our citizens are

becoming more aware of the importance of transportation, regardless of

how it is done, is the higher instance of failure of parts of our

transportation system. The news coverage of the Mississauga incident in

Ontario is an example. You bet, there are lots of dangerous goods

travelling by air, water and land. With the millions of miles travelled

and the millions of pounds of dangerous goods that are transported —

and have to be, in our economic system — I think generally our

transportation systems have done an excellent job.

Where we

House of Commons on dangerous goods. As a matter of fact, it has moved

through second reading and is at the committee stage, and it is the

intention of all the provinces of Canada, when that legislation is

processed, to update the control of dangerous goods to fall in line as

nearly as possible with the federal legislation. While they will do

some of the policing, so will the provinces. What I am saying is that

we are trying to get a national policy. As far as the government of

British Columbia is concerned, we agree with it. We have notified the

federal Minister of Transport of our position; it is his legislation.

So have all the other provinces. They have all agreed that in some

shape or form they will support a national policy on dangerous goods.

would hope that by the end of this year that will be in place and we

can get on with better regulation of dangerous goods, whether it is the

railroads or commercial freight movement by road or water. I have met

the federal Minister of Transport three times in the last month and a

half. He certainly wants to get this through the House of Commons, and

I think he will. He feels it is a high priority. The ministers of

transport from each province have met on this. It is not an individual,

ad hoc decision. We agreed in meetings that I attended that we want to

on that, and the sooner the better as far as I am concerned. I think it

is safe to say that Mr. Pépin, the federal Minister of Transport, feels

the same way.

You mentioned the Boston Bar–North Bend ferry.

I shouldn't bring this up now. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland), who is the MLA for Yale-Lillooet, is in the House. We have

had a very, very vexing time with that ferry. Yes, there have been lots

of mechanical problems with it. I can understand the citizens' concern

regarding it. That doesn't help very much when your access across the

river is gone. I think the problems we have had with the North

Bend–Boston Bar ferry could have been fixed a little faster. Basically,

an electric cable that is part of that ferry system broke. I believe

the ferry was bought in Italy or Germany, and they had to go back there

to get the necessary parts. In the meantime, the good people of North

Bend and Boston Bar had to either stay at home or swim the Fraser River

— not a very happy thing to look forward to. At the time it was broken

down their MLA was in contact with our ministry about three times an

hour.

There is another story behind the North Bend–Boston

Bar ferry, but I won't belabour that here today. What the engineers say

now is that it will never break down again. I know they will shoot me

for saying this, Mr. Chairman. They don't really say that, but they

feel they now have the electrical malfunctions resolved, and there

shouldn't be the serious downtime there has been in the past.

You

dealt with the problem of access to Penny — yes, that's correct, that's

a community on the CNR east of Prince George — and it does not have

access, never has had access, from the highway standpoint. We're having

meetings now with the regional district. I doubt that they'll achieve

anything other than to recommend to us to spend more money. That's what

they usually do. But we're looking at extending a road on the north

side of the Fraser River from Sinclair Mills. The community of Penny,

according to our information, is not in favour of major expenditures on

a bridge across the

[ Page 3161 ]

Fraser

River at Penny. They also feel that if that policy decision was made,

it would delay the present program of the road extension from Sinclair

Mills. So what the situation there is, at the present moment, is to

extend the road on the north side to Penny. This will take several

years to accomplish. In the meantime the highway engineers are looking

for a low-cost direct river crossing. In other words, we are

investigating either a temporary bridge or a reaction ferry. They're

looking to see if they can find a better crossing than they've been

able to find so far; they're looking at that now.

The last

and probably the foremost thing that the member brought up was the

overspending of this ministry's budget — the overruns — and I said in

my opening remarks that we had these overruns, and that it was

government policy that this is the way we would finance.... The

ministry was given an original budget at the start of the fiscal year

1979, and if further funds were available, some of those further funds

would be spent on upgrading our highway system. That in fact is what

happened. I'm happy to say that happened, because this government

created an economy to have these funds generated into the treasury and

we could, in turn, improve our transportation network throughout the

province.

The budget that is before you now that we are

debating, plus the items in Bills 5 and 7.... It is my information and

government instruction that that will be the budget for the highways

for 1980-81. So I'm saying to you that a policy change has been made,

and where the budget that we're debating here shows an item — so are

items in Bill 5 and Bill 7.... I think if you relate those figures

together you will find.... Totalling those together, compared with our

actual expenditures for 1979-80 fiscal year, we're a little above. So

that's the financial situation there. I think I've covered most of the

items.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I find the debate on

this ministry interesting, because many people find the Ministry of

Highways boring, and I think it goes to the root of Social Credit. It

has a long, important history in the government's party going back to

Wesley Black and P.A. Gaglardi. I'm most interested in where the

decisions are made when traffic volume, weather and so on do not

justify upgrading of a road but where the upgrading takes place: in

other words, where the political judgment comes into play.

the minister's response to my friend from Mackenzie, he studiously

avoided the comments made regarding the amount of day labour money

spent in the minister's riding; the amount of paving money that is

spent in the minister's riding. We continually hear about the number of

miles or kilometres of roads in that electoral area.

HON. MR. FRASER: Come on up, and I'll open your eyes for you by showing you some of them.

MR. HANSON: Well, I'm hoping that you're going to be able to answer some questions that will open my eyes for me.

