1982 Legislative Session: 4th 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, JUNE 25, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

8451 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Fraser)

On vote 76: minister's office (continued) –– 8451

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Segarty

Mr. Hanson

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. Davis

Mr. King

Waste Management Act (Bill 52). Report. (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

Third reading –– 8465

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Report. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Third reading –– 8465

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Fraser)

On vote 76: minister's office (continued) –– 8465

Mr. Ree

Royal Assent to bills –– 8466

FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery with us

this morning is a very nice lady, a 20-year resident of the Kispiox

Valley in the constituency of Skeena who operates a steelhead camp in

that very beautiful valley. I'd like the House to make Mrs. Olga Walker

very welcome.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today and in the city for

the last several days, is a group of young seamen from the Japanese merchant

training vessel, the Seiun Mara . I would like the House to welcome our Japanese

friends here today.

MR. SPEAKER:

Before we proceed, Wednesday last the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) rose on a question of

privilege involving statements made outside the House by another hon.

member, which had allegedly been reported in a local newspaper. The

minister did not table a copy of the

article in the House, and, on the

authority of a previous ruling in this House to be found in the Journals

of 1974 at page 23, it is necessary that the

article be tabled with the

member's submission. Although the minister did not table the article, I

note that it was tabled by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke), who also indicated that it was an accurate report of his

remarks.

On a second ground, however, the minister's

application fails. In matters of privilege, it is necessary that the

member, when raising the matter, present to the Chair a copy of the

motion that he proposes to move. I refer you to British Columbia Journals , 1973, page 196.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 76: minister's office, $228,769.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Chairman, we got started on the discussion of this ministry

yesterday, and I'd like to reply to some of the questions asked by the

member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead). We pretty well looked after the

member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell). The first item I'd like to address is

the controversy over the airports proposed on the mid-coast. I would

like to respond to several observations and comments that the member

for Mackenzie made yesterday regarding my ministry's air transport

assistance program, and particularly the program involvement in his

riding of Mackenzie at Denny Island in the Bella Coola area. I am

somewhat surprised at this member's sudden interest in this project, as

we had not heard him speak out so loudly against this program prior to

the moneys being allocated to construction of a road to an already

existing public airport. I'm sure the member would not play politics

with this issue, but he does enjoy holding up newspaper articles to

make certain points.

I draw his attention to the letter which appeared in this morning's issue of the Vancouver Province .

Mr. Chairman, this letter is from the B.C. Aviation Council, an

organization that for many years in this province has been the

well-respected voice of the aviation community in advising on all

aspects of the development of air transportation. I'd like to comment

that we always consult them, rightly or wrongly, on all projects. We

feel they are a representative provincial voice. I'd like to read the

letter into the record, as I believe it most important that a

non-partisan light be given to this issue as the member opposite seems

set on making this a political issue now that he is assured the

mid-coast will have an airport. I refer to this morning's Province

article. "Bella Bella Airport Not for Big Business" is the caption of

the letter. It's written by Ron Heath, the executive officer of the

B.C. Aviation Council.

"In his June 16 Province

article, 'Airport Aid Riles Indians,' Tony Wanless either didn't do his

homework, or preferred to accept biased, unsupported claims regarding

the public airport at Bella Bella.

"Having

been involved with the requirement to establish a safe haven for

aviation up the coast at a site which could also provide wide public

benefit, and having been approached by the Indian band's

representatives several years ago, I would like to set the record

straight.

"The dispute over the airport hasn't

been 'dragging on for almost ten years'; the Indian band approached my

office five to six years ago asking for support of 'any' site which

could confer air service to their area. Even after I told their

representatives that our studies pointed to the Denny Island site as

offering the best operational facility to the whole area, their

response to me was positive — a good local airport was better that

nothing.

"Unfortunately, subsequent

encouragement by several federal ministries added to the Campbell

Island expectation for funds for their own airport as well, to which

was then added local provincial partisan politics.

"The

public-use airport at Denny Island has been constructed solely by

private capital at a cost to members of the Denny Island Airport

Society of several hundreds of thousands of dollars to date. This

existing airport at Bella Bella has had a 'public-airport' licence,

issued by Transport Canada, for the last two years.

"The

Denny Island land site is now co-located with the old RCAF Shearwater

facility, still used by amphibious aircraft, connecting Bella Bella to

major centres, so the Indians don't 'now pay $5 for a water taxi' —

they always have had to cross the water to the air facility.

"Further,

as Denny Island will be able to accommodate aircraft at night and in

poor weather, the air services for the Indian band will be much better

than heretofore. Rather than having another government department

construct yet another airport on Campbell Island at taxpayers' expense,

our recommendation was to locate a multipurpose, all-weather helicopter

in the area to complement the existing Denny Island capability. The

Indians, apparently, still opt for another multimillion-dollar airport

instead.

[ Page 8452 ]

"Transport Canada, responsible for aviation matters,

has not endorsed an airstrip on Campbell Island in lieu of the existing

licensed airport at Denny Island. "The airport runway at Denny Island

is not 4,000 feet, as stated in your article, but 1,500 feet — an error

in reporting which is dangerously misleading to some of your readers.

"Finally,

the provincial support being provided is to improve the road access

between the marine facility noted above and the public airport, not for

the airport itself. There is no doubt that more money will be required

to capitalize on the potential at the Denny Island site.

"In

summary, the gist of your

article on the Bella Bella

airport was that the provincial air transport assistance program was being used

to fund 'big business' instead of the citizens. Nothing could be further

from the truth."

Further,

Mr. Chairman, I don't know what report or study the member for

Mackenzie was referring to as being conducted in 1968, as I am told the

only real study took place in 1977. I am also informed that this study

did not take into consideration the importance of serving all the

residents of the mid-coast. I would suggest the member opposite is

refusing to do that as well.

The debate over the location of

an airstrip in the Bella Bella area has gone on for many years, and I

blame the federal government for the controversy. It is that

government's responsibility to license airstrip locations, and they

refused to settle the location battle. The end result was that no

airport was ever developed. I attempted over several years to have the

federal government make that decision, and stated publicly that I would

work to have the airport assistance program participate at whatever

site the federal government recommended. That recommendation never

came, and the people involved in the Denny Island Airport Society got

tired of waiting for the government to do anything, and I can't blame

them. Finally, in frustration, they went ahead without any assurances

of government involvement of any level and built an airstrip. That

airstrip was built as a public airstrip with good old private-sector

know how. The important point, Mr. Chairman, is that it was built and

licensed by the federal government, and the first plane had landed on

it prior to any application being received by the Campbell Island

Indian band. The public has not spent one cent on this public airport

development, and the mid-coast finally had an airport. The band's

application for $4.7 million was not received until after the airport

was built as a public strip and licensed by the federal government and

the first aircraft had landed. I'm pleased to report to you today that

a scheduled air service is now operating into the Denny Island airstrip

on a daily basis, and that is what the air transport assistance program

is all about.

The member for Mackenzie stated that he

thought the members of the Denny Island airport had a lot to gain

through the involvement of building an airstrip. But I would say that

all his constituents up and down the coast have a lot to gain, and he

should remember that. Also, out of courtesy, I sent to the member a

copy of the agreement signed between my ministry and the Denny Island

Airport Society. It specifically states: "No funds can be utilized

towards the past expense of building the airport." It also states:

"These funds, up to a maximum of $350,000, can only be spent on — the

airport access road." Mr. Chairman, my ministry builds roads to public

facilities all over this province completely at the taxpayers expense.

This airport is a public facility being utilized by residents of both

islands, and we have offered to participate in the building of a public

road. That member is complaining about this. I know the member has

trouble understanding private initiative, and that is why he is on that

side of the House. I can only say that we now have a public airstrip

that can be used in the development of the mid-coast emergency

services, search and rescue, etc., and the taxpayers of B.C. have

offered $350,000.

You will recall that the band council's

application was originally for $4.7 million, which would take up an

entire year's budget for this program. I'm pleased that we have finally

gone ahead with some transportation development at Bella Bella, even

though the most politically acceptable action would have been no

action, which that member is now taking advantage of. But we now have

an airport that is accessible by the floatplane base that serves the

entire coast. I should also mention that the great B.C. Ferry system

provides regular service to Campbell Island; therefore the area is

being well serviced. I should also mention that recent tragedies on the

mid-coast involving aircraft prompted us to move on this development.

have on file many letters supporting the development of aviation fuel

depots on Denny Island to serve the mid-coast, including a letter from

the Central Native Fisherman's Cooperative, which operates a cannery on

Denny Island. This fuel depot will provide a greatly needed service and

will add greatly to the safety of the area's aviation service.

conclusion, I would state that we have many letters of support for this

development, including a letter from the Central Coast Regional

District that urges development of an airport on either site. For years

everyone has been sitting on the fence on this issue, to the detriment

of the people of the mid-coast and the aviation community of this

province. This fence-sitting has not only added to the dangers of

flying on the mid-coast of B.C., but it has also kept services from the

residents. We have decided to participate in the development in a small

way, and I believe that the decision will prove to be absolutely

correct. The member asked for a public inquiry. As a member of this

government, I certainly won't recommend that type of nonsense. I'm sure

the government will not see to that request. I can't understand this

member. Whenever we want to improve transportation on the Pacific

coast, he objects to it. He was violently opposed to the extension of

the ferry service from Prince Rupert to the Queen Charlotte Islands,

where they had never had any ferry service.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Not true.

HON. MR. FRASER: You rattled a lot of sabres and said the way we did it was all wrong, but that's all history now.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You wasted $22 million of the taxpayers' money.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I think you'll find out what the Queen Charlotte Islands think about it

soon. Even the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was against that.

He'll have to account for that very shortly as well. They've had

service there since November 1980.

I'd like to say one other thing regarding the

article appearing in the Times-Colonist that I referred to before. They're so parochial that I really don't pay any attention. They don't

[ Page

8453 ]

even know where Denny Island or Campbell Island are. I really don't think

they care, according to what they wrote. I didn't want to miss that. Mr.

Heath answered them better than I could.

A few other remarks were made by that member, but that was the main one.

There

were a few other questions asked, though, and I want to reply to them.

Yes, we are building the Annacis Island bridge. We'll have vehicles

crossing it, hopefully, in 1985, and not later than 1986. Dealing with

this year and the Annacis Island vote that you asked about that you

couldn't find, it is in the capital

section of the highway budget for

the Annacis Island project to proceed. I believe the amount is $30

million.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What vote number, Alex?

HON. MR. FRASER:

I haven't got it handy, but it's under the capital vote; it's spelled

out as capital. The capital total in the vote is $149,419,383.

You

also asked about northeast coal. Yes, our ministry is heavily involved

in northeast coal. In the year 1981-82, $5 million was expended. It is

anticipated to spend $42 million in 1982-83. All the contracts are

awarded, and the contractors are at work. We expect to spend a further

$45 million in 1983-84 on the road from Chetwynd to Tumbler Ridge; when

the project is completed, by freeze-up 1983 — at least a lot of it will

be done — the total expenditure is expected to be $92 million.

You mentioned subdivision approvals. We deal with hundreds and thousands of them. With regard to Gibsons and the Sunshine

Coast area, which you referred to, we certainly have our problems

there; we are on top of them, though, but they are still probably

taking too long.

By the way, I've been given a note: the vote number for highway capital is vote 78.

Regarding delays in subdivision approvals on the Sunshine

Coast, there are a lot of problems there; far too many politicians are

involved. I'm referring to the local politicians. The Regional District

of Sunshine Coast is one of our problems; they can't make up their

minds to start with, and that puts a delay on it. I'm not saying

there's delay on our part. We are aware of it and have been for some

time. We are trying to expedite it. If you have any individual ones,

give them to us, and I'm sure the senior people will see what they can

do to expedite it. They mightn't approve it; they might say no. They

are certainly entitled to an answer.

You mentioned the

Coquihalla. We are building the Coquihalla, but it is going to be

slower than we expected. Contractors are now working on one

section of

the Coquihalla, but there were not enough funds to call for a further

contract or two, which we would have liked to have done in this fiscal

year 1982-83. Consequently the new road from Hope to Merritt.... It

will finally be Hope to Merritt and then on to Kamloops, but it will be

delayed somewhat. There is still work going on there.

I think that pretty well covers the queries from the member for Mackenzie yesterday.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister seems very defensive this morning. It looks

like we have hit a sore spot in terms of the outlay of $350,000 to a few private

developers who don't live in the area and who stand to make a profit from

sheer discrimination against the 1,200 native Indians.

The

minister did not fully inform this House. The fact is that I have

correspondence dating back to 1972 — the first year I was elected —

that deals specifically with this topic of airport location; a lot of

it with the federal government. The minister should certainly look back

through his files on that matter. He says I've suddenly become

interested. I have correspondence in my files — and the minister can

look at it — dating back to 1972, urging the federal and provincial

governments to take some action — at least the proper type of hearings.

That never happened, in spite of the fact that the federal government

committed $250,000 for that airport location on Campbell Island,

contingent upon approval of that same airport site, with a grant of

$100,000 from the First Citizens Fund.... It was arbitrarily blocked by

this government.

The minister implies that I'm knocking and belittling private initiative and development; that's sheer, utter nonsense.

MR. SEGARTY: A typical socialist.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Just open your ears and listen for a minute, because you might learn

something; I doubt it, but you might. The fact is that in my riding and

throughout this province private initiative has been responsible for

the development of many projects, including the road into Bella Coola,

which your government refused to participate in until they put the road

in themselves. The construction of many other facilities, certainly in

my riding, by private initiative.... I'm not mocking that.

HON. MR. FRASER: When they built the road to Bella Coola you didn't even know where Bella Coola was.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

That's beside the point, and I was there probably before you. As a

matter of fact, since I've been elected that road has been improved by

3,000 percent, so don't give me that garbage.

HON. MR. FRASER: By this government.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Order! Let's have some order here. I'm making a very important point on

behalf of all of the native Indian people of this province in terms of

that airport location, and I'm charging once again in this House that

we should have an inquiry into that whole matter, because I think the

possibility exists of direct collusion between a few friends of the

government and the minister to make a few people wealthy at the

expense, once again, of the native Indian people of this province. I

don't think the people of this province should stand for that kind of

action by this government, who have a proven track record of dirty

tricks, sleaze, spending public money for their own personal pleasure.

That's the kind of government we've got over there, so don't give me

that crap, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Let's have some names. Talk about sly and dirty....

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I've got some words for you too. Where is that $350,000 loan

authorization that's been sitting on your desk while those people on

theSunshine Coast are without water, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs?

Sign that loan authorization and get on with it. Do your job!

[ Page 8454 ]

have a few other questions for the minister, dealing with highways. I

have been asked by the people of Prince George to ask the minister — I

expect the members for Prince George will not get up under these

estimates — a couple of questions relating to highway problems in that

area: primarily whether the minister would tell us what is taking place

in terms of the Foothills crossing, the design work. I don't know the

exact location of this; I haven't personally seen this particular

problem. But perhaps the minister would be good enough to answer that

question for the people in that area and for the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. Heinrich) over there and the other member for Prince George

South (Mr. Strachan), who is not in the House at the moment — he's

probably in Prince George.

There is some concern about the

Highway 97 and 5th Avenue interchange. How is that proceeding? What's

happening? Are you meeting with anybody up there on this particular

project?

Those seem to be the two. They're requesting, I

take it, extra lanes on Highway 97 from the BCR to the existing truck

lane. So perhaps the minister or his staff could answer those questions

for those people there.

While I'm on highways, you did

announce an upgrading of the Squamish highway. We're all aware of the

difficulties on that highway over the years, particularly last year

when we had some real tragedies there. I know you have a political

problem on your hands as to selecting alternate routes, as suggested by

people living in Squamish, various groups and subcommittees — the

subcommittee of the regional district, which has members from a lot of

other community groups, such as the chamber of commerce. I won't go

through all the questions they've asked me to pose to you here; there

are literally four pages of them.

I know that the minister

has made an announcement recently about upgrading that particular

highway and making it safer, but the reality is that over a ten-year

period the current highway, even with some upgrading, will not be

capable of carrying the anticipated traffic. I hope the minister and

the ministry are looking down the road to a permanent solution to that

particular problem, particularly if it is someday going to be a major

link from the lower mainland to the interior of the province and to

eastern points.

At this time, Mr. Minister, I'd like to

shift over very briefly to the water transportation side of your

portfolio. I must say that in the last while I, and in fact all the

members over here, certainly have received quite a bit of fairly good

cooperation. We don't get what we want, because everybody wants four to

six more boats in their riding, if they depend upon water

transportation. We know those kinds of things simply won't happen in

this time of restraint. For example, with the reduction of about 25.1

percent in the government subsidy to B.C. Ferry Corporation, we know

very well that the corporation does have financial constraints placed

upon it. I'm aware that overall capacity has increased, etc. But the

fact is that we still have severe overloads from time to time. I know

that the new

schedule for the two major routes went into effect just

yesterday, but I suppose there will be overloads this summer, if people

have any money left to travel after the taxes that this government has

imposed on them. It's anticipated. I don't know if the Minister of

Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) is correct or not, but certainly her

ministry does believe that because of the value of the Canadian dollar

the United States residents will be coming to Canada to take advantage

of the exchange rate. They do have an economic depression there as well

and so people from that country are not liable to travel as far as they

did in the past. As a matter of fact, British Columbians themselves

will be travelling closer to home. So what I'm leading up to is that we

can expect pretty heavy volumes this coming summer, at least on the

three major routes. We don't know that yet. As a matter of fact, it's

my information that to date overall traffic volumes are down slightly

from last year.

But there is improvement for the system and

I'm going to put forward a couple of things that I would like the Ferry

Corporation and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to

consider. You know, Mr. Chairman, the rational economic development on

the coast of British Columbia depends almost entirely upon our water

transportation systems. I don't want to go back into history and the

long harangue that we had when Northland was about to fold because the

federal and provincial governments would not come up with a $4.5

million subsidy. Northland provided a vital service to this coast.

There were many, many routes at that time without any water

transportation whatsoever. There are still communities without water

transportation of any kind. Northland provided a lift-on, lift-off

freight and passenger service. People complained about it from time to

time at that time, but most people in these communities are now very

much aware of the good service Northland actually did provide. Never

mind. All that happened. Northland pulled out.

As a result

of all that faux pas, that miscalculation in judgment, it cost the

federal and provincial governments literally millions and millions of

dollars. In spite of that, the federal member up at Prince Rupert at

the time lost her seat on that issue in the next federal election,

because they came up with too little too late. The provincial

government was then placed in a position of having to provide services

to those people in some of those communities, particularly Ocean Falls,

Bella Coola, Port Hardy, Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlotte Islands.

Contrary to what the minister said, we did not oppose that service. We

never opposed that service; we opposed the method and we opposed the

millions that could have been saved had that paltry little subsidy for

Northland been kept, even by the provincial government. We've never

opposed upgrading transportation services to anybody in British

Columbia.

I'm saying that we're going to have severe

problems in the future in terms of capacity. New routes are being

considered, and I wonder if the minister would care to report — not on

what came out in the press release in terms of the third crossing.... I

would hope that the minister would soon release the total study

relating to the third crossing. I agreed with the government at the

time when I commented on the press release, because the Ferry

Corporation people were good enough to show me figures, the volumes and

even the financial figures, which I was asked to keep in confidence,

and I have and I will until the annual report comes out. Based on that

information, I want to tell you that I agree with the corporation's

decision not to proceed with the third crossing at this time. Even if

they wanted to, they couldn't, because of the subsidy cutback.

Certainly there's a great deal of controversy, I think, in your riding,

Mr. Chairman, as to the location of the terminals on the mainland side

and the Vancouver Island side and all of these things.

You might consider, though — and I have discussed this at some time with people within the corporation.... I

[ Page 8455 ]

know

that when we become the government, we will seriously consider some of

these proposals which I'm about to put forward to you.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll be mighty old and grey by that time, Don.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I might have a pension by then.

Departure

Bay, which is probably the busiest terminal, has the biggest buildup

and waits of up to six hours occasionally, particularly during the

holiday weekends. We need to alleviate the pressure there. We have a

terminal at Little River, Comox, and there's no reason why the traffic

coming from North Island, Courtenay, perhaps from as far south as

Parksville, couldn't be channelled through Little River, thereby

alleviating the pressure at Departure Bay. We could possibly have a

direct sailing to Horseshoe Bay, or, if that's too congested, I know,

because I've discussed it with people in the CPR, that docking

facilities are available in downtown Vancouver.

The same

might be applied on a direct sailing from Powell River to Horseshoe

Bay, or to the lower mainland. Leave the present scheduling on for the

people on theSun shine Coast and Powell River, where we have to

maintain the crossing on Route 7 across Jervis Inlet. A direct sailing,

utilizing a vessel of the Tsawwassen

class, would be three hours and fifteen minutes each way; a seven-hour

return sailing, two sailings daily each way for commercial. It would be

faster for the 28,000 or 30,000 residents living in the Powell River

area. There are two crossings now, and in the summertime there is

usually a one or two sailing wait at Langdale. It's always congested,

because aside from the local residents in theSunshine Coast area, there

are some 6,000 residents who have summer homes there. As well there are

more and more commuters on that sailing every year. What can be at

times a ten-hour drive from Powell River to Vancouver — it's a 90-mile

drive with two crossings — could become a four-hour sailing. It's

something to consider. And in the process, it would alleviate the

congestion at Langdale. We should be looking at alternate and other

routes.

I don't know if the minister is aware of this, but

the reason I've been given in the past, particularly by the

corporation, when I've discussed new routes of this nature where

terminals exist is that they are not in the business of cruise ship

sailing; they go from point A to point B. However, we now have two

vessels plying the coast in the wintertime, from the lower mainland to

Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlottes, and during the summer period,

Port Hardy, Prince Rupert, Queen Charlottes, etc. Therefore B.C. Ferry

Corporation is essentially already doing what I'm suggesting for other

routes. It could save the corporation a great deal of money in the long

term, and it would be more convenient for the travelling public on

those parts of the coast.

On the smaller ports, I'm going to

ask the minister again about the study relating to water transportation

and ferry connections between Bella Coola, Ocean Falls, Bella Bella,

Port Hardy, etc., which has never been tabled or made public. It's a

very expensive proposition, and I know that at this time of budgetary

restraint there's no hope the government, the corporation or the

Ministry of Highways is going to spend millions of dollars on new

terminals, although I understand that the vessels could be made

available at this time. But they won't do it. I can understand that;

although the people in Bella Coola might not. They do have a highway

link, so they're not completely stuck. I hope the minister will make

that study available to me someday; I'd like to look at it. Certainly

the people in Bella Coola would like to look at it.

I agree

that Ocean Falls has virtually been killed by this government. There

are only some 58 souls in the community at the present time. But there

will be a future for that community, possibly a plywood lumber

operation, or that kind of thing. Some small activities are starting in

the community now under private enterprise.

The community of

Bella Bella will continue to expand. The minister has had a request for

some years for a roll-on, roll-off service at Bella Bella. The

government has always said it will not build a ferry ramp at Bella

Bella without federal government participation, and that's where we

stand at this point. I did tell the band council that I would raise

this issue again in this session of the Legislature, and I've done so.

I'd

like to go to another item concerning the water transportation side of

the Ministry of Highways, once again relating primarily to my own

riding. The government purchased the Princess of Vancouver some time ago, and I didn't oppose that. In fact, I think we should seriously consider purchasing the Princess Patricia

for other purposes as well. A major refit is taking place, and the

total cost of that, I understand, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of

$10 million, to use round figures. It's a beautiful and much larger

vessel and should handle the capacity out of the Vancouver and Powell

River side for some years to come. However, that vessel isn't ready

yet, and I understand the Queen of Tsawwassen

is going into service on that route today as an extra vessel. I am

told, however, and I don't know if this is correct or not, that the

Ministry of Highways could have purchased the Queen of Tsawwassen for $1 from the B.C. Ferries Corporation.

HON. MR. FRASER: As a director of B.C. Ferries I'd say the answer is no.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I fail to understand why, when the Minister of Highways sits on the

board of directors of the B.C. Ferries Corporation, we have this

continual split in the two operations. If the B.C. Ferries Corporation

has saltwater vessels available, then those vessels should be utilized

by the Ministry of Highways if necessary and as required, not on a loan

basis.... In any event, the charge I hear in both communities,

Vancouver Island and Powell River, is that while we're pleased to have

the larger vessel, the Queen of Vancouver .

eventually placed on the route — even though that beautiful vessel has

been gutted, hacked and cut — it may well be that the ministry could

have placed the Queen of Tsawwassen , which apparently is available, on that route and thereby have saved them a lot of money on refitting the Princess of Vancouver , which perhaps could have been used on another route in a much better manner without spoiling that beautiful vessel.

I'd like to hear from the minister if the third crossing study will be made available. Will the Sechelt Queen

be mothballed? Will it be put up for sale? Will it be put up for normal

tender? Will it be placed arbitrarily to some junk dealer for $50,000,

where they will immediately make a $2 million profit by turning the

vessel over to some Hong Kong outfit? Perhaps the minister would care

to answer those few simple little questions.

[ Page 8456 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the observations of the member for Mackenzie. I don't know about the Sechelt Queen ,

but I took his remarks at the last there.... The socialists are

suspicious of everybody and everything; it doesn't matter what it is.

They want to always raise some doubt, and nobody is right except them.

I just want to say, regarding disposal of vessels, that they are all

disposed of by a tender call by the Purchasing Commission. If you're

suggesting some hanky-panky, you should get hold of them. I think they

always sell to the highest bidder. Once they are sold to the highest

bidder, whatever that bidder does with them after that is certainly of

no interest to the government of British Columbia. He or she can go out

and sell them a hundred times. It isn't any of the government's

business.

Regarding the rumours that the member suggests

about the cooperation between Transportation of Highways and B.C.

Ferries, since I have had the dual responsibility, I hope we're getting

along a lot better in discussing our mutual problems together. I

suggest that when you're talking about the Queen of Tsawwassen you're listening to socialist gossip, not the other gossip. Please listen to all gossip, not just the socialist gossip. The Queen of Tsawwassen is going on the Comox-Powell River run July 1, because the Princess of Vancouver 's not ready to go on; it's in the shipyards. I believe the Queen of Tsawwassen 's

going on there for a charge from B.C. Ferries to Highways of $1. The

last I heard, the staff were having a big meeting about whether they

should charge sales tax on the dollar. There's complete cooperation and

they're getting along great.

Regarding the Princess of Vancouver

that we bought from the CPR a year or so ago for a million-odd, that

vessel should be ready to go on the Comox-Powell River run in August,

at a cost of about $10 million total, That's the latest information

I've had on that. We aren't interested in buying the other vessel, the Princess Patricia , because we now find we have a surplus of boats in the B.C. Ferries system because of....

I'll touch on that in a minute.

Bella

Bella and roll-on, roll-off. I really don't know where that's at. I

don't think we're really.... If we're waiting on the federal

government, we'll wait forever, I think. It's something that I haven't

heard, but I will before we're finished here. We're not looking

immediately at roll-on, roll-off at Bella Bella. I don't see anything

wrong with giving you the study for the Bella Coola.... I think you're

referring to the study about the run between Bella Bella and Bella

Coola that was made by Highways. Is that the study?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes.

HON. MR. FRASER:

We have another marine study going on — you weren't referring to that —

but I don't see anything wrong with giving you the Highways study that

was made on connecting Ocean Falls, Bella Bella and Bella Coola.

You're

quite right, though: please send the message that we have no intention

of carrying out what's in the study. A lot of things have happened,

particularly the good highway that we've built them from the interior —

Highway 20 from Williams Lake to Bella Coola. They're better off. I

might say, while we're talking about Bella Coola, that they had a bad

fire and lost their dock. That's strictly a federal matter, but our

information is that they're going to get on it and do something about

it fairly shortly. On that issue, we've contacted Transport Canada, and

it's been decided that they're going to replace the dock with the old,

outdated style of dock. The latest I've seen in the correspondence is

that if we want to go to roll-on, roll-off, we can add to that dock and

put roll-on, roll-off on it — I'm referring now to Bella Coola.

You

raised some interesting items about direct service, as I recall, from

Powell River — from the coast. You always get the answer that we're not

in the cruise-ship business, then make the observation that we already

are. I'm inclined to agree with you to a certain degree. I hope Mr.

Baldwin will give us a report to see if anything can be done. My

observation there is that it'll be an additional impact cost on the

corporation, which would be pretty rough at this time.

I'm

happy to see that you agree with the decision made about the third

crossing, and again, I think you wanted that report. In any case, that

decision is made, and what it really says is that it's way on into the

1990s before we would be required.... We have adequate capacity to look

after the traffic that is envisioned for that period of time, and we're

going to go with what we have.

Just commenting on B.C.

Ferries, while all the doom and gloom is going on in all the news media

— mostly about our economy and everything — we have a little brighter

picture, I have to report, regarding B.C. Ferries. Yes, they are down,

but very slightly — probably 5 percent- in business volume for the

first five months of 1982 compared to the first five months of 1981. I

consider that excellent in view of our total economic picture in

British Columbia and Canada. It isn't all blue ruin; people are still

travelling and using this fine facility.

Another thing that

has come out from our operations that Tourism would probably be

interested in — motel and so on — is that while passenger-vehicle and

commercial traffic is down, the over heights are up 16 percent this

year over last year. That seems to indicate a change of pattern in

travelling, and that people are travelling in campers and so on. I

think it also indicates that Canadian residents are travelling more

than Americans. That has never happened before — the 16 percent

increase in overheights. So a different trend in travel and tourism is

going on.

You mentioned the Squamish Highway. We've already

announced what we're doing there. We're building two new bridges. On

the M Creek bridge, where we had the disaster last October, the

contract has been awarded and hopefully will be completed in November

of 1982. We're doing a lot of rock-scaling and we're going to do some

four-laning on that congested road. We've also awarded the contract for

the Culliton Creek bridge, which is north of Squamish. Overall we are

going to spend in excess of $5 million on this important Highway 99,

from North Vancouver to Squamish, Pemberton, Whistler and, of course,

now over to Duffey Lake and Lillooet. I'm certainly not saying we'll

have it all under control, but we should have a safer and better road

going there this winter than we had last winter, after spending $5

million to $6 million this year on the upgrading.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

Regarding

the alternative routes, again there is a lot of talk by the experts and

the media and so on. But any alternative route out of the North Shore

going to, let's say, Squamish, which is the worst

section of that road,

involves watershed routes and the water supply for a million people in

the Greater Vancouver area. Our engineers have looked for a long time,

and they have asked to wait until this fall before

[ Page 8457 ]

making

a recommendation. I see a real problem there. I don't think our

government wants to get into the controversy of an alternative route if

we decided to go through any one of the watersheds, which would be very

costly in all cases — $100 million to $150 million. At the present time

we are putting our efforts and priorities into upgrading the existing

road.

You mentioned some things up in the Prince George

area. I realize that you are the critic for this ministry, but I have

better advisers than you. I refer to two very competent MLAs from that

area whom I consult with all the time. For your information, Mr.

Member, the Foothills crossing you refer to crosses the Nechako River —

just to get yourself located. We've looked at that for some time, and

we are discussing it with the city and the two MLAs. The same applies

to the interchange of 5th Avenue — it's all tied into the foothills

crossing. I don't think we have a big problem with BCR regarding

Highway 97. We have matters fairly well in hand.

I think I

have covered most of the.... I've missed some things that you brought

up late last evening. You referred to the Yellowhead Highway. There are

promoters of the Yellowhead Highway — more power to them — but it's

Highway 5 out of Kamloops, and then it's Highway 16 from the

Alberta-B.C. border to Prince Rupert. We've spent millions of dollars

on this road. But the Yellowhead Interprovincial Highway Association is

located in Edmonton, and they don't seem to understand that when we

build a road out here in British Columbia we don't build it through

wheat fields and over level ground. We build it through mountains and

valleys, and we've expended $50 million on one

section of the

Yellowhead alone. I'm referring to the

section from Terrace to Prince

Rupert, and we're not finished yet — that is, upgrading the existing

road. I really recommend the Yellowhead route to anybody who wants to

travel. There is very little traffic on it. You can drive all day long

— a beautiful road travelling cast from Prince Rupert to the

B.C.-Alberta boundary. Highway 5 from Kamloops is also a good road.

There is nothing wrong with any of those roads, but the Yellowhead

highway association don't necessarily feel that way. As I say, they

think that road should be in the same condition as the level prairie

roads. It's never going to be, but we keep upgrading it all the time.

The

other thing you mentioned is the Motor Carrier Commission, and I'd just

like to say that it comes under this ministry. It's run by three

commissioners and the branch staff. They're not a large organization —

about 50 in total — but they license all the passenger and commercial

vehicles in the province. With their limited staff they do a fairly

good job, but they really have had their problems — a lot of people

applying for licences, permits and so on — and we're in the midst of an

administrative reorganization now of the Motor Carrier Commission.

We're giving them more help, and they need to be updated

administratively, and that work is going on at the present time.

I might say to all the MLAs that I don't think you're going to hear

as many complaints about the Motor Carrier Commission as you have in the past,

because they'll be reorganized administratively and that should be taking

place this year, in 1982, as you will see. The other thing is that there are

not as many applications coming in, and they're getting caught up and pretty

well current. We'll always have the people that apply and can't get

a licence because the area is already well served, in the opinion of the Motor

Carrier Commission, but we have now a full complement of three commissioners

— for quite a while they were getting along with two — and we're paying

more attention to helping the branch.

We're

also going to use them now a lot more on enforcement on our roadside

checks to find out more about what's going on — the legal operations

and so on — and we've just asked them to put a check on at the

B.C.-Alberta boundary, going into northeast coal; they'll be putting on

a temporary checkpoint there. We think there are a lot of things going

on there that need looking into. There are 17 deputies, I've just been

notified; 17 new staff have been authorized and hired, to give them

more. In 1980 they actually had the same staff as they had in 1945, and

that was part of our problem. So I think that pretty well covers what

the member had asked.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, on

the Motor Carrier Commission, does the minister know at this time

whether applicants will still have the appeal to cabinet process

available to them after reorganization?

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Chairman, at the present time we're not looking at any changes

there; they would still have the appeal to cabinet available.

MR. SEGARTY:

I'll just spend three-quarters of an hour or so, if that's okay with

the member for Mackenzie. I got his permission this morning to get up

and speak.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take this opportunity

to thank the Minister of Highways and his staff for the outstanding

cooperation I've had from the ministry over the past year — in fact,

over the past three years. There are just a few areas of concern in the

riding that I'd like to touch on this morning, and I hope I'll be able

to get some answers from the minister in this regard.

There

is a particular situation in the Elk Valley where we have the major

scales on the entry to British Columbia from Alberta located in Fernie.

All of the industrial activity takes place, of course, east of Fernie,

which means that trucks coming in from Alberta don't have to go through

a checkpoint or scales or anything like that, which is really

discriminatory toward local truckers. I was wondering what progress the

ministry was making in moving the scales from Fernie closer to the

Bryon Creek Collieries road turnoff.

We've also got a

particular problem with licences in the Elk Valley for local truckers

who are licensed to do business in the area, hauling gravel and things

like that. Trucks are coming in and operating with Alberta licences,

which again is discriminatory toward British Columbia trucks. I'd like

to know what action the ministry is taking in this area. People, of

course, are coming in from Alberta to work in the Elk Valley. There's a

pile of them operating motor vehicles, again using Alberta licence

plates. That's a really difficult situation to police in the Elk

Valley. I'm wondering if there are any ideas from the ministry as to

what we could do to alleviate that particular problem.

I'm

also wondering if the minister could give us some update on the

Sparwood north bypass, what the construction

schedule for that project

is, and when the remaining contract for the Wilson Creek and CPR

crossings and so on will be let out to tender.

There's a

particular problem with respect to the maintenance of the roads in the

Elk Valley. During the wintertime the maintenance is just appalling.

One morning I left my home in Cranbrook at 6 o'clock, and arrived in

Elkford at about 8 o'clock. You were taking your life in your hands

[ Page 8458 ]

driving

up that highway with ice on the road. It was a terrible mess. I've

travelled that road many times since, and have had many complaints from

residents in the area about snowclearing and maintenance, particularly

within the Fernie highways district. The Ministry of Highways does an

outstanding job in snow-clearing, gravelling and road maintenance. This

is a particular problem, unique to the Elk Valley in my riding. It's a

situation that has just got to be corrected this winter. I don't know

what we can do to change it, Mr. Minister. Perhaps you could have your

ministry staff check it out and see what we can do with it. It's a

large highways district. Perhaps if we put a maintenance depot in the

municipality of Elkford it would help alleviate that situation.

you know, the Regional District of East Kootenay, in cooperation with

the three municipalities, has been working on plans to develop an

airport in the Elk Valley. They acquired the land this year. The

planning process is in place. I'm wondering if there is any revenue in

the airport assistance program this year, or over the next couple of

years, to develop that airport. The regional district has come out with

a study recommending a location. But the costs of developing the

airport are quite high, in my opinion. It works out to around $4.5

million. I don't believe there's a need for an airport of that size in

the Elk Valley at this particular time. I think the people of the Elk

Valley would be satisfied with a 4,500-foot runway to be able to use

government-type jets or air-ambulance services in the case of

emergencies, so they could fly into the area and pick up people in a

disaster or something like that. God forbid it should ever happen, but

it would be available to use on an occasion like that. It would be

close to the resource extraction area.

The Ministry of

Highways has done an outstanding job in Cranbrook. I was pleased that

the minister was able to come up this year and open up the new McPhee

Bridge from Cranbrook to the airport to Kimberley. This road is a

tremendous improvement, and is well recognized by everyone there as the

best thing that's happened since sliced bread. It's just great.

The

Ministry of Highways has done a widening program on the Crowsnest

Highway in the last two years. The Cranbrook Chamber of Commerce and

city of Cranbrook, under the highways beautification program, were

looking for some revenue to clean up the side roads going into

Cranbrook, which would be cost-shared, of course, by the municipality

and the Ministry of Highways. The municipality has been meeting with

the local Highways staff and planners, and they have now come up with a

plan for the cleaning-up of that area. It's very unsightly at the

present time. It is causing hardship for many small business people

located along the Cranbrook strip, as it's known.

Another

situation unique to the area is that we have a manufacturing plant in

Cranbrook that manufactures curbing and sells quite a lot of it to the

Ministry of Highways. There's a major difficulty facing this particular

individual where he has to compete with the Ministry of Transportation

and Highways manufacturing plant over in the West Kootenays for the

same market and supplies. As you know, Mr. Minister, in keeping with

our free enterprise philosophy, it doesn't seem right that the Ministry

of Transportation and Highways should be in the business of

manufacturing curbing, especially at this particular time in our

economy.

I'm certainly pleased that the minister has been

able to come into the riding many times over the past year. This has

resulted in many changes being made in the Kootenays with respect to

road construction, bridge replacements and so on. I certainly hope that

the opposition won't be moving their traditional vote to reduce the

minister's travel expenses, because this would have a very serious

impact on many interior ridings. It gives the minister to opportunity

to come in and have a first-hand look at some of the difficulties that

the people of the interior face.

These are just a few of the

areas that I'd like some answers on, Mr. Minister. You probably won't

be able to give them to me right away, but I know we'll be having some

word from you on it over the next few months.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the minister, through you, that if

the ferry rates are increased in November, the job loss and the

business bankruptcies on Vancouver Island will be accelerated beyond

anything we've seen to date. The reduction in the highway equivalent

subsidy occurred recently and then was enshrined in legislation by

repealing the existing language whereby the people on Vancouver Island

were given a proxy in the sense that because we don't have highways of

land-based asphalt, but rely for a highway system on water, we were

granted a highway equivalent subsidy which was developed after the

Crown corporation was established.

Mr. Chairman, let me read

what that subsidy formula was to be based upon and what it was to

reflect. The formula specified the per-mile highway costs, which were

deemed equivalent to the ferry routes, as $47,000. This was done

through orders-in-council on December 16, 1976, and August 11, 1977.

The sum was applied to the approved ferry system route mileage, which

totals 918 miles. We have 918 miles of ferry routes. A $47,000 per mile

maintenance amount was established, with a cost-of-living adjustment to

keep up with inflation. In other words, that was to be the highway

system for the people in the coastal communities and Vancouver Island.

Victoria receives an extremely nominal sum in the Transportation and

Highways budget. It is something in the order of a few thousand

dollars. Oak Bay is somewhat similar. Clearly, we don't have highways

in these constituencies, but what we do have and what we do need is a

ferry system that meets the needs of the residents.

Last

November the commercial rate for ferries was increased from $1.60 to $2

a foot. For every bit of goods and services that comes to the Island or

goes from the Island from the businesses, $2 a foot is the price. If

that is increased in November as a result of reducing the highway

equivalent subsidy as you did, from $63 million to $47 million, you

will drive a stake in the heart of small business in this constituency.

We rely on that ferry system to keep our businesses alive. We have a

number of specific problems, which I would like to get into in a

moment, but in November we cannot tolerate an increase in the

commercial rate for ferries. We simply cannot do it,

With

the lifting and stretching of the vessels — granted there was an

increase of approximately 10 percent in the capacity of the vessels,

for four vessels versus the four plus a supplementary previously — what

you're doing as of yesterday, Mr. Minister, is reducing the sailings

from 22 last year, I believe it was, to 16. That is creating some

problems. As the minister stated in his earlier remarks, the downturn

of passenger volume has not been as anticipated, and I'm very pleased

with the minister's report that there is only a 5 percent reduction.

Given good weather for the rest of the summer,

[ Page 8459 ]

maybe we'll see those volumes increase to help support the economy on Vancouver Island.

The

reduction to 16 sailings is creating particular problems for the

commercial overheights. I understand that the ramp situation.... The Esquimalt and Saanich

have even hour sailings and at present are loading only buses and non-

I commercial overheights; so the commercial operation not only is going

on the alternate hours, but it can't get on those Esquimalt and Saanich

even-hour sailings. Probably tonight will be the acid test, because

this will be the first Friday night where volumes are up on passenger

and recreational vehicles. The commercial overheights will be there as

well as t tomorrow morning and Monday morning, wanting to go to

Vancouver, and if they're only able to sail on every second sailing....

The Victoria and Vancouver

are presently unable to handle the volume of commercial overheight

traffic, which is an added burden to the business transacted between

Vancouver Island and the mainland. I understand that the ramps aboard

the Esquimalt and Saanich

could be lifted to utilize that capacity. I understand the trade-off:

you have so much capacity and you want to put so many passengers on

there and so on. However, bear in mind that people work on Vancouver

Island, and given the jobs that we are losing as a result of bankruptcy

and businesses closing, we should be doing everything possible to make

sure we are not encumbering business on Vancouver Island with added

costs as a result of commercial overheight vehicles waiting for long

periods of time at the Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen terminals. It's

unrealistic to expect the commercial overheights to go to Nanaimo and

over to Horseshoe Bay. It's just too much of an added expense.

I'm

asking the minister if he would consider bringing in supplementary

vessels, or any other possibilities, to increase the commercial

overheight capacity between Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen. We'll be

watching that very carefully in the next few days. The trucking

community is very concerned and it is a slow burning fuse at the

moment. They're waiting; they are not able to get on those ferries that

are running only on the odd hour sailings.

I'm saying that

the change that was made, giving the minister the authority to state

the amount that would be given to the corporation as a subsidy — in

other words, he has the discretion now — is not any kind of a formula

based on aggregate costs. It is not tied now to any kind of highway

equivalent; it will simply be a figure determined by the minister and

the government. If that subsidy is not sufficient to cover the costs of

the ferry system, and if B.C. Ferries has to go to the farebox, both

commercially and for the noncommercial traffic between Victoria and the

mainland, it will have such a massive negative impact on business on

Vancouver Island that we will be driving our economy down even further

than we foresee at the moment. We cannot tolerate, in November, fare

increases on the ferry system. The businesses can't stand it, the

public can't stand it, and it will withdraw too much money from the

economy. My position, and our party's position, has been that our proxy

highway system is a ferry system, and that as a person journeys through

the Fraser Valley or up the Yellowhead or travels on the highways of

this province, they are not confronted with tolls to pay the

maintenance costs, the upgrading costs; they are paid out of general

revenue. We feel general revenue is where support for the ferry system

should be coming from....

MR. BRUMMET: Did you say free?

MR. HANSON:

I said the support for the ferry system should be coming from general

revenue, and that highway equivalent subsidy is no more and no less

than the Vancouver island and coastal communities portion of the

Highways and Transportation budget of this province. My own

constituency only gets a few thousand dollars out of a

multimillion-dollar Highways budget. We don't begrudge the rest of the

province our tax dollars for maintenance of highways, snow removal and

new highway construction, but we want our fair share in he form of a

ferry system. We feel it is unfair to double-tax he people in the

coastal areas of Vancouver Island, to make them pay, in addition to

their taxes, for a highway system which happens to be on water. It is a

logical argument that I'm making; it is a reasonable argument. If in

November the Ferry Corporation, which has no access to funds other than

he farebox and the reduced subsidy you've provided....

you reduce that subsidy any more or you fail to top up what they should

have had — they were counting on $63 million; they were counting on

those quarterly payments that were forthcoming from the Minister of

Finance, which they invested and drew interest on to help offset their

operating costs — you've denied them that revenue. They're going to

have to turn to the public. They're going to have to turn to the people

in my constituency, to the people of Vancouver Island and other coastal

communities. It is unfair. It is unrealistic. It is bad economics. If

you let it occur, you will be personally driving a stake into the heart

of the business community of Vancouver Island.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I'm very interested in what the member has to say about the ferries,

because a Social Credit government introduced this service as an

extension. Would the second member for Victoria advocate that we return

to the financing formula the government had between 1972 and 1975?

MR. HANSON:

I think it would be fair. We supported it out of general revenue

because we believed in the concept that the ferry system was part of

our highway system. The Crown corporation committee's report of 1981

states on page 51: "The subsidy received by the ferry system would seem

to stand as a proxy for highway service to coastal communities in

circumstances where the building of roads to these localities has been

seen to be impractical." If you calculate the number of electoral

districts on Vancouver Island, and you take the proportion of Highways

and Transportation budget allocated to those communities, you see that

that formula — approximately $63 million — is really what should be

allocated to the coastal electoral districts in terms of their

proportion of population and so on. I don't really mind whether it's a

formula that calculates an equivalent subsidy for highways — in other

words, it conceptually links it to the highway system — or whether it's

straight out of general revenue. But that is our fair share of the

Highways budget for this province.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I think we're trying to establish the policy which you are advocating —

whether the subsidy policy or the policy of contribution between 1972

and 1975 would be preferable to what we have now. Obviously the member

has in mind his party's policy when they were government. He probably

knows very well what contribution

[ Page 8460 ]

was made by taxpayers around the province, as a subsidy. Is he advocating that we return to that policy?

MR. HANSON:

The money comes out of the same pot. Whether it's characterized as a

subsidy or taken directly out of general revenue and not through the

level of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, it is still coming out of general

revenue. The term "subsidy" is a way of making the people in the

coastal communities feel that they are getting a handout. That is what

I object to. We are not getting a handout. We have a certain proportion

of the population of this province. We pay a certain proportion of the

tax base of this province. We get less than our fair share of the

Transportation budget, as outlined in the Highways annual report and

estimates. We get something out of general revenue called a subsidy for

a ferry system. I'm saying take the name off and put it right into the

estimates, out of general revenue.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

From what the member has said and I have made careful note of it — I

assume that he would want us to return to exactly the same sort of

public funding that took place between 1972 and 1975.

HON. MR. FRASER:

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) made several observations,

and I'd like to reply back to front. He is kicking out a figure that is

really saying that Vancouver Island doesn't get its share from this

ministry. I'd like to put his figures to rest, and show him how

confused, of course, they usually are on that side. We've done a

tabulation on this situation, based on the 1981 population comparing a

summary of expenditures on Vancouver Island to the rest of the province

for highway capital construction and B.C. Ferries. I'm going to go into

all the details I have here, Mr. Chairman, but you can see what a hoax

this member is putting up from these actual figures. The population of

Vancouver Island is 17.9 percent of the province of British Columbia.

In the 1981-82 expenditures of this ministry, this population of 17.9

percent of the province received 26.3 percent of the expenditures. You

go back and get your research people to get you some factual facts,

because we can support these; I have it here.

MR. HANSON:

On a point of order, the minister indicated that he had details, which

he is citing supporting his argument of population and expenditure for

Vancouver Island. I would ask him to table those, please.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Chairman I will certainly consider that request. I'm not finished

with the other observations that were made, though this member is

saying that there were no roads, etc.... I want to remind the member

that before he got here — and I think it has carried over since he got

here, as he's only been a member since 1979....

Regarding

highway construction in the city of Victoria, we found places where we

could spend a lot of money and get things caught up that your

government never did anything about. I'm referring to the Blanshard

Street extension, and I'm also referring to the four-laning of the

Trans-Canada. We picked that up in 1975 and got it all completed, and

as far as I know a lot of that is in the city of Victoria itself. We

spent $10 million just on that little item alone. I don't want you to

forget those things.

The member, Mr. Chairman, is

complaining about the reduction of the B.C. Ferries subsidy. We haven't

got a pot of gold; neither has our treasury. But $47 million is still a

lot of money, and that's what the subsidy is this year. With

reorganizing and doing a lot of other things, I might say some other

breaks came along. We have not increased the fares, with all the

problems. We've had some breaks in the B.C. Ferries. Our fuel costs

have dropped from 1981 to 1982, which helps immeasurably, so we haven't

had to put on a fare increase, when the subsidy went down from, I

think, $63 million to $47 million. There have been changes in routings,

but we still have more capacity on the water than we've ever had.

Another

observation that hasn't been made, Mr. Chairman, is that in the last

five years — I'm talking about 1977 to 1981 — B.C. Ferries have

expended $200 million for capital expansion. That has gone into new

ships, upgrading existing ships, new terminals and docks. That program

is over with, and the management feel that we've caught up with the

demand, whether it be the vessels or the docks, and there's not the

requirement and pressure on the corporation for the heavy capital

expenditures that have been made. That is also a distinct help. We have

a large, modern fleet now, including the large 400-vehicle ferries.

We're sure going to work them, because of their capacity.

Dealing

with the commercial rate increase, I think the policy of rate increases

was announced two years ago — we would only increase fares on or about

the first of November in each year, if necessary. We did that to help

the economy of Vancouver Island, so they wouldn't be under the threat

of fare increases, which they were before during the tourist season. It

took us past the tourist season. Yes, we'll look at fare increases. We

have to look at them all from a revenue standpoint, whether it be

passenger vehicles, commercial vehicles, overheights, or the individual

that walks on.

Yes, there was an increase in the commercial

rate from, I believe you said, $1.60 to $2 per foot. I know that was

fairly substantial. I hope that doesn't have to happen at that

percentage again. We got behind, and are still behind the commercial

side. We have the CPR running over there. My information is that their

rates are still higher than our rates. It's not our intention to get

beyond them. I think we have to consider that if we're too far below

the private sector, we're going to lose the private sector. That's a

concern all Vancouver Island residents should have. It might not be a

good thing for all the citizens of Vancouver Island to be dependent on

just one system. Even at $2 a foot, the costs of the B.C. Ferry

Corporation is still below by quite a substantial amount.

You

mentioned that the number of reduced sailings is 16. I assume you're

right; I wanted to get some more from the staff on that. But I don't

think we're going to have the problems that you outlined. You mentioned

the lifted vessels, Esquimalt and Saanich . I'm still waiting for a reply on that. We still feel we're going to be okay.

mentioned earlier that the overheights are up. This does give an

operational problem to the Ferry Corporation. One thing we never know

in the operation of B.C. Ferries is what type of vehicle is coming and

when. It does change the loading, and so on. But so far our ferry

systems in 1982 are, I guess, one of the bright spots in our economy:

they're not very far behind 1981.

There's still a large

amount of money going into that system. We don't begrudge that at all.

On a point of principle, I have a note here — what the government is

now saying regarding the subsidy is that we'll subsidize the operating

[ Page 8461 ]

loss.

Instead of the highway equivalent subsidy, we'll subsidize the

operating loss of B.C. Ferries. The operating deficit is estimated to

be $43 million this year. The other $4 million is for debt retirement.

The total estimated loss this year is $47 million.

While I'm

on my feet, I thought I'd thank the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty),

who has left, and tell him that we have no plans at the moment to

relocate the scales in the Elk Valley. I appreciate his pointing it out.

This

member brought up another good point about Alberta licence plates in

British Columbia. While we love their money and love to see them, once

they become residents here and are employed here, I don't think we're

doing a good enough job of supervising the change of their plates. I

believe they're supposed to change their plates within six months. I'm

going to ask our ministry to do more than they're doing to get Alberta

people who have finally moved here to change their Alberta plates over

to B.C. plates. I know that this is a problem in the Kootenays, Peace

River and the Okanagan. I even see quite a few Alberta plates going

back and forth to work in the capital city of Victoria. I think these

people should abide by the laws of our province, particularly once they

have full employment here. The member for Kootenay brought up a point

there that I think should be pursued a little more than it is by our

ministry.

Regarding the observation he made about the

inadequacy of maintenance, particularly snow removal in the Fernie

district, I was told about it last winter. Yes, we're aware of the

problem. We had a shifting problem there. We're only about two years

away from having to put a maintenance establishment in at Elkford.

Regarding

the airport, we'll gladly cooperate with the MLA and others in the

location of an airport in the Elk Valley; in fact we're already doing

so.

On the Cranbrook Highway 3 beautification project, we'll

take a look at that. We've spent a lot of money there rebuilding the

curb and gutter and we can get on with that, but I'm not so sure that

funds are available immediately.

On the last point that was

brought up, I've issued instructions, Mr. Chairman, that our ministry

is not to compete with the private sector in the construction of

guardrails and to phase out of it as soon as they can. That has been

substantially reduced in the last couple of years. I think that answers

most of the questions.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm

going to be brief. I'm going to start with a few comments about the

highway requirements of my own particular riding, and then I'll swing

over to matters which are more general in nature — policy oriented, in

other words. Perhaps I'll be moving from the sublime to the ridiculous

or, if I focus down on the one issue in my own riding, from the

ridiculous to the sublime.

I've sometimes described my

riding in a lighter vein as the only riding or constituency which is

connected to the rest of the province by a Bailey bridge. We still have

a Bailey bridge across the Seymour River, one that came within a few

inches of being taken out by the flood late last year. So my

constituents are vulnerable from a transportation point of view and

would dearly like to see a four-lane bridge across the Seymour River.

The Seymour River, incidentally, flows into Burrard Inlet on the North

Shore in the greater Vancouver area.

The problem really

has been one of jurisdictions, and derives essentially from the fact

that one side of the Seymour River is an Indian reserve. The difficulty

has been one of the district municipality of North Vancouver reaching a

workable agreement with the Squamish Indian band. Until that agreement

was reached between the district municipality and the Squamish Indian

band — and it took half a dozen years of negotiations for that

agreement to be reached, using the best offices of the province,

particularly the Highways ministry — there was no possibility of this

particular crossing over the Seymour River being built. The Squamish

Indian band wanted certain services from the municipality in return for

a continued right to cross the reserve. An agreement has now been

reached. It has required an amendment to the Municipal Act in order to

allow the municipality to make this agreement. That particular change

to provincial legislation has only now been made, and assuming that the

federal government will approve the agreement made by the Squamish

Indian band in this connection, we'll get a crossing.

gather from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways that the

engineering of a four-lane crossing has been completed. The design is

complete, all we need now is the money. We need several millions of

dollars in next year's vote in Transportation and Highways to have this

vital link between my riding and the rest of the province built. I hope

the minister will be prepared to make a few comments in that connection

later on this morning.

I've dwelt at some length on this

particular topic, because earlier in the minister's estimates there was

some discussion about the location of a mid-coast airport. It would be

a very important airstrip for wheeled aircraft, a strip which has not

existed. An emergency airstrip at the very least has been needed in the

mid-coast for many years. I'm glad to note that a private group did

build a rough 1,500 foot strip a couple of years back. I'm glad to know

that the province has invested a small amount of money in an access

road to that strip, and I'm now very pleased to know that the province

is, in fact, going to pave the strip and hopefully extend it some and

make it a really safe and effective airstrip for third-level aircraft —

for example, deHavilland Twin Otters on wheels can land there on a

regular basis. That's badly needed.

The controversy up

coast, however, has revolved around the fact that there was an

alternative site on an Indian reserve. If the experience in North

Vancouver is any indication, it would have taken years to get an

agreement with the local band to guarantee perpetual access to an

airstrip on an Indian reserve. I think that always has to be home in

mind, and a very firm contractual agreement should be entered into

before any public work funded by the taxpayers of the province can be

undertaken on an Indian reserve. If the Indian band is prepared to

guarantee perpetual access, that's one thing, but usually there's a

quid pro quo of some considerable amount which would have to be

negotiated, and finally the federal people would have to be involved

because Indian affairs are federal and not provincial. That aspect of

the debate — the Denny Island location of an airstrip versus the

Campbell Island location — has to be brought out into the open and

considered as one of the matters that would have to have been resolved

had a decision been made to locate the airstrip on Campbell Island.

We'll have an airstrip mid-coast on Denny Island, which is already

operative and will be fully functional in another year or so. And if

time is of the essence, that was the only way to go.

respect to transportation requirements of my constituency, I've

mentioned the Seymour crossing and the need to replace a Bailey bridge

by a four-lane bridge that connects my

[ Page 8462 ]

riding

with the Trans-Canada Highway. Even more urgent is the need to build a

proper stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway through the eastern part of

Vancouver, the so-called Cassiar link from the Second Narrows Bridge

south to Highway 401. It is the busiest

section of the Trans-Canada

Highway in western Canada. The intersection between the Cassiar highway

and Hastings Street is the busiest intersection in the lower mainland.

It's also the

section where there are the greatest number of accidents

in Vancouver. So, from a local point of view and from a city of

Vancouver point of view, there's an urgent need to build a proper

Cassiar throughway from the Second Narrows Bridge through to the 401 or

the properly built Trans-Canada Highway

section beginning at Boundary

Road and going east.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree) have said in this

House before that there are only three stop-and-go lights on the whole

Trans-Canada Highway from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria, and

they're all in the two tidings involving Cassiar Street and North

Vancouver. We could take out one of those stop-and-go fights by

building a proper Cassiar connector. I gather that from the Vancouver

point of view it is seen as a neighbourhood problem. The people in the

neighbourhood on either side of Cassiar Street have to be satisfied

that this development is in their own particular interest as well as in

the general interest. But I think the government of British Columbia,

particularly the Highways ministry, has to be concerned about the fact

that this is a connector between municipalities and, indeed, a

connector between the people of this province and the rest of Canada as

well as simply a local road in a particular part of an individual

municipality in this province. Something has to be done about the

Cassiar connector — I hope with the agreement of the city of Vancouver.

I understand that the province is prepared to pay for all of it. I

believe that the province has already got a design that makes sense and

it is reasonably economical; it would be a trench through much of that

area with overpasses at each street.

This is badly needed,

and I would say that if we have a transportation problem in the lower

mainland, this is the most serious problem. It's one which the province

is capable of dealing with; it's one that I understand the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways is prepared to deal with; it is one which

is simply being swept under the rug, in effect, by a majority of the

members of council in Vancouver city itself. They should be prepared to

deal with this problem on a city wide basis. Instead it's being dealt

with as purely a neighbourhood matter, and there's a lack of leadership

in Vancouver city council in this connection. That is where the problem

rests, and I hope it can be resolved by this ministry working somehow

with the present city council or with a future city council that has

the larger interest of the people of Vancouver at heart.

have several other matters, but I will be brief. On the North Shore in

Vancouver, we'd like to see the Highways ministry, certainly in its

responsibilities with regard to ferries, continue to look long-term, at

least, at the economic, energy, environmental and other advantages of

another crossing over the Strait of Georgia. The one that makes the

greatest sense is from the general vicinity of the Vancouver

International Airport to Gabriola Island. It's a one-hour crossing that

would involve many fewer miles of travel for a great many people, and

it is needed unless we're going to continue to build more vessels to

run on longer routes. I'm not saying that the present routes should be

discontinued. I'm really saying that a new and shorter route should be

added, perhaps in the 1990s, and that the ministry should continue to

plan for its construction and begin to negotiate with the local

authorities at both ends in order to make sure that that comes to pass.

The

hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) talked about the

diminished — as he put it — provincial subsidy to B.C. Ferries being a

stake driven in the heart of Victoria. There are two broad aspects to

improvement in transportation. One is that as you improve

transportation facilities businesses go to the place where they're best

conducted, as with free trade. A number of businesses have left the

Victoria area and gone to the Vancouver area because of enhanced and

improved transportation — easier access. I'm not at all sure that any

protectionist would ever view improved transportation as an overall

advantage to a particular community. As our transportation modes

improve, especially if you keep the fares down, there's no guarantee it

won't increasingly become a specialized community servicing government,

with most of its requirements served from the greater Vancouver area.

Always have regard to the fact that low-cost transportation is a

double-edged sword; it's not an unlimited blessing.

The

minister said something that bothered me somewhat. He said we've moved

off a highway equivalent subsidy to a subsidy that picks up certain

costs. He didn't say whatever those costs might be, but that was the

inference, and I'd like him to comment on that. That was the old

system; that was the system the NDP had — whatever the cost was it was

picked up. I'd hate to think that we've moved off a subsidy which was

definite, even if it's less than 100 percent highway equivalent — but

I'd like to see a definite subsidy going every year to the Ferry

Corporation, and that that Ferry Corporation then knew where it was

going. It would know that if it ran a deficit it would have to make up

that deficit somewhere in its operations in subsequent years. I hope

the minister can correct my impression that the operating costs, if

they are overrun, will be picked up and that that amount is not a

definite amount.

There are just one or two other points and

then perhaps one of the members opposite will speak in their turn. On

the air side, I'm glad to see the province moving into the third level

air carrier situation, building airstrips, helping to improve air

guidance systems, and so on. I think this is essential, and I'd like to

see more money devoted to that side of transportation. I'd like to

think also that a provincial Ministry of Transportation and Highways

would give some thought to the fact that policies are made — and indeed

international agreements are entered into by the federal government —

on the air side that have tremendous impact on the economy of this

province.

This matter of negotiation occurs periodically —

the last time in 1974 and again in the next year or two. Air routes,

for example, between Canada and the United States will be agreed upon.

Who will service those air routes from the U.S. side and from the

Canadian side? Which carriers get which routes? That is very important.

Ottawa's bias is to give it all to Air Canada, to give it to an airline

based on Montreal, to give it to an airline all of whose maintenance

and most of whose construction and so on is in eastern Canada. Now

whether hon. members opposite like it or not, CP Air is based in

Vancouver. To the extent that CP Air does not get a route and

[ Page 8463 ]

Air

Canada gets a route, there's less maintenance, less sophisticated

manufacturing, etc., done here in British Columbia than would otherwise

be the case. The last time round, in 1974, Air Canada got 12 routes and

CP Air got 2, and the two routes into the United States that CP Air got

were routes which were to be competitive with American carriers flying

precisely the same routes in the other direction. So CP Air, and

through CP Air, the role of Vancouver as an airline aircraft

maintenance centre, etc., was diminished. I think it's a matter of real

concern to British Columbians that airlines be able to fly into and out

of British Columbia with a minimum of interference, and that the

western carriers have a fair cut of that business. It's very important

that our transportation people become involved in that kind of

policy-making at the federal level and at least focus on what the pros

and cons are of the alternatives and weigh in favour of British

Columbian based carriers in that respect.

I'm concerned

about the degree of regulation of our motor carriers and trucking in

this province. British Columbia — perhaps second to Saskatchewan — is

the most highly regulated province insofar as trucking and motor

carrier operations are concerned. This is a result of legislation

passed in the 1930s which was typically designed around the world to

look after the carrier. It wasn't designed to look after the consumer,

the user, the public or public convenience and necessity, but the

industry and the carrier. We've made very few changes to that

legislation since. We've assigned to a Motor Carrier Commission tasks

which, given its limited staff, it can't possibly carry out

effectively. They now are supposed to police many functions and

activities, which they can't possibly police. At least, they don't have

the staff to do it. It may be physically impossible to do the job

anyway. I would like to see much of the detailed regulation stripped

out of the Motor Carrier Act. I would like to see freedom of entry

improved. It can't be complete but I'd like to see a greater ease of

entry into the industry. I would like to see any regulation of rates

removed from the legislation and in some areas — such as the Greater

Vancouver area — I would like to see a free-marketing effect, real

competition with regulations relating primarily to areas which

otherwise might not receive reasonable service if we had a genuine free

market in world transport in this province.

Generally

speaking, in Europe you have an unregulated free market in truck

transportation. You see French lorries running on the highways in the

United Kingdom with drivers seemingly seated on the wrong side of the

vehicle going from here to there. You see West German vehicles in Italy

and so on. They move freely throughout the whole of the economic

community, and the rates are essentially established by competition. If

they can do that between separate national jurisdictions, surely we can

do it within this province of British Columbia.

MR. LEGGATT: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.

MR. DAVIS: I'll finish up first, Mr. Chairman, if I may. Perhaps I'll try to answer the question afterwards.

Deregulation

is taking place to some degree in the United States. It's taking place

on the airline side with some considerable effect. It's taking place,

in some measure, with respect to trucking and, indeed, with the

railways. Canada's railways, in contrast to those in the United States,

have been deregulated to a great extent since the late 1960s. So the

U.S., in some ways, is catching up to us in terms of deregulation. But

on the motor carrier side, and that's the side where the provinces have

remained substantially supreme, we have over regulation in this

province. It's a major assignment and I think we should make it an

objective of the government to rewrite the Motor Carrier Act to

deregulate trucking to a considerable extent to give us the benefits of

competition in that area. There are some substantial economies still

possible in trucking, and it does after all carry the bulk of our high

value goods in this province.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, those are the remarks I wanted to make.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I appreciate the remarks of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

First of all, I'm aware that his important riding is connected to the

rest of British Columbia by a Bailey bridge. There have been very

difficult negotiations going on, as the member pointed out, with the

Indian band. I think it's safe to say that they are resolved now and we

can get on with building the bridge very shortly. Our senior people say

they are building a three-span, 210-foot long, prestressed concrete

I-beam bridge with a 56-foot roadway and two sidewalks. I don't think

they've missed anything there. They'll get on with that. I might also

say that it's not only complicated, but the settlement with the Indian

band is going to be costly. We don't get the land for free. I believe

there's about $1.5 million involved in the land acquisition prior to

anything to do with the cost of the bridge, which is also estimated at

something like that. But it looks like we can see the end of that.

lot of Vancouver members will be interested in this. The freeway, when

it was built in the sixties, stopped at Cassiar Street. It runs more or

less from Chilliwack, but we've expanded it somewhat towards Hope —

right into the city of Vancouver. Everything gets dumped on Cassiar

Street. Cassiar goes along and junctions with Hastings. The area I'm

referring to is from the end of the freeway to the Second Narrows

Bridge. The corner of Hastings and Cassiar in the city of Vancouver is

the busiest intersection in western Canada, as the member pointed out;

certainly it's the busiest in British Columbia. We have no end of

difficulties there.The province of British Columbia had a proposition,

and gave it to the city of Vancouver. We'll build it, with the cost

going to the province. I believe at that time it was $20 million to $25

million. The acquisition of a lot of homes along there has been made,

so there will be room to work. Acquisitions have been made by our

ministry, as well as by the parks branch and the city of Vancouver.

Their cooperation over the years has been excellent in that regard.

That probably goes back ten years.

We still aren't very far

along in moving any dirt. Where we actually are on that is.... Once our

ministry gave the proposition to the city of Vancouver.... I think the

city of Vancouver agreed. Their citizens' groups showed up — I haven't

got anything against citizens' groups — and they started to re-engineer

what we wanted to do with the Cassiar corridor. They are having no end

of difficulty with the traffic that is weeping off this congested area

into all the residential streets and so on of the East Hastings area.

But until recently, the local people over there haven't been able to

make their minds up as to how to do it. Our engineers in the Highways

ministry suggested a depressed freeway in this area to the west of the

existing grade street. It was cooperatively designed by the ministry

and the city of Vancouver staff. Then

[ Page 8464 ]

along came the community opposition to this and the desire for a tunnel instead of the depressed freeway.

The

citizens said they wanted a tunnel. At that point the city council

requested a review by a consultant of the impacts of the proposed

design, and comment on the feasibility and impacts of the alternates

suggested by community groups. The cost of the consultant's study was

to be shared between the city and the province. The cost of the study

is $130,000. I think, as usual when we deal with most municipalities,

we will pay $100,000 and they will pay $30,000. That's usually the

ratio that we end up with.

Considerable negotiation was

involved in the establishment of the terms of reference for the study

by community groups at these discussions. In other words, before we

could get along with the study, we couldn't even agree on the terms of

reference for the study. I think, believe it or not, six or eight

months to a year was lost just hammering it out, because there were too

many chiefs and not enough Indians in this deal. Our people are

competent, and the city of Vancouver people are competent, but then the

citizens decided to get into engineering, and it really takes a lot of

extra time. I hope it's for the good. Our senior engineers say that a

tunnel won't work, but they don't accept that, and that's what the

terms of reference are going into. We will be getting on with that

study shortly. I know that several Vancouver MLAs are interested in

that, and that's where it's at. The first discussion of this took place

in 1978, and we acquired right-of-way and so on, but there is still no

proper action.

I note from the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) that he'd like to see the

Iona-to-Gabriola crossing built. I'm inclined to agree with him, but

there is no necessity for that for quite some time in these tight

economic times. That's what we've said recently: the option wasn't

thrown out, but it's quite a way down the road as far as we can

envision — by that I mean 10 to 15 years.

The member for

North Vancouver–Seymour also mentioned consultation when the government

of Canada settles air routes. I might say that we have consultations

on this subject all the time. The way we live as Canadians, they have

the final say. In some cases they accept our advice, and in some cases

it appears they go on their own. I'm am inclined to agree with the

observation made by the member, that when these new air routes are

given out we should favour where they're based. We have the fine

Canadian Pacific Air Lines base in Vancouver. They have recently,

through the help of this government, built a maintenance establishment

to upgrade their facilities here. But that isn't always the way it

works. Air Canada seems to get the breaks in competition with CP and I

guess the reason for that is that Air Canada is really a Crown

corporation and CP Air is in the private sector.

The other

subject that was brought up was the Motor Carrier Commission. We are

looking at the Motor Carrier Commission, but at the present time I'm

not going to promise any legislation about it. First of all, as I said

earlier this morning, we have to clean up our own act and make it work.

The concern is that it's fine to say throw it all out, but I'm not so

sure who would service places like Spuzzum and Yale if we threw out all

the regulations. I wonder who'd haul the goods to those places and be

sure they had. There is an obligation on a carrier to have a route

maintain a scheduled service. I've had personal experience with this,

because I've actually been the holder of a public freight licence —

obligations go with it. One thing I agree with that we can do in

starting to cut down is possibly eliminate the regulation of rates. I

can't see that the marketplace in this day and age can't be the

regulator there, and I don't think that requires legislation. It can

probably be done by regulations and rules, and we can certainly look at

that. There is a lot of discussion going on, and everybody seems to

blame the Motor Carrier Commission. The other side of the coin is that

the carriers who have licences want to go on forever. They are pretty

substantial, they have large payrolls and they have some protection. An

overview I have is that in a lot of cases we get into spats and rows

and, as I think you mentioned it, we forget the shipper who is really

an important person. I've asked the Motor Carrier Commission myself to

pay a little more attention to the shipper, rather than the rows that

go on over jurisdiction and who's got the licence. I think they're

getting more concerned about the shipper who pays the bill.

I think that fairly well covers the observations made by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I have a few matters to discuss with the minister, and

I'm not going to be too lengthy on them. I had one submission — and the

minister did as well — from the Tleskainlith Indian band at Chase. The

minister, I think, received a letter back in February 1982, outlining

the problems the band is having with access roads, acknowledging that

the basic responsibility, as I understand it, is a federal one through

the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Affairs, but requesting

of the provincial ministry that an agreement be negotiated which would

provide some services from the local Highways department and pointing

out that the roads were so badly serviced that school buses and

ambulances for emergency health services were unable to reach the

village and serve the people's needs. I would appreciate from the

minister a reaction to this general proposal. I believe the minister

has met with Mr. Willard Martin of that Indian band, and certainly he's

had the correspondence on it. If the minister could give me a general

response to their proposal, I'd appreciate that.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Another

matter I wanted to raise is that I have had letters from the cities of

Armstrong, Enderby and Salmon Arm, all respecting the air transport

assistance program and requesting to have the government air transport

assistance program fully funded. The fund had assisted in the

development and extension of the Salmon Arm airport, but I believe

there was a cutback in the funds, and all of that interior area is

particularly concerned, along with the municipal councils, to continue

with that assistance fund. It means a great deal to those communities

which are now not served by an airport that would support commercial

flights. I would point out just for the minister's attention that the

closest airport where I can obtain service is the Kelowna airport,

which is a two-and-a-half-hour drive, minimum, from Revelstoke.

Similarly, the Salmon Arm–Sicamous area has to be served by either

Kelowna or Kamloops — Kelowna is a little bit closer. Quite frankly,

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the minister that the constituency of

Shuswap-Revelstoke is one of the most awkward to obtain airport

services from. Most of the other constituencies in the province have an

airport within the riding.

[ Page 8465 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Not so.

MR. KING:

Most of them do. There may be one or two others, but even the north

country, Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Terrace.... Some

of them, like Atlin and perhaps the Omineca riding, are very isolated.

But the population between Atlin, for instance, and the

Shuswap-Revelstoke area is widely variant too. There is a case to be

made. I think the population is adequate to support a commercial

airport in the Salmon Arm area, at least for the purposes of a feeder

commercial service to either Kamloops or Kelowna. Revelstoke has an

airport, but again, it's not a year round service that can accommodate

a commercial feeder service. It makes it very difficult for the people

of that area to obtain the kind of air services enjoyed by most of the

other parts of the province. I ask the minister to respond in a

positive way to the representations made by the councils of Salmon Arm,

Enderby and Armstrong, and to make a full financial commitment to the

development of the Salmon Arm airport.

There are one or two

other matters that I want to raise with the minister pertaining to

correspondence that has come in. The District of Salmon Arm clerk

writes regarding the transportation of hazardous materials; the city

council is concerned in light of, I think, very serious rail accidents

that have occurred in eastern Canada, where toxic chemicals are

transported regularly through municipal boundaries. Of course, CP

Rail's main line runs through the village of Salmon Arm at fairly high

speed. A lot of hazardous chemicals are now transported regularly by

rail. While I think this is generally a federal problem — and I note

that the council has contacted their federal MP about the matter — I

think the ministry of transport and communications for the province

would have an interest too.

Has the minister had any

discussions with federal officials about any plan to deal adequately

with this, not only in Salmon Arm, but in other British Columbia

communities where railways run through the heartland of heavily

populated areas? Perhaps relocation, or some better system of

protection against the eventuality of serious derailment which might

rupture one of the tank cars containing chlorine or some other toxic

material, this jeopardizing the public health of our residents....

Again, I say that I think it's basically a federal responsibility in a

statutory way; nevertheless, it is the citizenry here in the province

of British Columbia that is in jeopardy. And I would request some

general comments from the minister in terms of any discussions he may

have had with the federal authorities, and what, if I anything, we

might do from a provincial standpoint.

Last year I raised

with the minister a problem of highway access, one that I think he's

familiar with: Lybarger Road at the east end of Malakwa, a road that

services the access to Drew sawmills. While the forest industry is in a

state of economic depression at the moment and truck traffic and that

type of thing has accordingly been reduced, there is a very heavy flow

of traffic. Undoubtedly the forest industry will return to economic

health and the normal flow of traffic will resume, and it's a major

problem at that particular point. It's a left turn off the Trans-Canada

Highway on a curve from both directions. There is very little

visibility, a bridge on the west end, pretty tight curvature on the

east end, and a left turn which frequently necessitates that logging

trucks with heavy loads of logs stop, building up traffic behind them

while they wait for a gap in the westward flow of traffic to make their

left turn. It's altogether a very serious and hazardous manoeuvre. The

residents of the area who have to thread their way between the heavy

commercial flow are very concerned that it's simply a matter of time

until a loss of life occurs at that particular point.

The

minister I think responded last year to me and to a petition he had

received from the area residents, particularly Mrs. Evelyn Lamb. He was

aware and concerned and said he would try to make an appropriation as

soon as possible. I simply want to ask the minister if, in light of

this obviously hazardous situation, he can give an indication now as to

when some major changes in that particular service road can be expected.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 52, Mr. Speaker.

WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT

Bill 52 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 28.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

Bill 28 read a third time and passed.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 76: minister's office, $228, 769.

MR. REE: I rise to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis).

I’m

very pleased to hear that agreement is almost completed with the Indian

band concerning the Seymour River crossing. As I am a co-representative

for the district of North Vancouver, the Seymour crossing is naturally

of concern to myself because until that Seymour crossing has been in

place, there is a restriction on the development of the eastern end of

that district, and it is holding back considerable land available for

needed housing and needed development on the North Shore, so I'm very

pleased to hear that we might be starting the work to put the crossing

in place — in the not too distant future.

That crossing

is also important because I understand it is part of the overall

development of the highway system through the North Shore with the

crossing of the Burrard Inlet. The Seymour and Cassiar system are a

part of the key, and although I and my constituents dislike the delay

in settling the Cassiar-Hastings intersection corridor so that

construction can be started there to improve that — because it

[ Page 8466 ]

very seriously needed — I think we can support this government's

position that the tunnel is most inappropriate. A tunnel would not only

be a greater cost than what is proposed by the government, but also

would create a serious threat in an emergency. We have a great number

of trucks carrying various commodities. If there were some sort of

accident with an explosion or fire in the tunnel, it could be a very

serious event, far more so than any open-air event could be, and could

not be attended to. Likewise, if there is any expansion required at a

later date, you are very much restricted on the tunnel. I think it

would be a misuse of public funds to insist on tunnel construction of

that corridor.

Again I associate with my colleague from

North Vancouver–Seymour but in my constituency I do have the two

stoplights on Highway 1. I have more stoplights on that highway per

mile than any other constituency. I recognize the restrictions of

dollars' availability at this time, with the difficulties within the

province, but I do ask the minister that possibly the design can be

completed for these two intersections — the one at Lonsdale and the one

at Westview on the Upper Levels Highway — so that when we're a little

bit more affluent in this province, we might be able to proceed and

look after it.

One other item, Mr. Chairman, if I may: there

have been some changes, I understand, in the ferry

schedule from Snug

Cove on Bowen Island to Horseshoe Bay, and possibly the minister could

have this looked at. I'm concerned mainly with theSun day-night sailing

from Snug Cove. It has been advanced from the late sailing at 9 o'clock

to approximately 8 o'clock now, and this is creating considerable

backup in the community and still necessitates a 9 o'clock overtime

sailing. Because the scheduling is for a seven and a half hour workday,

the 6:30 a.m. sailing.... I'm not sure how many patrons used that, but

possibly it could be dispensed with and we could have a later morning

sailing, and extend one through in the evenings.

I do note

that the water taxi is held over there for the normal 8 o'clock sailing

at night, because the ferry has to be berthed at Snug Cove. The water

taxi is back there when the ferry gets back, but then there is usually

a backup of traffic and an additional sailing, the water taxi is held

for an extra hour or two, and there are additional costs there. Maybe

the ferry could be berthed on the Horseshoe Bay side now, since I

understand there is one ferry less on the Langdale route. There might

be extra berthing space. Could the corporation, through the minister,

look at some adjustment for the late-night Sunday sailing.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I gather His Honour is in the precinct.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, I'm advised that His Honour is in the precinct and will

shortly be arriving at the chamber. I would request that hon. members

retain their seats until the doors are opened, and we will stand for

His Honour's entry.

Hon. members, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Offence Amendment Act, 1982

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1982

Special Appropriations Act

Compensation Stabilization Act

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1982

Housing and Employment Development Financing Act

Home Purchase Assistance Amendment Act, 1982

Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982

Waste Management Act

Land Amendment Act, 1982

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor

doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:50 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada