1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd 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)

THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1986

Morning Sitting

[ Page

8553 ]

CONTENTS

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1986 (Bill 36). Hon. Mr. Smith.

Introduction and first reading –– 8553

Law Reform Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 34). Hon. Mr. Smith.

Introduction and first reading –– 8553

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. A. Fraser)

On vote 72: minister's office –– 8553

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Michael

Mrs. Dailly

THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1986

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1986

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

a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1986.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the miscellaneous

bills, a grab-bag bill that we introduce in the session each year, and

in this case we have a number of amendments that include amendments to

the Architects Act which will increase their powers of discipline and

will allow them to deal with their own rights to recover and proceed

against people who violate their act. There are changes to the

Chiropractors Act which allow greater rule-making powers for that body

as well and allow a new procedure for penalties. There are some changes

to the interim education finance act dealing with adjustments in grants

of taxation on non-residential land. There are some reforms to the

Estate Administration Act and the Land Title Act. There is also the

matter in this bill dealing with the filing of powers of attorney in

the land title office which was raised by the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose). There will be some changes to the Offence

Act and the Optometrists Act as well, which will allow different

rule-making powers by that body. The private investigators security act

is also being changed so that the definition of a locksmith will now

ensure that persons who practise that business are licensed under the

act.

MR. LAUK: Our new firm.

HON. MR. SMITH: Lauk-Smith. Well, you may run too.

There will be a change also to the Provincial Court Act to meet the

requirements of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that the

Legislature will be the body that sets judicial salaries, with a

committee of laymen to recommend on a statutory basis regularly to the

Legislative Assembly, That, I think, will meet the spirit of the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and will remove any argument that these

are being fixed by the chief law enforcement officer of the Crown;

which was an old provision and one that I did not like.

Mr. Speaker, I move first reading.

Bill 36, 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.

LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

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

a bill intituled Law Reform Amendment Act, 1986.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, these are the annual legislative changes recommended by the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia.

One of the changes in this very short bill will update the law of

guardianship, so that the authority of a guardian of a child's person

will parallel that of a parent, and the authority of guardian of a

child's estate will be the same as that of a trustee.

There will also be a recommendation in here to provide for changes

in the law of commercial contracts. The current law provides that where

an obligation of a contractor is disputed during a contract, he may be

forced to either abandon the entire contract and sue, or perform the

matter in dispute without compensation. That will be changed so that a

contractor will now be able to carry out the work without losing his

right to make a claim and be awarded compensation. That will correct a

decision in a 1960s case entitled Peter Kiewitsons.

The bill will also amend the Power of Attorney Act regarding

statutory authority for the form and content of a general short form of

power of attorney.

That very attractive electoral package is the one that I commend to you as I move first reading of the bill.

Bill 34 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.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 72: minister's office, $226,849

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The short period we had last night as we

started debate of the spending estimates of the Minister of

Transportation and Highways was a relatively parochial type of debate,

basically to eat up the clock because we didn't want to start on some

of the more serious issues that we're going to presumably debate this

morning. I'd like to start this morning's proceedings with an overview

of the activities of that ministry, and I think I can start by

suggesting to the minister — and I look forward to his reply to some of

the items that I'm about to bring to the attention of the House.... We

have done our research, and we have done quite a comprehensive study of

ministry activities over the past several years.

One of the things that has become quite obvious.... Pardon me, Mr.

Chairman, we have other people, but the minister will introduce them.

Welcome to the House, gentlemen — assistants to the minister.

One of the things that has become very apparent to all of us on this

side of the House, and I am sure to many members of the Social Credit

caucus, is that this province over the past ten years has, in fact, not

developed a comprehensive transportation plan. I think transportation

strategies need to be developed in British Columbia — an overall

strategy in terms of transportation of every kind. In my view, that

simply has not been done. I think that local and regional governments

[ Page

8554 ]

should have the primary input into such a

transportation strategy, to develop an integrated plan along with the

Ministry of Highways and other modes of transportation.

[10:15]

The government and the ministry yesterday made the statement that

the NDP had accused the government of being a blacktop government, and

in fact that is correct. I think that is entirely correct. I think for

political purposes moneys have been spent in a manner over the years

which is not consistent and in the best interests of all the people in

all the regions of British Columbia.

I have a document here that documents every riding in the province,

going back to 1976, and how much money was spent by that ministry every

year from 1976 to 1985, the last year that we have figures for. I am

not going to go through this document riding by riding, area by area.

We could spend the rest of the morning here if we did that, and it

wouldn't prove that much. So I will start with 1984-85, which is our

current and the last year that we have figures for.

It is quite shocking when you read the bottom-line figures. You will

find, for example, that the average spent in total over that one-year

period, 1984-85, on highways, in one form or another, was $157,168,476,

whereas for that same period of time the total spent in Social Credit

ridings was $571,486,605. That's a vast, vast difference when you

consider the distribution of seats in the House and how the money was

spent. On an average, approximately $8 million was spent per NDP riding

over that 10-year period of time, and an average of $13-plus million

was spent over that same period of time in Social Credit ridings.

But here are some other figures that may astound you. Over that same

period of time, $312 million has been spent in the Cariboo riding. That

happens to be the riding the minister represents; $312 million in that

one riding alone. The average spent per riding throughout the whole

province amounts to $83 million. That's quite a disparity there, Mr.

Chairman, you have to admit.

Now we could say a lot of things about these figures —

porkbarrelling, politicking, vote gathering. Cow trails turned into

two-lane highways in some areas of the Cariboo riding, and the list

goes on and on. I'm not accusing the minister of any wrongdoing, maybe

a little bit of porkbarrelling, but the fact is....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, is that not a parliamentary term? I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. It's an unparliamentary reference to another hon. member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh. Well, I said I was not accusing him of

porkbarrelling. It's not that I was accusing him of porkbarrelling; I

am not accusing him.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, the figures do speak for themselves.

So I'm suggesting to this House and to the minister that highway funding,

in my view, should be spent on an equitable basis throughout the whole province,

not only in terms of what would be fair, but when you spend money in some of

these communities on highway reconstruction, improvements or new construction

and you hire local contractors and put local people to work, it greatly aids

the employment situation, in this province. The Coquihalla project, which I'm

going to get to here in a few minutes, is the type of project where in the short

term at least.... I have your figures, Mr. Minister, about the number of man-hours

created and so on. We can argue about that for a while too, if you wish, but

we'll get to that in a short while.

I'll just use my riding as an example, although from this list I

could pick out any riding to support my argument. In my riding over the

'84-85 fiscal year $7,501,980 was spent. In Cariboo riding over that

same period of time $19,519,641 was spent. So what I'm telling this

House is that there seems to be a very undue discrepancy between some

of these Social Credit ridings and New Democratic Party ridings. I know

this is a two-edged sword, but the fact is.... I'm pledging to the

people of this province right now that when the people elect a New

Democratic government — and hopefully that will be soon — there will be

equal distribution and fairness in the way these funds are allocated

throughout the province.

As I said, I won't bother reading this whole list. The minister may

have a copy of this if he wishes. I have no objection to that. These

figures have been well researched, but I'm sure the minister is very

familiar with these figures in any event.

I want to turn my attention now, Mr. Chairman, to the matter of the

Coquihalla Highway. The minister mentioned this project yesterday in

his opening statement. We have some very real concerns over that

project. I wish to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that this party, this

caucus, has never opposed the construction of that highway. I’m just

going from memory here, but I think it was in 1962 that the then member

for Yale-Lillooet, who was an NDP member, called for the construction

of that highway. We called for the construction of that highway as

early as 1962. I know that in 1974 or '75 — somewhere in that

time-frame — our NDP government was seriously looking at and

considering construction of the highway.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's true. At that time.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We'll get to the Annacis bridge, my friend.

Anyway, the point I'm attempting to make here, Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's okay. Let them laugh. Let them go. You sound like a bunch of jackals to me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This is no time for levity. The member is on a serious matter.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's right.

What I'm telling you is that our party has never opposed the

construction of that highway. You must remember that the Premier of

this province in 1977 announced the construction

[ Page

8555 ]

of that highway. That was a Social Credit Premier,

Mr. Chairman. He announced the construction of the highway, but of

course it didn't proceed. Then I believe in 1982 the Minister of

Transportation or the Premier once again announced the construction of

that highway, constructed some 18 kilometres and quit. I think the

reason cited was restraint. So when the recession got worse under the

Social Credit government, why did the government in 1984 decide to

proceed with that highway — when education was suffering, health

budgets were suffering, social services were being reduced, people were

being laid off throughout the government services, often reducing

services of every type. Yet a $375 million piece of legislation was

passed in this Legislature for the construction of that highway.

What was the reason? Well, we know what the reason was: strictly

political. Moneys were siphoned off that should have perhaps been used

on other projects throughout the province which are much more needed at

this time. Yet those moneys were siphoned off for the construction of

the Coquihalla Highway. That highway could have been constructed

earlier, when times were reasonably good in this province as a result

of a former NDP government, or after the recession had eased. But why

at this time? It wasn't for Expo. It was for strictly political reasons

so the current sitting member representing Yale-Lillooet might have an

outside chance of being re-elected, which I doubt, but that was part of

the reason for the construction of that highway.

Furthermore, the government has placed a toll on that highway, $8

per vehicle and $40 for commercial vehicles. We haven't had a highway

toll in this province since, I believe, 1920. I think W.A.C. Bennett,

former Premier of this province, removed the last toll on the Lions

Gate Bridge some 20 years ago or so.

I want to tell this House right now, Mr. Chairman, that when the New

Democratic Party is elected government in this province, we will once

again remove the tolls from that highway. The income from the tolls on

that particular highway will not even pay the interest on the $375

million that the bill allowed for for construction of that highway. The

expected tolls to be collected won't even pay the interest, I believe,

never mind pay for the highway. So we make that commitment to the

people of this province this morning. I have the approval of our caucus

on this, and our leader, of course, will let people in the province

know that those tolls, the first tolls on a highway since 1920, I

believe, will be removed when we become the government.

I would like as well to ask the minister what effect this highway is

having on communities like Cache Creek, which I believe is in the

minister's riding, and Penticton. I understand that the convention

business in Penticton has been reduced by about 50 percent as a result

of this highway. That may or may not be correct, I don't know. But I

was given this figure verbally from a business person in Penticton. So

I look forward to the minister's response to that.

Last but not least, I would be very interested to know what it cost the government

or the Ministry of Highways for advertising the opening of that highway. We

know that it costs $23,000 for a full-page ad in the Vancouver Sun ; I don't

know what it costs in the Province and all the other many local community newspapers

throughout the province. But the cost must have been horrendous. The cost of

taking all of these people up to Merritt, up the highway from Hope.... It was

a very large political event — TV commercials; it can't be described as

any other thing — and I would like to know how much that whole effort cost.

Was it $25,000? Well, we know it's more than that. Was it $100,000? Was

it $200,000, just the advertising for that one day two-hour press extravaganza

so the Premier could get on television for a quick shot, three or four minutes

of the Premier driving in an open convertible through a piece of paper and officially

opening the highway? How much was the cost of that type of advertising on the

highway?

[10:30]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I wish to point out, on the construction of this highway, two other

items to the minister. We have reason to believe that the final cost of

the construction of that particular highway will be in excess of $375

million. The minister has stated that the highway was on time and on

budget. Well, we have reason to believe that the highway in the long

run will cost more than the $375 million allocated for that

construction by this Legislature — as much as $100 million more,

possibly.

Furthermore, I would like the minister to respond to the allegations

that while this highway was constructed in the wintertime, the roadbeds

had not settled, part of the construction and roadbed and paving was in

fact paved over snow in the winter conditions, and in fact the highway

will require reconstruction in some parts, repaving in two or three

years. So the minister may wish to answer that allegation in terms of

that particular highway at this time.

I will take my place, Mr. Chairman. I have a number of other items

relating to Transportation and Highways which I would like to bring to

the minister's attention, but I don't want to confuse the last two

issues I have raised with other in my view — serious issues.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, good morning. I'd like to

introduce some more of the senior people who work hard for all of us:

George Baldwin, general manager of B.C. Ferries, is with us on the

floor this morning; Mr. Phillips from the motor vehicle branch is with

us; and Ray White, an assistant deputy minister with the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways.

I'm interested in the member for Mackenzie's (Mr. Lockstead'

s) observations. I'll start where you start regarding transport policy. We

have, Mr. Chairman, a transport policy

section in the ministry, headed

up by a competent assistant deputy minister, Dr. Kasianchuk, who has a

doctorate in transportation. He does a lot of transportation policy

development work. As an example, at the present time the national

government has a bill out on freedom to move, and he's our

representative on that. That's a national bill that's coming to a head;

it will probably be in the House of Commons by July 1986.

We have a lot of concerns, we British Columbians, issues that we're

watching through the transport policy section. Deregulation of

interprovincial trucking is one; changes to the Railway Act, to make

for more competitive rates; changes in airport administration;

deregulation of airlines. This is all work we do under the transport

policy division of our ministry. We try to keep up.

Transportation of dangerous goods: we're fully involved with that at

all times. Actually we've passed legislation here in British Columbia

to support the national policies on that item. There's the motor

carrier branch provincial trucking regulations on strictly B.C.

transportation policies.

[ Page 8556 ]

We've had studies: a port study for Vancouver Island; a

transportation study for Vancouver Island. We work with the National

Harbours Board on the Vancouver harbour, and we work with the local

communities on airport policies for community airports, as well as on

the air ambulance program. Under this transport policy we also have

safety inspections of ski lifts, provincial railways and pipelines.

One thing, I think, that is of great help to our ministry and our

government is that we're a member of WESTAC. The four western provinces

belong to WESTAC; not only that, the private sector belongs to it, and

the unions. We sit down at least twice a year and go over transport

policies, whether it be for air, land or water. Saskatchewan comes

forward with their ideas; Manitoba does the same, and Alberta, as well

as us. The CPR, the CNR and the BCR are there, and we get a great

overview. I might say that the unions are all represented there, unions

representing transportation people in the transportation field.

I think it's an excellent forum to develop not only provincial

policy, but semi-national policy: the four western provinces, and then

the information from that is taken by the ministers to deal with

Ottawa. Of course, when we deal with Ottawa we deal with the Minister

of Transport in Ottawa, and try to convince them how we can upgrade the

overall transportation system in western Canada, which includes our own

province. So we have a transportation policy division and it is very

active, with competent people.

Now I have to depart from policy and inject some politics into the

discussion. I remember that the Premier of British Columbia said you

weren't allowed to talk politics in this Legislature. The member for

Mackenzie did, so I have to reply accordingly. I might be just slightly

political. First of all, on the expenditures that he mentioned, I'll

use my stock answer that the figures he used were the usual socialist

arithmetic which never balances on anything, and not the figures that

we have regarding expenditures.

One thing that has been missed out of the discussions quite

conveniently by the member, dealing with highway expenditures — and I'm

going to send you a copy of this.... Surely the inventory of mileage in

each riding that the Highways ministry has to look after should have

some bearing on highway expenditures riding by riding. I'm not going to

give you them all, but I'll send you a list of them all so that you

will know. In your riding of Mackenzie, the roads under our

jurisdiction total 910 kilometres. As you wanted to make light of

Cariboo, I'll give you the comparison, and maybe that will put a

different light on your thinking. The riding of Cariboo has 7,384

kilometres of public roads. About 30 percent of them are paved, another

30 percent of them are in good gravel condition, and the other 30

percent or so are gravel, car parts and mudholes. I think we should be

fair in this.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said he wanted the road

mileage in his riding. It's tremendous –– 10.7 kilometres. Now we move

into the observations the member made regarding employment on highways

and so on. In New Westminster, as an example, we spent $138 million on

those 10 kilometres. So I think we apportioned it fairly well. The

allocation of funds always makes for a good discussion, but I think we

should tell the whole story, not just half the story.

In closing on roads, I'm going to tell the people in your riding

what you said, because Bella Coola is in your riding. We rebuilt that

road and paved it, and I think you're going to lose the next election

over that. When I tell them that you badmouthed the paving of the road

to Bella Coola, I don't think they'll be very happy.

Regarding employment on highways, you went on about the Coquihalla

and so on. That's correct, we made the policy decision in 1984 to get

the Coquihalla going. Of course, we achieved that, and I want to go on

record as saying that you people were opposed to it. You've been

opposed to everything, no matter what the project was, and you're

pretty slick at how you do your opposition. When you see things going

well, you turn around, as you did this morning, and say you think it's

a good idea. Well, you know, that doubletalk doesn't go down very well

with the voter out there. The voter will look to see what was actually

accomplished. We provided a lot of employment, and that's one of the

reasons the government decided to go ahead in 1984. We provided all

kinds of employment for the people who actually did the job out there

when things were slack. We got excellent bidding, and we got an

excellent job done. As a matter of fact, they are still working because

we've completed phase 1, which is Hope to Merritt....

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you get a letter of thanks from Getty?

HON. A. FRASER: No, as a matter of fact, he's one contractor who didn't get very much in the way of bids and work.

The Hope-to-Merritt

section — phase 1, as we call it — is completed

and was open to traffic on May 16. I would say to this House that it's

the finest piece of highway in Canada, not just in British Columbia.

The design and the engineering is second to none, and we put everything

in there that we could, thinking of safety in really tough country. As

an example, any grade over 2 percent on the Coquihalla hasn't got four

lanes — it's six lanes.

[10:45]

You should take a drive there sometime — you've got a pass; you

can't complain about the cost — and have a look at it. It's all well

sign-posted so you won't get lost when you go there.

On phase 2, as I said, the work is still going on. Phase 2 is

Merritt to Kamloops. I said yesterday in my opening remarks that phase

2 will be completed, a four-lane freeway to Kamloops, or specifically

to Afton Mines, where it joins with the Trans-Canada and we will then

have a six-lane road from there into Kamloops city.

On phase 3, and I did say this yesterday, the first contract's

awarded. It's awarded coming out of Peachland, coming west. We haven't

put a date on when that

section will be finished.

So what I'm saying is we're going to continue to supply jobs in the

Highways ministry for these projects and other projects in the existing

system. I know that it makes good talk to say to a lot of people, the

media and that, that we neglected and forgot the present highway

system. That is the farthest thing from the truth. We have the

Trans-Canada. Naturally, no sensible, reasonable person would forget

it. We're upgrading it all the time. As a matter of fact, we just got

finished repaving practically the whole Trans-Canada through the Fraser

Canyon. We're working constantly on the Hope-Princeton, upgrading it

and supplying, I might say, a lot of jobs to local people as well as

contractors in that type of work.

[ Page 8557 ]

You asked what effect does it have on places like Cache Creek and

Penticton. It's a little early to tell, but I would say that the amount

of traffic that's going over the Coquihalla definitely is going to have

some impact. But one thing, it's going to make the Trans-Canada from

Hope to Spences Bridge a safer road with less density of traffic. It

was getting pretty full of traffic, particularly in the summer months.

It'll be a little safer. It'll build back up again, according to the

engineers. We'll be right back into build-up conditions in another five

to ten years. That's why the Coquihalla was built in the first place,

to relieve the traffic on our two main arteries, the Hope-Princeton and

the Trans-Canada. So maybe it was built at just about the right time.

That's what we hope, that as traffic keeps increasing, we'll be able to

accommodate it on safe roads.

You mentioned the tolls. Yes, that's a toll road. But one thing you

should remember is that even with the toll you're going to save a lot

of money if you're driving, looking at the cost of your vehicle, from

Vancouver to Kamloops. Even today, without phase 2 done it'll be a

saving.

The toll is installed under government policy to help pay for the

carrying charges for the step-up in the construction of the Coquihalla.

It was never put on there to pay for the road itself. I'm happy to tell

the committee this morning that the toll was put on at midnight, May

16, and for the first two weeks we have taken in $550,000. If you

parlay those figures into a yearly basis, you're looking at something

between $12 million and $15 million per annum. Again for the media,

where they've now got the revenue from tolls up to $40 million — I hope

they're listening — we estimated $20 million, and I would say that

we'll probably hit $20 million a couple years from now. But what we're

looking at right now is revenue of $12 million a year based on the

first two weeks. It might go higher; it depends on traffic patterns. As

an example, freightliners are only finding out now how much they can

save going that way. The freightliners have increased substantially in

the second week of operation of the Coquihalla Highway.

You mentioned Cache Creek. But Penticton — I haven't heard that

regarding Penticton. They have a good road, the Hope-Princeton, but it

depends where a person is going, and it might have that effect. In any

case, we're going to correct that, but they're going to have to wait —

and I refer to the connector phase 3 from Peachland to Merritt, on

which the construction has started.

I think I'm just about finished, but regarding the cost of

advertising of the opening of the Coquihalla, I'll have to refer you to

my colleague, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) ; all those

funds are provided from the government information service of the

branch of the Provincial Secretary.

I think the last thing you said was that the Coquihalla was.... I

know one of your colleagues just to make the government look bad said

that we built the Coquihalla on glaciers. Well, really, Mr. Chairman,

I'd have more respect for our senior engineers than to make statements

like that. You came pretty close to trying this morning. We have very

capable engineers and contractors, and you can't build a road on frost

and if you do you lose the road. We haven't done that and we don't

anticipate any more trouble with the Coquihalla than with any other new

road we build. But you know full well, the same as I do, that any new

road, regardless of where it is, has settlement for four or five years

and you have to correct those things. We're doing that all the time.

Wherever a new road is rebuilt and paved there is all the compaction in

the world put into it by machinery and so on, but you still get

settlement. Those are ordinary maintenance problems that we look after,

and there is nothing different about the Coquihalla than there would

have been on the Trans-Canada when they built it, or the

Hope-Princeton, or Highway 20 from Williams Lake to Bella Coola that

goes through your riding, Mr. Member. I just really feel a bit upset

when the statements are made — I guess, to be fair, mostly by the media

— that some reporter who has been out there for ten minutes decides

that the road isn't up to specs. First of all they don't know what

they're talking about, and secondly very responsible senior engineers

put the specifications in there and see that they're carried out.

So I appreciate your questions and look forward to more.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I could see the member there was anxious to

get to his feet, but I'll be very short on this one. I have a number of

other items for the minister, Mr. Chairman, and I was going to change

the subject, but I just want to get back to this Coquihalla thing for a

moment. First of all let me correct one of the minister's statements.

He made the statement that in fact the New Democratic Party in caucus

opposed construction of that highway at some point, and I want to tell

you, Mr. Chairman, that that is totally incorrect. If that statement

was ever made by any member of our caucus in this House I would like

the minister or his staff to produce that document. We have never

opposed the construction. We questioned the timing of the construction

of that highway in a time of restraint, and many of the jobs on the

construction of that highway — and contractors — were in fact held by

people from outside the province.

I don't want to dwell on the matter, and I'll correct the minister

in another statement. I hope he does go into my riding and to Bella

Coola. I wish he would come to my riding at some time — any time. He's

more than welcome. I'd like to take him down some of the highways and

byways in my riding that literally haven't been touched in some years —

in ten years in some areas. But getting back to Bella Coola, the

expenditure on that part of the highway that the minister is referring

to is in fact in the minister's riding, not in my riding. My riding, in

terms of the eastward boundary, ends at the boundary of Tweedsmuir

Park, which is in the riding of the minister. So Mr. Minister, don't

tell the House that you're spending that money in my riding, when in

fact that money is being spent in your riding. I just want to have that

on the record and have that very clear.

I want to correct something else. You implied that I was denigrating

the engineering department and the people within your ministry. I am

not. I think the construction of that particular highway was a

tremendous feat. The highway is there, the construction took place, and

I think it was a marvellous feat. Considering the terrain, and the

ministry and the people working for you and advising you, and the

engineering aspect particularly in that kind of area, I think it was a

tremendous job. It would have been a credit to any engineering staff

anywhere in the world. I have no quarrel with that, and I have never,

never suggested to you that the staff in your ministry, many of whom I

know and work with, have not done a tremendous job in that regard. That

is not the question here at all on that particular highway. I don't

want to spend all morning on one highway, but I want you at least to

have the facts straight and not leave the impression....

[ Page 8558 ]

In terms of the revenue spent on the advertising, sure, it's not a

major item. I don't know what it cost. You don't either, apparently. I

did not know that the money did not come from your ministry. All right,

so it came from government information services. That's even worse. My

colleague here, the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), went

through that

chapter and verse — how those taxpayers' funds are

literally being spent for the purpose of promoting the Social Credit

Party and government and not the highway. They are taxpayers' funds

that should have and could have been used for other purposes. One day

when you have an hour, spend a Friday morning on a food-line in

Vancouver or Gibsons or Powell River or wherever, and think about

spending $150,000 for blatant government advertising, whatever the cost

was. It must have been tremendous.

Mr. Chairman, I want to switch to another topic, one that has caused concern:

the Annacis Island bridge. I presume that that bridge is almost completed and

due to go into service. I don't recall the exact date, although I saw the

minister on television, and he did give us a date. I just don't recall it,

but I know it is soon. My concern on that bridge is based somewhat on media

reports. I haven't had the personal opportunity of visiting that bridge.

firm and not a local firm, even though the British product was $3

million above a bid from the Delta firm. The provincial government has

said this is because the cables from the British firm were

prefabricated and more easily installed. With the current unemployment

rate in British Columbia, that is not a good enough reason, in my view.

B.C. firms and then Canadian firms should be given some kind of

priority in this province. Our people need those jobs too, you know.

Well, because of the recent cable.... I want to make it clear when I

am talking about this: this is not a scare tactic. I am not going to

put out a press release. I am not going to go to the media and advise

people not to use that bridge, because I do have confidence in the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways in this regard. But there were

some serious problems, and I am going to send the minister some

photographs in a few minutes for him to examine.

First of all, I want to say that because of the recent cable

anchorage problem, we need assurances from the minister that tests are

being performed on all of the cable anchorages. We want assurances that

the bridge will not open until it is 100 percent safe. I would tell you

at this point again, I am sure the ministry would not allow any such

structure to be open unless it were 100 percent safe. But we want that

minister on record, and we want those assurances in this House today.

[11:00]

It is my understanding that the bad anchorages are being replaced

with others of the same design. That is the subject of these

photographs I am holding in my hand right now. What happens if in a

year from now others become defective? If the anchorages are replaced

with better anchorages now, the company would still be responsible. Or

would the company be responsible? That is the question. Would it be the

taxpayers' responsibility to replace those anchorages a year or two

years from now? I'll show you the reason why I am asking those

questions in a minute.

I am also informed that the British firm that supplied these

anchorages does have other anchorages that are considered better. So

are these the kind that are being reinstalled to replace the defective

anchorages?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, I have photographs of these anchorages. These photographs were

taken by a reputable engineering firm. My question to the minister is: why was

that British firm chosen over a Canadian firm? Mr. Minister, I am going to send

over these photographs for you to examine, and I would appreciate having them

back. I don't have a duplicate copy. But I would like you to look at these

photographs so you can see what the actual problem is in that regard.

It could be a serious matter. I did see your statement, I think in

the press or on television or something, where you assured the public

that the problem was being resolved. But how is it being resolved? By

replacing the anchorages and those cables with the same kind of

anchorages that were defective before? So we'd like some answers to

those questions as well.

There has been some concern, of course. Prior to construction of

that bridge we had delegations here in Victoria. I'm sure the minister

and people within the ministry have met with these residents of the

area. But the bridge is there — it's a simple as that. It may be a good

alternative route for the increasing population of that portion of the

lower mainland. I really have no quarrel with that. The only concern I

have is for the residents directly affected, those in line with that

structure. Once again, I've raised a very separate item. I will take my

place and give the minister an opportunity to respond, because I don't

want to get into six or seven items and then go through the whole thing

again.

MR. MICHAEL: First, to the minister, I would like to pay him

a sincere compliment for the excellent service that I as the MLA for

Shuswap-Revelstoke have received from his staff at all levels. I have

to say, in all seriousness, that the Minister of Transportation and

Highways answers letters and inquiries very promptly. His staff are

certainly top-notch and among the very best in this government, and I

say that in all sincerity.

Mr. Chairman, I have quite a few points I would like to cover, and I

will not take much time in covering them. The first one is the

four-laning in Salmon Arm. I think that this is a priority that must be

followed through on. I know the minister has given a commitment to

proceed with the four-laning in 1987, but I would like to put on record

the importance of this to that particular community. I think that the

ministry should look at not just the downtown area of Salmon Arm but

also at extending the four-laning right through from the Larch Hills

junction on the east to the Gleneden Road intersection on the west — a

total of approximately seven or eight miles. It would really do wonders

for the community of Salmon Arm to have that four-laning done through

that entire area. It would deliver the traffic on the west right

through the Highway 97 junction, and would certainly improve the flow

through of traffic on the Trans-Canada Highway in that region of our

province.

The next thing is the situation on the outskirts of Salmon Arm,

having to do with the tremendous growth of cross-country skiing in my

constituency. The cross-country skiing at Larch Hills is taking off.

It's one of the very best cross-

[ Page 8559 ]

country skiing facilities in the entire province of

British Columbia. Tourists are starting to recognize this. We're

getting a lot of people visiting the community of Salmon Arm and skiing

in the Larch Hills. I would ask the minister to please consider making

further improvements to Grandview Bench Road and Edgar Road, which

would deliver the traffic right to the base of the ski hill, and would

make that area more attractive as a destination winter resort for the

constituency of Shuswap-Revelstoke.

Next, in the Revelstoke area, I believe that the paving and

improving of Camozzi Road is a high priority. It's a feeder road

leading to the ski facilities in Revelstoke, and an important

development to deliver the traffic safely to the base of that ski hill.

Then there are a few miscellaneous items I believe the minister

should consider. This has to do with signs. Perhaps I should put this

in the form of a letter, but I'm sure the record in Hansard

will be sufficient for the minister to check on a few miscellaneous

points. The first one concerns the new overpass to the airport, going

into Vancouver. I believe the overpass sign just indicates "South

Terminal." Why the ministry doesn't have the words "Richmond Centre" on

that sign as well is strange to me, because one has to go quite a

distance if one misses that particular turnoff. I believe that you

should consider putting the words "Richmond Centre" on that particular

sign, the only sign now being "South Terminal."

The next thing — again for the record — is that going down the

Trans-Canada Highway from the interior, heading into Vancouver, one

terminal for Victoria. Why there are not similar signs on 176th Street

and 200th Street I don't know. But 176th delivers the traffic faster

than the road marked for B.C. Ferries to Victoria. Perhaps the minister

could have his staff look into that, and we could have some improvement

of signs in those three areas.

The next thing is regarding the Coquihalla. It is certainly

something in which all of us who have traveled on it have expressed a

great deal of pride. The only thing is, I think there could be some

improvements made to the toll booths. As an example, my last trip

coming from the east — I should say coming from the north traveling

south on the Coquihalla — going through the toll booth I noticed two

booths open in each direction, four employees, a very, very long lineup

of traffic coming from the Kamloops end and no lineup at all coming

from the Hope end. It would seem to me that it would be a very

elementary thing to shift one of the employees from the booth looking

after people going north and put him over into the booth for people

going south.

I made an inquiry of the staff as I went through after waiting ten

minutes as to why this didn't happen, and they said they couldn't do it

because of their change problem and they were in charge of their cash.

I don't accept that as an excuse. I think the minister should look at

that as it would be a very simple matter to organize to improve the

flow through that area. It's a crime when you can make such excellent

time on that highway and then be delayed ten minutes because you're

waiting in a lineup to pay your fee.

As the minister knows, I have been disturbed for some time regarding

the B.C. Ferries and the fact that the chicken strips that are served

on the B.C. Ferries are manufactured and purchased from outside the

province of B.C. As a matter of fact, they come from a firm in Ontario.

I wish to thank the minister as well as the Minister of Finance for

making available to me some of the staff to discuss this problem.

It's not a small problem, Mr. Minister. I consider it a very serious

matter when we in the province of British Columbia are spending

hundreds of thousands of dollars on an agricultural product from

outside our own province. However, I had a very good meeting with some

of the senior staff in purchasing and I will let the matter rest for

now, as I've been assured that there will be communications with the

local manufacturers of chicken strips to see whether or not they can't

resolve the problem by examining the qualities that the ferries are

looking for and the type of chicken strip they're looking for, so that

indeed people in British Columbia will be able to meet the needs of the

B.C. Ferry system the next time that particular item is tendered. So as

I say, I'm happy to leave the matter at that for now.

The only other thing I'm not happy with on the B.C. Ferries, and I

think it should be reviewed, has to do with the displaying of brochures

on the ferries. I very innocently accepted a couple of hundred

brochures from a tourist operator in my constituency, very innocently

accepted them, and he requested me to put them on the B.C. Ferries. I

didn't realize I was breaking any rule or it was wrong or you had to

have permission; I just assumed that those racks were open to

everybody. So I took his couple of hundred brochures and put them on

the ferry, and lo and behold, within 24 hours of their being on

display, he got a very strong message from one of the bureaucrats that

this is a no-no and it's got to go through the proper channels and what

have you. That does not make sense to me.

What does make sense to me is that in view of the fact that there is

adequate room for all kinds of brochure racks on that ferry, there's

lots of space, why not let anybody who wants to display their tourist

brochures throughout the entire province of British Columbia do so?

They should have free access to put as many brochures on that ferry as

they want, and I don't see why there should be any kind of a selection

procedure or anything else. Just let it go, open it up and get rid of

the red tape and the bureaucratic hindrances standing in the way of the

private sector advertising their facilities to attract people to their

premises.

The last thing, Mr. Minister, is that I have been listening in this

House for many years now to debates on the Island Highway and the

inequities of the Island Highway. Just a few months ago I took a trip

up that Island Highway all the way up to the Comox area, and I must say

that in my view there are some areas of that highway that could

certainly stand some passing lanes and some double laning. There are

some sections where in my view it would not cost that much money. But

to be stuck in heavy traffic flow going through that highway, being

unable to pass because of all the campers and RVs and what have you, I

would think for not too heavy a capital investment we could put in some

additional adequate passing lanes to improve the access to the end of

the Island.

Now I'm not particularly looking for any response on these items. As

I said at the very beginning, I'm very happy with the attention that

Shuswap-Revelstoke has been given. I'm very pleased with the service of

the staff. However, there are these few matters that I would like to

see highlighted in 1987, and those suggestions that I would ask the

minister to review to improve the signage in certain areas where the

traffic is heavy and tourists are looking for direction.

[11:15]

[ Page 8560 ]

HON. A. FRASER: I'll go back to the member for Mackenzie (Mr.

Lockstead) and try to answer his queries. First of all, you said, Mr.

Member, that the NDP were in favour of the Coquihalla, but you're

against the timing. You know, Mr. Chairman, I know now the government's

in trouble when those people support us on something. That presents a

real problem, I'll tell you.

Anyway, getting into the Annacis Island bridge, I might say that

during the 1983 election your candidate said that if you got elected

he'd stop it right now. So don't stand here today and say you're in

favour of the Annacis Island bridge.

The bridge is pretty well built to solve the lower mainland traffic

problem. We estimated $375 million, and I think we're going to maybe

even be under budget, but certainly on budget. Where's it at right now?

Unfortunately it's been behind picket lines or a lockout for about four

weeks. What I can tell you is that if we can get that little exercise

out of the way — and I have no idea when that will be — from that day

till we'll be ready to open the bridge will be five weeks. We have five

weeks of work left on roads to do, and then we'll be able to open the

Annacis bridge.

Regarding the cables, as you know, that's a cable suspension bridge

with 194 massive cables suspended. There have been some problems with a

very few cables. Dealing first with the cables and the cost, the cost

to the ministry for the cables was based on material plus labour to

install. Based on these overall costs, the contractor proposed British

Ropes as the lowest. That is how the contract went to the British firm.

The contractor on that job is a large contractor, PCL Construction.

Naturally our ministry approved that, and that's why they went that way.

Now dealing with cable repairs, testing of every socket is 75

percent complete. I want to assure Mr. Chairman and this House that

that fine structure will not open till we're completely satisfied that

everything is safe and proper. The replacements that are going on are

of similar design. Most of the originals were fully satisfactory.

Regarding the photos which you sent over, which I appreciate, the

notes I have here are that they do not show the socket problem. They

only show some minor damage to plastic covers which was caused during

shipping. The last question we have is: is the member sure this has

come from a B.C. professional engineering firm?

I just say in closing on the Annacis that it appears we're not far

away from opening that fine structure. What we in our ministry

anticipate it will achieve is to reduce the traffic congestion on the

George Massey Tunnel and the Pattullo Bridge by 25 percent. It's very

acute on these two structures and getting worse by the hour, so the

sooner we can get the use of the Annacis, the better for everyone using

the highway system.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.... I made a note of his

observations. The first item he brought up was four-laning the

Trans-Canada at Salmon Arm. Basically, we agree to it in principle but

we're looking at the engineering of it now. That is east and west of

the community of Salmon Arm. Regarding the Larch Hills ski area, which

is important to that community for their economy, we have allocated

$100,000 in this year's budget to upgrade those minor roads. On the

road in Revelstoke which you brought up, I can't give you much

information on that but we'll look into it.

Regarding the signing to the Vancouver Airport, I get a lot of

criticism of signing, and Vancouver Airport is one area specifically.

We're trying to improve it. I might say, coming from the Interior — I

hope the ministry is listening — that I agree with you about only one

sign to turn off to get to the ferry when you're coming from the

Interior. I have a few friends left — not too many — and at least half

of them miss that sign and end up in Vancouver instead of over for the

ferry. So I think we could improve on that.

You mentioned the toll booth lineup at the summit on the Coquihalla.

I appreciate your bringing it up, but I think our ministry is already

on top of that and getting it sorted out. It's a new operation. The

other day I think I signed a letter to the treasury branch that

business is so good we need four more cash registers as well as people.

That's one finance letter the Finance ministry will probably agree to —

cash registers for the tollbooth. We are in the shaking-down process.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention, but I have an idea it's

already looked after. If not, it is in hand.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The other one you brought up is a great one. Write a book about that

— the chicken on B.C. ferries. There has been terrific correspondence

on this. Not only this member brought it up, but a lot of other people.

I might say, on behalf of the government, that I guess we're buying it

outside of the province. But I would remind the committee that all of

these purchases go through the Purchasing Commission of government, and

we apparently cannot get the local producer to supply what we want at a

price that's.... They're still working on trying to get that business

back into British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: Well, I don't know about that, but it is an

ongoing problem that we are trying to solve. My version.... the last I

heard was that they didn't want to do business with us at the prices

and so on. There's a big testing effort goes on and all that, quality.

I know I've never been asked to taste any of it.

The last item that the member brought up was B.C. Ferries brochures.

As an MLA, Mr. Member, I found out the same thing. Sure, there might be

room for them on the rack and so on, but it costs money to put them on

the rack. B.C. Ferries, right or wrong, charges for brochure displays

on the ferries; it's a fact of life. That is used as a revenue source,

and that's about all I can say about it. I think as a member I would

like to see maybe a reduction in the charges or whatever, but the way

it is right now, I found out myself that there's a fair charge for

putting them on. What I found on the ferry system was that there are

hardly any brochures there other than from Vancouver Island or the

lower mainland.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will they charge for the Socred leadership candidates?

HON. A. FRASER: Well, I think the Socred leadership

candidates will probably be able to get some funds and then they'll

have to pay to put them on the B.C. Ferries.

Interjection.

HON. A. FRASER: No, we won't allow any of that.

[ Page 8561 ]

I think I've covered everything, Mr. Chairman, except the leadership

campaign. If you'd give me another ten minutes, I'd like to talk about

that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Prince George South seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of myself and

co-incidentally the Minister of Transportation and Highways, I'd like

to ask the House to welcome to our Legislative Assembly this morning

some 23 grade 6 and 7 students from Hixson, British Columbia. They're

accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Friesen, and chaperones Bill

Haviland, Sirkka Harper, Joanne Richlack and Brenda Gagnon. Will the

House please welcome these visitors from the great central interior.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't want to prolong

the chicken debate, and I think it's very interesting to see the

attitude of the NDP members regarding chicken strips on B.C. Ferries.

They seem to think it's a bit of a laughing matter. I want to tell them

very clearly that the agricultural community in the province of British

Columbia doesn't think it's a laughing matter. It's a very serious

matter.

There are hundreds of thousands of dollars every year going to the

province of Ontario that should be spent in British Columbia. To the

minister, Mr. Chairman, let me point out very clearly that there are

producers of chicken strips in British Columbia. They were lower

bidders than the firm from Ontario, and if you want to talk quality, I

suggest any member of this House who wants to talk quality have a ride

on the B.C. Ferries and order some chicken strips. As far as the

quality is concerned, it could stand a great deal of improvement. If

the B.C. people can't put a better quality on the platter than that

stuff coming out of Ontario, then there's something the matter, because

it is certainly no laughing matter. It's very, very amusing to look at

the members opposite in the NDP ridicule this particular thing, because

I'm sure that the agricultural community people in their constituencies

don't think it's a laughing matter.

It's very interesting, the critic for Highways talking about the

Coquihalla Highway and how this was an NDP idea. Well, you talk about

hypocrisy! That is the height of hypocrisy. The next thing they're

going to be coming out and saying is that Expo was the idea of the NDP,

when we all know the famous telegram sent by Mayor Harcourt back on

June 6, 1980. "Please stop the plans for Transpo 86 on the north side

of False Creek and downtown Vancouver," it reads. "Most Vancouver

citizens do not want Transpo 86 to proceed on this site." That's the

hypocrisy from that side of the House, Mr. Chairman.

[11:30]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, we are on the Minister of Transportation and Highways' estimates.

MR. MICHAEL: Well, if you want to stay with Transportation

and Highways, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to you that that is the

theme of Expo 86.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Rossland-Trail on a point of order.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I think that the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke should return to his chicken-strip debate. I think

it was a lot more relevant to these discussions than discussing the

mayor of Vancouver.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke on the minister's estimates.

MR. MICHAEL: I guess the truth hurts sometimes. But if you

want to get back to hypocrisy and dealing with the Minister of

Transportation and Highways, let's go back to the vehicle testing

station question. You talk about hypocrisy. I recollect the first

member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston), back in 1983, going out in the

parking lot and checking NDP members' vehicles for testing stickers.

Mr. Chairman, the record will show that the first member for Surrey was

only to find one single label with an up-to-date sticker on an NDP

windshield. There's another example of hypocrisy from the other side of

the House.

I'm sure that the agricultural community in the province of British

Columbia will be very interested to learn of the view of the members

opposite regarding the chicken strips on B.C. Ferries.

HON. A. FRASER: Let me for a minute clarify the subject of

chicken on B.C. Ferries. In the notes I have on it, both the Purchasing

Commission and the B.C. Ferry Corporation continue to be quite

sensitive to the need to maximize B.C. content of chicken strips and

are working cooperatively on it. They're going to encourage and assist

the B.C. processors to meet standards in time for the next contract.

The contract that we have now expires October 31, 1986. The other

avenue they're using is to have the Ontario processors encourage them

to use B.C. processed chickens if and when available.

MRS. DAILLY: Sorry to leave the chicken and get back to

something as mundane as cars and car testing, but I know the minister

would be upset if I didn't bring this up; it's been an annual debate

with the minister and myself and others in the NDP caucus ever since

the government ruthlessly, thoughtlessly and without compassion

destroyed not only the concept but unfortunately rid this province of

mandatory auto testing. I'm sure that when I'm no longer here.... Let's

hope that if this government has not seen fit by the time I've left

this House, that another government will be here. I can assure you, the

first thing the NDP will do is to restore mandatory testing. And why?

Because we're concerned about the lives and the safety of people of

this province.

MR. REID: Provincewide?

MRS. DAILLY: Definitely. There has to be a form of

provincewide testing. I find it absolutely ludicrous that one of the

reasons used by the Socred government to remove mandatory auto testing

was because it didn't cover the whole province. Can you believe that?

Everyone was going to have to suffer because of that kind of

nonsensical reasoning. Yes, the people in the other parts of the

province were denied it, but surely that was no reason to abolish

testing where half the population is. I certainly agree with the member

for Surrey

[ Page 8562 ]

who interjected that it must be covered so that the

rest of the province, in one fashion or another, whatever suits that

area, can have it.

I recall that the minister has said over and over again: "Let's get

government off the backs of the people." It is interesting, that

statement. "Let's not keep the government involved. It is not up to the

state to get involved in matters of forcing people to have their cars

tested." But a car that is on the highway with mechanical defects is a

lethal weapon that can kill. It is a lethal weapon that can kill.

Surely a government is highly irresponsible if it does not take unto

itself the responsibility of seeing that that kind of lethal weapon is

not on the highway. Therefore any government which abrogates its

responsibility in this area I consider hardly fit to govern.

Unfortunately, we can't seem to get enough of the Socred caucus members

or cabinet ministers to try to convince the Minister of Highways, who

is such a reasonable man in every other matter. We can't seem to get

him, or I can't, the NDP can't — I don't know if the back bench of the

Socreds have tried — to change this dogmatic, foolish policy of no

testing.

Now the minister knows, and I have read into this record year after

year, the statistics which point out that mechanical defects are

responsible for many accidents. I am so pleased that we have the motor

vehicle branch representative here. I accept the fact, of course, that

he doesn't make policy, but I would hope that anything that I am able

to pose here today he would at least be able to make notes of, which I

am sure he will, and perhaps in time be prepared when the minister asks

for discussions on it.

I wish this minister would just have an open mind on this matter. He

has restored in kind of a strange way, I feel, testing of commercial

vehicles. But even in the manner in which that was done, I think there

are three options. But none of them really have anything about them

that is truly mandatory. You can have options where it's up to the

trucking firm itself, for example, to show to the government or to

whatever branch is involved that it has a regular system of

maintenance. I know there are a couple of other things involved, which

don't come to my mind at this moment, but I still feel that it is a

half-baked way of going about proper testing. It's better than what we

had, but it is still not good enough. I'm asking the minister again to

restore complete mandatory testing of commercial vehicles and, of

course, of the cars driven by the people in our province.

Many people today — particularly the young — are unemployed, driving

around in cars that are lethal weapons. Not only young people — people

of all ages. As long as they know that there's no mandatory test and

they don't have to go and have that car checked, they are playing with

death on the highways and on our roads. I know that the statistics have

been read to the minister before. I know he will stand up and say:

"Well, we don't really agree that the mechanical defects are a major

part." Well, even if they're not a major part — and I don't happen to

agree with the minister on that — it's still your responsibility to

ensure that those cars are properly tested.

I know the minister is quite aware of the Minit-Tune statistics, which I read into Hansard

during a question period. We know that the Minit-Tune International

Corp. franchise in Vancouver did a two-week testing and were actually

shocked at the figures that came out. I point out again that there were

743 vehicles tested in a two-week period.

The number of vehicles which would have passed if we had had the

motor vehicle testing was only 257 out of that 743; 486 of those

vehicles which were tested would have failed. Yet those cars are still

out on the highway along with thousands of other cars, because there is

no way at this time except for the police on spot checks to get them

off the highway. The people driving these cars know that. They know

that there is no way, that perhaps they can drive for months as long as

that car will hold up.

I know that I have talked to garage owners who are absolutely sick

when they see cars come into their garage just to get gas, and they can

see the tailpipes hanging off. They know the brakes are faulty. They

can see so many things wrong with those cars, and yet they have to see

those cars drive out on the highway and know that there is no way they

can do anything about it. I frankly can't understand how any government

could continue to hold their head up in this province when they know

that their policies are responsible for deaths and for accidents, by

not bringing back mandatory testing.

I don't want to get emotional about this issue. It is hard not to,

but I simply cannot understand the pig-headedness of the government on

this issue. I simply want to say to the minister: would you please

answer this basic question. Why will you not restore mandatory auto

testing?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the persistent member for Burnaby North, I appreciate your remarks and observations.

MR. COCKE: Well, what are you going to do about it?

HON. A. FRASER: Be quiet a minute. I am having trouble projecting my voice. I'll tell you what we are going to do about it.

First of all, we've already done something the member agrees with.

We have put in commercial vehicle inspection effective May 1, and there

is quite a different twist there. Rather than the government running

it, we are depending on the private sector. We will license shops,

garages, in the private sector to do commercial vehicle testing: buses,

taxis, trucks, and so on and so forth. That is in effect. That's

certainly a step along the road. The reason we did the commercial area

is because of the stepped-up road blocks we've had in the last two

years. We found an amazing inventory of commercial vehicles on the road

that, in a lot of cases, had no business on the road at all.

How do you enforce it, Madam Member? I'll tell you how we're going

to enforce it: if they haven't got a safety sticker, they won't get a

licence plate. I can assure you that when a fleet operator with, say,

500 vehicles finds out that he can't get his licence plate, he'll make

sure that he gets the inspection done, whether by his own fleet

supervisor, which we will mandate, as well as the private sector....

They have to pass our guidelines to get the authority to do these

inspections. But it will be quite simple. The vehicle will not be

licensed; and that licence is not only the vehicle plate but, probably

more important to a commercial carrier, his carrier plate as well. That

comes under the same jurisdiction and they'll both be lifted; they'll

certainly pay attention to that, I am sure.

[11:45]

Regarding cars, the government policy is that there will be no inspection of cars. As you know, and I've repeated it

[ Page 8563 ]

before in the Legislature, it is now the law of the

land that every vehicle owner must have his vehicle in mechanical

condition; if people haven't, of course they're breaking the law. I've

done something about that since we've spoken last in the House. I had

an interview with the superintendent of motor vehicles and the chief

law enforcement officer of the RCMP for British Columbia. We've asked

them to back down on giving traffic tickets to people in Burnaby

driving over 30 miles an hour to work at 6 o'clock in the morning, and

maybe concentrate on going after the more.... I'm particularly talking

of the RCMP, the provincial force, because they have not, over the last

seven or eight years done much, if anything, in the way of enforcing

the mechanical side of the Motor Vehicle Act. I think it's an education

process, and it is now started. So rather than ticketing the factory

worker going to work at 6 o'clock in the morning, their efforts are

going to be turned around gradually to concentrate on this.

In closing on that, I think the committee should know that over the

last seven years the records that we keep in the Superintendent of

Motor Vehicles about accidents caused by mechanical failures....

Everything is recorded. Mechanical failure accidents comprise 1 percent

of all accidents, and in the last seven years that 1 percent has been

constant. The records show us that the fact that we haven't got

inspection stations on the lower mainland and Vancouver Island — they

were withdrawn by our government in 1983 — has had no effect

whatsoever. The 1 percent figure is constant right up to the present

time.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm pleased that there is a mandatory aspect,

then, to the commercial testing. That's good. I think that relieves

people to some degree. However, as far as the matter of testing cars,

I'm extremely disappointed. The minister says that in Burnaby, for

example, the RCMP are to do less ticketing on what he considers minor

offences — that might be speeding — and concentrate on doing some

checking for safety and mechanical defects. That may, in his opinion,

be a progressive step; in my opinion it's a regressive step.

For one thing, the RCMP in Burnaby, like police forces all over the

province, are already short staffed, already have increased major

crimes to deal with. You mean to say we're going to take them off some

of their major work to do something which should not be handled

primarily by them? It should be handled by a government safety testing

station. So I don't think that's the answer. You start pulling the RCMP

off to do that and something else is definitely going to suffer. It's

not just the person going over 30 miles, as the minister sort of

simplistically placed before us.

Then he made an interesting statement that his figures show that

only 1 percent of all accidents are due to mechanical defects. I'd like

to ask the minister how they get those reports. When there is an

accident, are the police required to make sure that their report

includes what they consider was a mechanical defect? I mean, where do

you get those figures? It would be very interesting to know.

HON. A. FRASER: I'm sure disappointed that my answer didn't satisfy the member. But I'm not surprised.

I was saying that the emphasis of the RCMP is going to change within

the traffic division of the RCMP. They're going to put more emphasis

on.... But I don't think that means that things are going to be worse.

The idea is we hope they're better. But involved in that — and this is

the last

part I have to say — is that the RCMP do all the accident

investigation and that's where we get our figures from. We consider

them to be very accurate figures. We get those through the RCMP

investigation and through the superintendent of motor vehicles.

Just in closing, I would say that while we haven't satisfied the

member, I'm sorry to say that maybe you won't be here the next time,

and I wish you well.

MR. MICHAEL: One final point to the minister, and it's quite

a serious matter concerning an individual. I'm going to cover it very

quickly and send the correspondence over to the minister. It has to do

with the case of Mr. and Mrs. Erickson in Salmon Arm, who have been

attempting to get a settlement on their property resulting from the

four-laning through Salmon Arm, which is expected to take place in 1987.

Mr. Chairman, I've got a lot of correspondence here that's piled up

over the last few months, and if the minister will recall, I did make a

statement in one of my letters to him that till this date it is the

only parcel that I could identify where it could be said that the word

"desperate" or "critical" could be applied, and I consider that to be a

fact. In view of all the things that are happening on the Trans-Canada

Highway, this is the only case that is desperate or critical.

Now we've had a phone call as recently as this morning, giving us

the message that Watson Engineering were on the premises last week and

they clearly said that the sidewalk would be coming right through this

particular building. A Mr. Smith from the Highways department said

their property is a buy-out right away.

Now, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, the particular owners of these

premises have lost tenants. The Mohawk gas station is gone, the

building is literally vacated because of the lack of tenure, and

they're in desperate condition. I would ask the minister to please have

an immediate look and a reexamination of this particular case to see

whether or not a settlement could not be reached at a very early date

to satisfy the concerns of these people. The taxes apparently are due

now on July 3 and they're in a very desperate situation. I'm going to

be forwarding this over, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, and I would

ask: please give this your immediate attention.

HON. A. FRASER: A short comment. We're aware of this in the

ministry, and agree with the member that the property is required, and

we'll get on with it and try to conclude the buy-out as soon as

possible. Whether that is before July or not I don't know, Mr. Member,

but it's obviously a buy-out and we'll deal with it as fast as possible.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986, 2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada