1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6803 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Reduce Lead Levels in Drinking Water (Bill M213). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 6803

An Act to Phase Out the Use of Apartment and Commercial Incinerators

(Bill M214). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 6804

Oral Questions

Vancouver Stock Exchange. Mr. Clark –– 6804

Mr. Sihota

Offshore oil drilling. Hon. Mr. Strachan replies to question –– 6806

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Vant)

On vote 72: minister's office –– 6807

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Loenen

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Rose

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Williams

Mr. Barlee

Mr. Clark

Home Mortgage Assistance Program Act (Bill 22). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 6831

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

With us today are some very good friends of my family. We've known them

for a good number of years, and they are constituents in Vancouver

South. Visiting are Mr. Emil Roder and Mrs. Margaret Roder, and with

them two friends from Frankfurt, Germany: Miss Christina Hansel and

Mrs. Wally Hansel. I would ask the House to bid them a big welcome.

HON. S. HAGEN :

In the members' gallery today is a good friend of mine and my family,

Mr. John Fitterer from Victoria. Would the House please join me in

bidding him welcome.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : We're

fortunate today to have in our presence in the chamber visitors from

Vancouver and from the securities industry. On behalf of the House I'm

pleased to welcome Mr. Doug Hyndman, chairman of the B.C. Securities

Commission. He has been doing a very commendable job in terms of

bringing that structure into a meaningful role. With him are Mr. John

Mathers, chairman of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, Mr. Marty Reynolds,

one of the board of governors, and Mr. Don Hudson, president of the

Vancouver Stock Exchange. I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming

them.

MR. ROSE : Today we have a visitor from the

federal House in the person of Ian Waddell, MP, who shares a riding

with me. We were going to seat Ian on the floor today, but I notice

he's up near the press gallery, where he obviously prefers to be. He's

one of the many fine leadership candidates that we have federally.

Would you welcome Ian, please.

HON. MR. VANT : Mr.

Speaker, in the gallery today are two gentlemen who are very grateful

for the improvements to the highways on the Queen Charlotte Islands,

and both have a very keen interest on further improvements to the

Masset airport. I'm pleased to introduce to the House Gordon Feyer, the

mayor of Masset, and Gerry Johnson, the mayor of Port Clements.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce

to the House James Mansell and his fiance Karen Mytko, both from Delta. James,

along with his brother Gerald, of Richmond, who unfortunately could not be here

today, heroically rescued a Port Coquitlam woman who was trapped in her car

after slipping off a bridge crossing the Pitt River. On the morning of March

10, Joan Edwards's car skidded off the bridge and sank below the murky water,

trapping her inside the car. These two young men, while other people stood by,

jumped into the river to rescue the lady. These two men deserve a commendation

for their prompt action. Joan Edwards knows she owes her life to James and Gerald

Mansell. Would this assembly, on behalf of the second member for Delta (Mr.

Davidson) and myself, please welcome a person who thought very unselfishly of

his own life, as did his brother, but more of a fellow human being's life.

Would this assembly please welcome one of those heroes of this rescue, Mr. James

Mansell, and his fiance, Karen Mytko.

MR. BARNES :

I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming a longtime friend and

constituent, Mrs. Hilda Kristiansen, who is here with a committee of

critical-issues friends. Hilda will be meeting this afternoon with the

social services committee of the NDP. Please make her welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Visiting today from Prince George is a good friend of mine, both

socially and politically. Would the House please welcome John Brink.

MRS. McCARTHY :

I would like to join with the member from Vancouver Centre who has

mentioned Mrs. Kristiansen. I would also like to mention that the group

meeting with our caucus is visiting the House. I would like to

particularly mention a former school trustee from the city of

Vancouver, Betsy MacDonald, as well as Helen Hale, Barbara Russell and

Doreen Sutherland, who along with Hilda Kristiansen are in the House

today. Will the House please make the whole committee welcome.

MRS. GRAN :

Visiting the House today is the administrator of Langley city, Bob

Wilson, and his son David, who is a student at Simon Fraser University.

Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. CHALMERS :

I have two guests visiting us today in the gallery, both from Kelowna.

One of them is the best constituency assistant in British Columbia,

Susan Aitken. With her is a gentleman who began as a client of mine and

became a close friend and fishing partner, Mr. Michael Kumie. Would you

please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO REDUCE LEAD LEVELS

IN DRINKING WATER

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled

An Act to Reduce Lead Levels in Drinking Water.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this act is to ban the continued sale and

use of lead solder and other plumbing repair materials containing lead.

Further,

no water systems carrying potable water are to be installed using

lead-based piping. Water carried in lead piping and piping made with

lead solder has been found to contain lead levels in excess of levels

considered to be safe. There is clear medical evidence that ingesting

very small amounts of lead can be harmful to human health and physical

development,

[ Page 6804 ]

especially for children whose young bodies are still developing.

There

are readily available substitutes for lead solder such as tin antimony

or tin silver, and this act will ensure that no lead-based materials

are used in the construction or repair of water systems.

Bill

M213 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

AN ACT TO PHASE OUT

THE USE OF APARTMENT AND

COMMERCIAL INCINERATORS

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled

an Act to Phase Out the Use of Apartment and Commercial Incinerators.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this act is to phase out the use of apartment and commercial incinerators over the next two years.

These

incinerators are commonly used for trash disposal, but often burn at

very low efficiency, are outdated in design and lack emission control

equipment. They typically produce high levels of smoke emissions,

odours and fly ash, and contribute significantly to air pollution.

Apartment and commercial building owners will be encouraged to recycle

or compact the garbage produced by their tenants.

addition, the elimination of these types of incinerators will reduce

emissions of dangerous air pollutants such as CFCs, heavy metals and

dioxins and other cancer-causing toxins. These dangerous air pollutants

result from low-level and incomplete burning of consumer and commercial

wastes such as batteries, aerosol cans, plastics, Styrofoam, solvents

and paints.

Bill M214 introduced, read a first time and

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

next sitting of the House after today.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE

MR. CLARK :

A question to the Minister of Finance. The minister has said repeatedly

in this House that the Vancouver Stock Exchange is doing an excellent

job and that tough action has been taken by the government to clean up

the VSE. Obviously not enough has been done. What fresh steps are you

now prepared to take to clean up the Vancouver Stock Exchange and to

begin to repair our international reputation?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I listened closely to the question. I am unaware of the event that has

transpired that prompts the hon. member's curiosity. Maybe he could

expand.

MR. CLARK : If the minister is unaware of

what's going on in the world, I think it's quite clear that that is

reflected by the wilful blindness of the Vancouver Stock Exchange with

respect to these deals. I want to ask some specific questions about

this minister and about specific dealings at the stock exchange which

have brought a black eye to this exchange and this province.

Adnan

Khashoggi had two companies listed on the Vancouver Stock Exchange —

Skyhigh and Tangent. Tangent went from 10 cents to $18 to 3 cents a

share in a classic money-laundering operation. It is now clear, by the

way, that the money-laundering was for Ferdinand Marcos. Despite the

fact that an insider-trading investigation was announced, why was there

never any sanction taken against Mr. Khashoggi?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I thought we'd get down to something specific sooner or later, if we

had the patience, and certainly I am a patient man, Mr. Speaker. I

gather from the comments of the hon. member that he, like other critics

from the socialist side of the House who are critical and negative,

once again is dealing with a historical situation that has been dealt

with in the public arena. I gather that for some strange reason this

has excited his interest today. As I have responded in the past, the

board of governors of the Vancouver Stock Exchange are aggressively

changing some of their procedures and practices. In addition, I'm very

proud that the Securities Commission is also working closely with the

VSE in changing regulations. This House will be asked to consider those

regulations this sitting, as we further refine and identify areas that

need addressing.

We are making significant progress, and I

repeat once again my confidence in the future of the Vancouver Stock

Exchange, which shows every promise of becoming a more and more

influential player in the financial community, particularly as it adds

a second board to its scheme of operations, which would be a senior

board. I can assure the hon. members opposite that this side of the

House is determined to ensure that the VSE fulfils its promise, and

that we will do everything we can to further that objective. Our

objective is to ensure that in western Canada we have all of the

vehicles in place which will enable us to capture our share of the

Pacific Rim market. The VSE is one that has that potential. We will

continue to do everything we can to expand on that as the months and

years progress.

MR. CLARK : Supplementary to the

minister. It's that side of the House that has allowed all these

international criminals to do business on the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

It has given us this bad reputation. A few months ago — the minister

talks about history — a company linked to Ferdinand Marcos purchased a

seat on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Nothing happened until the

Americans indicted Mr. Marcos, and then the VSE moved into a form of

damage control.

[ Page

6805 ]

Mr. Speaker, a question to the minister. Why are the two individuals

that arranged the deal still allowed to do business on the Vancouver

Stock Exchange? Why were no sanctions ever levied against the two

individuals who organized the financing from Ferdinand Marcos?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

This session of the Legislature has been characterized by members from

a particular Vancouver riding consistently overreaching themselves in

terms of stating the facts and the truth of situations. I don't know if

it's a function of neighbourhood, a function of air that is breathed or

diet, but I find it passing strange that once again we have a member

from the riding of Vancouver East who seems to have this desire to put

his own queer

interpretation on facts and truth. The hon. member will

remember debates we had in the House last year over similar kinds of

allegations. By virtue of the need of the government to ensure that due

process is followed, by virtue of the statutory obligations of myself

and the Securities Commission — and the VSE, I might add — to ensure

that they follow up on these kinds of allegations in an unbiased, fair

way that ensures there is due process and that justice is served, and

by virtue of the constraints imposed by the legal profession and the

judiciary system in that respect, we are not able to deal with specific

queries of that nature in this kind of setting.

I repeat

the offer that I made last year to the critic who liked to grab

headlines with these kinds of allegations: if members of the opposition

have any genuine desire to assist and aid us in working on the changes

that may be needed in the future to deal with these kinds of

situations, I challenge them to come forward and discuss it. More

importantly, if they want to deal with specific individuals, I

challenge the members of the opposition to come forward and let's have

a privileged conversation about those individuals. I pledge the full

and totally committed support of this side of the House to ensure that

if there is a genuine desire to see change, and if there is a genuine

piece of information that can be usefully employed in the pursuit of

those objectives, we will never fail to pursue them.

MR. SIHOTA :

The Minister of Finance has to appreciate that this government has a

public problem that we're not going to discuss in the privacy of his

office. That public problem relates to the image of the Vancouver Stock

Exchange, and we've seen more revelations in that regard.

The minister says his government wants to deal with matters, wants to run due

process and follow up on matters. Why has no follow-up occurred with respect

to the Carter-Ward situation? That instance involved 21 brokerage houses and

over $179 million, yet to date no action has been taken against the individual

brokerage houses involved. Could the minister explain why he hasn't taken

action against those brokerage houses?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Now we have another riding that seems to prompt these kinds of wild

accusations emerging from the bulrushes. The member makes an assumption

that nothing is done or is being done. I certainly can't support that

contention, and for obvious reasons I'll have to let matters sit there.

But

to those who say that the commission has been less than diligent, let

me just point out, for the official record, the dramatic improvement in

enforcement actions taken by the Securities Commission, even in the

last year as we continue to add regulations. For example, in the area

of cease-trading orders issued — this year 322, last year 152; the

removal of trading exemptions — this year 43, last year 8; removals of

directors for suitability –– 28 this year; notices of hearings –– 12

this year compared to five last year; files opened –– 1, 233 this year

versus 850 last year. The record clearly shows that the Securities

Commission is getting very aggressive and is doing its job effectively.

I stand on that record.

MR. SIHOTA : The member is stumbling on that record.

Two

years ago when I brought those statistics to the minister's attention,

he suggested that they were irrelevant and weren't the best barometer.

Today he relies on them as the best barometer. I will be happy to give

the minister the debate in that regard. But the best barometer is

action, and it's the lack of action that is causing these perceptual

problems with the VSE.

Two years ago when I raised Axiom in

this House, the minister said there was nothing wrong. Since then there

have been all sorts of fraudulent activities exposed with respect to

Axiom. Mr. Aziz, the principal of that company, has been charged with

offences back east in relation to Axiom. Could the minister explain

again why, in one of the biggest scandals in Ontario and in British

Columbia, his regulators in British Columbia have failed to take any

action on Axiom?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : The hon. member

opposite doesn't seem to have the wax out of his ears. I am unable to

deal with specific allegations like that in this public forum, and he

knows full well why. I have statutory obligations to ensure that

justice is done, and that due process and fairness is given to those

who might be charged with offences. I cannot deal with those in this

public forum. You know that; you are a practising lawyer — at least,

the last I heard you were, for pin money.

I notice that

this hon. member was quoted in the press the other day with another

attempt to distort the facts, wherein he alleges that the government is

putting investments from the WCB into B.C. Hydro in a 2 percent

interest-bearing bond. The fact of the matter is that under the

Financial Administration Act, which has been in place for some years,

that kind of transaction can't occur. If this is typical of the kind of

homework and cheap headline-grabbing that we are going to get from the

members of the opposition, no

[ Page 6806 ]

one can expect this side of the House to take these allegations seriously.

we are really concerned about the problem, then I challenge the members

opposite to join us in working for the common good, rather than taking

the cheap headline route, which seems to be so characteristic of

certain members of this House. Those kinds of actions I deplore.

MR. SIHOTA :

The minister wants private criticism but not public criticism. He talks

about justice being done. We're talking about instances where justice

just hasn't even been commenced by the government.

The

biggest volume trader right now on the Vancouver Stock Exchange is a

company called Macrotrends. The minister, I'm sure, is aware of it. He

ought to be aware that one of the principals of it — with respect to

Mr. Cooper — has quite a lengthy criminal record. Again, we're seeing

these types of people being involved in the Vancouver Stock Exchange,

with, as a consequence, the image problems.

The question to

the minister is this: would he not agree that it is he and his Socred

friends who have allowed the VSE to slip into the type of image it has

now through their sheer neglect in terms of dealing with these types of

problems?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : There are traditional

proprieties in this House that are normally honoured in the conduct of

our public business. I take deep offence at the allegation that, on

some basis of friendship, favours may be extended or errors or

omissions overlooked. When this government and the Securities

Commission itself are working so hard, to the benefit of the Vancouver

financial community, to have these kinds of attacks levied by the

members of the opposition, who obviously — I gather, from the last

question — are referring to some recent publications in the American

press.... Let me read into the record comments made by the Globe and Mail

this morning in response to those articles. The name Cooper was given

in an

article that was described yesterday in the American press, and

I've been waiting for the opposition to get it on the record. Now it's

there. Let me put into the record the Globe and Mail specific response:

"...Mr.

Queenan" — who is the author of that

article in the New York

publication — "fails to mention that the exchange introduced new rules

and policies earlier this year in a bid to tighten up the listings

requirements, clamp down on reverse takeovers and, in general, make it

tougher for companies to go public. He also does not mention the number

of regulatory sanctions handed out by the British Columbia Securities

Commission."

There you have it. We have an internationally

respected Canadian publication verifying exactly what I told the

members of the House a good 15 minutes ago. For some strange reason, we

have this mud-slinging ethic which certain members from certain ridings

seem to have this propensity for. I remind them: we are here to serve

the interests of all the people of British Columbia. One of those

interests surely must be to promote economic activity and to ensure

that the Vancouver financial community becomes strengthened and a more

meaningful player in the Pacific Rim marketplace. We cannot do that if

we continue to get nitpicking and sniping from mudslingers across the

way. We are making dramatic progress, as evidenced by the facts I've

read into the record now.

[2:30]

It is grossly unfair and a cheap shot to have this mud-slinging put

forward by this restricted clique of members of the opposition who

don't have the foresight or wit to understand the larger vision and the

greater opportunity that lies with all British Columbians, providing

that we collectively put our shoulder to the wheel. I challenge them to

join us in putting our shoulder to the wheel, and what do we get? We

get idiotic charges; we get cheap headline-grabbing when they know we

are unable to deal with specific firms or individuals. They expect the

electorate will be duped into thinking that they're serving the

electorate's interest, when in fact they're serving nobody's interest

but their own. They have no interest in serving the people of this

province; they have an interest only in bringing forward their own

arguments.

I think it's about time that elected

representatives sitting in this Legislature assume the larger

responsibility of providing leadership to our province. We on this side

are working very hard to reach those goals. We're making significant

progress, and we could make more progress if there was less negativism

across the way and more willingness to join in and move ahead to

progress, which we all want.

OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I'd like to respond to a question taken on notice. On Thursday, May 11,

my critic the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) posed

the following question: "My question is to the Minister Responsible for

Environment. A publication and exhibit on the oil industry now on

display at the Royal British Columbia Museum states: '...modern

offshore drill rigs can operate safely in Hecate Strait.' Does the

minister agree with this assessment?" I said that I would come back

with further opinion after reviewing the museum material.

Upon

reviewing the museum material, I find a plaque on a 5 foot by 10 foot

photograph of an offshore oil-rig platform. The plaque for the display

reads:

" It is difficult, dangerous and expensive to drill for

oil and gas over open waters. Special equipment and precautions aboard an offshore

drilling platform reduce dangers and increase chances of success.

"Future drilling for oil and gas off the British Columbia

coast will probably be conducted in the Queen Charlotte sedimentary basin. The

waters over the basin, Hecate Strait, are among the world's stormiest, but

modern drilling platforms operate successfully, even in these difficult conditions."

That is the end of the statement on the plaque.

It's obvious from reading the statement on the plaque and listening to the statement the member

[ Page 6807 ]

made

in the House that he didn't read it right. He must have misread the

last sentence. It says: "... platforms operate successfully, even in

these difficult conditions." It does not say: "...rigs can operate

safely in Hecate Strait." I would commend the member.... Maybe the

member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) can give him some lessons in

remedial reading or understanding. The quote was misquoted in the House.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

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

HON. MR. VANT :

Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the hon. member for

Kootenay (Ms. Edwards). She again raised the question of who was

liable. As I have indicated, it's pretty well exactly as it was before

in terms of the liability.

If there is an unfortunate

incident on any of our public highways, and if it's cut and dried, the

maintenance contractor would be liable if it was due to his lack of

performance. If there is any litigation in the end, of course the

courts would ultimately determine any liability. If there was an

incident involving a school bus and the accident was a result of

mechanical failure — perhaps the brakes not in operating order or

something — then on due investigation perhaps those seeking liability

would look at the operator of the bus.

MS. EDWARDS :

I am reluctant to press the minister, but it seems to me that the

minister is not yet saying where he is taking the responsibility. You

are saying that if there is a problem, you may go to a contractor, and

if you want to, you can go to a school bus driver. Maybe if the court

decides and maybe this or that....

What is the minister's

position about the ministry's liability and responsibility for the

safety of the roads under the circumstances?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just before we proceed, the Minister of Advanced Education has asked leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. S. HAGEN :

It is a real pleasure for me today to have in the House from G.P.

Vanier Secondary School in Courtenay — my hometown — the grade 11

honours social studies class, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Rick

Rodriguez. I had the great pleasure of speaking to this class and

explaining to them all the things that an MLA does to represent his

constituency. I would be very pleased if the House would help me bid

them welcome to Victoria.

HON. MR. VANT : First of

all, any citizen who has concerns about the road conditions can go to

his district Highways office. They are in every area of the province.

That channel is open to people to express their concerns.

Many

of the area contractors have gone to great lengths to advertise in the

media how they can be reached. The particular contract area in which I

live has no less than five telephone numbers listed. It covers a vast

area.

A citizen does not have to make a long-distance phone

call to bring road conditions to the attention of the area contractor.

There is the traditional channel of directly approaching my ministry,

and some of the area contractors have phones in their equipment. You

can definitely communicate your concern in a very convenient manner.

MS. EDWARDS :

Whether or not one can phone the Minister of Highways is not the

question, and whether or not one can then get shifted off to the

contractor.... If the minister doesn't have any horror stories in that

regard, I can certainly provide him with some — people trying to get

hold of whoever is responsible for a certain condition or find someone

who will accept responsibility for a certain situation on a particular

day.

The point is not necessarily how an individual can get

hold of someone. The question is: what does the minister perceive as

the responsibility of his ministry for the condition of the roads?

HON. MR. VANT :

That is very clearly specified. Our very extensive maintenance

standards are in the written agreements between my ministry and the

area contractor. It's all very clearly spelled out. For example, within

a certain time-frame, if certain events happen, certain procedures must

take place.

Also I remind the hon. member for Kootenay that

besides the $10 million liability insurance which must be in place and

gives real substance to this area of responsibility, there is also a

performance bond at stake if the area contractor does not perform his

duties adequately. We, as government, take very seriously our

responsibility for managing the road and bridge maintenance, even

though we are no longer directly doing it.

MR. LOVICK :

Still on this larger subject of privatization, I want to put some

direct questions to the minister and then perhaps move away from that

to some other areas.

Let me start by simply picking up on

some questions I began yesterday, which we weren't able to pursue very

far at the time. I want to talk about the quantities, the schedules of

quantities, the amount of material actually used by the private

maintenance contractors. As you recall, Mr. Minister, when the ministry

privatized the highways maintenance function,

[ Page 6808 ]

the

private sector was invited to make proposals based on that

schedule of

quantities. It has repeatedly been the advice of ministry officials

that the final contract signed reflected very closely the

schedule of

quantities outlined in the proposal call. Would the minister please

confirm that the quantities the contractor signed for those final

contracts reflect closely the

schedule contained in the proposal call?

HON. MR. VANT : The answer is yes.

MR. LOVICK :

I'm pleased to hear that that's the case. Taking contract area 1, for

example — just to make our task somewhat easier — the

schedule of

quantities in the proposal call shows dramatic reductions in the amount

of crack sealing asked for by the ministry. The ministry asked for

52,300 lineal metres over the three years, while the average activity

for the period 1982-87 was 89,308 lineal metres. That's a cut,

apparently, of some 41 percent. Similarly, dust control stabilization

is down to 94 kilometres for three years, compared to a three-year

average during the 1982-87 period of 793 kilometres. That is a drop of

88 percent under privatization. Similar reductions show up for shoulder

gravelling, major ditching and roadside brushing.

How then

can the minister say that his ministry bought the same quantity of

service that the old highways crews used to perform? On the face of the

evidence we are looking at a pretty clear reduction. Therefore I would

like the minister to explain how he can continue to say we got the same

or even better.

[2:45]

HON. MR. VANT :

I guess contract area 1 has certainly had its share of new pavement,

and with a lot of new pavement put in, of course, the need for crack

sealing declines proportionately. Also, as we've done a lot of seal

coating of some of the side roads, it reduces the need for dust

control. I'm very envious of many constituencies here on the island

where there are not a heck of a lot of unpaved roads. The quantity of

roads may not be as great as in some of our constituencies on the

mainland, but a fairly high proportion of the roads are paved or seal

coated.

I like to think my ministry is progressing over the

years so that there is more hot-mix pavement in place and some of the

other roads are at least seal coated.

MR. LOVICK : I

understand the minister is therefore telling me that the quantity of

service may be reduced but the standard is maintained. In other words,

we're coming at it a different way. Is that the case?

HON. MR. VANT : Yes, that is correct.

MR. LOVICK :

I hope the minister will understand the difficulty I have here. If in

fact the quantity of service has not been reduced anywhere, why is it

that we have a couple of stories coming to our attention, suggestions

that the contractor is apparently being asked to do things that weren't

put in the contract and that we are being told were done previously by

the Ministry of Highways?

I refer to a couple of examples.

One is the matter of avalanche control. What apparently used to happen

is that the snow would be put into some kind of ditch at the bottom of

a slope which would then be used as a barrier for future reference.

That was done, I gather, as a matter of course. I would refer you to an

article on this particular subject — and the basis of my information, I

must confess, because I haven't traveled in the area — in the Vancouver Sun

dated February 20, 1989, concerning the Terrace area and attributing

various statements to a gentlemen on Highway 37A, Jon Buckle, highways

department director for the northwest region. He made the point that

past practice of government highway crews was to clear the ditches in

avalanche areas, which would then serve as a kind of catchment area for

further snow discharges or avalanches.

But the contractor

is saying: "We can't do that, because that's not in the contract." The

obvious question is: how did that one get lost in the contract? If in

fact we're providing the same quantity and quality of service, why was

that particular job left out?

HON. MR. VANT : Mr.

Chairman, I'm very pleased that the member opposite is focusing on an

area of the province other than right here on the Island. It indicates

to me that my hon. critic does have some concern beyond his own

constituency or beyond this Island.

Avalanche control,

particularly in the northwest corner of the province, varies in

degrees. I was up in that corner of the province when we had a number

of avalanches, and I took Highway 37A between Meziadin junction and

Stewart. At the time, no less than about 25 avalanches had come down

through Bear Pass. For the most part, these avalanches are routine, and

it is routine road maintenance to clear them.

For sure this

past winter there were some points of contention between my ministry

and the area contractor regarding some of the specific details. But it

is clearly understood that the avalanches in that area are fairly

routine. Occasionally we get what we call a major event, which is far

from routine. Naturally these area contractors would feel very

vulnerable if, for example, they were forced to consider a major

avalanche as routine maintenance.

There was one in

Ningunsaw Pass that left a deposit on Highway 37; this is between

Meziadin junction and Dease Lake. That deposit was 1,000 feet long and

no less than 50 feet deep, and within the deposit was not only snow but

big boulders and some trees. Indeed the concussion of that deposit

hitting the valley floor even broke some trees off on the other side of

the valley. To emphasize the magnitude of that event, our avalanche

technicians measure avalanches on a scale of 1 to 5. This one in

Ningunsaw Pass rated 4.5 on that scale, and indeed it was the largest

avalanche that our avalanche technicians had ever seen.

[ Page 6809 ]

when you talk about avalanche control, the ones that are just routine

we expect the area road and bridge maintenance contractor to remove

from the road as a matter of routine. Then there are the ones which we

would assess as a major event.

I am confident that my

regional director of Highways in that area, Jon Buckle, will iron out

any wrinkles which may exist regarding clarification of the

expectations of the contractor in that area.

MR. LOVICK :

First of all, I'd like to remind the minister that my focus has

certainly not been Vancouver Island-based — far from it. You may recall

the morning's discussion was about the Kootenays. As you shall have

occasion to discover, I am going to be touching on a number of

different areas.

When you talk about a major event as

opposed to routine maintenance, are we talking about something

analogous to the emergency service provisions written into contracts,

whereby if there is something aberrant, unusual and atypical, then a

contractor may make application for some special compensation? Is that

what you mean by a major event? Is that the case?

HON. MR. VANT :

Yes, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member should know that we have a way of

measuring something like that. If it's in excess in magnitude of

costing $20,000, then that comes into force and effect.

MR. LOVICK :

The case in Terrace I refer to at Bear Pass on Highway 37A between

Meziadin junction and Stewart.... Are you suggesting, Mr. Minister,

that the particular case I referred to in which Buckle was saying that

this was past practice, that this was indeed a major event...? You were

talking, I gather, about another one.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK Okay. I see the minister nodding, Mr. Chairman, rather

than us leaping up and down all the time. The question posed by the

regional Highways manager was: "We have done that in the past;

therefore we" — i.e. Highways — "assume that the contractor will do

it." The contractor, however, is quoted as saying: "Well, that may have

been past practice, but it isn't specified in the contract, and it may

involve thousands of dollars."

How can we not conclude then that there appears to have been a reduction in service?

HON. MR. VANT :

In our opinion, that matter is covered in the contract. There may

currently be a few wrinkles to iron out between us and that area

contractor. Jon Buckle is working on it as my regional director of

highways. The magnitude of any single avalanche in Bear Pass was such

that in our opinion none of them rated as a major event.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

We're

maintaining that the contractor should perform what we deem to be

routine maintenance, and indeed the work was done, even though

currently there is some dispute between the ministry and the

contractor. I can assure you that the work was done, and in very short

order under very difficult conditions, Highway 37A was open to traffic.

When I was in that area, I saw firsthand some of those smaller

avalanches in Bear Pass, which are fairly routine; they occur every

winter. In an average year — because the hon. member opposite seems to

really like going in for averages — Highway 37A is closed owing to

avalanches for about five days.

MR. LOVICK : Yes, I

understand there's a 15 kilometre stretch that's apparently very

susceptible along 37A and all that. I won't belabour the point, but how

about another case. Let's pick another contract area. Let's pick

contract area 9. Let's talk about Highway 3. Let's talk in the area of

Grand Forks.

The suggestion is that though the ministry has

repeatedly claimed that the service would be maintained after

privatization, there are people in isolated areas of the province who

are now telling us that they are no longer getting the service they

used to have done on a fee-for-service basis; it is now no longer being

performed at any price by the local contractor. Can the minister

confirm that? Are you familiar with that one? The case I have is 12

miles west of Grand Forks town centre.

HON. MR. VANT :

If I recall correctly, during question period the hon. second member

for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Barlee) asked me exactly the same

question. The information I have is that all the area contractors,

after they have completed their priority plowing of the main arterial

highways, the school bus routes and all those very important functions,

do welcome within a certain radius.... In the past, in order to give

private owner-operators of equipment the opportunity to plow driveways,

often within a certain radius of a community, years ago we got out of

the business of plowing driveways. But in the more remote areas where

there's no other equipment available, we were happy to entertain

plowing through what we call the plow-board system. The ministry was

compensated for services rendered. I would believe that Bel Maintenance

would be interested in having the business once they fulfil their

primary obligations to us to plow driveways in the Grand Forks area,

That is similar to the response I gave to Mr. Barlee quite some time

ago. I will certainly have my staff....

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order, please. I must ask the minister not to refer to members by their

names. You must refer to the member by the jurisdiction which he

represents. He is the second member for Boundary-Similkameen.

HON. MR. VANT : Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. I will take your advice to heart and will do so in the future.

[ Page 6810 ]

MR. LOVICK :

I appreciate the fact that the minister ended his answer by saying he

would indeed take it under advisement and see whether there was

anything amounting to a cutback in service provided. I'm glad to hear

that.

I want to turn now to another question that I've had

considerable difficulty getting information on, and perhaps the

minister can edify and enlighten us. I'm referring specifically to

staff — the numbers of people now working on that maintenance function.

I've heard various stories and various people have suggested to me that

there are no longer as many people working on highway maintenance as

there used to be. I'm wondering if the minister has any numbers or any

information that he can share with this House to clarify those matters.

[3:00]

HON. MR. VANT :

I'd be very happy to get into how many employees were privatized. As of

April 28, with all contract areas now privatized and operational,

offers of employment were made to 2,607 ministry employees. As you well

know, it was a condition of each and every contract that an offer of

employment be made. The number of employees that accepted the offer

from the contractor was 2,339; 271 employees opted to stay with the

government. As of this date, approximately as of May 1, 128 of the 271

employees who chose to stay with the government have been placed in

other employment. If I haven't answered the member's question, perhaps

I will allow him to seek further clarification.

MR. LOVICK :

I appreciate the answer given, and I detected fairly early in its

delivery that some communication had not taken place. I wasn't asking

for that information. I apologize if my question wasn't clear enough.

What

I wanted to get at was, of those persons who have decided to work with

the privatized contractors.... We started, let's assume, with a certain

number of people. The question is: now, after all those contracts are

signed, in place and in operation, what is the total complement? How

many people have departed or otherwise been let go from those

privatized operations? What was the original complement in highways

maintenance and what is it today?

HON. MR. VANT : Our interest is primarily in how these area contractors are performing, not in how many people they are employing.

MR. LOVICK :

I can appreciate that answer, but I would remind the minister that the

justification, defence and explanation for the privatization initiative

from the beginning has been that it will not amount to a decrease in

employment; rather, greater opportunities will be available. It seems

to me that it is not good enough to say that our concern is just

whether the service is being provided. I think as a government and as a

ministry that talks about its capacity to make social and economic

things happen for the betterment of this province, we do have an

obligation to keep track of that. I would put the question again then:

can the minister advise us of how many fewer people are now working on

highways maintenance compared to when that responsibility belonged

directly to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways?

HON. MR. VANT :

I can say that I know that in the central Cariboo region, the area

contractor, Caribou Road Services Ltd., currently employs more people

than when it first took over the contract. Indeed, I have reports.... I

don't have specifics at this time, primarily because it's really not

any of the government's business how many people are employed. Our main

concern, as I said, is their performance. As long as they're doing the

job adequately, to our satisfaction, that's our main concern. I have a

number of other reports throughout the province showing that because

the area contractor is able to work for other than the government,

there has been a net increase of employment. I've heard on an informal

but very firm basis — very authentic information — that a lot of area

contractors are employing more people than when they started. I haven't

heard any reports whatsoever that there was actually a decline in

employment from those initial levels.

MR. LOVICK : We

have different information coming to us then. Certainly I get quite

different stories, both in my own area, central Vancouver Island,

contract area 2, as well as in other parts of the province. When I was

in Castlegar a couple of weeks ago, I met with some individuals who

told me that, as they understood it, a number of people had indeed

left. People had been laid off as well as having decided that the new

regime did not suit them and therefore they left. I am wondering

whether the minister would be good enough to give us some assurances

that we can get some answers to those questions.

I think it

is a legitimate question, because when the minister says, "It's not our

business to think about the impact of this program in terms of

employment levels within those communities, " I submit that is quite

wrong. That is indeed the business of a ministry of the Crown.

will give an example of that. I met with a couple of people when I was

in the Kootenays about two weeks ago, and the line I got was that

people were still staying with the privatized maintenance operation but

were now moving down into the regional area to achieve efficiencies.

The concerns that I got from local school board members there had to do

with whether that smaller community could handle the depopulation of

even one or two taxpaying, contributing families to that small

community.

The reason I ask this question is that if that

is happening in that one small community, I wonder whether the

phenomenon might be provincewide, because obviously we have a large

number of communities throughout the province — your own constituency,

Mr. Minister, comes to mind instantly — whose population base is

precarious, to put it mildly,

[ Page 6811 ]

and

if we do something to significantly impact on that population and

economic base, then we threaten the continued livelihood of that

particular community.

Will you instruct your staff to

perhaps do some digging and do an audit or an evaluation of the impact

of the privatization of maintenance operations in terms of employment

and impacts on local communities? I think that would be important

information. I think we owe it to the people to come up with that kind

of information, and I am wondering if the minister would give me those

assurances.

HON. MR. VANT : In a free country

employees always have the option to decide to quit their job and move

to some other occupation. There is always a certain amount of turnover

in any operation. Also, traditionally the ministry hired auxiliaries to

help out over the winter, and so people are hired on a temporary basis

as they are needed, and then they are laid off.

I just want

to emphasize that the employment level of some of these contractors is

not necessarily related to the work that the government is requiring of

these contractors. Yes, I am very much aware of the impact of the

Highways works yard on some of our smaller communities. Anahim Lake in

the far west Chilcotin immediately comes to mind, where the contractor

currently employs more people now than the ministry ever did in that

very remote community. There is a certified mechanic there who can do

heavy-duty mechanics, and he can also work for some of the local

machine owner-operators who at one time had to take their equipment all

the way in to Williams Lake to get it worked on. So in that particular

instance, privatization has had a very positive impact on that small,

remote community without unduly giving any kind of what could be deemed

to be unfair competition with an already existing business.

MR. LOENEN :

Just briefly last week during the estimates, I had an opportunity to

talk about the George Massey Tunnel and the effect it would have on my

municipality. There were rumours about creating a third lane for

traffic to move south, and I said it would severely affect my

community. It's something we have talked about for years and years.

was informed about 5 o'clock yesterday afternoon that by September 15

such a system will be implemented. I am sorry to hear that. There was

no consultation. Certainly this member had no opportunity to make

representation on behalf of what is the largest riding by population in

this province. There are some very deep, longstanding concerns that my

community wishes to express in relation to that.

We all

know that the tunnel presents a bottleneck for traffic. What we are

afraid of is that this move will simply move the problem from one side

of the river to the next. For years and years your ministry has said

that there is simply too much volume going north in the afternoon to

entertain the idea that all of that traffic could be accommodated

within one lane. I wonder why it is that the ministry now has decided

otherwise, when we see that today there is more traffic there than ever

before. The concerns have to do with the fact that we need to resolve

that problem, not simply move the problem from one side to the next.

We've been told that this measure would be temporary. Well, when income

tax was introduced in 1917 it too was to be temporary, and the fears

are that once that is put in place, it will be there for a long time to

come.

I would very much like to have the minister explain

to my constituents how he sees this system work. I would be very

interested in knowing whether this will be put in place during a

particular time of the day and for how long, what the parameters are

and what the conditions are. What are the criteria under which a

decision will be made as to whether or not one lane of traffic through

the George Massey Tunnel ought to be opened up or not? Will there be

some mechanism for balancing that volume coming south as it relates to

the volume heading north, or are we going to see the people who try to

head north in the afternoon lined up right back to the border?

There

are severe problems related to the question of safety, and I would like

to hear the minister reassure, if he can, the people in my riding that

safety is something that can be controlled. We know that we have

counter flow traffic on the causeway through Stanley Park over the

Lions Gate Bridge, and other situations, but I think that most of us

would readily concede that should there be a head-on collision in the

George Massey Tunnel, the tragic results of that would be far in excess

of anything that would possibly happen on the causeway or even on a

bridge, simply because of the nature of a tunnel.

In short,

although we hear a great deal about "Freedom to Move," my constituents

certainly don't see that move as a freedom-to-move initiative. In fact,

they're very fearful that this is going to turn into freedom to park.

It would add 20 minutes or 30 minutes each day to their traveling time

as they're coming home after a long day of work. They're trying to

reach home, they're trying to get back into their community, and

certainly this is going to add 20 or 30 or more minutes to their travel

time.

[3:15]

It may well be that someone would say: "It's about time there is a

balancing of justice here. For years and years the residents in Delta,

Tsawwassen and White Rock have had to put up with this. Perhaps it's

time that now the people of Richmond put up with this inconvenience." I

would just like the minister to consider that what we need is solutions

to the problem, not simply moving that problem around.

the same press release, we hear about improvements to the east-west

freeway. What we do not hear is an early completion of that massive

interchange that is planned for the north end of the Alex Fraser

Bridge. If we are to address the problems of the George Massey Tunnel,

the only way to do that is to ensure that the third lane on the Alex

Fraser Bridge can be made fully operational as soon as possible, and

that makes absolutely no sense unless we have a

[ Page 6812 ]

completion of that massive interchange that is planned at the north end of the bridge.

have a $450 million structure, and I was a member of council way back

in '84 when council pointed out to the ministry time and again that it

makes no sense to build this structure unless you have the approaches

in place to handle the traffic. Currently we have a situation where all

of that traffic ends up at a signalized intersection. What I would

dearly love to have the minister comment on is why he has not put money

into an early completion of that $25 million interchange at the north

end of the Alex Fraser Bridge. Certainly that is a way to resolve the

problem, rather than creating more problems at the tunnel end.

Last

week I was asking for a sign to point the way to Richmond. I'm just

afraid that if we're going to have tourists come to Richmond, they

won't be able to get in, because there will be traffic backed up all

the way to the border.

I would like to have the minister

comment on why we don't have an early commitment to complete that

interchange on the north end of the Alex Fraser Bridge. I would like to

have the minister give us some indication as to when he thinks we can

look forward to the completion of it. I know they're making some

improvements, but improvements aren't what are needed, Mr. Minister.

What is needed is a firm commitment to have that interchange in place

so that then indeed we can have three lanes on the Alex Fraser Bridge

and can look forward to a resolution of the problem rather than simply

moving the problem.

HON. MR. VANT : I trust my hon.

critic opposite will be patient for a minute or two while I address

these urgent concerns of the second member for Richmond. He doesn't

seem to be too interested in my response.

Anyway, currently

they use a very crude manpower-intensive method of allowing the extra

lane to proceed northbound in the morning. The idea of this new

electronic lighting system to control the traffic flow through the

Massey Tunnel is a very progressive, worthwhile step. I want to remind

the hon. second member for Richmond that this counter flow signal

lighting control system will not be in place until later this fall.

Indeed,

we want to open up the Alex Fraser Bridge. We want to have the

east-west freeway open in July. This combination of improvements in

other parts of the transportation system in and around Richmond should

pick up a lot of the slack. I can assure the hon. member that we're

working on proceeding with the very important interchange at the north

end of the Alex Fraser Bridge.

I want to say too that this

new electronic lighting system is very important for the Massey Tunnel.

It gives us flexibility. The control of the lanes will be determined

very carefully according to traffic volumes. The idea would be to

operate that tunnel for the traveling public so there's the least

amount of pain, you might say, for the majority of people.

HON. MR. REID : The smartest move you've made in ten years.

HON. MR. VANT : The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale certainly supports this initiative.

will also have new electronic signing to advise the travelling public

in advance to divert them to other routes before they get too close to

the tunnel. This signing will be on Highway 10, the link over to

Highway 1. I know the hon. second member for Richmond doesn't want me

to cancel that direction sign to Richmond, but we will give adequate

warning to the travelling public so that if at a particular time of day

the tunnel is congested, we will be diverting them to the other routes

which will be opened up. Those new electronic warning signs will be on

Highway 10 and also on Highway 99 at Highway 91.

We are

very concerned about the safety of the travelling public through the

tunnel, and believe me, we have great reservations about the current

rather crude and very manpower-intensive method of diverting traffic in

one of the lanes in the tunnel system.

MR. LOENEN : I

appreciate the response and am glad to hear that there will be signs

all around the lower mainland indicating what the situation is at the

tunnel. I was also immensely pleased to hear the minister say that the

sign I asked for last week will be put in place. Last week we had a

commitment that the minister would consider it; this week he said he's

going to make sure that it will be put in place. I know my community

will welcome it, because in August we're welcoming all of Canada to

come and participate in the summer games for the disabled. There will

be all kinds of families traveling west along the Trans-Canada Highway,

and it would be a shame if they got lost in the streets of Surrey and

were unable to find Richmond.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. Could the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) please restrain himself.

MR. LOENEN :

Secondly, I would like to ask the minister whether or not it is

possible for him to give this House and the people of the province an

idea, if not a firm commitment, as to when we can expect the massive

interchange planned for the north end of the Alex Fraser Bridge to be

ready. All we have in the news release is that by the end of June he

expects improvements to be made. We just heard the minister say that he

is very anxious to work towards a completion of the system, but I would

ask him: does it not make more sense to get on with that immediately,

before even thinking of opening up a third lane on the Alex Fraser

Bridge? I wonder if the minister might be able to tell us what his

time-line is on the interchange.

[ Page 6813 ]

HON. MR. VANT :

I want to assure the member that we are taking immediate steps to

facilitate a right turn onto the bridge going east to south. Also we

are going to have traffic coming the other way — east to north —

proceeding underneath the bridge to ease traffic flow. But the

magnitude of the full interchange — I can guarantee the hon. member

that it would all be completed within about three years. It's a major

undertaking. Meanwhile, we're going ahead with these interim steps to

ease the flow of traffic at the north end of the Alex Fraser Bridge.

Also, this current fiscal year, we're going to open up the Alex Fraser

Bridge to the full six lanes.

MRS. BOONE : I always

find these exchanges interesting. I notice that although there's no

sign for Richmond along the highway, there's certainly a sign for

Fantasy Gardens. That points it out quite clearly.

I also

notice that the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) is not

here complaining about the money that's being spent. He always stands

up in this House during Health estimates and complains about members

who ask for more money to be spent, and how that increases the budget,

but he never complains when people demand that more money be spent for

highways. Interesting priorities here.

I would like to ask

the minister some questions. We've got a strange situation, one that we

suggested might occur during the privatization of the highways in terms

of unfair competition for some of the private sector. I've received

complaints from contractors in our area about the employees group that

was privatized because of some of the advantages they received in terms

of fire sale prices for equipment.

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE :

The minister says: "Prove it." The information I have is that some of

the equipment was sold.... For example, a crane worth $20,000 was sold

for $600, and some other equipment for $700. My contractors are saying

to me that this is creating unfair competition; that they are having to

compete with people who were able to purchase equipment for much less

than they've been able to do. These people are now bidding on jobs that

the private sector and contractors normally did, and they are not able

to compete fairly. In fact, they're extending way beyond highways

maintenance into areas that other contractors have been working in for

many years.

Could the minister please explain to me how he

can justify this type of action to the contractors in our communities?

Does he feel this is fair? Is any unfair advantage occurring or unfair

competition taking place?

HON. MR. VANT : I certainly

appreciate the interest of the member in my ministry. In terms of

trying to make a case that there is unfair competition because somehow

the area contractors got equipment at fire sale prices, I guess she

couldn't hear me. She kept mentioning about hearing about a crane that

went for so much, and this other piece of equipment.

Actually,

the equipment was sold based on average auction prices. I notice that

she was very careful not to mention the year of a particular piece of

equipment. I saw a computer printout of some of the equipment that was

sold, and most of it was smaller stuff. One piece that I spotted on

this list was over 30 years old, and naturally it had depreciated

considerably. It might have had antique value if it had been kept a few

more years.

[3:30]

We have received a draft report from Coopers and Lybrand to verify

the methodology used by the ministry in valuing the assets which were

sold or leased. In the report they indicate that in their opinion, "the

methods utilized by the ministry to value, as at March 1988, the

mobile/rolling-stock assets sold or leased to contractors, while not

absolutely accurate, are reasonable and fair." They took 80 units as a

sample. The original price of these 80 units was $3,591,122;

replacement value was deemed to be $6,941,000; present value, according

to my ministry's calculation, was $2,215,263. From the Coopers and

Lybrand report, they estimate the value to have been $2,179,500. As

they scanned this sample of 80 units, the sales-lease price amounted to

$2,183,449, which was in fact higher than the estimated value placed on

it by Coopers and Lybrand. This seems to confirm that we are leasing

equipment at commercial rates and that a fair value was realized on the

sale of equipment.

MRS. BOONE : Would the minister

then make the prices, costs and terms of the contract for all the

different areas — and my particular area, the Prince George region —

available to us so that we could look at the contracts and find out the

terms for the sale or lease of all the equipment and the terms on the

contracts given to the various companies around?

HON. MR. VANT :

Briefly, no, I couldn't make all that available. I just want to

emphasize that the area contractors are competing on a fair basis,

Indeed, if it's the day-labour program, they would be at the bottom of

the seniority list. Given that they are leasing equipment at commercial

rates, it's a fairly level playing-field with anyone else bidding on

particular contracts in the area.

Based on the draft report

of Coopers and Lybrand... . Certainly when the final report is

received, I would be happy to share that with the member. It gives a

fair sample of the methodology used in this very proper process. All

reports I have received indicate that various ways were looked at in

determining the fair value of this used equipment. I maintain very

definitely that it is a level playing-field in terms of doing work for

the ministry.

MRS. BOONE : The minister claims that

it's a level playing-field. He accuses me of not having any

information, yet he won't give us any information. How do you expect me

to get information when you won't release this stuff to us? If you have

nothing to fear, if you say this is a level playing-field and

[ Page 6814 ]

everything has been on the up and up and on the even field, why won't you release that information to us?

Why

won't you give it to us, so that we can say to our contractors: "It is

fair. You are being treated fairly." We can't do that, because you are

giving us no information at all. If you are not afraid, if it is truly

a level playing-field, if you have been receiving fair prices for the

equipment that is sold — a lot of it has been sold and leased — then

give us the information, Mr. Minister. What are you afraid of? There is

nothing for you to be afraid of here, if in fact we have received fair

value for what we as citizens have a right to receive for our

equipment. Give us that information, Mr. Minister, now, today, in this

House.

HON. MR. VANT : I certainly have nothing

whatsoever to be afraid of. I do know that the hon. member for Prince

George North would not take my word or that of my ministry. Any

information we would release that wasn't properly audited by an

independent, reputable firm would not be recognized. I can assure the

member that when the final report of Coopers and Lybrand is available

concerning the sale and lease of equipment, I will be very happy to

give it to you, which will verify everything that I am saying to this

House.

MRS. BOONE : Not the reports, the contracts.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please.

MR. G. HANSON : I want to defer to our House Leader who has a very quick little item he wants to deal with.

MR. ROSE : What happened?

MR. CHAIRMAN : You've been recognized by the Chair.

MR. ROSE :

I didn't think the Chair would recognize me anymore. I know what I was

going to say, because I've said the same thing for the last five years.

This is my fifth or sixth Bedwell Bay secondary-highway speech. It's

one of my favourite speeches. Each time I give it, I get better and

madder.

Belcarra is a little municipality in my riding

bordering on Indian Arm and Burrard Inlet. It has been a municipality

now for something like ten years. They've been trying to get their

road, which dead-ends at Belcarra Park, classified so that it meets the

criteria for certain kinds of funding and upgrading. They have been

turned down repeatedly on a technicality. The technicality is that the

road ends at Belcarra, and because it's not a through road, they don't

qualify.

However, there are a number of other roads that

end too. I can think of the Island Highway which ends, too, at the

water. The Tofino one ends as well at a dead end. Ucluelet Road,

Mackenzie: there is no pass-through traffic. I want to know why we are

singling out Belcarra. There may be other places. But certainly

Belcarra needs the extra assistance that they are — and have been —

seeking, because they've got that huge regional park there, and there's

very heavy use in the summertime.

Aside from adequate

policing in the summertime, that's really their only main gripe. I'm

sure that one of your officials there.... Mr. Doyle, the former head of

the New Westminster highway district is very familiar with this

problem; he's heard about it and heard about it and heard about it. I

don't see why we can't get some action on it. Would the minister like

to comment?

HON. MR. VANT : Yes, this newly

incorporated village — they were incorporated in August of 1979 — want

to have the Bedwell Bay road classified to a secondary highway. We do

have arterial highways that go to some of our coastal communities, and

there is a difference there between arterial and secondary. We would

certainly like to respond to the request, but unfortunately the

majority of traffic using the Bedwell Bay road is destined for the

Belcarra Regional Park, which is located within the municipal limits of

Belcarra.

In order to qualify for this much-sought-after

secondary highway classification, a road must carry a substantial

volume of traffic having both an origin and a destination outside of

the municipality through which the road traverses. So that is the

reason why I can't grant their request.

I've had meetings

with the municipality, and they are reluctant to even suggest that

somehow this park be removed from their municipality, because then they

could present a case to me that would indicate that a lot of traffic

using that road was going outside the municipality.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The Minister of Labour has asked leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. L. HANSON :

Mr. Chairman, it's my privilege today to introduce to the House 30

grade 10 students from Kalamalka Junior Secondary School, which is in

the riding of Okanagan North in the municipality of Coldstream. They

are accompanied by a parent chaperone, Mrs. Lewis. Would the House

please make them welcome.

MR. ROSE : The people of

Belcarra face a lot of external traffic. In the last ten years, it's

estimated that the traffic on that road has gone from about 70,000 to

350,000 per annum; that's a lot of cars. It comes from outside the

municipality. A lot of it is going to the regional park. The village is

quite a small village, and they can't afford, on the basis of their tax

base — and before anybody yells "tax haven"....

What we

have to recognize is that they as a village had the right to form their

own corporation, which was granted through Municipal Affairs. There were

[ Page 6815 ]

certain

highway and road maintenance funds available for the first five years.

There was even some after that, which I asked for and received,

courtesy of the former Highways minister.

But the fact is

that they're now facing a torrent of traffic, because another beach has

just opened up there called White Pine Beach, which is not exactly in

their municipality but contiguous to it. There were times where you can

hardly get down the road, it's so thick in the summer. When they opened

White Pine Beach, I got as far as loco, and that was the end of it. I

couldn't go any further. So it is a very popular place, and the

residents cannot carry that burden any longer.

Tofino, Ucluelet and Mackenzie are classified as secondary highways. I don't see any reason why they're refused on a ground....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE : Well, arterial. They end at Tofino or Ucluelet, don't they?

This

highway ends at Belcarra. It ends there, just the same as the others

do. It carries probably a volume of traffic, I would guess — well, I

have no way of guessing. But 350,000 cars per annum is big stuff —

relatively big. I know that Mr. Doyle is very familiar with it. I was

very pleased, during the last election, to get Mr. Doyle's agreement to

put some dividers along....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE : Well, I didn't want to startle you. As a matter of fact, I'm surprised....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order, please. The Minister of Tourism and Provincial Secretary (Hon.

Mr. Reid), order, please. The committee has been doing quite nicely

this afternoon. Maybe if you could just restrain yourself while we

proceed.

MR. ROSE : Anyway, they can't carry it

alone, and they are asked to serve traffic that is external to them.

That area is well located in the lower mainland at about the centre of

a million and a half people. It is an easy access to some very fine

recreational land. They can't carry it alone. The villagers there,

probably about a thousand in total, could do it. They can't handle it

themselves. It is not a big deal, I don't think.

I was

mentioning Mr. Doyle, who was very kind in getting dividers on the

highway between Riverview and Coquitlam Centre to protect the

pedestrians, for which I asked him in the last election. I haven't seen

the dividers yet, but I know that they're coming. I am quite sure that

they will be there at least by the next election. I know he can't

defend himself, and I wouldn't insult him, but I want to thank him for

the nice way he responded to me.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The

Barnet Highway: there is another can of worms. Incidentally, could I

speak over your head, Mr. Minister, to your officials and give them a

little homework? It's a question that's coming up when I am finished my

fulmination. How much is being spent this year in the New Westminster

highway district, and on what projects? I've been told that there isn't

any money at all for upgrading of many of these arteries, including the

Barnet, in 1991, and I would like to know why this area has been

overlooked. It doesn't necessarily mean that there is nothing in the

whole Westminster budget, but certainly I am informed the Barnet is not

on the list for any upgrading.

[3:45]

Let me tell you a little Story about the Barnet Highway. It's an

old, traditional highway and has been there for years. That was before

we had the massive growth in Port Moody, Pleasantside, Eagle Ridge and

all this stuff. Literally thousands of cars — and I used to have the

figures — pass through there every day. They are not only Coquitlam

traffic; they belong to the daily commuter traffic from Dewdney and

elsewhere; I suppose no further up than Mission or so, but maybe up as

far as what we used to call Squakum Lake. What do we call it now, up at

Harrison? Lake Errock. I want to know, since there are no plans to

upgrade it immediately, what consideration has been given to the fact

that it could be three-laned, such as the Lions Gate Bridge or the

Tsawwassen link. It might be a possibility. I am told, and your

officials have the information through a constituent of mine, that it

could be upgraded into three lanes as an interim measure for under a

million bucks. When you think that the overrun on the Coquihalla was

half a billion — that's $500 million — to serve far fewer people, maybe

a little money left over from the Coquihalla and SkyTrain might trickle

into the Barnet. A simple little request like that I don't think is

particularly greedy.

I know everybody in every area has got

highway and pothole problems, and it's a good thing to talk about.

There is a man up in the gallery with a ditch problem. He has come to

me for my help on the ditch. As an old alderman, I used to be very good

at dogs and ditches, so I am carrying on in that.

Ask your

officials what kind of squirrel cage that Port Mann interchange is. You

know, it's so bad on the Port Mann interchange that if it is possible

to avoid it.... Traffic does all the time by going through the hospital

grounds, by getting off the Lougheed and going up through the Barnet or

up through Como Lake and down Austin; anywhere to get to North Road.

It's virtually impossible there. Again, more and more growth without

adequate bus services or highways keeping up with it, because the money

has been spent elsewhere.

So we are going to strangle — the

proper phrase today is gridlock — in a gridlock of our own making. It's

just as bad getting going to Vancouver in the morning through that

interchange, that squirrel cage,

[ Page 6816 ]

it is coming back at night. I've got a suggestion for coming back at

night. Why don't we consider another lane to turn off for the bypass

from the Maillardville interchange to the interchange just before the

Port Mann interchange, so that people could make use of that bypass?

They are being held up constantly by traffic trying to get on the

bridge and over to Surrey. Why anybody would want to get over to Surrey

is another question. I don't question their motivation; I'm telling

them it is a Bad News Bears place. If you can avoid it, even if it

means going up over Simon Fraser University, which I do weekly.... I do

it because it's just so bad. But some people have no alternative or no

other options.

If you made one extra lane between the

Maillardville interchange and the bypass that is supposed to go around

Port Coquitlam, then I think you could relieve a lot of traffic there

at a very modest cost.

I travel the Coquihalla, and I think

it's a fine highway. I am sorry you were forced to pave over snow

there. I find it very useful, because I go up to Vernon a good deal for

personal and family reasons. I am not going up there necessarily to

support the very popular Minister of Labour and Consumer Affairs (Hon.

L. Hanson). I do go up there on occasion.

Why don't we have

a cutoff around Kamloops? If I want to go from Vancouver to Kamloops,

it is relatively easy now with the Coquihalla — a very direct, very

safe and interesting drive. We like it. Once you get to Kamloops, from

there to the cutoff at Monte Lake, it is just terrible. There's that

Kingsway along there — all that commercial ribbon development which was

permitted around there — in a single lane, sometimes very slow. Is it

possible to go from the road to Monte Lake through to Barnhartvale?

Wouldn't that be a possible way? To get every place I want to go,

Kamloops is in the way. Since we can't move Kamloops, maybe we can find

a way around it.

Those are a few of my annual gripes that I

would like to express. They are not going to get any better, unless we

start doing something on the lower mainland. We continue to build

houses there. We continue to add to the population, and it takes longer

and longer.

Let me tell you one final story, and my hon.

friend from Victoria will be given the floor after the minister stands

up and gives me everything I want and have asked for. In 1962 1 moved

to Coquitlam. There wasn't any improved Marine Drive or whatever it's

called now. There was no improved Canada Way. There was only the

Lougheed and what we now call Canada Way, which was called Grandview

Highway. I had to go from there to UBC every day. It took an hour.

Since

all those roads have been added and the improvements to what we used to

call Marine Drive and to the Lougheed, opening the freeway.... Since

1962 we have improved Hastings, and there are perhaps other ways we can

scoot if we know where they are to try to get through, but it still

takes an hour. That's the frustration of Highways people, I'm sure,

because they've never really been able to keep up with the growth in

the lower mainland.

1 think that people in the interior,

such as the minister and his friends and others who live there, are

entitled to have money spent on them. I don't think that all the money

we spend should necessarily end up in the lower mainland. I've lived in

the interior, and I know that they need infrastructure as well. I don't

think that the lower mainland traffic problems have received enough

attention in the last five years. I know why, because the money that

would normally have been spent there has gone into the megaproject of

the Coquihalla....

HON. MR. VANT : Don't forget the Alex Fraser Bridge.

MR. ROSE : You are going to have to add extra lanes to that one now, aren't you?

HON. MR. VANT : No, we opened up those lanes.

MR. ROSE : That shows how quickly people have moved in to take advantage of that excellent and beautiful bridge.

HON. MR. VANT :

I was a little surprised that the member for Coquitlam-Moody didn't

bring up first and foremost the Barnet Highway. He brought up his

concern for that little community of Belcarra. I've certainly been

moved by his case as presented, and I want to assure him that I'm going

to personally go to Belcarra and look firsthand at their situation. I'm

convinced that it's an unusual situation, and it certainly warrants my

full consideration to see what we can do for that small community. I

hear what you're saying.

The Barnet Highway is a very

important commuter route. I'm afraid that the widening of the Barnet

Highway — even if I decided today to widen that to four lanes — would

not in itself resolve the transportation problem along the

Barnet-Hastings corridor. I realize that you presented me with that

option, and certainly as a short-term possibility, I would carefully

consider the option of a third lane which could be an express lane for

buses, motorcycles or things like that.

I'm very concerned,

as Minister of Transportation and Highways, about the congestion along

Hastings. I realize that the Cassiar connector will ease the east west

flow somewhat. Still along East Hastings, there is a lot of parking

along the street. It is wide enough for four lanes. If we did remove

those vehicles from parking, then we'd have a more complete commuter

route from your constituency into the big city. As you mentioned, many

years ago you used to head out to UBC. I'd say that at least we're

keeping up. It still only takes an hour. We're not falling behind. That

very graphic illustration, though, convinces me that we have to be very

aggressive, particularly in the lower mainland, given the great

increase in population and the great growth.

MR. ROSE : Highways won't do it alone.

[ Page 6817 ]

HON. MR. VANT : No. The municipalities have to cooperate as well.

MR. ROSE :

Could I just clarify something, please? I didn't mean the Highways

department. I meant that by themselves, highways alone are not the

answer. Other forms of moving people and encouraging them to get out of

their cars have to be done too.

HON. MR. VANT :

Certainly. That's a reason why the all-important Delcan study was

involved in every mode of transportation, because just our road and

bridge system alone is not the complete picture. Indeed, the experts

tell me that, for example, SkyTrain is equal to an eight-lane freeway

in terms of moving people. For sure we have to look at every mode.

The

information concerning the Port Mann interchange and your other

concerns will certainly be handed over to my group that are working on

the Burnaby freeway. I appreciate your input regarding specific things

like the Port Mann interchange.

Keeping in mind the

complete picture, I anticipate, perhaps, that the transportation

planning committee in the lower mainland will certainly be advising me

very shortly about both the short term, which may indeed be

three-laning the Barnet Highway, and the long-term in connection with

other improvements throughout the system, and four-laning. So your

points are very well taken.

MR. ROSE : I just remind

the minister that I asked for specific information about the budget and

projects. I presume that will come later.

MR. G. HANSON :

Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, I would like to talk to you

about a serious need for a bikeway between Victoria and Swartz Bay and

a bikeway from Tsawwassen into Vancouver. The minister is probably

aware of the recent ICBC statistics on fatalities and accidents —

bicycle- and motorist-related accidents — that are currently published,

which indicate that B.C. leads the country in fatalities among

cyclists. To make matters worse, in Victoria, Oak Bay and Sidney the

percentage of traffic accidents involving cars and bicycles is more

than double the national average. The average age of a bicyclist is 21

years, according to ICBC stats. In the Victoria-Oak Bay area, over 16

percent of all accidents involving motorists involve a bicycle.

Clearly, in the past we haven't taken into account in our

transportation network the provision for bikeways in a programmatic way

in the spending.

Bicycle paths are needed throughout the

province, but I want to address the needs of this particular region. I

raised the other day, under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs,

Recreation and Culture, that many bicyclists bring to my attention —

and I see them firsthand driving to the ferry — that the slipstream

that goes with buses and trailer trucks going by a cyclist on a very

light-frame bicycle.... Even though they're wearing a hat and the

necessary safety gear and have high visibility, etc., I'm amazed that

more cyclists aren't pulled off their bicycles into the traffic.

[4:00]

The

statistics are really quite alarming. Of Victoria's 826 injury or

fatality accidents, as I mentioned, 16.2 percent involve bikes; Oak

Bay, 16.9 percent; Sidney, 16.2 percent; Esquimalt, 11.9 percent;

Saanich, 9.5 percent; Colwood, 7.9 percent, etc. The point made in this

material is that the Highway Act really places responsibilities on a

cyclist in much the same way as a motorist. They have an equal

responsibility to abide by traffic regulations and the code of conduct

on the road.

The point is that cyclists are very much a

subordinate feature of the flow of people on the road system. I think

the time has come for the people-mover, which is the muscle power of

cycling, to get some protection, some expenditure of public dollars to

make the necessary safety corrections so that cycling is safer in the

province. We happen to have a climate in this region which is conducive

to a lifestyle which.... I know there are people in this chamber who

cycle frequently who adhere to the safety provisions of wearing a

helmet and appropriate safety gear. But the time has come to make an

allocation of a percentage of the Highways budget for bikeways: 1

percent for bikeways in the province of British Columbia, to start

building.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

As the

minister is talking about the upgrading of the Blanshard-Swartz Bay

highway, meeting the timetable of the Commonwealth Games and so on,

it's time that spending be carried out to make the necessary spatial

allocation for safe cycling between the core municipalities and the

ferry terminal. Many people would cycle if they felt they were not at

risk; that they could get on the ferry and then go through the Fraser

delta, which is flat and perfect for cycling. A designated cycling

corridor could be created right into Vancouver, It would be appreciated

by people in the lower mainland and in the capital region. We would not

be talking about an enormous amount of dollars, but certainly a

percentage as a goal — something to shoot for. Highways would allocate

1 percent of all program spending to find an alternative form.... Many

young people.... As I said, the average age of a cyclist is 21 years.

Most of the people who are killed, by the way, are under 16 years of

age. I've seen a lot of young people cycling that freeway out to Swartz

Bay, and I think it really deserves attention.

We could be

breaking new ground. I know in Oregon they're far advanced in this

area. In Sweden they have a comprehensive network of bikeways for the

public to use. I was in Edmonton last fall to attend a conference, and

I was amazed at the extent of bikeways through the river basin....

AN HON. MEMBER : Those are Skidoo paths.

MR. G. HANSON : There are also asphalt bikeways designated and used extensively.

[ Page 6818 ]

The

minister who just interjected.... I know in the Kamloops area.... I bet

it's not much fun for cyclists attempting to go along the North

Thompson or up towards the Shuswap area. I'm not saying that the

interior regions don't deserve proper bikeways, because I believe they

should have them. I'm just speaking for my own constituency. This

region has double the B.C. average for cyclists killed on the road,

which is shocking. Any effort that can be taken to reduce that, to

avoid the kind of litigation and compensation and all the social and

judicial infrastructure around coming to fair settlements for people

injured in bicycle accidents — and liability, etc....

If we

were to take some positive steps and give the bicyclist more of an

equal stature.... In terms of mass and volume and speed and so on,

there's no equivalency whatsoever, but in terms of the Highway Act

there is. A cyclist has equal rights to be on the road, and a

responsibility to adhere to the laws and perform in a safe manner, and

has penalties for impeding traffic, etc.

I think it's time

the minister looked seriously at a project to provide a bikeway from

Victoria and the CRD that would take people safely — to ride with their

families, to ride with their children, without that slipstream of a

draft from a tractor-trailer truck going 80 km/h that is clearly a

hazard to people. I would really appreciate the minister's responding

on this matter.

HON. MR. VANT : Certainly the first

member for Victoria is very interested in Participaction and people

getting exercise by providing their own mode of power on a bicycle.

From my ministry's point of view, however, a high-speed highway and

bicycles are not really a good mix; certainly not with a freeway per

se, but many of our highways now have quite a wide paved shoulder,

which allows bicycles to travel on asphalt but somewhat off the

regularly travelled surface. But the higher the speed limit on a

particular highway.... As the member properly described, you get into

this slipstream problem with the bigger, heavier vehicles going by.

Indeed, my ministry discourages bicycles on freeways, although we allow

them if there's no alternative route available. That does occur in

certain parts of the province.

Getting into an ambitious

program of providing separate bikeways might be more appropriate under

the Ministry of Health, because my ministry's primary mandate is to

provide road systems for motor vehicles. In this day and age it seems

that everybody wants to get from one point to another as fast as they

can,

whereas the bicyclist wants to enjoy the exercise and go along at

maybe 20 to 30 miles an hour, depending on the terrain. According to

most statistics, most bicycle injuries and fatalities occur on

municipal streets. A young lady whom I knew personally was going along

a sidewalk beside a hedge delivering papers. She crossed a driveway at

the precise moment that a motor vehicle emerged, and the young lady was

killed.

We have to make provisions where we can, but we

don't get into bikeways as distinct items under my ministry's mandate.

Certainly the ideas of the first member for Victoria are well received.

Alternative routes to freeways with their very high-speed traffic

should definitely be identified for bicyclists. On this island, West

Saanich Road might be a reasonable alternative route for someone to get

from Victoria out to the peninsula and perhaps to the ferry terminal.

MR. G. HANSON :

It should come as no surprise to the minister that I think his ministry

should be into bikeways. Look at the Port Mann freeway or the road from

Hope to Vancouver. Most of that is a divided freeway with a grassed-in

fringe separating the two. I don't think it's beyond engineering

possibilities that a bikeway could exist all the way from Hope right

down to Vancouver.

Portions of the freeway from Victoria to

Sidney are divided with a generous fringe. Clearly, in some areas there

is space within the highway easement. I'm not saying in all areas.

Sometimes there may be interchange problems. It would not be impossible

to work cooperatively with the Capital Regional District if the CRD

felt that the provincial government was supportive of an initiative to

come up with a plan for a bikeway from, say, Sooke through to Sidney,

Oak Bay through to Sidney, to Saanich. Portions would follow a

particular routing.

For the minister to say he's not in the

bikeway business does not, I think, fly in 1989. You are not into a

land acquisition cost in many instances but are using the existing

corridor more as a multi-use corridor; you've got vehicular traffic but

you're allowing for a different scale of traffic. I think it would be

heavily utilized. The most obvious one that comes to mind is from Hope

to Vancouver. Surely it would be possible to have a modest asphalt

trail through portions of that. Perhaps there are other areas that

could be utilized as well. I think every major corridor in the

province....

When the ministry discourages cyclists from

using the freeways, clearly they are admitting that a hazard exists. I

think if it had the weight of the provincial government saying: "Look,

this is a priority that we're going to make in our transportation...."

It's a low-cost way of moving people. The minister mentions SkyTrain as

an eight-lane highway. A bikeway could move a significant volume of

people, both recreational and for work. If bikeways had a bit of

planning in them, they could link suburban areas with places where

people tend to be commuting to work during the day. I know that many

members and staff in this building commute 12 or 15 kilometres daily.

They say to me privately that yes, they wear helmets; yes, they are

narrowly missed on a routine basis. There are dimensions to the problem

other than just bikeway access: visibility, experience in traffic, etc.

[4:15]

It was pointed out in recent articles in this region that

certain.... Take Shelbourne, for example, which I know doesn't really

come under your jurisdiction.

[ Page

6819 ]

It's a four-lane road without four lanes — four lanes of traffic

without four lanes of asphalt. That kind of a situation has developed

historically.

I think the time has come, and the first

project should be to provide a solid and safe bikeway between Vancouver

and Victoria — it would be a good start.

HON. MR. VANT :

The points are well taken. Certainly my ministry would be prepared to

provide signing to direct bicyclists onto suitable bicycle routes.

I heard the hon. first member for Victoria correctly, he suggested the

use of the median along the freeway between Hope and Vancouver. I am

thinking that a lot of bicyclists don't want to cycle where there are

large volumes of traffic. They are very conscious of all those exhaust

fumes and everything. Apart from the high speed of a freeway, one has

to think of the quality of the air that these bicyclists will be

breathing.

In the province there would be suitable bicycle

routes.... I know that if I were going to bicycle from Hope to

Vancouver, I would take the alternative route through Bridal Falls on

the other side of the Fraser River. It's not that heavily travelled and

would probably be more pleasant to bicycle.

My ministry is

prepared at this time to take your advice very seriously and have a

look at it, and we would certainly consider signing on suitable bicycle

routes.

MR. LOVICK : How nice it is to get back into

the process of — I guess we'll call it "debatus interruptus" or

something. This seems to be our predicament, Mr. Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER : Gross.

MR. LOVICK : Only if you don't like Latin, I would say to the member opposite who suggested that the expression is gross.

want to take us back, albeit briefly, because we have spent a

considerable amount of time in this chamber.... Not as much as I would

like, because a number of others have participated — as they ought. I

would like to focus on a couple of very specific concerns that I still

have about the privatization initiatives, and I wonder if I might refer

the minister to those directly.

You made reference earlier,

Mr. Minister, to the fact that some 271 employees chose not to go with

the private contractors, some 178 of whom have now been placed. My

question is: what about the 90-odd who chose not to do that? What have

we done with those? What is it costing us for those people? I note

apropos of that question.... I'll pose a number of questions that I

think are all discrete and fairly straightforward.

I note in passing, apropos of that subject, that the auditor-general makes

reference to the fact that in your calculation of net benefits, one of the areas

you fail to take into consideration is what he refers to as "surplus"

workers. I believe the figure is 28 people in contract area 1 that we haven't

yet accounted for. Those are individuals who didn't go; we apparently have

them doing something else. We are not sure what jobs they've been transferred

to. How large is this factor in terms of cost? What's happening there? That's

one concern I have.

Another

concern is the matter of facilities. For example, in my own

constituency some years ago — not many years ago, by the way — we built

a brand-new machine shop, a major state-of-the-art operation capable of

doing repair work, machine tooling and everything imaginable for any

size of equipment. I believe the cost at the time was about $5 million

or $6 million.

Right now that particular facility is

apparently operating at less than 10 percent capacity. The obvious

question then is: how do we account for the other 90 percent capacity?

Is that accounted for in some way, shape or form as a debit? Is that

accounted for as a cost? It ought to be; we paid for it. We may still

be paying rent. At least there is an opportunity cost, in economic

terms. What about that? How many other facilities are there in the

province that used to be owned and operated by the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways, the operation of which wasn't taken over

by the privatized maintenance contractors? Those are costs I am

concerned about.

Perhaps I could have answers to those two very specific questions to begin with.

HON. MR. VANT :

To bring the hon. member opposite up to date, throughout the whole

province it averaged about 10 percent; 90 percent of the employees of

their own free will opted to work for the area contractors. The number

initially staying with government was 271. To the end of April, the

latest information I have, 128 of those were placed. That leaves 143

still to be placed. It's not that they are not gainfully employed.

Currently they are doing work for the government, so they're not just

in limbo. They are gainfully employed doing work for the government.

Sometimes my ministry lends these surplus employees to do functions for

other ministries, be it the Ministry of Forests or the Ministry of

Environment.

MR. LOVICK : I note the minister's

answer didn't deal with the second question — namely, facilities. Are

there facilities sitting idle at the moment?

HON. MR. VANT :

For the most part, the area contractors decided to lease the shop

facilities. There are a very few examples throughout the province where

they didn't opt to use the shop facilities. They're fully utilizing

them to do the work that we previously did to maintain the road and

bridge maintenance vehicles. In addition to that, in some cases they

are further utilizing those very well equipped shops. In some areas it

has led to increased employment. I'm sure that if there are facilities

not being utilized by either the area contractor or by the government

for one reason or another, the B.C.

[ Page 6820 ]

Buildings

Corporation would be looking for some suitable tenant to utilize those

facilities. I can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number

of those shop facilities not being utilized at this time.

MR. LOVICK :

I'm going to move away from this area momentarily. I have a couple of

quick questions first, though, and they are very straightforward

questions, I'm sure.

I notice in the auditor-general's

report it is noted just in passing that the Ministry of Transportation

and Highways originally recommended the province be divided into 24

contract areas, but then cabinet recommended it be 28. Apparently the

cabinet decided on the 28 areas that were eventually established.

That's on page 97 of the auditor-general's report. Can the minister

tell me why the advice of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways

was ignored and why we decided to expand the number of areas?

HON. MR. VANT :

Actually, at the time there were several options available. Indeed,

when the government, starting late in the fall of 1987, invited all

kinds of proposals, as I recall there was one proposal which would have

seen the province as one huge contract area. We didn't want to create a

giant monopoly, where perhaps one corporation would have the contract

to provide the maintenance. So it was decided eventually that the ideal

number would be 28, although initially they had arrived at that figure

of 24. Of course, at one time there were 37 highways districts, and it

seemed wise to unite a couple of former districts. For example, Kelowna

and Penticton were put into one contract area comprising two former

districts which were fairly small in geographical area compared to some

others.

In the middle of my own constituency, the central

Cariboo contract area is exactly the same as the old Williams Lake

highway district, because it was so huge. We ended up at what I think

was an appropriate number, 28, so that there would be all these

different contracts out there, and a good mix of private companies and

ten employee groups. I think we ended up with a very desired result.

MR. LOVICK :

Clearly you want to take advantage of that question as an opportunity

to restate the case for the 28 areas and all that. But my question was

really very specific, and you apparently choose not to answer it: why

did you reject the expert advice you got from the ministry staff and

make what appears on the face of it to be a political decision to

increase it by four districts? That's all; just a simple question.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I'll leave that one. I'm also

going to leave the whole area of privatization, at least for the

moment. I want to emphasize that the minister has had occasion a number

of times during this discussion to point to the auditor-general's

report as being somehow the living exemplar of the case that all is

working well and good, etc. I would just draw your attention, Mr.

Minister, to the conclusion by the auditor-general, in which he tells

us, under the heading "Looking Ahead," to be very careful, and says

that all the explanations we are given don't take us quite as far and

that the Legislature indeed must be vigilant and must ask questions,

even with Public Accounts and the Highways ministry annual reports that

will be given to us for '88 and '89, which we do not have yet. I would

just caution the minister then: when he wants to point to the successes

and the fact that everything seems to be working wonderfully well, the

auditor general has not given this a clean bill of health in terms of

saying everything is wonderful. Rather, the auditor-general's final

statement on the matter would seem to suggest to me, at least, that we

ought to be watching very vigilantly indeed.

Finally, I

would just remind the minister, too, of the poll conducted in his own

constituency, and I'm rather surprised that he has made no reference to

this yet. When the Cariboo Observer poll was undertaken, of course, and

questioned how the people felt about the new privatized operation, we

discovered that when it came to snow-clearing, 62 percent thought it

was worse; when it came to response time, 60 percent thought it was

worse; when it came to sanding and salting, 59 percent thought it was

worse; and highway safety — 64 percent thought it was worse. I thought,

what an interesting commentary. That's in your own constituency, Mr.

Minister. I would hope that would at least teach one a little humility.

[4:30]

HON. MR. VANT : What study was that?

MR. LOVICK : This was the poll conducted in your own constituency. I wonder why the minister hasn't had occasion to respond to that.

As I said before, I want to move to some other areas. I see the minister leaping up and down, Munchkin-like. I wonder why.

You'll

recall, Mr. Minister, that last week we had a great furor in this

country — quite a justifiable one, in my mind — concerning the

continued existence of passenger rail service in this country;

specifically I'm referring, of course, to Via Rail. I was expecting

that we would get some kind of ministerial statement or a press release

issued by the minister, telling us what representation he was making to

his counterparts in Ottawa on behalf of passenger rail service in this

province. I had some correspondence with the minister a while ago,

under the aegis of the transportation subcommittee's work. A group of

people in my own constituency, the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway

committee, presented a paper to the transportation subcommittee

hearing. I forwarded a copy to the minister with a brief covering

letter saying that I thought the case presented here was a good one and

worthy of attention. So the minister is certainly familiar with the

E&N part of it. I brought that to his attention before.

The other part of my question is passenger rail service in general. I'm wondering if the minister will

[ Page 6821 ]

inform

this House what he has done by way of expressing this government's

concern about the decision by the federal government to abandon

passenger rail service in this province and in this country. Perhaps

the minister would be willing to tell us what he has done, and what

representations he has made.

HON. MR. VANT : Before I

get to the hon. member's concern about passenger rail service, I cannot

let go by this reference to the great Cariboo Observer poll in Quesnel.

That newspaper has a circulation in excess of 5,000 people. Only 19

responded to that so-called survey, and I can imagine that out of the

19, a lot of them were very politically motivated. So I certainly don't

give very much credibility to the results of that so-called poll, which

is a very limited sample.

But I do give credibility to the

independent agency that conducted a poll throughout this province and

indicated that a very high percentage of people felt very strongly that

the road and bridge maintenance was as good as or better than it was

before.

This government certainly believes in rail

passenger service. We certainly put our money where our

responsibilities lie in regard to B.C. Rail, for example. We have

upgraded and indeed increased our fleet of Budd cars. I'm very happy to

report to this House that on B.C. Rail in February 1989, the passenger

volume went up 2 percent. That's in an off-season month, and that is

without the ski train operating from North Vancouver to Whistler,

because that ceased to operate this year. So despite not having that

ski train service anymore, the actual passenger volume on B.C. Rail is

increasing.

Via Rail. I have written to the Hon. Benoit

Bouchard expressing the very great concern this government has,

particularly about the Rocky Mountain run, because that is certainly a

great revenue generator for this province in terms of the tourist

industry. It seems that many of our Pacific Rim visitors like to fly to

North America, and they love to travel by train.

Back in

1984, when Via Rail was not operating, these tourists would go down to

the United States in order to get on a railroad. So it's very important

— especially that daylight Rocky Mountain run — to the province of

British Columbia and also to the province of Alberta. We are very

concerned about that aspect of Via Rail's operations.

MR. LOVICK :

I don't know why, Mr. Chairman, but somehow I'm not assured that we

have made this powerful, passionate representation to our counterparts

in Ottawa saying: "There's no way you're going to destroy Via Rail in

this province." Somehow I'm not persuaded that happened. I don't know

why that should be.

But just in passing, your reference to your own constituency newspaper....

It wasn't 19 responses; quite the contrary. It was 53. The editor of that

particular paper informs me — as you say, it's a small community — that

is the second highest ever response on a poll like this. So you can make light

of that, but you have perhaps been living too long amid the bright lights in

the big city of Victoria, and you've forgotten whence you came. That's

big stuff in your constituency, and I suggest you ignore it at your peril.

MR. WILLIAMS : You're going to be looking for 19 votes next time, Charlie.

MR. LOVICK : I want to turn to another area.

MR. WILLIAMS : He's been attacking the Cariboo Observer . Are you going to let him off that easily?

MR. LOVICK :

It appears my colleague wants to stand up for the rights and privileges

of the Cariboo Observer, and I will therefore defer for a moment.

MR. WILLIAMS : Does the minister have any answers? His facts are wrong again. Where did he get the number 19?

HON. MR. VANT : I got it from reading the Cariboo Observer .

But obviously your colleague the first member for Nanaimo phoned up the

editor to find out if there were any subsequent replies through the

mail, or perhaps there was an addition in a subsequent week of the

newspaper. The edition I saw about this particular survey indicated

that the response level was 19.

I'd also like to mention that Jerry MacDonald, who's the editor of the Cariboo Observer

— and I don't mind quoting him publicly — stated to me around the

middle of December that last fall he had had far fewer calls about the

conditions of the roads in the Quesnel area than he had in any other

previous fall. Usually you do as winter sets in; that's when a lot of

problems occur. He stated emphatically that he had to be honest with

me; that he had received, as editor of the newspaper, a lot fewer calls

regarding the condition of the roads. There were far fewer complaints.

MR. LOVICK :

Let's turn to another whole area now. It's something the minister spoke

about on a number of occasions, apparently with some pride. This is

what used to be referred to as the "signs and attractions policy,"

otherwise rendered as SAP. I am not sure whether it still has that

name; I think it has changed. I have quite a tale here, Mr. Chairman.

This I could drag out at some length if I wanted. It's a very anecdotal

kind of rendition and I think worth noting.

I tried a long

time ago to get some information about these blue and white signs that

were appearing along the highway. I wrote to the Minister of

Transportation and Highways at the time, and I was given a certain bit

of information about just what this program consisted of. I was told

that the ministry had been working with Tourism, Recreation and

Culture, along with the Ministries of Environment and Parks to address

requests from the public for creation of a clear, consistent and

comprehensive

[ Page 6822 ]

policy for informational and directional signs on freeways and conventional highways.

was also told that there were no firm decisions made yet, and none

indeed would be taken until a pilot program had been conducted in the

Fraser Thompson Canyon area in the spring. Curiously enough, I think at

the time I got that letter there were also signs along the Island

Highway, and I don't understand how that came to be.

pursued the matter because I had some concerns expressed to me by

various people writing and calling that they weren't convinced, as the

Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) seems to

be, that these signs were beautiful and represented a new attraction.

Rather, some saw them as a blight on the landscape. However, that's a

judgment call.

I guess the best way to put this is to say

that I couldn't get much hard information; instead I got a press

release dated May 2 and learned a bit more about what was happening. I

learned that there was apparently some reason for this, that the

Minister of Tourism and Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Reid), the man

who currently has the job, stated in his usual hyperbolic fashion that

these signs had a purpose, that they would indeed be a real boon to the

service industry.

I learned further from the minister at

the time that we would be using this pilot project as an opportunity to

assess feedback before finalizing the policy. I got that kind of

information. Time passed. Bear with me, Mr. Minister. I had some other

correspondence But, you know, I couldn't get very clear answers about

the criteria that governed the erection of these signs and why they

really existed, until such time as one of my own constituents gave me

the information because I went to investigate something on his behalf

and he decided to share his information with me.

discovered, to my regret and shock, that this individual had more

information than I did, despite the fact I had written to the minister,

called the office and written letters. But I couldn't get this

information, and I wondered whether there was indeed some problem with

information flow.

In any event, what happened is that I went searching for a very long

time to try and find out what the criteria were for this program. In a

letter of November 8, 1988, 1 wrote to a person who had made a specific

request to me for information. I told them at the time, because it was

based on a phone conversation I'd had that very day, that the final

statement of criteria used for erecting signs — who gets the sign and

why — was still being developed. I have been promised a copy when the

document is completed. And I was. I was promised that by your ministry

staff. But again, unfortunately, I didn't get it. Instead, what I got

was a rather flimsy little pamphlet that didn't answer the question,

that gave me only the vaguest understanding of what this program was

about. Finally, again pursuing the matter — and one had to, obviously —

I got a statement from the senior traffic engineer in the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways telling me where things stood at that point.

discovered that at this time the guideline material has not been

entirely finalized but was going to be made available to me when the

policy was finalized. This is December 13, 1988. I am being told: "We

are now approaching that stage" — of finalizing — and work will start

shortly on production of a guideline brochure. In the meantime, I have

enclosed a copy of a simple brochure which was issued for the

Victoria-to-Port Hardy pilot project."

[4:45]

Mr. Minister, I don't want to belabour this unduly, but the

predicament is: I went searching for a very long time; I had difficulty

getting any information. What seems to have happened is that the pilot

project somehow miraculously became a full-blown project without any

formal or official announcement beyond the production of a pamphlet

called "A New Look in Signing," which I got last week, despite the fact

that I've been trying for about a year. I wonder how long that pamphlet

has been around?

I'm also concerned, Mr. Minister, about

whether the rules of the game have also changed somewhat. In other

words, the initial reasons given for the sign project perhaps have been

modified somewhat, and we are now not talking about purely directional

things. Maybe we are talking about some promotional purposes, even

though that was not the original intention.

I ask the

minister in all sincerity to simply review for me, please, the steps in

the process: where it came from; who was consulted; how you canvassed

people's opinions; when you decided that the pilot projects would cover

only area X; what you had to find out about pilot projects before you

made it a full-scale project for the ministry, etc. In other words,

will you give us now the complete overview on the project that it seems

to me I ought to have had about a year ago? Will you give that to me

now?

HON. MR. VANT : Actually, this process goes well

back before my time as minister. Indeed, it goes back about three

years, where the tourism associations throughout the province were

working on my ministry to come up with a very new, attractive sign

policy. This process came into place. We did decide, because it is a

very sensitive program, to have the two pilot areas. A pilot area is to

test the waters to get reaction to the policy. We had one on Vancouver

Island and one in the Fraser Canyon.

Based on the feedback

received from these pilot projects, the sign policy was finalized. In

terms of that letter that the hon. member opposite had received on

December 13, 1988, 1 am not surprised at the response, because the

final policy was still in process based on the firsthand experience of

these two pilot projects. Indeed, we advertised at length the

implementation of the sign policy and the announcement of it. We had a

grand announcement over here in the Victoria convention centre. We had

people — tourist operators from up and down the

[ Page 6823 ]

Island — and in fact I was quite amazed at how far afield people had come from for this announcement.

MR. WILLIAMS : When was it?

HON. MR. VANT :

It was in March. It was at that time when this brochure was released

with a lot of fanfare. Since then, of course, there have been meetings

throughout the province in terms of the implementation teams. I trust

that the whole new sign policy will be fully implemented and in place

by early July of this year so that at the height of the tourist season

we will have these signs in place.

MR. WILLIAMS : Does Langford make the signs?

HON. MR. VANT : It's the Tran Sign company, which is using the old Langford shop.

MR. WILLIAMS : Oh!

HON. MR. VANT : I don't see anything wrong with that.

MR. WILLIAMS : With stuff like that, they're going to be busy, aren't they.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : It has 23 employees now. Private enterprise.

HON. MR. VANT :

That's right. It's doing all kinds of work not only for the government

but for the private sector. That is another privatization success

story: the Langford sign shop.

MR. WILLIAMS : On this

issue, I guess the government and the private sector you're talking

about, Mr. Minister.... But the government is paying for the signs.

Isn't that the case?

Maybe the Minister of Government Management Services needs an Alka-Seltzer and could leave for a while.

What sort of budget is there in this area, in terms of this signage program?

HON. MR. VANT : The budget for this new sign policy throughout the province of British Columbia is in the area of $4 million.

MR. WILLIAMS : Of the $4 million, how much would be for the signs, and how much would be for putting them up and that sort of thing?

HON. MR. VANT : The $4 million figure is for both the fabrication of the signs and the installation of the signs throughout the province.

MR. WILLIAMS :

How would this thing compare with the average annual sign budget in the

ministry? This is a special program, but what would your normal

expenditures be in the sign area?

HON. MR. VANT : That very detailed question I will have to take as notice. My immediate staff here don't have the answer.

MR. WILLIAMS :

But maybe we could get something in the ballpark. You don't have any

idea, but $4 million for this program, in terms of what has

traditionally been spent on signs in British Columbia, is a significant

number. This is a significant bonus for the Langford Tran Sign company,

isn't it?

HON. MR. VANT : Actually, this policy of

having new signs and removing a clutter of signs along our right-of-way

has been asked for for many years. It's at long last that the

government is responding, working along with the Ministry of Tourism,

resort owners and those who have special attractions, so that the

visitors to our province, the travelling public, can get from one point

to another and also find the attractions we want them to enjoy. We want

them to stay in British Columbia as long as possible. I'm sure that the

return to government as a result of the new sign policy and the return

to the tax-paying citizens of this province will be manifold.

MR. WILLIAMS : Hallelujah! The returns will be manifold, brethren.

Look,

$4 million for signs, and you sold the company just this last year.

What's going on? It doesn't make a lot of sense. A big push for signs

and signage programs in the province right after you sell the sign

company. It isn't very smart business. The company was sold for a very

modest amount. It's the typical business approach of this

administration. You don't think two steps ahead. It's a matter of

offloading, getting rid of assets no matter what and handing out

benefits no matter what. For five years we're clearly going to have an

aggressive signage program in British Columbia, and the linkage seems

pretty clear.

MR. BARLEE : I have some letters in my

office. The highway signs on the Hope-Princeton, according to most of

the mayors along Highway 3 and in th