1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JULY 7, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3165 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Business Licence Act (Bill 42). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 3165

Oral Questions.

Vancouver General Hospital Emergency Section. Mr. Cocke –– 3165

Bank of Canada interest rates. Mr. Stupich –– 3165

Nechako River fisheries. Mr. Lea –– 3166

Use of 2, 4-D in province. Mr. Hall 3166

CLEU and Fraser River task force. Mr. Macdonald –– 3167

Rejection of proposed act to protect farmworkers. Ms. Sanford –– 3167

Training and working conditions of paramedics. Hon. Mr. Mair replies –– 3167

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

Fraser).

On vote 193: minister's office 3168

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Macdonald

Mrs. Dailly

Ms. Brown

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Stupich

Mrs. Wallace

Matter of Privilege

Alleged statements by member for Alberni.

Deputy Speaker rules –– 3188

MONDAY, JULY 7, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. MAIR:

I have two introductions today. First of all, in the precincts is my

very able executive assistant, Mrs. Sandra Moskwa. But more

importantly, in the gallery is her son Spencer, and I would ask the

House to make him very welcome.

Also in the gallery today,

from the Thompson-Nicola Regional District, are the chairman, Mr. Herb

George; the director of planning, Mr. Herb Virdi; and the secretary

treasurer, Mr. Eric Shishido. I would ask the House to make them

welcome.

MR. PASSARELL: In your gallery today is an

outstanding citizen from the community of Vanderhoof, Mr. Archie

Patrick, and I wish the House to extend him a welcome today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

We have visiting the House today a young lady who lived the first 15

years of her life in British Columbia and is now living in Holland. She

has returned to our province with her fiancé, and I'd like the House to

welcome a young couple who may make British Columbia their home in the

future: Mary-Ella Hilgerdenaar — I should have our Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) doing this introduction — and

Gabriel Simons.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have as

guests today a group from Ontario: Scottie and Chris Dutton, who are

visiting Liz and Lex Milton and Cynthia Milton. They are all in the

gallery today. I ask the House to welcome them.

I'd also

like to introduce a resident of my constituency who is visiting

Victoria today. He's a successful businessman; he's been a resident of

Canada since 1959. His attraction to Canada came about because of being

rescued by a Canadian who was serving in the the Mackenzie-Papineau

brigade in 1936 in the first declared war against fascism during the

thirties in Spain. Manual Alvarez was saved by this Canadian soldier

and then spent 40 years of his life seeking out the particular soldier

who saved his life. Indeed, he did finally find him in Canada. The

consequence of his search over those years and the successful

conclusion of that search was his book The Tall Soldier — The 40-Year Search for the Man who Saved my Life .

The political climate of the world at that time was very volatile. But

as we all read history and understand it, the efforts of those young

Canadian men in volunteering to serve in Spain against Nazism and

fascism was the paramount move by the western democracies which led to

the final defeat of Nazism and fascism in 1945. It is a heart-rending

story by a man who is now a Canadian. Mr. Alvarez has written a very

interesting document of his life. I ask the House to welcome him and by

welcoming him to extend his thanks to those Canadians, many of whom

gave their lives during the Spanish Civil War.

MR. LEA: Visiting in the gallery today are two British Columbians and

one Albertan; but above all they are Canadians — Murray and Molly Olson from

Prince Rupert and Barb Olson from Alberta. I'd like to ask the House to

make them welcome.

MR. COCKE:

Today in the gallery is someone not from New Westminster but someone

from far-off Ottawa, the capital of Canada. I'd like the House to

welcome Dennis McGann, an old friend of mine.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the mayor of Langley, George Preston,

who is with us in the gallery today. Accompanying George over to

Victoria today is an exchange student, Vicky — and I've forgotten

Vicky's last name — from Australia. She's been here for some time, and

she is an exchange student living in Langley right now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, the House is informed that the first member for Victoria

(Mr. Barber), the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree), the

member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) and the member for North Peace

River (Mr. Brummet) are absent in New York City on business of the

House at the request of the Speaker, and will be so for the duration of

the week.

Introduction of Bills

BUSINESS LICENCE ACT

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Business Licence Act.

Bill

42 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.

Oral Questions

VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL

EMERGENCY

SECTION

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

direct a question to the Minister of Health. On July 2 top

administrators of the Vancouver General Hospital met to discuss the

crisis in the emergency department. Each administrator now has the

authority to shut down the emergency

section of the hospital when they

can't safely cope with further admissions. On the same day the

emergency

section was shut down for a period of time and emergency

admissions were redirected to other hospitals. Has the minister

investigated this situation at VGH and, if so, what action has the

minister taken?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, the first

moment that I heard of this problem I asked my staff to provide me with

the report immediately. I anticipate having that within the next day or

two. I will be glad to relay its basic contents to the House.

BANK OF CANADA INTEREST RATES

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance, regarding

interest rates. The Bank of Canada rate in April was at 15 percent. By

July it had

[ Page 3166 ]

dropped

to 10.24, a drop of 4.76. The prime bank lending rate in April was 17

percent. By July it had dropped to 13.25, a drop of 3.75 — one point

less. Mortgage rates have dropped in that period by four points.

Consumer loan rates have dropped by two points. I am wondering whether

the government has made any representations to the federal government

to oblige the banks to pass on the reduction in interest rates.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, in asking the question I realize the member knows full

well as a former Minister of Finance that there is no provincial

responsibility for the banking system in any part of Canada. Also, it

is still to be regretted that the governor of the Bank of Canada found

it not possible to participate in a meeting of the western Premiers in

April of this year. Specifically to answer the member's question, as of

this moment, no, that concern has not been communicated to Ottawa.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, my next question then would have to be: has the Minister

of Finance considered passing on this concern to his federal

counterpart?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, certainly

the matter has been discussed with the very senior staff of my

ministry. Yes, the answer to that question is in the affirmative.

NECHAKO RIVER FISHERIES

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, theAluminum Company of Canada has taken a position that

whether or not they allow water into the Nechako, it is not the

jurisdiction of the federal government. I would like to know whether

the Minister of Environment is in accord with the position taken by the

Aluminum Company of Canada.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr.

Speaker, I am not in a position to give legal advice to the Aluminum

Company of Canada on what their position is. I haven't taken the matter

under consideration, because it doesn't affect me, other than the flood

control portions of that particular act.

MR. LEA: I

have a supplementary question for the same minister. Has the government

decided to move to protect the fishery under

section 2 of the

Industrial Development Act?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, Mr.

Speaker. However, at my request the comptroller of water rights did

request — not demand — that the Aluminum Company of Canada increase the

flow from the Skins Lake spillway one week ago, after the federal

fisheries officers had asked. I had a conversation with the

vice-president of the Aluminum Company of Canada and he said that in

the past all of their instructions had been received from Mr. Howard

Debeck, the comptroller of water rights for the province. Therefore I

asked Mr. Debeck if he would request, on behalf of those fish for which

we are responsible, that they increase the flow. As a result of that

request they increased the flow to 800 cfs.

MR. LEA:

Do I take it from the minister's answer that because the provincial

government did not order, but requested, he considers he has no

authority?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The legal advice that I have, Mr. Speaker, is that

I do not have the authority to order the increased water flow over Skins Lake

spillway.

MR. LEA: Could you tell me the source of your advice, and does that include

section 2 of the Industrial Development Act?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I received legal advice from legal counsel.

MR. LEA: From the Attorney-General's office?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I had that information gathered by staff. I'll take the question as notice.

MR. LEA:

To the Attorney-General: has the Attorney-General received a request

from Alcan to provide a legal opinion concerning the federal

government's authority to release more water into the Nechako River

system?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. LEA: Has the Attorney-General received that request from any branch of government?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I have not; but the ministry provides legal advice to the

various ministries of the government, and I assume that the response to

the member's question will come when my colleague, the Minister of

Environment, returns with the answer that he's taken on notice.

MR. LEA: The Attorney-General is then telling me that his department has been asked for a legal opinion from the Ministry of....

Interjection.

MR. LEA:

You may have been? Does the Attorney-General know whether his

department has been asked by the Ministry of Environment or any branch

of government for a legal opinion on this matter?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I have no personal knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I'd be happy to take the question as notice.

USE OF 2, 4-D IN PROVINCE

MR. HALL:

I address a question to the Minister of Environment. It is with

reference to the planned spraying by the owner of the chemical 2, 4-D

on property and particularly on lawns at a multi-unit townhouse

development in Surrey and the subsequent protest by tenants and the

municipal council of Surrey. Can the minister now advise the House what

his investigation response has been?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

The Pesticide Control Act requires that where pesticides or herbicides

are being applied on publicly owned property, a permit is necessary.

However, on privately owned property, the applicator need only read the

instructions, hopefully, on the particular pesticide or herbicide that

they wish to apply. We have no authority in that area.

MR. HALL:

Has the minister decided, on a request by the Surrey council, to

conduct an investigation into 2, 4-D, and to put a stop to its use

during such an investigation?

[ Page 3167 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS:

The

schedule for chemicals which are permitted for use in Canada is

determined by the federal Ministry of Agriculture. In that regard, any

requests that I have for inclusions or exclusions of chemicals from

their

schedule are forwarded to the federal Minister of Environment,

although I personally haven't received it. It may have gone through my

staff.

MR. HALL: Could the minister advise us whether

or not he has decided that ample notice should be given to all affected

persons when toxic chemicals are sprayed, giving full details of the

substance to be used?

HON. MR. ROGERS: As I said

earlier, Mr. Speaker, in terms of private property, I think your

question might better be addressed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), because I don't think this particular problem

was ever envisioned at a time, for example, when condominiums were

developed, in terms of who was applying pesticides or herbicides. But I

might remind all members, for those of you who live in a single-family

detached home, that you have absolutely no control over the application

of pesticides or herbicides by your neighbour. A condominium complex is

in somewhat the same situation. We only hope and counsel everyone to

read the instructions and follow the information laid down by the

manufacturer as it's approved by the federal agencies.

MR. HALL: Could the minister tell us if there's any use at all in going to his ministry?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I have a substantial amount of mail from satisfied British Columbians that indicates that yes, there is quite a lot of....

MR. HALL:

I would like to ask the minister a further question, in view of his

response about satisfied mail. In the riding of Surrey alone we've got

radioactive material, PCBs and now 2, 4-D. I want to tell him he hasn't

got one single satisfied customer in Surrey.

CLEU AND FRASER RIVER TASK FORCE

MR. MACDONALD:

In view of CLEU's operation to espy the undercover work of illegal

fly-by-night contaminators of the environment, and training

conservation officers — which I think is a proper function for CLEU — I

ask the Attorney-General if he knew that CLEU was going to undertake

this particular operation before it commenced.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

No, I was not aware of CLEU's involvement before it was undertaken. I

am pleased the member asked the question, because if he doesn't mind

perhaps I will give him some more information.

I am advised

that the Fraser River task force required, in the course of their

investigation, to use special night viewing equipment including

cameras. These were loaned to the task force by CLEU because they were

expensive and sophisticated in their use. CLEU officials trained the

members of the Fraser River task force in their use for two purposes:

to ensure that the equipment wouldn't be damaged and that the results

would be obtained.

Secondly, with respect to the press reports that in return for this CLEU received

certain assistance, may I advise you, Mr. Speaker, that the only information

obtained by CLEU were two lists of names of property owners who were under investigation.

These were used by CLEU for normal police checks plus searches in the office

of the registrar of companies and the land titles office to provide the task

force with information.

particular concern to me was a suggestion that environmental

organizations of assistance to the task force were identified to CLEU.

I am advised that such was not the case. CLEU was unaware of the

participation of SPEC or the other environmental organizations,

received no information with respect to those persons and has, of

course, no concern other than that they gave the assistance to the task

force which they properly should have.

MR. MACDONALD:

I have a supplementary, in view of the want of knowledge of the

Attorney-General of an important operation of this kind. In view of the

fact that the present government has totally undercut civilian

participation in the policy review board of CLEU, in that all of the

members on that policy review board, without exception, are either in

the Attorney-General's department or police officers — good people, but

no civilian control whatsoever — has the Attorney-General decided, in

keeping with the original concept of CLEU, that he will appoint

prominent British Columbians outside of his department and police

forces, so that the concept of civilian control will return to CLEU?

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

REJECTION OF PROPOSED

ACT TO PROTECT FARMWORKERS

MS. SANFORD: My question

is to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). In view of the Social

Credit caucus rejection of the act to protect farmworkers, is it the

policy of the government not to protect farmworkers or has the minister

decided on further action?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.

HON. MR. MAlR: With leave, I would like to answer questions put to me in question period on July 2.

Leave granted.

TRAINING AND WORKING

CONDITIONS OF PARAMEDICS

HON. MR. MAIR: I hope

the member opposite will forgive me if I paraphrase the questions a

little bit, because some of them referred to my grandson, who

incidentally is home — walking, talking and handling a fly-rod, I'm

told. The first question was generally as follows:

Eighteen people have just completed a one-year

training program for paramedics. Dr. Vertesi has suspended the program

indefinitely, prior to graduating these 18 paramedics. In the event

that the dispute between Dr. Vertesi and the paramedics is not settled

within 30 days, these 18 people will have another year's training to

requalify. What action, has the minister taken to solve the dispute on

the paramedic training program? Incidentally, that dispute has been on

for some time, I've known about it for six weeks.

[ Page 3168 ]

reply, Dr. Vertesi is the medical coordinator for all paramedic

programs in British Columbia, and chairman of a committee that includes

all physicians who have local responsibility for conducting paramedic

programs in individual communities.

Several months ago a

fourth paramedic program, which was intended to increase the

availability of paramedics to the Vancouver area, began with an

enrolment of more than 20 students. However, during the second semester

of instruction a dispute arose between the physicians conducting the

program, the graduate paramedics currently working in the greater

Vancouver area, and the students, concerning the way in which the

course would be conducted — in particular, the methods which would be

employed during the third and final semester to evaluate the

performance of students while they were applying their skills for the

first time outside the controlled environment of a hospital as a member

of a paramedic ambulance crew.

Since that development

several meetings have been held in an attempt to resolve the dispute,

and if a resolution does occur in the near future, the course will

recommence at the stage reached prior to suspension. If there is a more

substantial delay, it will be necessary to incorporate some refresher,

didactic and in-hospital module before the third semester begins. This

dispute is not involved in any way with questions of funding or fiscal

restraints, nor is it a part of any intention to limit or restrict the

development of the paramedical programs in the province in any way.

my opinion, Mr. Speaker, responsibility for the supervision of the

training and ongoing performance of advanced life support or paramedic

teams must rest with the emergency physician who has accepted that

responsibility and who has been appointed by the commission. I

understand that view is also shared by the College of Physicians and

Surgeons.

The second question: "Can the minister confirm

that approximately 50 overtime shifts have been allocated in a two-week

period to over 22 staff in the lower mainland because they lack holiday

relief in the emergency health services program?"

I have a

somewhat shorter answer to this one, Mr. Speaker. Concerning the

member's question about overtime shifts being covered by paramedic

personnel in the Vancouver area, I've obtained the information that in

the last four weeks there have been 80 shifts covered in this manner.

Although this may not coincide precisely with the numbers cited by the

member, the basis for the concern is recognized, and it can be

acknowledged that this can only be a short-term approach to the

provision of paramedical service in the community. More students are in

training and further paramedical courses are planned both in Vancouver

and in other communities of British Columbia. The addition of these

further members will moderate this problem substantially and eventually

resolve it entirely.

The third question was: "Can the

minister confirm that paramedics themselves are responsible for

supplying their own maps and that they're not always reimbursed for

these expenditures?"

In response to the member's question,

Mr. Speaker, concerning maps, I'm informed that it is the practice of

the administrators of the ambulance service in the Vancouver area to

supply maps to vehicles rather than to individual crew members, and

that it is the normal practice to maintain a supply of the map which is

used to cover the area of Vancouver and the immediately adjacent

communities, and that these maps are distributed as requested by the

crew members. The area south and east of the Fraser River is not

covered by a commercially available, consolidated type of map, and the

crews who work in this area are authorized to obtain those maps, which

are locally available for the particular areas. In the normal course of

events, the crew members claim and are reimbursed for the expense of

these maps.

The fourth and last question was: "Can the

minister confirm that greater Seattle, with a smaller population, has

four paramedic units per shift? What action has the minister taken to

increase the number of paramedic units available to the lower mainland

to avoid staff burnout and excessive overtime?"

In answer

and referring to the member's previous question, one of the reasons

that the type of overtime referred to occurs at the present time is

that an attempt is being made to maintain no fewer than three paramedic

crews in the Vancouver-Burnaby-New Westminster area, and usually that

is the number of crews available, rather than two.

The city

of Seattle does, to my knowledge, maintain four paramedic units, but

their circumstances vary in several important respects from those in

the greater Vancouver area. First of all, they have been developing

their system since 1970, and the system in Vancouver is still in the

process of development and expansion and will undoubtedly be expanded

beyond its present capacity, as evidenced by the further course of

training which has been authorized — notwithstanding the fact that it

is temporarily suspended. Another difference is that the Seattle system

is called upon to respond to a much wider range of cases, which,

because of the predictable and high training level of the normal

ambulance attendant in the greater Vancouver area, can be handled quite

adequately by these people without the aid of a paramedic team.

When

the current group in training are graduated and, in fact, once the

third semester of their course commences, it will be possible to

increase the availability of paramedic units to some extent, and to

substantially moderate the present overtime load which the existing

paramedics are accommodating. Our plan, Mr. Speaker, is to eventually

have a minimum of six teams in the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

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

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Chairman, I want to start off this afternoon by replying to several

questions that were asked on Friday morning in committee. First of all,

I'll deal with remarks made by the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead)

— most of the answers I have are replies to the member for Mackenzie,

and also the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson).

In remarks made by the second member for Victoria — to lead off — he wanted to know why we had such a generous

[ Page 3169 ]

fencing

policy in the highway system. I think he mentioned Cariboo, which I

have the honour to represent. First of all, we have a fencing policy

that doesn't only involve the Cariboo; it is a provincial policy. The

basis of the policy is safety — to keep all types of animals off the

highway system so that they don't get hurt and, more importantly, so

the people driving the vehicles and the vehicles themselves don't get

damaged. Even with the fencing that we have, unfortunately, there are

still a lot of fairly bad accidents caused by animals, whether they be

domestic or wild, that break through the fences.

I want to

emphasize that it is provincial policy. The reason it is emphasized in

the Kamloops and Cariboo ridings is probably that that is where all the

cattle and all the movers and shakers are. There were 50,000 head of

cattle shipped from Williams Lake in my riding last fall — the largest

shipment in the province. I believe around 45,000 were shipped from

Kamloops. We do try to keep the fences up in those areas. They are

prioritized on arterial highways or secondaries, and so on.

am happy to report to the Legislature that the basis of the fencing

policy is safety. Whether it is better or worse in other provinces, I

am not aware. I believe the second member for Victoria said it was the

best in Canada. I take credit for that, on behalf of our government. We

have nothing to be ashamed of whatsoever, when we are trying to deal

with safety measures. There are a lot of other things we could do along

that line as well, that we are trying to do, but that is one that we

have achieved.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Mackenzie said

that $170,000 was spent in his riding on day labour. I just want to

correct the record, referring to the fiscal year 1978-79. I imagine the

member's research people didn't give him all the information; the

records I have show that $1,073,000 was spent in his riding in that

year on day labour. The total expenditure in the Mackenzie riding,

highways-wise, was $6,073,357. I want the record to be very clear there

— where he referred to the fact that $170,000 was spent in his riding.

While

we are on expenditures by electoral areas, I want to provide a little

information for the committee on that, and also on the inventory of the

road system in the province. The Cariboo riding has almost 7,000

kilometres, by far the most publicly gazetted roads of all different

types. The next closest riding is Omineca, with 2, 495 kilometres of

roads. In the case of the Cariboo riding, which everybody seems so

concerned with, 17 percent of our roads are paved and 83 percent are

gravel or potholes filled with car parts. Of Omineca's 2,495 kilometres

of roads, 21 percent are paved. Those two findings alone have by far

the lowest percentage of paved surface roads in the whole of the

province, but the largest mileage, in some cases arterial, in some

cases secondary, and so on. To deal with it in another way,

expenditures per kilometre, they are way down the line as compared with

some ridings that have been mentioned. However, I don't want to go into

too much detail on that.

I now want to reply to the second member for Victoria. I see that he was really

waiting for the answers — he's not even here. He wanted the details on project

C-3565. I think this project goes back to 1977 — and I'd like to ask him

a question. However, I have the information here on project C-3565, Jesmond

road, west of Clinton. The project was 1.2 miles of class 6 feeder industrial

road, ditched and gravelled. The hired equipment expenditure was $7,912. The

hired equipment used was Jay's Transport, Catchmore Construction, Lake City

Ford, AMA Haulings and Sid's Construction. Material for the job was $59;

Highways ministry equipment was $241; and ministry labour was $5,984.

The

second member for Victoria also asked a question in committee on Friday

morning, I believe it was, about project 3934 at Quesnel. This project

was for miscellaneous feeder roads — slash, ditch and reconstruct,

$744,000. The roads involved were the Quesnel-Hydraulic road, Bowron

Lake road, and the French road. The feeder roads involved were Bushy

Lake road, Biernson road, Abbott road, Koogler road, Chub Lake road,

Ziederich road, Baziko road and Blackwater road. The work was done by

day labour using hired local equipment.

Another project

about which the particulars were asked was project S-3777, 100 Mile

House. This was, I believe, a paving contract with Peters Bros. of

Penticton, it was for 38.7 kilometres of paving in that area.

believe that covers the specific projects asked about. I've covered the

specific projects and the fencing policy. I corrected the member for

Mackenzie with his figures.

A question was also asked about

what a gentleman by the name of Art Mickey was doing working for

Highways. I don't know just what was behind that, but I'll say that Mr.

Mickey is a temporary employee. He drives about the province of British

Columbia monitoring Highways projects, specifically day labour. He has

a lot of experience. He usually works from April through to October of

each year. He reports in detail on jobs; his reports are sent to the

chief engineer and the deputy minister for their monitoring. In other

words, he gives an overview week by week as the jobs are progressing,

specifically as to whether they are held up and why they're held up;

because we do have right-of-way problems and they can be expensive. If

we get into a job and the job is tied up, he transmits that information

back here; then head office picks it up from there and tries to clear

it up. He has no authority to instruct anybody, and he doesn't instruct

anybody. He's strictly an observer. He does an excellent job and he's

well experienced in it. He used to be a superintendent of public works

in a municipality and had direct experience. He knows about building

roads under all conditions. That's the work he does.

I think that pretty well covers most of the things that were asked on Friday.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I should preface my remarks today by saying how much I personally, and

certainly the members on this side of the House, appreciate the

detailed answers the minister gives us on many of these items. I know

that the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) has an unanswered

question, but he will have the opportunity to ask the question again

later during the course of this debate. I'm sure that the minister will

reply. However, Mr. Minister, if you keep filibustering my salary vote

like this, I'm wondering if I'm ever going to get paid. In any event,

we do appreciate the answers.

My colleagues and I have

numerous questions, because there are many aspects of the minister's

responsibility that we have not as yet dealt with. However, there is

one aspect which I'm going to raise in a few moments. Because of the

seriousness, in my view, of this topic, I've taken the liberty of

making very copious notes, because a lot of figures are involved. I

wish to be extremely accurate in the questions and on the points I'm

going to make during the next 15 or 20 minutes on this particular item

dealing with airport manage-

[ Page 3170 ]

ment

not only throughout our nation, but particularly in British Columbia. I

feel that this particular item must be dealt with — not at length,

although I do have a great deal of information. I will be try to be as

brief, to the point and precise as possible on this matter.

would now like to turn to the Transportation minister's responsibility

in the area of aviation and airports, because there are some seriously

disturbing developments flowing from the Premier's blunder of jumping

into this field three years ago. In a short while I intend to forward

and send over to the minister a copy of my speech — if I have it. It's

fully in order under this minister's vote, Mr. Chairman. I've checked

that out very carefully.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I do hear this strange braying from somewhere on the other side of the

House and I have not identified the source. It sounds like a sick

jackass. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we have identified the source.

It's the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf).

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, one moment please. All members are honourable and you must

maintain order. If you have inferred in your comments that the member

is not honourable, I would ask you to withdraw the statement.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I certainly withdraw any imputation I made against jackasses or members for Omineca.

Before

I was so rudely interrupted, I started out to say that I am going to

forward a copy of my speech to the minister so that he and his people

may have the benefit of the figures which I'm going to use in this

document. As a matter of fact, I thought I had an extra copy of these

notes here, but for some reason or another I don't. Perhaps I can get a

spare copy from my office.

A terribly high price, in my

view, may be paid by many British Columbians, possibly including local

homeowners, because of our Premier's silly vanity. I think it's time

for this minister to stand up for the province by standing up to the

Premier and warning him of the folly which I'm about to document.

This

frightening story began about a year after this administration came to

power. If you recall, this government very quickly puffed up its chest

in dealing with Ottawa and traded away the federal responsibility for

coastal marine transportation for the sake of a paltry few million

dollars. Our Premier did a lot of strutting then while Northland

Navigation services were scuttled and all hope of decent federal

contribution to our ferry system was written off. By the way, Mr.

Chairman, this is the topic that we canvassed quite thoroughly in this

House the other day, so I won't pursue that.

This matter is

under the direct responsibility of this minister, even though he didn't

know it then. The Premier had taken a bath in the ferry subsidy deal,

or at least he had made British Columbia citizens take the bath. He was

still boasting then as he flew around the province in the government

jet. I didn't hear him or this minister boasting about the ferry

subsidy deal then. I'd like to send a copy of these notes to the

minister so that he can reply, utilizing the figures contained therein.

will just go back a bit. Back in March 1977 the Premier was still in a

boastful mood and he had his eye on even higher stakes. He told this

Legislature on March 4, 1977, that as he flew around the province he

wasn't happy with the way the federal government was keeping the

airports. I had some sympathy on that point. Many of us represent rural

areas. The federal government was extremely lax, tightening up its

financial belt, and we had problems from the federal government at that

time in obtaining funding for airports like Bella Coola, in my riding,

for example, and other airports throughout the province. I know the

member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who is not in the House at the moment

but did interject a while ago, did receive some aid under this airport

program.

Let me quote from Hansard :

When we were talking about ferry services along the British Columbia coast, we also made a plea for better air services.

That is what the Premier said. I'm sure the present Minister of Transport remembers his leader continuing west.

All

of us who have had the opportunity to travel the province as

politicians will have come to know the very poor facilities and

transportation access that many of our people are forced to live with

in this province. If the federal government doesn't meet its commitment

in the future and if we can develop the economy and the dollars to help

build that economy, the province itself may consider taking a look at

doing something in the area of air transportation and air facilities.

This

was just by way of giving a bit of background to what we are leading up

to, quoting directly from the Premier's own statements from Hansard .

These were cocksure words and Ottawa, fresh from skimming this province

on the ferry subsidy trade-off, quickly pricked up its ears at the

Premier's words. Sure enough, by next spring the provincial government

had evolved an airport program, clearly intruding into the field that

everyone in Canada was willing to let Ottawa have. A $5 million capital

program was announced in the 1978 throne speech to help communities

develop airports. This government insisted that municipalities or

regional districts which applied for the grants would have to put up

the funds on their own as well — in other words, a cost-sharing

program, usually 75/25 percent. At least that was the intent at that

time. Later the same year the Premier merrily flew around the province

handing out cheques — I was present at some of those occasions, by the

way — to local airport commissions, happy in his role as a hero. It was

much more exciting than pressuring Ottawa to fulfill its responsibility

at the time, you will recall, Mr. Chairman — you may have been involved

in your own airport in your own community at that time in this matter.

About the same time the federal government set up a task force on

airport administration — now we are getting into the meat of this — to

find ways of sharing out the mounting costs of airport operations

across the nation to so-called local airport authorities, and

discussions began with provincial and municipal governments, as well as

business associations. About the same time the Premier was flying about

the province handing out these cheques.

I know that this

Minister of Transport has some doubts about the whole business. In fact

— I want to include this in the record — I happen to have in my

possession a copy of correspondence which I will later quote from, not

extensively, from the present minister to the now-federal Minister of

Transportation. In any event, it is more than a curiosity that this

Social Credit government's own report, assessing the task force

proposal, argued that it be recognized that municipal ownership of

airports is an alternative to federal ownership which at some point in

time should be considered. This was the recommendation in the federal

government report. I

[ Page 3171 ]

know

the minister maintains the posture that neither the province nor the

municipalities should be expected to chip in any capital assistance

under the local airport authority's reorganization. But how strongly

can he resist, in view of the Premier's multimillion dollar precedent

doing just that?

I'm aware that this government's spokesmen

have noted that the reorganization proposals are consistent with our

Premier's constitutional proposal for giving provinces an increased

weight in federal matters. Specifically, I understand that this

government has indicated that part of its price for agreement to the

airport management reorganization would include B.C. representation in

any future decision-making process and overall system planning for the

nation's airports. This includes provincial membership on any interim

or permanent regional and/or national advisory council. So that's the

Ottawa carrot, Mr. Chairman.

Our Premier can appoint his

friends to national airport and aviation bodies. And who is likely to

pay for this newfound glory, Mr. Chairman? I'll tell you — the local

communities again. Just as they have to pay for B.C. Hydro's AAA status

on Wall Street, when this government dumped a huge transit deficit off

Hydro onto the backs of the municipalities, just as the coastal

communities have to pay for this government's stupid posture on ferry

subsidies by losing traditional services that we had enjoyed over many,

many years, just as Victoria has to pay for the Premier's bungling by

scrapping the Princess Marguerite .

How long is this minister, who has had to carry the can on the water

transportation bungles by his government and by his leader, going to

allow negotiations to continue which will inevitably dump all airport

facilities onto local commissions in our province?

The

minister has been sitting on the report all this year, and I'm pretty

upset about that point as well. The minister has actually been sitting

on more than one report. There are several reports, copies of which I

have in my possession at this time, and these reports point out that

the Vancouver and Victoria airports would run up huge deficits if

transferred to local authorities. Almost a $9 million cash deficit in

1978 dollars on the Vancouver airport case alone — if all of the

overhead costs are included — and as much as $762,000 in terms of the

Victoria airport would be dumped onto the local taxpayers and local

government in 1978 dollars. So that would be, if you project that — I'm

just guessing — somewhere in excess of $1 million. No wonder Ottawa is

willing to share the costs of airport management, Mr. Chairman. No

doubt they would be willing to let the Premier have a few patronage

appointments in return for this type of program.

The horror

story doesn't stop there. This government's own analysis shows that

only two of 14 other airports in the province would operate on a cash

or surplus level. If all costs and capital expenditures were projected

on the 1978 experience, let me list this government's own figures.

These are not my figures, nor federal government figures, but this

government's figures: Abbotsford airport would operate at an annual

deficit of $469,300; Penticton airport would operate at an annual

deficit of $140,000; Pitt Meadows — $71,500 per year; Port Hardy —

$246,400; Prince Rupert — $33,700; Princeton — $32,400; Quesnel, which

is in the minister's own riding, has an operating deficit under this

proposal of $383,300; Sandspit — $335,500; Smithers — $68,100; Terrace

— $47,500; Tofino — $91,600; Williams Lake — $445,500; and I could go

on and on. Only Prince George and Kamloops airports can expect to make

a profit utilizing the government's own figures.

These are

the frightening figures at the end of the Premier' s flight plan into

Cloud Cuckooland, where he boastfully took off in 1978 on a program of

getting the province and its municipalities into the airport business.

Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely imperative that

you show intestinal fortitude and stand up to the Premier on this

issue and tell him that he's got to come down to earth, His efforts to

show himself smarter than Ottawa are boasts that this province cannot

afford, in my view. I'm personally getting really fed up with this

continued program of that government and the Premier's effort of

Canada-bashing. We are one nation.

But back to this airport

thing. I know you have expressed reservations.... Mr. Chairman, I

really do require the minister's undivided attention on this very

serious issue, because this not only affects British Columbia; it

affects every province in Canada and our province's relationship, and

possibly future relationship, during certain negotiations with the

federal government.... I know that minister has expressed certain

reservations, and I'm prepared to table and quote the minister's own

remarks in this regard. I also know that the minister sent a letter to

Ottawa a couple of months ago expressing support for the federal plan

to decentralize airport management. I would think that the minister

should withdraw from that position unequivocally, even if it means the

Premier has to eat a little more crow, as he did on the ferry subsidy

fiasco.

I'm recommending to the minister now that he make a

very strong presentation to his own cabinet in this regard. Otherwise,

sooner or later, as the government's own report shows and as that

ministry's own report indicates, local communities across this province

are going to be stung. This government's record is to try to dump its

embarrassments and its losers onto the backs of the local taxpayers. I

want to guarantee you that if this wishy-washy government doesn't do

something about this within a reasonable length of time, every

municipality in the province is going to be faced with another tax

increase, a mill rate increase, to pay for these staggering deficits

that we can anticipate in the future if Ottawa is allowed to proceed.

It's

happened time and time again — with the Urban Transit Authority, the

old shell game with constant increases in school tax mill rates set by

this government, and with a host of other things. The list could on and

on. I'm not going to take the time of the House going over that list,

as we have done that on several occasions. The only way for you to give

assurance, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that our

communities will not suffer again is to publicly declare your refusal

to continue further discussions on the local airport authority with the

federal government, and stand up as other provinces have. I have in my

possession the position papers of several other provinces — Quebec,

Newfoundland, New Brunswick. and the list goes on and on. I know the

minister has the documents in his possession but, in any event, I will

table them if requested. They're no secret. They're public documents,

I'm

very much concerned that the minister, during the course of his

correspondence dated April 15 1980, to the Hon. Jean Luc Pepin,

Minister of Transport, signed by the Hon. Alex V. Fraser, minister,

said — I'm not quoting out of context, this is a public document — "We

generally agree, as we have with the proposed ports legislation, that

the basic concept of local autonomy through establishment of airport

authorities can have attractive features." That phrase, within

[ Page 3172 ]

the

minister's own correspondence, bothers me as it should bother everyone

in this House and every municipality and local government in this

province. The minister has the opportunity today to get up in this

House and assure us that he will take a position at least as strong as

that taken by Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Quebec and other provinces,

and ministers of other provinces. I'm sure he must have copies of their

correspondence; it was certainly made available on request to me.

The

other thing that concerns me in several other findings.... One of the

people attending a seminar on the dumping of federal airport management

patrol stated publicly: "This could save the federal government a great

deal of money and put the control of all airports throughout Canada —

whether it be Mirabel, Vancouver, Winnipeg International; it doesn't

matter — under the control...which would save us great gobs of money

and put the responsibility onto the province, and we'll get away with

it."

I'm asking this minister now to take a position at

least as strong as that of Quebec and Newfoundland, which took a very

strong and unequivocal position over this matter.

The

Canadian Union of Transportation Employees tells me that it has proof

positive that the federal government is going to proceed on this course

whether we like it or not. I think that under proper federal-provincial

negotiations....

This is not a matter of national unity and

this is not a matter of Canada-bashing or Ottawa-bashing. That is not

the issue. This is a matter of negotiation between federal and

provincial authorities, as are many other issues, such as health care.

There is no end of issues where federal and provincial ministers meet

to discuss matters of mutual interest and concern in the best interest

of all Canadians. I would greatly resent it if this minister got up

today and attempted to give us another speech — and it's done by his

government — on Canada-bashing, Ottawa-bashing. We don't accept that in

this party. The majority of people in this province don't accept that

approach. It's not a matter of overwhelming proportions. Canada will

not disintegrate over this issue.

As a matter of fact, while

we're on the topic, it does disturb me a great deal that this

government should be taking an approach which is contrary to what I

think most Canadians feel. It's an approach which would be harmful to

the long-term future of this nation. I feel that we are not just a

nation of 11 provinces and three territories; we are more than that. In

my view, we are a nation of 28 parts or more. We have our native Indian

people, our Metis people, our Eskimo people, and the people who have

immigrated to this nation. All of their views should be considered. We

are not a nation like the United States, which has become a melting

pot. I think this nation is great and has the opportunity to be

greater. It should not be pulled apart by the little, local, regional

political differences of small political parties in one province. With

all of these fine things going for us, we have the opportunity to

create a nation that will withstand these little stresses and strains.

But we won't; the nation will not withstand these stresses and strains,

in my view, if we have.... I don't care — I'm not saying the Social

Credit Party, in this particular instance, or the Liberal Party or the

NDP or anybody else.... But we must put ourselves above these local,

petty regional differences if we are to remain a nation.

You

know, I view this nation as a family, Mr. Chairman. When one member of

the family gets sick or has a problem, the other members of the family

will help. Because of geographical and regional differences and because

of different ethnic groups, and a whole variety of issues.... We are a

family, but we have different interests. If one part of that family has

problems, then I feel that it's up to the rest of us to assist where we

can. We must look beyond our own little selfish interests. Quite

frankly, in my view, this nation can, if we're careful, set an example

for the rest of the world.

HON. MR. FRASER: Just to

keep the record straight, I want to go back to water service on the

Pacific coast. I mentioned earlier in this debate — and I feel it's a

good one — that the opposition are saying that under our government

everything went to pieces in water service. Well, you know, everybody

is entitled to his opinion.

It's another observation of mine

that when they were government they knew all about Northland Navigation

and it appearing that they were leaving the water service on the

Pacific coast. There was a good chance they would be. I now find that

in 1973 the now first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who was

then Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce,

commissioned a study. I have a copy of this study, and I will quote

portions of it:

"The subsidy received by

Northland Navigation to provide a service to northern coastal points

was presumably initiated because of their isolation and size. The

majority of these towns and villages do not generate enough freight

traffic to make a profitable service possible exclusive of subsidy. The

subsidy which expires March 31, 1974, is currently under review by

federal authorities. Northland officials expect that it will be

significantly reduced if not eliminated.

"The

implications for users of Northland Navigation are twofold. The level

of service will deteriorate and rates will likely increase. Loss of

subsidy could neutralize any possible cost savings related to more

efficient handling techniques."

The point I want to make

here is that this was when they were government and they had this

knowledge. Of course, we know they didn't do anything about it. This

did proceed and Northland Navigation did withdraw from the Pacific

coast. They are now critical because our government went and made a

deal, after Northland Navigation had withdrawn, and got the first

subsidy ever for the B.C. Ferry Corporation of $8 million. Escalated on

a cost-of-living basis to the current year, I believe it is $9.6

million. The point I want to make here is that our government did

something about it. Of course, it is a fact of life that they knew all

about the problem and didn't take any action at all. I would like to

table this study of theirs where they were notified in 1974. I will

table it when we get to the House.

I want to go on to air

transportation now. I am really amazed at the member for Mackenzie

getting up on this because he is really mixed up in the observations

that he makes regarding air transportation and airports in the province

of British Columbia. First of all, I think I should tell the committee,

particularly to straighten out that member, that Transport Canada

commissioned a study of what to do with their airports that exist in

this province. I don't know whether that goes on into the other

provinces or not. We have certainly contributed information there. That

study is still ongoing, but it has been a subject of a federal task

force looking into ways that Transport Canada can reduce its

involvement in their day-to-day airport operations.

[ Page 3173 ]

preliminary report from this task force proposes the establishment of

local airport authorities, but our review indicates that Ottawa would

transfer little effective decision-making powers or control to the

local body. Serious concerns are also raised on the financial

arrangements that would accompany an establishment of the authorities.

These and other shortcomings are identified in our response to Ottawa —

I am talking about the government of British Columbia — wherein we

indicate that any transfer of financial liability to municipal

governments or to the province for what is a federal responsibility

will not be acceptable. That is addressing that from that level. We are

trying to assist them in their study about management of federal

airports.

This member is so misinformed, I will read into the record....

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

On a point of order, I resent the use of the term "misinformed." I have

accurate and detailed accounts from across Canada and Ottawa. This

research has been going on for two and a half months and my figures are

totally accurate.

HON. MR. FRASER: I don't know

really what that point of order was. I was trying to say that he

inferred that we were going to assume these liabilities on behalf of

our municipalities and/or the province of British Columbia. I want to

deny that emphatically. It is a federal task force that is ongoing, has

been going for a long time, and is continuing to go. I'll list the

airports that are involved that are major, or to some degree minor,

airports in the province and are affected under federal jurisdiction. I

hope I don't miss any. Of course, Vancouver International is the

largest. We have Victoria, Abbotsford, Penticton, Pitt Meadows, Port

Hardy, Prince Rupert, Princeton, Quesnel, Sandspit, Smithers, Terrace,

Tofino and Williams Lake. Those are some of the airports that are

actually operated all of them for quite some time. They are having

their problems in operations and deficits, but that's what this federal

task force is all about. Yes, we have dealt with them.

What

the member seems to get involved with is the Local Airport Assistance

Program that this government brought out in 1978. It was announced by

the Premier that we would give local airport assistance to areas, other

than those I've mentioned, that were never under federal jurisdiction.

I might say that I'm very proud to be part of that government that came

out with this program, which is going on now. It is bringing more

remote areas a better level of transportation.

In quick

summary, I would say that it has been highly successful. It was

originally brought out in 1978 at a cost of $5 million; in 1979-80 we

spent $1.9 million; and it's estimated that we will spend $4 million

this year; a total of $11 million. It was brought out in 1978 as a

five-year program at a total cost of $26 million. So we're moving more

or less to the halfway mark, and what have we achieved? During the

first two years we have received and reviewed 61 applications and 23

inquiries. Some 56 projects, including 11 ongoing projects, were

recommended for award of funds.

I guess that I should go

into this further and say that as we in our government envision it we

have the federal airport authority, and we haven't any intention of

taking those over. We're glad to assist them if they want to go to

local authorities, as long as it doesn't cost, as I said earlier. We

have a lot of other areas in our province that need better

transportation than they've got at the present time. More or less,

where the airports are under federal jurisdiction, they are looked

after by the regional carrier. But we did not have backup community

airports to feed into the regional areas, and that's where our plan

comes into effect. It's been very successful. As a matter of fact —

getting right up to date — believe it or not, a community the size of

Salmon Arm never had an airstrip. I was there on Saturday and opened

the new 4,000-foot paved airstrip at Salmon Arm. This government put in

approximately $1 million, but that airstrip will probably serve 25,000

people. Otherwise, they had to drive to Kelowna or to Kamloops. So this

brings a better level of transportation to them.

Our funds

are given out for varying reasons. On local airports, we'll upgrade

existing airports. I think I used an example of that, and they're not

necessarily all in isolated areas. We've put a lot of money in the

Cassidy airport at Nanaimo, for example. That included paving,

navigation assistance and so on.

Now let's get into the more

remote areas — semi-remote and remote. The Premier and I, with the MLA

for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), opened the Burns Lake airport just a month ago

— a 4,000-foot strip. Are the opposition saying that they deny those

communities an airport? I really can't get his argument or his debate

at all, because our government stands squarely that it's one of the

better programs our government has brought out, and we're happy and

proud of it. We intend to expand it fully and, as I say, we're only

halfway through the upgrading.

I would like to relate

another experience. I know this member is more or less local to

Mackenzie, but our province is large and there are very difficult

transportation problems all over. I'd like to relate to this House our

province-wide transportation problems,

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Mackenzie on a point of order.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Once again, the statement made by the minister.... I have travelled to

every nook and cranny, driven every highway, and landed at nearly every

airport in this province. I resent his telling me I'm locked up in my

own riding.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That really was not a point

of order, Mr. Member. There is ample opportunity in committee for

free-wheeling debate from side to side with really no restriction on

the number of times that a member may speak. Committee is designed with

that in mind — to allow all members a chance to speak and clarify any

misunderstanding that the member might bring to the committee. If the

member for Mackenzie has a correction to make or feels that he has been

misrepresented, then committee does allow time for that member to make

his clarifying statement during the normal course of debate.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry I upset the member. I was going to say what

great assistance it is for the remote and semi-remote areas. I had the

honour last Tuesday.... Monday night I was phoned while all the rest of

you were holidaying — including the member for Mackenzie — and told

that we had a bridge failure at Stewart. Because we have an airport

there — we gave them a paved

[ Page 3174 ]

airport

last year — we flew in on Tuesday morning with the senior engineers of

the Highways department and on the spot decided what we were going to

do. Consequently, instead of being cut off for up to 30 days, that

community was put back on the map in three days. You know, if we hadn't

had an airport to land on.... We provided that under the Local Airport

Assistance Program. That is one shining example of bringing a better

type of transportation to the remote areas of our province, and we're

really proud of this program.

For that member to get up and

say what he said regarding his own riding — he never tells you that....

But we have put a new strip into Bella Coola and upgraded the strip in

his home town of Powell River under this Local Airport Assistance

Program in the short time of two years that we've had it. You know, he

doesn't tell you these things. But I want to say that so the citizens

he represents will know that it wasn't federal money; it wasn't

municipal money; it was provincial money — and we're happy to be able

to do that for Bella Coola and for Powell River. Furthermore, in all

these communities we have contractors and people in every walk of life

now using aircraft to do business and have pleasure and so on, and this

government feels to have better strips adds immensely to the economy of

our province. We've had 61 applications — 56 projects, including 11

ongoing ones — and I can't relate all....

I want to deal for

a minute with the very large, beautiful riding of Atlin, where Stewart

is. We've fixed that airport and paved it. We're now, this day, working

on our large new strip for Dease Lake — again, a key community in that

area. Our problem, Mr. Chairman, is that so many of our citizens have

never been up there, but we have. We have citizens there. It's on a

main transportation link in our province; Dease Lake is halfway between

Stewart and the northern B.C. boundary, and we're building them a new

airport right now. We're building it, to start with, on a gravel-finish

basis. Some day it will probably be paved, but the fact is that we'll

have a decent strip for the people in that remote area. The work is

underway and that in itself is going to cost, I think, $1 million.

we see these Local Airport Assistance Programs as a great feeder for

our regional carriers in the larger centres. As an example, right now

there is a feeder carrier operating from Bella Coola to Williams Lake

and, of course, they call at a strip that we've built at Anahim Lake.

This is the way the people get their mail. The people there get a lot

of other things and they get twice-a-week service. I know they had some

service before, but it was intermittent, because they never knew

whether they could land or not. Now, with better landing facilities and

upgraded navigation facilities — which will come — this will bring them

better service. I think the day is long gone that the people the member

for Mackenzie is talking about should be second-class citizens. We want

to bring them up to the same level as the other citizens in our

province at a small additional cost.

I might also say that

this program is based on working with the regional districts and/or the

municipalities. We're not doing this on our own. We give the

engineering advice; the regional district and/or the municipality work

with us, and we supply a lot of the capital for the improvements. But

immediately that's done, we don't want to have any part of the

operation. That's why we deal with the regional districts, and we have

responsible local authorities left to operate these rural and remote

strips after the money is expended on them. And I think,

transportation-wise, it's one of the biggest assets that we've had in a

long time in our province.

I believe the member for

Mackenzie said that I should stand up to the Premier of our province.

I'll stand up with him. I'm proud that it was his program; he brought

it out. The member for Mackenzie better believe I'll take his advice

and stand up with our Premier, who was the minister responsible at the

time this program was started, and he worked hard to get the local

people interested. He got it going, and I assumed the responsibility

for this program — I can't recall when, but I believe it was November

'78 — and I have the same feeling about it, to push it for all it's

worth.

Before I sit down.... I didn't mention all the areas

in the province; but another one that the Premier and I have the honour

and go and open very shortly is a beautiful new strip at Vanderhoof in

the great riding of Omineca. Thank you for listening.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the standing orders clearly point out that when two

members rise, the Chairman will indicate whom he has seen first.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have two or three matters of clarification, to make sure that the statements appearing in Hansard are correct. I just want to remind the Chair....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, if we were in second reading, where you are only allowed

one opportunity to speak, then your point would be well taken. We are

in committee and there is ample time during committee to recognize

members who wish to clarify their statements or say whatever they wish

to say. But I have recognized the member for Omineca.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wish to clarify statements that the minister attributed to me during the course of his speech.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask the member for Mackenzie to take his place. The Chair will recognize the member for Omineca on vote 193.

MR. KEMPF I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman. I wasn't going to

stand in this minister's estimates, but when I hear a member say what the

member for Mackenzie has said this afternoon in regard to one of the most magnificent

programs that has ever been brought forward in this province, the Air Transport

Assistance Program — particularly when I hear a rural member such as the member

for Mackenzie speak against that kind of program — it is necessary for me to

get to my feet today and speak in favour and to commend the Premier and to commend

this minister for such a program in this province.

Since

its inception some three years ago, there has been great upgrading of

airports in my constituency, as well as in many other areas of this

province, and I'd just like to talk a little bit about that this

afternoon. The minister mentioned the Burns Lake airport. It's a

5,000-foot strip instead of 4,000, and it was upgraded. Moneys from the

assistance program spent in the last two years now enable the air

ambulance — and I think this is particularly important, Mr. Chairman — for the first time in this province to land in Burns Lake and to

[ Page 3175 ]

put

the people that I represent in Burns Lake within an hour of the

magnificent hospital facilities that we enjoy in Vancouver and in other

large points in this province.

The minister mentioned the

Vanderhoof strip this afternoon as well as Burns Lake. There, as well,

we now have a 4,000-foot paved strip, which again enables the air

ambulance for the first-time to land there and to put those people in

need of hospital facilities there within an hour of those found in the

lower mainland of this province. I think that's very important. The

member for Mackenzie can speak against airports if he wishes, Mr.

Chairman, and certainly if he doesn't wish to have any airports

upgraded in his constituency, I'll be only too happy to have all of my

airports upgraded in my constituency. But as well as the Vanderhoof and

Burns Lake strips, we now have an application in from the district of

Houston — my home town — and I want to tell you, those people are very

excited about this program, as are all of my municipal councils. They

look forward to the upgrading of their strip. It is hoped that within

the next year we'll have 4,000 feet of blacktop as well in Houston —

one of the fastest-growing communities in this province. Not only do

they need that strip for the landing of the air ambulance; they also

need it for the great expansion that's going on there.

Fort St. James — again in my constituency — we have upgraded the strip

there to 3,000 feet of blacktop, and that isn't enough. I want to say

that it won't be too soon for me that moneys will be made available

from the Air Transport Assistance Program to increase the length of

that strip to 4,000 feet. So there again the air ambulance will be able

to help that community put those people within an hour's flying time of

places such as the Vancouver General Hospital.

Mr. Chairman,

while I'm on my feet and speaking in favour of this Air Transport

Assistance Program, I would just like to commend the minister as

well.... I've heard comment in this House in the last few days

about all the blacktop and about all the roads that we are improving

and putting down in this province. Well, I want to tell you that as

late as yesterday I attended a very large barbecue in a very rural

community just out of Burns Lake in my constituency where I met many

people, and nobody is happier than the people of this province for the

Social Credit blacktop that is being laid down.

I'd like to

commend the minister on a paving project going on in the vicinity which

I attended yesterday: 38.5 kilometres of new blacktop on the south side

of Francois Lake, an area that hasn't had a foot of blacktop, Mr.

Chairman. It's the first time that they've seen it on that side of the

lake, and I want to tell you that any of those members opposite can go

up into that area, or any area in my constituency, and speak against

blacktop. I'd invite them to do so, Mr. Speaker, particularly if they

do it just before the next election. I'd be very happy to have them.

Before

I sit down again, I'd like to commend the Premier for bringing in the

airport assistance program and this minister for carrying it on. It

meets with the approval of the people I represent. Again I say: if

there are members opposite who do not want those dollars spent in their

constituency, I'll have them all.

MR. PASSARELL: A couple of points back onto the message that the....

MR. KEMPF: He'll speak in favour of airports.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, can you bring the member for Omineca, who just walked into the House, back to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member has taken his place and will remain in order.

MR. PASSARELL:

I wish to get back onto the aspect that the member for Mackenzie was

bringing up concerning airport assistance and the Ministry of

Transportation — of federal and provincial governments' jurisdictions.

The minister spoke of the task force. Has the minister made direct

representation to the task force that the jurisdiction of airports in

the province should remain in federal hands? Have you made that

emphatically to the federal government, Mr. Minister? I see there's no

answer.

Basically what the member for Mackenzie was speaking

about was the weak-kneed approach the government has taken compared to

the approach by many other provincial governments concerning this

aspect of federal-provincial jurisdiction over airports. I'm not

opposed to the local airport development program but opposed to

political concessions that, airport assistance programs can be used

for. An example, Mr. Chairman, is the airport up in Atlin. It is a good

idea, but the political concessions made by the board of trade, using

that example of an airport, because they represent a specific political

party.... It is not in the best interests of rural or northern

residents. If one particular group gets a contract on an airport and

goes around waving the flag that they got it because they belong to a

political party, it is wrong. I was under the belief that the airport

assistance program is to help residents, not political parties. I

certainly hope that the minister would look into that aspect of the

board of trade and its representation in Atlin of the airport

assistance program.

Another one: it was a very good idea to put a runway into Dease Lake. I was

up there two weeks ago, and I hope that the minister's staff is aware of

the hole on the south side of the airport at the end of the runway, the new

construction aspect. The hole is 60 feet deep and something like 300 yards wide.

An engineer from Highways in Dease Lake has said that to complete that construction

project it would cost $1.3 million to fill in that hole. I hope that the minister

can give some clarification on that aspect.

The

air ambulance service is an excellent program, but it'll never replace

first aid or hospital care. It's a tremendous idea to have the air

ambulance service and paved runways, but one of the problems concerned

with the air ambulance service is weather. The minister is quite aware

that in the north and many parts of this province weather determines

how the air ambulance can travel. If there's no primary first-aid

station in a community like Dease Lake, or any other rural community,

and the weather conditions during winter prevail, it's very difficult

for the jet to land to help somebody, to take him back down.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, surely the weather would come under

the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) rather than the Minister

of Transportation and Highways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's

not a point of order, hon. member. Although there's much that we like

to do in estimates, I don't think that's a grant that we could bring

forward.

[ Page 3176 ]

MR. PASSARELL:

I don't know what's happening to that member's snoose. I wonder what

you're mixing into it. You should pay attention in the House.

get back onto the topic, the air ambulance service depends on weather,

and if the weather does not prevail the air ambulance cannot land on a

paved runway. But that's pretty difficult for you to understand, I

guess.

There's a definite need for the Minister of

Transportation and Highways to tell this House today what the position

of the ministry of transport is in regard to the provincial

government's jurisdiction. Are you emphatically saying you're not going

to take over the operation and maintenance of local airports?

Air

safety is not a matter to be dealt with in partisan politics. To have

the province take total jurisdiction is an expense that taxpayers in

this province cannot really bear. The member for Mackenzie read

government material, that two of 14 airports in the province are in the

black and 12 are in the red. That's an expense that is not needed and

cannot be afforded in these times of financial crisis — to take over

those mass amounts of debt by airports if they are taken over by the

provincial government.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) reported to the public that there were shortcomings in the

provincial revenue. The idea of turning airport responsibility over to

local taxpayers is horrendous, to say the least. For example, if you

have a rural area that has an airstrip, certain standards might have to

be attained. If the federal jurisdiction responsibility is taken away,

all the local residents will have to bear the brunt of the cost for

that airport, particularly, as the example continues, onto the Dease

Lake airstrip. Who is going to have to pay that additional money to

fill in the hole at the end of the runway if this plan goes through?

These are costs that many families in the province can't afford,

especially in rural areas.

Stewart has an excellent runway.

I give credit to the minister for putting the paved runway into

Stewart, This is probably the third time I've told him this and I'll

continue to say it. What has happened in Stewart with the paved runway

is a tremendous situation. If the provincial government takes over the

responsibilities of the airport, what of the municipality of Stewart?

They'd have to pick up a tab that the municipality, to a certain

extent, would find themselves strained to pay. Those local taxpayers

will have a punitive tax increase to cover operating costs.

would certainly never want to see some type of local tax placed on the

air ambulance service, if this ever came to local or regional

jurisdiction of airports. They might find it very favourable to find

ways of putting taxes on services for their local airports. One of the

things I would hope would never happen but could is that air ambulance

service could be taxed to help out with the operating costs.

Regulations made for airports like Vancouver could also be made to

include Stewart or Atlin if the provincial government had their wish to

take over the airports. Certain technological equipment would have to

be purchased by the municipality or the regional board for the local

airports. Who is going to pay for it? The local community, the

municipality or the regional district. In many areas of this province

it would be very difficult for local communities to pay for runway

lights or radio frequency equipment. The cost is punitive; the policy

is wrong.

In conclusion, I would certainly hope that the

minister can get up and emphatically state in the House today that the

provincial government is not pursuing a policy to take over the

responsibilities of the federal MoT, putting the brunt of the cost upon

the residents of the local area. The responsibility upon the taxpayers

of this province, if this program was completed.... The

responsibility of air service is not a matter to be used within a

strict partisan, political sense. I would certainly hope that the

minister can clarify some of these positions.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I appreciate the remarks of the member for Atlin. I did say before that

I don't know why the opposition is saying that the province is going to

take over the federal government airports. I think it has been brought

about by the fact that the federal government has a task force going

regarding the administration of their strips in our province. I named

10 or 12 locations where they have federal strips. The province of

British Columbia has definitely given input into this task force, but

never at any time have we said that we would take them over. I think I

can safely say that we don't intend to take them over.

As an

example, if they decided they were going to close Prince George airport

tomorrow.... You are saying now you want a commitment that we won't

take them over, but let's look at the other side. Suppose they decided

that they weren't going to operate Prince George airport as of

tomorrow. What do you think should happen then? Would you let it be

closed down? Of course, then I think the province has a responsibility.

We are not looking for that responsibility and we're not inviting it.

What

the federal task force is looking for is to bring the administration

closer to the action, as I understand it. By that I mean that rather

than orders coming out of Ottawa, they will have a local airport

authority. That is what they are looking into. We don't see anything

too wrong with that, as long as they don't delegate any of the

financial burden. We have said that in writing to the task force that

Getting

down to specifics, Atlin is another area I didn't mention. We are

trying to develop an airstrip there to upgrade their transportation

facilities for their citizens. What we have done so far, as far as I

know, is give the Atlin board a $100,000 study allowance. I believe the

Atlin board of trade had an advance on that of some $10,000. The reason

we dealt with the Atlin board of trade.... I don't even know who

the members are. We didn't deal with them on a political basis. They're

the only organization in the community that we could deal with locally,

as far as I'm aware. That's why we're dealing with them. We haven't

gotten very far. The study and the principle of $100,000 has been

approved; there's been an advance of $10,000. At Atlin we're not

anywhere near any construction or anything like that. I'm sorry to say

that. I'd like to see it a little further ahead than that, but that's

my information.

Regarding the Dease Lake airstrip and the

big hole there, I haven't heard of that one. Last October I was there

myself at the Dease Lake proposed strip. As I said earlier, we're

working there at the present time — or should be. The Highways people

are supervising the construction. I only hope that what the member says

does not turn out. I believe that this year we're planning the

expenditure of half a million dollars on upgrading, but we realize that

won't be the full job. It will probably go into 1981 before we get it

fully upgraded. The intention for 1980 is to spend half a million

[ Page

3177 ]

dollars,

but whether or not that fills the hole, I don't know. We've had

problems there: we even had to relocate our own road to Telegraph Creek

to get the strip fitted in. I believe that is what's going on at the

present time — the relocation of the Telegraph Creek road.

just got a note regarding the hole the member is concerned about. The

hole is in fact at the side of the strip. It was cleared so that the

area can be used to dump surplus material which will be stripped off

the runway during construction. They have cleared the area of the hole,

which is a natural area. They want to use the hole for putting fill in

that they'll be taking off the strip. That's a note from the engineers.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.)

Dealing

with the air ambulance: yes, this will bring the air ambulance back to

a lot of communities, when they are fully upgraded. A lot of them will

only be able to go in in the daytime, until we get further facilities.

But at least it's a step along the road. The member for Atlin mentioned

that this would put a financial burden on the municipalities. I hope

not — that's not the intent, as we envision it. We haven't had too much

experience yet. Once we have the capital improvements done, they will

charge a user fee; that's where they'll get their revenue from.

Therefore, hopefully, there will be no subsidization from the municipal

or regional tax base. As I said earlier, the province allots a

contribution to the capital. But we will be getting out when the

improvements are done, and then the regional district and/or the

municipality will be the operator. They intend to get their revenue

from a user fee — which is done in other places. I understand they make

money in some places. Most of the municipalities I've talked to say

that they cannot see a problem in getting enough user fees to look

after the operation, the maintenance and so on of the airstrip. Along

with that, hopefully they will make a little profit in the selling of

fuel to the aircraft involved.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr.

Chairman, I'm pleased to be able to take

part in this debate, after

waiting my turn quite patiently, having to leave for Vancouver fairly

soon to have a good socialist meal on the B.C. Ferries, in the buffet.

AN HON. MEMBER: No beer!

MR. MACDONALD:

Don't you start knocking a good socialist meal! There'll be a fine

class of people on the B.C. Ferries; there will be a lot of them from

out of the province, I know, but there'll also be some of our B.C.

citizens enjoying the fresh air and not having to submerse themselves

in that tunnel that the minister.... Why doesn't the Minister of

Highways speak up? Let the people who come to and from the Island enjoy

the fresh air and the scenery and the salt air. It's beautiful at this

time. Why don't you take the Meccano set away from that other minister

of technology before some serious harm is done to this province?

I've talked to the minister privately. I'm speaking on behalf of myself

and my colleague, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), about what

is a very serious problem in a riding which has gotten very little through the

years from that Highways budget. It's peanuts compared to what's spent

in the Cariboo and other parts of the province. It's understandable in a

sense. But when we have a real problem, we need real resources put into the

solution of it. I'm talking in particular about the representations made

to the minister by a very able group of conscientious citizens, the Hastings

Sunrise Citizens Planning Committee, under the chairmanship of lan Mass. They're

meeting every week, and it ~s a real community endeavour to try to save the

northeast quadrant of the city from the destruction of the neighbourhood that

is taking place there and to be of assistance to the ministry. We have, coming

through that little area, 10,000 to 14,000 vehicle movements per day along

Cassier, spinning off into the side streets because of the frustration of trying

to get through and trying to get between the 401 and the Second Narrows Bridge

or some other point in the downtown waterfront or downtown into the city of

Vancouver.

The

minister is now concerned with that traffic bottleneck, and that's

fine, but as I gather from his letters, he's not listening to the pleas

of this group that you try to provide a solution to the traffic problem

that will not destroy more neighbourhood space — it's a residential

area — and not lead to the destruction of homes. While we can't

complain of your messengers, Mr. Minister, you have Mike O'Connor,

highway engineer, and your property negotiator, Lionel Mercier, and

they are speaking with the local people. We appreciate that, but the

message that's coming back is blurred and out of focus, and while I'm

speaking there may be another house on the west side of Cassiar Street

bought up by the Highways department, boarded up and about to be torn

down.

There should be a real search for alternatives to just

another freeway

section through that neighbourhood area. One might be a

tunnel. Okay, it's expensive, but so is this proposed Annacis Island

bridge, which is going to debouch thousands and thousands of extra cars

per day going into Burnaby and southeast Vancouver and down Boundary

Road, which has already been a problem for the residents in that area,

and help to make Vancouver East and Vancouver South, for that matter, a

dumping ground for the heavy truck traffic and the vehicular traffic

that is coming into the main centre of population.

So a real

solution with some real resources in terms of bucks behind it is called

for. The very least, it seems to me, that should be explored in terms

of alternatives is a submerged or sunken arterial link between 401 and

the Second Narrows Bridge with a cover, so that you don't have the

noise, exhaust, pollution and the traffic coming through there and

spinning off into the side streets of what should be a regular

residential neighbourhood, which is being destroyed. There are

alternatives. The minister ought to, before he goes ahead with just

another road — just another widening of Boundary Road, just another

freeway right through a city

section — have some regard for the local

residents and try to preserve the kind of family life and stability of

a residential area.

So what I'm asking the minister to do is

stop what he's up to now, which is to be going blindly ahead with the

ordinary traditional highway solution: widen the road and put more cars

on it. Then when that gets to be too much congestion Parkinson's Law

applies — the more you build the roads the more traffic comes onto them

and then you have to build more. I think an imaginative solution is

called for. I would ask the minister to employ some outside consultants

over a period of two or three months — if only that — to look at an

alternative that will preserve neighbourhood values and at the same

time handle this kind of traffic flow.

I know the minister

is not in charge of light rapid transit. I wish he was and that instead

of spending some of that highway budget on some of these white

elephants that, as I

[ Page 3178 ]

say,

are going to just increase the congestion problems in the long run, he

would be able to devote some of those big resources that he has at his

disposal to move people by rail and all the other modern means whereby

people can be moved with convenience and without pollution or the

congestion which is really jamming up and destroying the cities. What

I'm asking him now is if he'll give attention to it, stop the buying up

of houses — every day or two we lose another one — consider an

imaginative solution and be willing to pour some real bucks into the

solution of this problem on Cassiar.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I'm really pleased to hear from the hon. member for Vancouver East on

highway matters. He's brought up quite a major problem in the highway

system in the city of Vancouver and his riding, specifically the

Hastings-Cassiar corridor, as we call it, which goes from the end of

the freeway, where it never should have ended when it was built, to the

Second Narrows Bridge. I believe it was in the fall of 1979 — I'm not

sure — that the city of Vancouver approached my office and wanted to

know what we were going to do about it. I went and told them that we

would upgrade that corner at an estimated cost of approximately S25

million. We had a lot of work to do. The first thing was to get out and

get property lines and that. We wrote letters to all the citizens in

the area telling them that there would be Highways personnel around

looking for legal survey pins and so on. We also had communication with

the Hastings organization. At that point the city of Vancouver was very

happy that something was going to be done about it. For the information

of the House, the comer of Hastings and Cassiar is the most congested

traffic area in the province of British Columbia and probably in

western Canada. But how to relieve it....

Our engineers

want to build a depressed grade and widen out the area so we can move

the volumes of traffic in a more efficient manner.

This is

always our major problem in these modern days — the acquisition of the

right-of-way, as we call it, to build on. In that corridor, as you

know, things are fairly tight and we have to acquire property and

housing and so on. I'm not too sure how many houses have already been

acquired by the city of Vancouver for this project over the years. We

had been acquiring houses without using any of our expropriating

powers. I get the message from you that maybe you think we should stop

this. I might say that our current policy is that where we know that it

will be on a right-of-way, we are acquiring from people who want to

sell. We have an office there where the citizens go and discuss things.

Where

it's at at the present time.... Our engineers drew up the rough

design of the job. The people on the Hastings-Cassiar corridor use

quite a.... You know, they gave us their views and they want a

tunnel. At least they want us to look at a tunnel concept. That's fine.

Our engineers have looked at a tunnel concept. Regarding the social

upheaval, they advise me that going the tunnel way will require more

homes to be acquired than going the depressed construction way.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I'm not talking about a tunnel to Vancouver Island, Mr. Chairman. I'm

talking about a tunnel as an artery to connect the freeway with the

Second Narrows Bridge. You say: "Why is that?" I asked the same

question.

The reason for it is that the access at either end

of the tunnel would require a lot broader area, and that in turn

requires more housing and more property to be acquired.

Furthermore,

there are a lot of operational problems regarding tunnels. You can tell

my colleague that. Suppose a tunnel was built. Highways has the

experience of operating the Massey Tunnel. You, Mr. Chairman,, will

know about that. They are not simple items to maintain or operate. They

need constant maintenance, and we're talking from experience.

In any event, the people at Hastings-Sunrise.... Is that the...?

MR. MACDONALD: Hastings Sunrise community planning.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Yes. They have been dealing with their city council, and rightly so,

and to some degree our ministry. Where we are at now, the mayor of

Vancouver contacted me some two weeks ago by telephone and he is really

asking for the same thing you just asked for, and that is another look

at it by an independent group of consulting engineers. Much to my

amazement, although I haven't got it in writing, he said: "We're even

prepared to pay for part of the costs. " That's the city of Vancouver.

I said sure. At first I thought that we had the answer, but we'll

gladly take a second look at it. At the present time the mayor of

Vancouver is trying to get an appointment with me to discuss it. While

there are no commitments made one way or another, it appears that if

they want a further study, I guess that's what we'll do.

I'd

like the committee to consider that as time goes on we have this

weeping of traffic in residential areas. In my opinion it'll only get

worse until we have a permanent solution. We certainly want to look at

all the options, and we're prepared to. Speaking for the government,

we'd like to get on with the project, but we'll take another look at

it. I don't know how long that study will take or what type it will be,

but our senior people intend to meet with the mayor as soon as we can

find an appointment time. Being more specific, I certainly think we can

see the mayor on the subject before the end of July. So that's the

current situation on that, Mr. Member.

MRS. DAILLY:

I want to respond very briefly and ask one question of the minister. As

the minister is aware, the people of Burnaby North, in that area I

represent, are affected by this problem, and very seriously too. I

think I speak for my colleague for Vancouver East when I express my

appreciation to the minister for responding to us very clearly today. I

think most people will be gratified to know that you're willing to hold

back any immediate plans, to take a second look and perhaps go for an

independent survey. We all know that it is a very difficult situation

to solve, and the longer we wait the worse it will become, as the

minister says. I know Burnaby North too will be pleased that the

minister is willing to take a second look at it.

You have

been in contact, from what you said, with the mayor of Vancouver. As it

does affect Burnaby, I was wondering if at the same time you will be

making the same contact and communication with the officials of Burnaby.

MS. BROWN:

Since we're on the topic of Burnaby, I'd like to ask the minister a

couple of questions about some plans to destroy another neighbourhood

in Burnaby. Specifi-

[ Page

3179 ]

cally I'm referring to the Newcombe-Stormont-McBride connector. I'm

going to ask the minister approximately six questions, and then I want

to make some comments before I get his answer.

Firstly, what

specific plans have been evolved for that connector, if any? Secondly,

will the plans follow the conceptual plan which was put forward by the

transportation committee of Burnaby? That is, if the decision is to go

ahead with the connector, will it be cut-and-cover, or is the

government going to insist on doing it at surface level? Are we going

to have six lanes running through the centre of another neighbourhood

in Burnaby? Have any funds been committed to develop the connector yet?

Have any funds been earmarked, put aside and actually committed to the

development of the connector? Have any funds been committed to

connecting Marine Way to the connector; getting from Marine Way up to

either McBride or straight through to Newcombe and onto Stormont that

way?

In his response earlier the minister indicated — I think

we were debating the transportation bill — that research was being done

on the Pattullo with a view to putting LRT on the Pattullo Bridge. If

that is done, will it still be necessary to go ahead with this

Newcombe-Stormont-McBride connector; or has the minister, based on a

decision to go through with the LRT, found that it's no longer

necessary to proceed with this?

My final question on this

particular area is: recognizing that the primary concern is with the

moving of goods rather than the moving of people, has the minister

looked at the alternative concept of a ring road rather than the idea

of running trucks and heavy vehicles right through the centre of the

neighbourhood?

I have a couple of comments while the

minister is preparing a response to those questions. I remind him that

the draft transportation policy of Burnaby, in its very first

resolution presented to the government, stressed that liveability and

the general environment of residential neighbourhoods was the priority.

It's not going to be possible to realize this priority if a six-lane

highway is run straight through a neighbourhood that affects somewhere

between 11,000 and 12,000 people. That's what we're talking about.

We're not discussing just the people living right on Newcombe itself

but the people who are going to be affected by what the minister refers

to as traffic "weeping" through the neighbourhood as a result of

trying to get on or off the connector. Of course, if it's cut-and-cover

that's quite different; you just have one access or two very defined

ones. If it is a six-lane highway running straight up Newcombe and

straight through these residential neighbourhoods, what we end up with

is schools on one side of a six-lane freeway that students have to

cross in order to get to them. We have churches, community centres,

parks being absolutely destroyed as a result of a six-lane freeway

going straight through the centre, to say nothing of the smoke and the

noise and the fumes and the general pollution that the people bordering

right on that connector will have to deal with. There is very, very

strong opposition to that.

There is also opposition to a

statement which had to do with the whole business of dealing fairly

with the property values which would be affected. I wonder whether the

ministry has taken into account direct or indirect effect in terms of

property values — depriving the residents of recreational facilities

because Burnaby Park will be on one side and they will be living on the

other, and jeopardizing the lives of children going to elementary,

junior and senior secondary schools — as a result of this six-lane

freeway going straight through the centre of what is now a homogeneous

residential area. It is now a community, a neighbourhood. This

connector is going to do absolutely nothing but destroy that and start

compartmentalizing the area into little boxes. The residents won't be

able to get in and they won't be able to get out, certainly not safely

the way they can now.

The members of the East Burnaby

committee have been in contact with the minister, and the minister has

very kindly responded and expressed a willingness to meet with them.

They are hoping that before any final decision is made this meeting

will take place. They are aiming for an end of July meeting and I

understand that telephone contact with the minister's office indicated

that September and October would be a more reasonable time for a

meeting. In view of the fact that the opposition is moving as quickly

as it possibly can to discuss the business of the House, maybe the

minister will find it within his power to meet with them by the end of

July — certainly before any decision is made.

Take into

account, Mr. Minister, that we are dealing with an area that is not

just Newcombe. We are talking about 19th Avenue to Cumberland and

Edmonds to 10th. It is a very large area, as I said before, which

affects somewhere between 11,000 and 12,000 people. Also take into

account that the opposition to this connector is not new, but has been

around a very long time. One of the members of the committee tells me

that he can remember, as a young man, the fear expressed about what

would happen when the decision was eventually made to push Newcombe

through and hitch it onto the freeway. He thinks that was probably

somewhere around 1930, or around 1927, 1928, 1929. This has been going

on for a long time, and we really would appreciate some straight

answers from the minister in terms of what the plans are. We hope that

the minister will take two things into account. One is that there has

to be some kind of consultation, not just with the municipal government

but also with the residents of that area, the people who live in that

neighbourhood, who live in that community. If it is possible to have a

meeting with the committee, which has a membership, incidentally, of

nearly 700 paid-up members, sometime before the end of July, they would

appreciate that.

While I am on my feet, I would just like to

ask the minister a couple of other questions. What is the future of

that great superhighway known as Kingsway? Is it going to continue to

become so congested and so cluttered that it is not going to be usable

to anyone, or does the minister have some plan for Kingsway?

the new Marine Way which is well on its way, have any final decisions

been made as to how many exits are going to be coming off it into the

East Burnaby area? Can you give me some idea of the location of those

exits? Also, what about Highway 1? Are there any plans for further

upgrading, any additional lanes? Are there any plans to widen the

Lougheed? We keep hearing about the possibility of an extra lane on the

Lougheed. Have any decisions been made about that yet?

The

major feeling of the residents of Burnaby-Edmonds is that they would

like to see the existing roadway system upgraded and improved before

any decision is made about introducing any new system like the

Stormont-Newcombe-McBride connector. Before doing anything about that,

they would prefer to see things like access to Highway 1 improved, and

Kingsway and the roads that are there now. It would also help if we

could have some better public transportation in the municipality as

well, because it is continuing

[ Page 3180 ]

deteriorate. All of that should be done before any decision is made

about the Stormont connector. Even before that happens, you should have

a meeting with the members of the East Burnaby Ratepayers Association,

as you have agreed to do.

Finally, seriously look at the

alternative of a ring road around the municipality, rather than

continually using the idea that the shortest distance between two

points is a straight line. It may be the shortest distance, but it

could also be the most destructive in terms of neighbourhoods,

residential areas and communities where people have to live. Sometimes

it is going to cost a bit more. Residents of Burnaby recognize that it

is going to cost maybe $7 million or $8 million more to cut and cover

it, if the connector goes through, than if you go with a straight,

above-ground freeway. A government that can afford to put millions of

dollars into a playing field for little men to run around in and kick a

pigskin surely to goodness can pay some kind of attention to the

quality of life of people living in their homes in their particular

neighbourhoods.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, in a

quick response to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), we

certainly will have the municipality of Burnaby involved in the

discussions regarding Hastings-Cassiar, because they are affected. I

thank her for bringing that to my attention.

To the member

for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), I will try to answer some of your

questions. Stormont-McBride — this three-kilometre graded street

connection from the Trans-Canada to the Cariboo Road interchange to

McBride Avenue at 10th Avenue in New Westminster — is an element in

Burnaby's major street network. Considerable design work has been done.

Current suggestions from Burnaby and local citizens to lower the grade

for about one kilometre of the route are not cost effective. I have

invited the ratepayer group representatives for discussion; I think you

referred to that. That is where that stands. We are in the design stage

of it, but there has been no authorization to proceed with construction

or anything like that.

You also asked whether we have

discussed this with the Burnaby transportation committee. The answer is

yes. Have any funds been committed to connect Marine Way to Stormont?

The answer is no. Have any funds been committed to Stormont-Newcombe?

The answer is no. You also asked about Kingsway. We have no plans for

Kingsway at the present time. You asked about Marine Way exits to East

Burnaby. Details are being worked out now with Burnaby and New

Westminster. I don't know whether that answers all your questions.

Maybe

the member would repeat one question I didn't get, because it is

important to me. I did say under one of the bills that we were

considering the feasibility of installing LRT on the Pattullo Bridge.

That study is still going on, but we expect to have an answer soon. I

didn't make a full note of your question; perhaps you wouldn't mind

bringing that up again.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, very

quickly, I just wondered, if we had the LRT route coming off the

Pattullo Bridge, whether there would still be that great need to have

the Newcombe-Stormont connector go through. The first response which

the minister gave, simply saying that it is not cost effective — that

is precisely the issue that I am asking the minister to look at. We

recognize that it is more expensive to cut and cover than it is to just

do a straight surface freeway, but in the long run, not just in terms

of the quality of life of people, it could in fact be more expensive,

because a six-lane freeway going through the centre of a neighbourhood

puts your elementary schools on one side and the students using it on

the other side. You end up running straight through a park, preventing

half of the neighbourhood from having access to that park. We're

talking about disturbing churches and the congregations that use them.

In terms of balancing books, certainly what happens to the 11,000

people, who are now living in a homogeneous neighbourhood and using all

of its facilities and resources, has to be taken into account. We're

not discussing the $30 million or $40 million which is going to be

spent to build a sports arena or a trade centre. The difference would

probably be in the vicinity of $7 million or $8 million or $9 million.

That is a lot of money; there isn't any question about it.

terms of what is going to happen to the lives of the people living in

that area with those big trucks going by — the smoke and the stench and

the noise and the filth — and the fact that you can't get from one side

to the other.... You have a six-lane freeway running down the

centre of your neighbourhood. It's not enough just to say that it's not

cost effective. It is going to cost more to put it under ground and to

cover it; the people know that. What they're suggesting is that the

minister seriously look at the long-term impact on the neighbourhood of

having that six-lane freeway running through the centre of a

neighbourhood. Probably the minister will find that in the long term it

is cheaper to preserve that neighbourhood and the quality of life of

those 11,000 to 12,000 people living there now than to simply say it's

not cost effective and throw a six-lane freeway right down the centre

of their neighbourhood. That is precisely the point I'm trying to bring

to the minister's attention on behalf of that small and very old

community.

As I pointed out to the minister, the battle

against this connector is not a new one. From the very time that

Newcombe Street was put in and not completed, fear was expressed about

what would happen to that area once the street was put through. If the

decision has not yet been completely made — even if plans have been

drawn up — please stop and sit down and speak to the people living in

that area, not to the transportation committee of council or council

itself. Speak to the people who are going to be affected by that

decision before going any further or assigning any money to the

development of that. This road is not to move people, it's to move

trucks, heavy equipment and that kind of thing. It's a commerce route

that's going to be running straight down the middle of an old and very

homogeneous residential area. It is absolutely callous to make the

comment about it not being cost effective and to discard what this

decision is going to do to the quality of life of the people living

there.

The minister raised another issue; I'm sorry I can't

remember what it was. I feel very strongly about the decision affecting

the Newcombe-Stormont-McBride connector. I believe that the minister

should take a second look at it at this time.

MS. SANFORD: I don't know whether the minister wishes to respond at this stage; if not, I certainly will continue.

Mr.

Chairman, I have a number of issues I wish to raise with this minister

as they relate to my own constituency. There is one that I want to

raise very early, because I think the

[ Page 3181 ]

minister

should be aware of what is happening within his ministry and within his

public information services department of that ministry.

Within

the constituency of Comox there is a very dangerous corner. I'm very

pleased that that Ministry of Highways has recognized that corner and

has put up all those special lights. It's a corner on the Island

Highway which crosses the E&N Railway tracks at Shaws Hill. It has

claimed so many lives over the years that the ministry finally, this

year, put in special lights which flash continuously to alert people

who are not used to the Island Highway that they must exert particular

caution as they approach that corner. In order to get a realignment of

the road along the E&N Railway, it is necessary for the Ministry of

Highways to apply to the federal government through the transport

commission in order to get permission to realign the road across the

railway tracks. We have finally received the approval of the Canadian

Transport Commission to realign the road. This has been an exciting

piece of news for people in the area who have been working for a long,

long time in order to ensure that that dangerous corner was eliminated.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

When

I notified the press in the Parksville area that in fact permission had

been granted by the Transport Committee, the reporter immediately got

on the phone to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways in order to

determine when work would start on realigning that particular road. Let

me tell you the answer the reporter received from the public

information officer in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. I

hope I have the minister's attention in this, because I think it is an

important issue. The reporter, when he called the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways last week, spoke to an information officer

and said: "I understand that permission has now been granted to realign

the Island Highway at Shaws Hill corner. When will the work begin?" Let

me quote the answer that was given by the information officer to the

reporter from the Parksville paper: "Oh, they won't be able to proceed

with any work until the estimates are approved." This sort of

information that goes back to reporters in my constituency annoys me,

because it is coming not only from the Ministry of Transportation and

Highways but from one department after another. I expect that it is

probably the Premier who is asking all the ministers to give out that

information. After all, the Premier knows that the government is in

trouble. They have to utilize every possible dirty trick in order to

try to convince the public that it is in fact the opposition that is

holding up the expenditure of funds for important projects such as this

one in Parksville.

Surely the Minister of Highways is going

to stand up today and say that he is very embarrassed about this, that

there is no way he would advise his public information officer to give

out that kind of information and that it must be the Premier who has

given out this kind of information to all the people who are answering

questions of reporters throughout the province. Why else is it

happening? Why is it coming out of one ministry after another? I think

it comes right from the Premier, and the Premier...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MS. SANFORD:

Well, this is the Ministry of Highways. It is the public information

officer out of that ministry that is giving this information and it

applies to other ministries, so I have to assume that it is coming

directly from the Premier. I think it is just an example of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are discussing specifically the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD:

I hope that the Minister of Transportation and Highways will not stand

for this kind of dirty tricks out of his ministry and that he will get

up and say he is putting an end to it today.

The other

aspect of this is that the information officer also indicated to the

reporter that he is not sure, even once the estimates are passed.

whether or not money will be allocated for that particular dangerous

corner. When so many lives have been lost there, and when the ministry

has recognized the seriousness of the problem by putting in these

special flashing lights, I hope the minister will indicate to us today

that money will in fact be allocated immediately for the Shaws Hill

corner.

The minister has indicated previously, through

correspondence, that work would begin as soon as possible after

permission had been received from the transport committee in order to

go ahead with that realignment.

The second issue I would

like to raise with the minister relates to a problem that has been

longstanding in the constituency relating to ferry transportation

between just north of Parksville and Lasqueti Island. That ferry is one

of the rare ferries in the province, in that the owner is a private

person; it is not part of the ferry fleet as such. The Ministry of

Transportation and Highways pays a fee in order to have a private owner

operate a ferry service between Vancouver Island and Lasqueti Island. A

lot of discussion took place a short time ago in order to have a new

ferry put onto the service between Parksville and Lasqueti Island. The

islanders were quite satisfied with the arrangements that had been

worked out, because they were also told that the owner of that ferry

was going to build a new and larger ferry, which would accommodate the

needs of the people of Lasqueti Island. Now it turns out — and they

have just been informed of this — that the person who won the contract

has no intention whatsoever of going through with the commitment that

he made to the people of Lasqueti Island. He's going to take the

present ferry off for a period of six weeks and then he's going to

replace it with two water taxis, which will not accommodate the various

freight needs of the people on the island.

I think the

minister knows that it's not a car ferry, and the people of Lasqueti

Island are not asking for that much — they don't want a car ferry. They

just want a basic service once or twice a day. In fact, they were

satisfied to have a couple of days without any service at all. But they

understood that the new owner of that vessel — the one who received the

contract from the Ministry of Highways — was going to build a bigger

vessel and accommodate the freight and passenger needs of Lasqueti

Island, and he backed off.

The people of Lasqueti are not

happy with this situation. They were given the distinct impression that

the new owner was going to build a vessel, beginning in July, and then

in July they were told: "No, he's not going to build a vessel after

all." As a result, the people on Lasqueti Island are not going to be

able to get their freight over and they're going to be under the same

sort of conditions that they had before.

Mr. Chairman, I should let the minister know that, yes,

[ Page 3182 ]

I'm

going to speak about the bypass. I know that it was only a few weeks

ago that I raised this issue, and the minister at that time complained

that I was asking for too much for the constituency of Comox. He

complained that I was always on my feet yelling and screaming for more

money to be spent through the Ministry of Highways within my

constituency. I can assure him that, yes, I'm going to continue to do

that, and that's why I wanted to warn him that I'm going to raise this

issue again today.

Mr. Chairman, within the last few minutes

or so the minister was talking about the congestion in the Vancouver

area. He was also quoted, I read in the paper one day — as saying that

Nanaimo was one of the most heavily congested areas in the province. I

think that he forgot Courtenay, because he knows the problem that the

people in the Courtenay area are facing at this stage. They need the

construction of a bridge, and I don't understand why the minister has

not yet called for tenders for that particular bridge. They also need a

bypass. The minister knows that one of the most congested roads in the

province is between Courtenay and Campbell River. He's mentioned that

himself in this Legislature; he knows it well.

I would like

to know (

a) when construction is going to start on the bypass — and I

hope the minister writes this down, because I would like to get an

answer to that; the people in the Courtenay area are very keen to know;

and (

b) when tenders are going to be awarded for the bridge in

Courtenay. Mr. Chairman, the 1981 Summer Games have been awarded to

Courtenay. The Ministry of Highways initially indicated that a second

bridge in Courtenay would be ready and available in time for the Summer

Games in 1981. I would like assurance from the minister today that the

ministry officials who have been making those statements are in fact

accurate.

It's not very long ago that the minister said,

when we were debating a special bill in this House which allotted a

whole lot of money to the Minister of Highways, that part of that money

was going to be to construct one of the footings on that bridge. Since

that money has been allocated, I'm wondering why tenders have not been

called for that bridge. What's he waiting for? We read in the local

papers up there that tenders were going to be called last January. They

still haven't been called and the congestion in that area is among the

worst in the province, and I think the minister knows it.

I would like the minister to answer some of those questions. I do have some more issues that I wish to raise.

HON. MR. FRASER:

To the member for Comox, I'll try to go from back to front here with

the questions. First of all, I'll deal with the bypass and the bridge,

specifically the bridge. I'd like to deal with that. The funds for that

were in Bill 5, and that has just been given royal assent. The member

is aware of that. I think it was just prior to June 30.

The

other thing that really didn't matter.... We had not had approval

from federal Fisheries. We got the approval on that on