One

of the things that characterized the Social Credit government all

during the 1952-72 era was highways and the way that "government" and

"highways'' were almost mutually interchangeable words. When Social

Credit goes extinct, as they will at some point in time, they are going

to be remembered not for social policy or educational policy. They will

probably be remembered for two things. One will be building dams, where

we got hosed by the United States, and two will be road building.

One of the things that was introduced in 1974 by my friend from Prince Rupert was....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the second member for Victoria has the floor. I would ask all other members to come to order, please.

MR. HANSON:

My friend from Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who was the previous Minister

of Highways during the NDP regime, introduced a program which received

little attention in the press and little recognition, which I think was

unfortunate. What he tried to do was cut out some of the massive pork

barrel that had been generated during the 1952-72 Social Credit period.

He introduced a program in Highways called maintenance management. What

that was was trying to look at the objective factors that would require

the maintenance and upgrading decisions to flow up as a result of

physical factors and traffic volume.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: They stir around a lot on this because they know that this is interesting stuff.

The

political influence in where highway money goes is reduced as the

objective factors take over: traffic volume, weather conditions, the

importance of the road in terms of its industrial routing, what kind of

vehicles, heavy axle and so on. That maintenance management program was

to, on an on-going basis, monitor all of these so-called extensive

roads within the interior that the minister so quickly feels account

for the excessive spending in his ministry and his riding. I think that

he is departing from that maintenance management system, and what he is

doing is politically pouring more money into his riding than those

low-volume roads will justify .

In the annual report — and

here I'd like some specific information. If I may — on page 99, Cariboo

district, there are a couple of job numbers that I would like specific

information on. I would like to know about project 3934, which is

"miscellaneous feeder routes/ditch gravel and reconstruction'' in the

Cariboo district — $750,000. I would like to know what those roads were

and what the traffic volumes were on those roads to justify that

expenditure.

I would like to know about page 102 of the

annual report — project S2977. Williams Lake area miscellaneous paving,

36 miles — that's a lot of miscellany — $2.3 million. I would like to

know what class those roads are and what the traffic volumes on those

roads are, and I would like to have a list of those roads — those jobs.

Then

there is on page 103 project S3777, 100 Mile House, again in the

minister's riding, miscellaneous paving, 11 miles for just under $1

million. I would like to know what class of roads those are, what the

traffic volumes are and what the rationale is for the upgrading taking

place. I would like that specific information.

I have

another question. I want to know what percentage of each class of roads

there is in the minister's riding. In other words, I want to know which

ones are in class 1 — like the Trans-Canada Highway — class 2, class 3

and on down to the antelope trails. I want to know what percentage of

the paving budget is spent on the lower-class roads in your riding. My

analysis of day labour in the annual report indicates, I think,

[ Page

3162 ]

that a disproportionate amount of the paving budget is spent on

lower-class roads in your riding, money not spent on lower-class toads

in other ridings.

I have another question. I want to know

from the minister — through you, Mr. Chairman — what other jurisdiction

in North America has the generous fencing policy of this government in

the Cariboo riding. The fencing policy is to keep the cattle off the

roads.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: Everyone

in the province knows that the Annacis Island bridge was a political

decision. Everybody calls it the W. Davidson Bridge.

HON. MR. FRASER:

On a point of order, I would suggest that the Annacis Island bridge has

been fully discussed here and is out of order in this debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The second member for Victoria is advised by the Chair that the

discussion of legislation that has already gone through the House is

not really debatable in the ministry estimates. In ministry estimates

we discuss the administrative actions of the minister whose estimates

are before us. The reference to previous legislation cannot be allowed.

MR. HANSON:

Thank you for your advice. I heed your advice. My point is that I am

talking about the administrative and political decision-making that is

going on in the minister's office, and I would contend that the Annacis

Island bridge is a political decision emanating from the

administration, within the Premier's office, and that it is a rush job.

I don't think that much geotechnical work went on prior to the

decision being made.

HON. MR. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this member is not paying any attention at all to your instructions.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I will have to advise the member again that there has been ample

discussion with respect to the legislation, and it cannot be debated now

that we're in committee.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I

will drop that particular inquiry. I do have another one, though. There

is an employee within your employ by the name of Mr. Art Mickey. I'm

interested in what his job description is and how he fits in with the

organizational structure in the ministry. With your regions, the way

they're currently established, my understanding is that Mr. Mickey

travels and reports directly at a very high level on road conditions

and work that should be done. Mr. Mickey, I understand, comes from

Quesnel and was working with the Ministry of Highways there, but I'm

interested in what his job function is at this point and how he fits in

with the reporting structure within the ministry.

I also

have a question regarding the 1977-78 annual report, page 227, and that

question is under job project number 3565: "126 Jesmond Road: dozing,

$14,196." I would like to know what that project was and who did the

dozing. I'd be very happy to get the response on that.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 37

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Barrett

Hall

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Hyndman

NAYS — 9

Vander Zalm

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

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

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Mr.

Strachan, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders

and Private Bills, presented the committee's fourth report.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing

Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows: That the

preamble

to bill No. PR 403, intituled

An Act to Amend the Cultus Lake Park Act, has

been approved and the bill ordered to be approved without amendment. All of

which is respectfully submitted, W.B. Strachan, Chairman.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I move by leave that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to make a short introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page

3163 ]

MR. MUSSALLEM: In the gallery today are a group of 12 to 14 Pathfinders,

a division of Girl Guides of Canada, and they are appreciating the performance

of the House. Mrs. LaRose, who is their leader, also was a page in this House

at a previous time. I wish you would make them welcome.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:54 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1980, 2001, 2011: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada