1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 11, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6717 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Reports –– 6718

Oral Questions

Community mental health services. Mr. Perry –– 6718

At-home care for handicapped children. Ms. Smallwood –– 6718

Condoms for prisoners. Mr. Guno –– 6719

Ferry design and construction. Mr. Clark –– 6719

Offshore oil drilling. Mr. Cashore –– 6720

Tabling Documents –– 6720

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Vant)

On vote 72: minister's office –– 6720

Mr. Kempf

Hon. S.D. Smith

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Loenen

Mr. Guno

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Davidson

Mr. Clark

Mr. Bruce

Mr. B.R. Smith

Mr. Gabelmann

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I would like to take this opportunity to extend congratulations to

those MLAs who yesterday celebrated their tenth anniversary as members

of this chamber. They include the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Brummet), the Minister Responsible for Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan),

the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree), the member for Oak Bay-Gordon

Head (Mr. B.R. Smith) and the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson).

Ten

years of continuous service is indeed a long time in this profession,

particularly when the public holds politicians in as much esteem as

they do the media. To those members entering their second decade of

service, I would like to offer my thanks for their contribution and to

wish them the very best in the future.

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Speaker, time flies when you're having fun. It's hard to believe

that a decade has passed. Upon reflection, I've had the opportunity and

privilege of experiencing a lot of individuals who are part of the

political folklore of this province, including my buddy right here.

want to say that it's been an honour to serve my constituency for this

period of time. A lot of the members here are first-time members, and I

want to advise them that the metamorphosis from rookie to veteran can

be just one election. So you can stand by on that.

As an

avid fisherman, I've spent my time washing lures and practising. I'm

looking forward to the next decade on that side of the House.

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to recognize a fairly large body

of professional people: the physicians and doctors of British Columbia.

They are members of the BCMA, who are here today for a convention. We

wish them a very warm welcome to this House. Hopefully, our

relationship with them will continue to be — as it is up to this point

in time — healthy and well, although we do not always see everything in

the same light.

They are the people we depend on at certain

times in our lives, and when that time comes, it is very necessary to

have them around. Will this House please make them welcome.

MR. PERRY :

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to join in welcoming the president of the B.C.

Medical Association, Dr. Blair, and the other doctors who are here. I

understand the minister will be having dinner with them tonight. I hope

he has a very good meal. We enjoyed some very nice meetings with them

last night and today as well. I think it's very nice that they are

here, and I hope they will come often to observe the proceedings.

I'd also like, while I am up, to acknowledge Anne Topp and Paul McKivett,

who are in the gallery and who are with the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada.

I am delighted to see the Premier, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

and some other members wearing carnations. This is the start of Multiple Sclerosis

Week. This is a disease that I have some familiarity with from treating patients,

and it's one of the most serious neurological diseases affecting Canadians,

particularly young people.

I understand from the volunteers that the Premier — I am not sure if this is personal or on behalf of the government —

has made a significant contribution to the MS Society, which I think is

wonderful. Anyway, can the House welcome them here today.

MR. Keivilf :

In the gallery with us this afternoon are two very special people to me

and my wife Norma: my father-in-law Norman and sister-in-law Nancy

Burke. I would ask the House to make them very welcome,

HON. MR. REE :

It's a pleasure today to stand up on behalf of my colleague, the Hon.

Jack Davis, who regretfully is unable to attend today, to welcome 28

grade 7 students and their teachers from Plymouth Elementary School in

North Vancouver. They are in the gallery, and I would ask this House to

give them a very warm welcome.

MR. ROSE : The New

Democrat assistants are in the precinct today. They are here on their

annual visit to regroup and learn from one another how they might

better help and protect us, So I wonder if these men and women couldn't

enjoy a round of applause on behalf of the House.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

In the gallery are two constituents of mine from beautiful Sorrento on

Shuswap Lake: Mr. Rick Reading and Mr. Bob Van, the son of my

ministerial assistant. Will the House please make them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA :

It always gives me some pleasure to introduce to the gallery

individuals who have been active as pioneers in the Indo-Canadian

community in British Columbia, and in your gallery today is Mr. Ajit

Dodd. Mr. Dodd came to Canada in 1954 and moved to Port Alberni in

1956, where he has resided since. He has been active in community

affairs and in other matters within Port Alberni. Would all members

please join me in giving a warm welcome to Mr. Dodd.

MR. LOENEN :

On behalf of the Premier and myself, I would like to ask the House to

welcome two constituents who are prominent in our community. They are

here today to represent the Richmond Right to Life organization. Would

the House please welcome John Massot and Romy Vander Bos.

[2:15]

MR. HARCOURT : I was sad to learn today that Mr. Kevin Brown passed away

on Tuesday at the age of 39, after living with AIDS for four years. I am sure

members of this House are aware of this very

[ Page 6718 ]

courageous

and dedicated individual; he was the person who co-founded the Persons

With AIDS Coalition in 1986. It was the attitude that he brought to

this dreadful disease that made him such a wonderful human being,

because he had the attitude of living with AIDS rather than dying with

AIDS. So I would like the members of this House to help pass along

condolences to his mother and to his very close friends.

MR. PETERSON :

In the House today is a good friend from Langley, Dan Coates, who is

the future son-in-law of Ida Fallowfield, the secretary in the

constituency office of the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) and me.

With him is a good friend from the University of Western Ontario, Mr.

Robert Dudley. Would the House please join me in making them very

welcome.

Presenting Reports

MR. PELTON :

I have the honour to present a report from the Select Standing

Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services. I

move that the report be read and received.

Motion approved.

CLERK-ASSISTANT :

"May

10, 1989. Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing

Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services begs leave to report as

follows:

"That the

preamble to Bill PR401,

intituled Seminary of Christ the King Amendment Act, 1989, has been

approved and the Committee recommends that the bill proceed to second

reading.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. F.C.A. Pelton, Chairman."

MR. PELTON : By leave I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

MR. PERRY :

A question for the Minister of Health. Every reputable authority agrees

that $20 million is urgently needed to bring community mental health

services in British Columbia back up to a minimum standard. The

minister himself has recognized this in our debates here and outside

the House and has been promising for months that he will bring this

immediate need to the attention of cabinet.

MR. MOWAT : What's the question?

MR. PERRY : There is a question, a very important one —

and a very simple one. Can the minister tell us whether he has a date

on the cabinet agenda to deal with this growing mental health emergency

in British Columbia?

HON. MR. DUECK : We have spoken

about this in estimates. I believe the question is really on the mental

health consultation plan that has been presented to me. As I've said in

estimates, that plan, which took a lot of work, will be taken to

cabinet in the very near future. I have not got a date.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK :

It's not a laughing matter at all, Mr. Member. When we report on mental

health and the people who are suffering illness, I don't think we

should sit there and laugh about it. It's a very serious matter. We

consider this as a serious matter.

There's a lot of work to

be done. A lot of work has been done in preparation, because you cannot

put this thing out to the public and have no resources available in the

community. All this is being prepared. When that report is ready from

my staff, we'll take it to cabinet, and you will be informed at that

time what action we're going to take.

MR. PERRY :

A new question to the Premier. I emphasized in my first question that

every reputable authority agrees — there is absolute consensus in

the health field — that $20 million is urgently needed in mental

health in British Columbia. Can the Premier tell us when this need will

be met?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I too have met with representatives from the Canadian Mental Health

Association, and I commend them for their good works. These people

certainly give freely of their time, especially those who volunteer all

of their efforts and are very involved on a regular basis in

visitations and other ways of assisting those who need help.

have listened to their presentations. Certainly I can speak for those

who visited me when I say they've identified some shortcomings, and

obviously some of these shortcomings might best be responded to with

additional dollars. I don't deny that. On the other hand, they

expressed as well their feeling that we do have a pretty good system in

place and that the Ministry of Health, in cooperation with them, has

done a commendable job. I'm proud of the fact that they themselves

stated this voluntarily, and this is how it ought to be. That's not to

say we couldn't improve on things, and we must continually strive to

improve on things, particularly when we're attempting to assist people

in such need. I look forward to the report that the minister will be

bringing forth to cabinet, and it will obviously receive very careful

consideration by all members of cabinet at that time.

AT-HOME CARE FOR

HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

MS. SMALLWOOD : A question to the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Last June the minister

[ Page

6719 ]

supported the Family Support Institute's proposal

to assist parents in keeping their handicapped children at home. Why

has the minister not followed through with his commitment?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

This question has been well canvassed of late. We had an excellent

delegation of these people come to see us in caucus and present its

case. I've been dealing with them for the last couple of years. I

believe I've answered this question to this member before. However, I

appreciate the fact that she might have to ask it two or three times

before the answer finally gets through that we feel very strongly for

these people. I admire them very greatly, and I have been working with

the federal minister for some two years to have this plan recognized

under the Canada Assistance Plan and cost shared by the federal

government.

Since last year, there has been a change in

federal minister, as I informed her before, and I will be taking this

proposal forward to the new minister and through the federal-provincial

ministers' conference coming up soon. However, we have decided to bring

forward to cabinet our paper on the subject at an earlier date for

consideration, and when that occurs, we will make all that information

available to this House, to that member and to all the people of

British Columbia.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Supplementary. The

minister's stalling tactics aren't helping the families. This

government approved $90 million in vote 74 last year for such new

programs as Strengthening the Family and special allowances for the

disabled, yet less than 30 percent of that money was actually spent by

January of this year. Why was vote 74 not used to fund his commitment

to the at-home care programs for disabled children?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

To repeat, Mr. Speaker: we're very cognizant of the problems that these

people face. They're very serious. They require training for them to be

able to look after their children in the home. We understand that, and

we're moving towards that.

To repeat for the third time,

we're moving to fill the gap that exists in our program, whether the

federal government moves with us or not. We feel it is a responsibility

at both levels of government, and we realize the need. We also realize

the need for respite for these people, as we have said to them, Mr.

Speaker. One of the things that families require, as much as or more

than the training and the aids that go along with looking after their

children, is respite.

We're looking in all of those directions, and the government will have a policy on it very soon.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Perhaps the minister didn't understand. You made

the promise, you had the money, and you decided not to spend it. When are you

going to stop stalling?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, I don't feel that this government has

been stalling at all. We've been working towards it for quite some

time. These things don't fall into place automatically. We realize that

some giant strides have been made in deinstitutionalizing those less

fortunate than ourselves. In fact, it was this government, in 1981,

that made a promise to these people that we would take them out of the

large institutions and put them into group homes in communities, and

make them valuable members of society. This government was fought every

step of the way by that party over there and by their supporters; and I

can document that for you, Mr. Speaker, and for this House, just by

looking at some of the clippings from the Kamloops newspapers back in

1981, if they want documented proof.

Now that we have made

these giant strides and are leading the western world in

deinstitutionalizing people, all of a sudden they want to come on board

and pretend that it was their idea, and that we should make the next

move. We are making the next move into assisting people who wish to

keep their children in their own homes. There is no question that these

people do better when they're taken out of large institutions and put

into group homes; and there's no question that they do even better than

that when they're kept with their own parents in their own homes. This

government will see that that happens.

CONDOMS FOR PRISONERS

MR. GUNO :

My question is to the Minister of Health. Last week the

Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree) refused to permit the introduction of

condoms in B.C. prisons to provide protection from the deadly disease

AIDS. In the view of the minister's own experts and many other health

experts, the prisons could be a major spawning ground in the spread of

this disease. In view of the fact that there is urgent need to start

protecting the public, is the Minister of Health now prepared to

recommend that his colleague — and maybe nudge him into some

semblance of wakefulness — introduce this very sensible health

measure?

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Speaker, no,

FERRY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

MR. CLARK :

I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. In a

letter sent yesterday from the Ferry Corporation to the minister, the

general manager states with respect to construction: "...we cannot

necessarily restrict ourselves to only a B.C. build because of cost and

capability."

This is a fundamental shift in a government

policy which existed and originated with W.A.C. Bennett, and it is a

contradiction of the minister's remarks yesterday. Has the minister

responded to the Ferry Corporation by telling them that all

construction of all B.C. Ferries vessels will be by B.C. workers in

B.C. shipyards?

[ Page 6720 ]

HON. MR. VANT :

Once again, I think the second member for Vancouver East has to realize

that the allegation he made the other day about the Finnish firm He was

wrong. He realized that it was a good Canadian company with British

Columbians working. The general manager of the Ferry Corporation keeps

me fully advised from time to time. His advice concerning whether we do

business in this province or outside the province is just purely advice.

As I indicated the other day, the government policy — especially of this great Social Credit Party —

has always been to build our ferries in British Columbia. That policy,

I can assure you, is not going to change. People who work for the Ferry

Corporation can render any kind of advice they wish, but we decide what

the policy ultimately will be.

MR. CLARK : The letter

goes on to state that there might not be a company in British Columbia

capable of building our new superferries. Does the minister concur with

the Ferry Corporation?

HON. MR. VANT : It is

interesting how the members in the socialist corner of the House always

seem to get into possibilities and tend to be negative Given the

magnitude of some of the projects this great government starts,

naturally if it couldn't be done by someone in British Columbia we

would have to look elsewhere. But I'm very confident in the

shipbuilding industry here in our own province. Up to this point

they've always been capable of rendering a satisfactory product, even

if it is a huge ferry I'm optimistic that they can provide the ferry

we're seeking.

Again, we get advice from our different Crown corporations, and that's all it is: advice.

[2:30]

OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING

MR. CASHORE :

My question is to the Minister Responsible for Environment. A

publication and exhibit on the oil industry now on display at the Royal

British Columbia Museum states: "...modern offshore drill rigs can

operate safely in Hecate Strait." Does the minister agree with this

assessment?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I don't know. I'll go

to the museum and look at it along with other items in the museum. I'll

bring back my opinion as soon as I can check out the museum item.

Hon. Mr. Michael tabled a report on government severance policy.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

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

MR. KEMPF :

At adjournment just before lunch, Mr. Chairman, I was canvassing with

the minister expenditures on certain projects within my constituency.

Given the fact that the minister has had in excess of 2 hours to

contemplate the answers, I'm going to give the minister an opportunity

to do just that: I'll sit down and listen to those answers that surely

he has put together during the lunch hour.

HON. MR. VANT :

First of all, I want to say to the hon. member for Omineca that he

should actually read the blue estimates book a little closer than he

has heretofore. just before lunch he talked about the projects in his

riding and asked how much money out of this year's $1,198,100,000 was

going to be spent on a project in his own constituency. I appreciate

the fact that he thinks there should be more and more money for

Transportation and Highways, for the freedom to move, but the actual

fact is that my total budget is $1,015,000,000. I appreciate his

attempt to try and actually inflate my overall budget.

As I

indicated to him earlier, the Engen overpass is definitely a project

for this fiscal year. I will now comment on the other parts of Highway

16, such as Meanwhile Corner, Suicide Corner, and Hagman Hill.

Regarding

Meanwhile Corner, my district highway staff are currently designing

alignment improvements, and I'm happy to report that this will be

constructed in the 1989-90 program. Suicide Corner will also be

reconstructed in the 1989-90 program. This corner is also known,

perhaps not quite as sensationally, as Grieder's Corner. The

engineering design for improvements to Hagmans Hill is to be done this

year. The whole project, including the hill, will be a candidate for

the 1990-91 program. There's a corner known as Hagmans corner in there

as well.

The accident statistics for the last three years

are: in 1986, one accident; in 1987, three accidents; in 1988, three

accidents. I'm pleased to note that none of these accidents resulted in

fatalities. It does definitely appear the frequency of accidents are

going up, so improvements are certainly in order.

MR. KEMPF :

I thank the minister for that information. I'm a little concerned that

he has a different figure than is in the 1989 budget. With respect to

the expenditures for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, I

guess it's a misprint. However, we won't dwell on that for any length

of time.

The minister may recall that before we adjourned,

I asked a question with respect to phase 2 and phase 3 of the

Coquihalla as well. I wonder if the minister could provide me with that

answer.

Also, with respect to the Engen overpass, I'd be

interested to know how many dollars — and I think that was the original

question — will be spent in this fiscal year on the Engen overpass.

[ Page 6721 ]

HON. MR. VANT :

In my haste to correct the figure that was mentioned before lunch, I

picked the wrong page out of the blue estimates book. Actually my total

budget is $1,016,153,925.

Specifically concerning the Engen

overpass project, my staff are currently getting the amount of money to

be spent this fiscal year. They've just given me that figure. It is $2

million.

MR. KEMPF : That's $2 million of the $38

million total, I take it, that's going to be spent on Yellowhead 16

West. I'm sure my constituents would be happy to hear that.

The

minister, in discussions earlier, mentioned the Burrard Street bridge

in Vanderhoof, a project that I'm sure the minister is aware has been

promised the people of Vanderhoof for several years. In fact, I was

assured two or three years ago that it would be built last year. I

guess the question I want answered in these estimates today is: to what

extent will the construction be carried out on Burrard Street

bridge — how many dollars in this fiscal year?

HON. MR. VANT :

I'm very pleased to note that the member for Omineca doesn't want me to

spend all of the funds I have available this year just on Highway 16.

can assure him that the mayor of Vanderhoof has on more than one

occasion reminded me of the urgent need for replacement of that old

bridge. As you can imagine, it's a fairly major project. For this year

the total budget amount is $2,660,000. That's a pretty significant

project. I believe we have already called for tenders. I can't answer

the member regarding.... He keeps looking in the rear-view mirror about

promises made in the past. Rather than just making promises, today I'm

actually outlining a project which has been called for tender. That's

as substantial as I can be at this time of the year regarding that

project.

MR. KEMPF : I appreciate those figures from

the minister. He still didn't tell me whether that's going to complete

the project. However, perhaps he can tell me that at a later date. And

he still hasn't answered the question with respect to phases 2 and 3 of

the Coquihalla. I'm almost positive that the people of British Columbia

would like to know why the downsized version of phase 3 of the

Coquihalla is going to cost exactly the same per kilometre as phase 3

double-laned.

HON. MR. VANT : To answer the question about the bridge in Vanderhoof, yes, the total project should be completed this year.

It's

interesting that the member for Omineca should take off on this cost

per kilometre. The first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) got into that.

Often, though, you end up comparing apples with oranges, because there

are so many variables. Some projects go from one fiscal year to

another. We're looking at vast differences in terrain in the various

parts of this great province of ours. So really, the cost per kilometre

can indeed vary considerably.

When you take a project the

scope of the Coquihalla, and compare one phase with another, for sure

you're going to have vast differences in cost over, say, an

80-kilometre section. It would depend on whether there's a lot of rock

work. It would depend on how many lanes there are. There are just so

many variables that it's indeed a very difficult question to answer. If

I heard your figures correctly, it would appear that phase 3 and phase

2 came out to exactly the same cost per kilometre. My staff can perhaps

come up with other figures, but that would take a little time.

MR. KEMPF :

I'm really concerned about cost per kilometre, particularly when I find

out that out of a $1,198,100,000 budget for the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways in this fiscal year, only $38 million is

going to be spent on 450 miles — and you can convert this into kilometres, if you like — of Highway 16 West.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : You can't, Jack. It's the terrain.

MR. KEMPF :

Oh, the Premier is saying I don't know what terrain it's going through.

I was born and raised in that country. I know exactly where the road is

going. I know exactly what the terrain is like. You know, some people

have been in this province all their life.

[2:45]

Let's get back to my constituency. The minister wrote me a letter

recently suggesting that the Stella Road connection would be completed

in this year's budget. I would just like to know from the minister

today who set that priority. Whose suggestion was it that the Stella

Road connection was a greater priority than Franqois Lake Road, which

is what I wrote to him about to receive this answer? Who makes those

decisions? Is it that politically appointed group that goes behind the

backs of MLAs — making recommendations, I might add, that aren't

the wishes of the people living in that area? I just want to know from

the minister this afternoon whether it was the transportation planning

committee of the so-called state of Nechako that made the

recommendation that we should spend money on the Stella Road connection

before Franqois Lake Road.

MR. LOENEN : How do they vote there?

MR. KEMPF :

They all vote my way there, Mr. Member. It doesn't matter who the

Premier chooses for his candidate in the next election, they'll vote

that way as well. We can discuss that in the Premier's estimates.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : What will we discuss, Mr. Member?

MR. KEMPF : A whole lot of things, Mr. Premier.

[ Page 6722 ]

just want to know who made the decision that you are going to proceed

with the Stella Road connection in this fiscal year. The minister is

going to answer. Fine.

HON. MR. VANT : Before I

forget, I want to correct the member's assumptions about the cost per

kilometre. On phase 2 of the Coquihalla, it worked out to exactly $2

million per kilometre. On phase 3, from Merritt to Aspen Grove, it

worked out to $1.4 million per kilometre. Aspen Grove to Peachland....

Of course, when you get down through Trpanier Creek and that tough

section at the other end, over that 84-kilometre section, it averages

out to $2.5 million per kilometre.

MR. SIHOTA : The average is $2.1 million, right?

HON. MR. VANT : For the whole phase 3, that could be.

MR. LOVICK : Just what I quoted you, right?

HON. MR. VANT : It's not exactly the same as phase 2, as the member for Omineca alleged. I guess we could play with the numbers indefinitely.

would like to remind the member for Omineca that I did write to him on

April 14 of this year, and said that beginning this fiscal year, the

road improvements in his constituency would include replacement of

Nechako Bridge in Vanderhoof, replacement of the Engen overhead west at

Vanderhoof, completion of the Stella Road connection, replacement of

the Stellako River bridge and improvements to Stones Bay Road on the

north shore of Stuart Lake. Quite frankly, I'm wondering why the member

insists on revisiting these things that have already been communicated

to him. Why is he wasting so much valuable time in estimates?

MR. KEMPF :

I'm sure that my constituents, the ones who send me here to speak for

them, won't consider these questions a waste of time. I ask the

minister: is this not what we're here for in estimates, to get answers

for our constituents, those who democratically elected us? I know that

rubs some people on that side of the floor, but it is still the

situation in British Columbia. We haven't done away completely with the

democratic process.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF :

Give you time? That's what I'm afraid of, Mr. Member. The minister

didn't answer my question about who made the decision to proceed with

the Stella Road connection rather than the paving of Franois Lake Road.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : The minister made it.

MR. KEMPF : On what advice, then, Mr. Premier, if the minister made the decision?

HON. S.D. SMITH : I am pleased to be able to ask some questions and take my place in these very important estimates.

MR. KEMPF : If you ask any questions, you won't get any answers.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I'm going to try, Mr. Member.

They

are very important estimates as well. As I have said — I don't

know if I've ever said it in this House, but I have certainly made the

point outside the House —

highways spending in this province is not only an absolute

transportation necessity, it is perhaps one of the most important

economic tools we have for developing our communities and the

infrastructure of those communities.

In addition to that — and it is something that is little, if ever, understood by the New Democratic Party —

highways spending is perhaps one of the most important kinds of social

services spending undertaken in the province. The reason I say that is

that all of our social services in this province, particularly outside

the great urban areas, are organized on a regional basis. We have

regional districts; we have regional colleges; we have regional

hospitals; we have regional forestry services; we have regional

services through the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. In order

for that system to work, we need and the people need a good

transportation system. It is vital to the people who live outside the

urban areas of this province.

That is why I am pleased to

see this year.... I congratulate this minister for having worked hard

and got the Highways budget back up over $1 billion, where it properly

does belong. There is much work to be done in our highway system

throughout this province: throughout the interior, on the Island, and

in the lower mainland.

I think it's important for the

people to know that we on this side of the House are prepared to make

the decisions and take the inevitable criticism that comes to us from

the opposition for putting priority on building roads. Building roads

in this province is an important social service decision; it helps

people. It assists people to develop their economy, and it provides

them with a means by which they can benefit from the great social

services systems that we have developed throughout this province.

Once

again, as I have listened to this discussion, I have listened to the

attitude of negativism that visits itself upon discussion of

expenditures on highways. I will tell the members opposite — I

ought not to, because you should let them wait to figure it out over

the next decades —

that the reason they ought to have more consideration for highways

spending, and the reason they ought not to criticize every single

highway project that has ever been undertaken in the history of British

Columbia, is that if they simply look in any garage in front of any

home in this province, they'll discover one or more vehicles. People in

this province need to have good highways upon which they want to run

those vehicles.

[ Page 6723 ]

it is the case for all of us: if we are going to serve the needs of our

communities and provide opportunity for our people, we must have a good

transportation system. The way we get a good transportation system is

creating public acceptance of having expenditures as high as we do in

the Highways budget so that we can provide that service.

The

way that you don't do that is to constantly go around and make Highways

spending into a negative. That's what the socialist opposition has done

in this House since 1933, every single flaming year. Since 1933, they

have dumped on Highways spending. They have made it difficult for us to

get the Highways estimates passed. They have gone out around the

province and said that we are squandering money in blacktop government

and not providing other services, and they are as wrong in 1989 as they

were in 1933 and every year in between.

Having made those

brief moderate introductory remarks, I want to now direct some

questions to the minister with respect to some roads in my constituency.

The

first one that I would like to have answered is with respect to Highway

5. Highway 5, as the member for Omineca knows, is also part of the

great Yellowhead transprovincial system. While I concur with him that

there is need for improvement and more spending on Highway 16,

particularly through his constituency, now that there has been a good

amount of money expended between Terrace and Rupert, quite frankly,

some of the priority has to shift a little bit east of Terrace,

particularly as we are coming to completion along the Skeena.

There

are other parts of the great Yellowhead system we should be concerned

about, and one of them is between Rayleigh and Heffley Creek, within

the boundaries of the city of Kamloops. It is one of the most travelled

highways in the province. There is a bad mix of vehicles: you've got a

lot of through traffic, a lot of truck traffic and a lot of commuter

traffic mixing itself on a road which, I can tell you, Mr. Chairman,

was laid down in 1952, when Syd Smith was the Minister of Highways in

this province, and it hasn't been changed much ever since; the potholes

are pretty well where they were, and all we've done is patch them up.

There's a need for us to get that highway built, to get that thing

four-laned, as has been promised by most Highways ministers since 1952.

I want to put to this minister that the people of Kamloops want that

road. It was a commitment made through the forced amalgamation imposed

upon our community, against their will, by the NDP in 1973 something

that divided our community badly and that we're still recovering from.

It was a commitment made at that time and since that time, and it's a

commitment that we want kept. I want a clear answer from the minister

as to whether or not the people of Kamloops and the people along the

Yellowhead, Highway 5, can expect that bad piece of road and that

bottleneck to be cleaned up and fixed up and four-laned this year,

during this budgetary period.

The second question I have to

the minister is about a deathtrap on Highway 1 east of Kamloops. It's a

bad piece of road. It's a piece of road, again, where you have that bad

mix of old road and narrow road. You've got through traffic from one

province to another; you've got local truck traffic and chip trucks and

logging trucks and fuel trucks; you've got commuter traffic from

downtown going out to Barnhart Vale and Dallas, and on to Monte Creek.

We need to have some commitment or some priority placed on that road to

be four-laned beyond the Barnhart Vale turnoff, because it is a bad

piece of business, and it's something that isn't going to improve by

simply not getting on with it. I would like an answer from this

minister, because happily he has got the budget back up over $1 billion

again, and there's more money there for transportation needs on

high-use highways in the interior, and Highway 1 east is one of them.

[3:00]

The third question I have for the minister is one that involves the

paving of the Wells Gray Park road to the park boundary. Mr. Chairman,

this year is the fiftieth anniversary of Wells Gray Park. It's an

outstanding facility. It also is a tremendous opportunity for the

community of Clearwater to diversify its economy after the mill shut

down. The member for Omineca knows that in the interior we have mills

shut down fairly frequently when they run out of wood or technology

causes it. Their first response is not to run off to government and get

their local Victoria MLA to try and badger the Forests ministry into

doing something for them. The first response of those communities is to

do something for themselves, and that's what the people of Clearwater

have done through the Wells Gray consortium.

They have put

together an outstanding program of diversification, through the

expansion of their tourism facility. They've done it themselves,

without any help from government. They've worked with their MLAs,

they've worked with their regional district representatives, and they

have attracted investment to that community. They are developing those

tourism facilities and employing people. But they need a little bit of

help from the Ministry of Highways. They need that road paved up to the

Wells Gray Park entrance, and they need your colleague, Mr. Minister,

in the Parks ministry to get that thing paved to Heineken Falls,

because that will attract the tour buses, particularly guys like the

Brewsters and so on, and develop circle tours into that community. All

of that will create overnight stays in the community and will expand

our employment base. It's an important and needed expenditure. I think,

in total, the estimate is about $700,000. It will do wonders to change

the economy of that community, which so badly needs it. It's a

legitimate and proper expenditure for government. It's just one more of

the many reasons why we have to have a good, healthy Highways budget in

this province.

The fourth question I have for you, Mr.

Minister, is this. We are blessed in the province of British Columbia

with the great Coquihalla transportation system into the interior. We

probably made one singular

[ Page 6724 ]

mistake

with respect to building the Coquihalla Highway, and that is that we

did not construct it right to the Alberta border in the east and Prince

George in the north.

One of the things that has never been

considered with respect to that highway is that before it was built, 22

people a year were killed on the Trans-Canada Highway between Kamloops

and Hope. Since that time there have been fewer than four killed on the

Coquihalla Highway. One can only comment briefly, but with some

sympathy, on all the families in this province who now have their

members all home safely as a consequence of that highway. I would ask

those who want to get into their simplistic two-column arithmetic....

They might begin by putting a price on every one of the lives that has

been saved by the construction of a safe transportation service into

the interior. It is one more reason why the member for Omineca and

others are on their feet today asking for advice about when

transportation systems will be improved. We in the interior of this

province are as entitled to safety in transportation as is the member

for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) when he comes down to this

Legislature on his bicycle, or whatever else he does, from his home.

I'd appreciate answers to those important questions for the Kamloops constituency.

HON. MR. VANT :

I'm indeed very pleased to hear — it's not a surprise, mind

you — that so many colleagues in the free enterprise part of this

House are very keenly interested in highways.

say shame on that member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew who thinks it's

funny when lives are saved. He thought the fact that lives were being

saved was just hilarious.

The Attorney-General, one of the

hon. members for Kamloops, asked me some specific questions, and I'll

be very happy to answer them. I took notes as he was speaking. That

other important part of the Yellowhead Highway... There's not just

Yellowhead 16; there's also Yellowhead 5. I expect to be going to

tender by August of this year on that very important continuing

four-laning between Rayleigh and Heffley.

I appreciate his

concerns on Highway 1, the Trans-Canada Highway, east of Kamloops.

Indeed we're not second-class citizens in British Columbia Many parts

of the Trans-Canada Highway are four-laned in many of the other

provinces, and although we don't seem to get too much money from Ottawa

these days, I hope I can make a very important announcement concerning

improvements on Highway 1 east of Kamloops very soon.

I'd

like to confirm that since 1986 there have only been three or four

fatalities on the Coquihalla. As I indicated earlier, they tell me in

my ministry that because the Coquihalla was built, it saves an average

of 18 lives per year. That, I think, is very significant and is not at

all humorous.

Concerning Wells Grey Park, part of it is on

the eastern boundary of my great constituency, but the main entrance

and everything is in the Kamloops constituency. Very appropriately, in

conjunction with the fiftieth anniversary of that park, I'm happy to

say that I expect that the work to pave the road up to the park will be

undertaken in June of this year so that it can be completed, so that

when we get into the height of the tourist season it will be done.

MR. SIHOTA :

While the Attorney-General is here and the Minister of Highways is

talking about the Coquihalla, let's just retrace some of the reasons we

on this side of the House ask questions.

Now I see that the

fixer's leaving. He doesn't want to hear about his role on the

Coquihalla. He doesn't want to answer the question on where he was on

November 27, 1985, when in this House — I see that the minister has left now —

the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), after having gone up and

down that route being told by people that the project was going to be

over budget, said that he thought the project would be about $500

million over budget. He made that suggestion and indeed allegation in

this House. The response from the government side, and I quote, was:

"You ought not to be suspicious of honest people." Where was the

Attorney-General on that day? Was he responsible for the fudging that

was going on with the Coquihalla at that time? Documents subsequently

released indicated that the government was aware at that time that the

project was well over budget.

On March 11, 1986, the

government in its throne speech, when talking about the pride it had in

the workers on the Coquihalla, said the project had been completed" on

budget and on time." Was the current Attorney-General responsible for

the provision of that quote? He was responsible for all the backroom

work that was going on. He was responsible....

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think I raise a valid point of

order pursuant to standing orders that the debate in estimates should

be relevant to the vote under discussion. Vote 72 is the operation of

the minister's office for 1989 to 1990.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Just a moment, hon. member. I know the book well, and what the

government House Leader says is absolutely correct. It has been the

habit since we started doing our estimates this year and in the past

that we have not provided that members could speak only to the

particular vote placed before us. We have allowed fairly wide-ranging

debate on all, which would cover any number of votes included within

the particular ministry with which we were dealing. Thus, when we come

to the end of the debate, rather than getting the vote we're working

on, then proceeding to the next one and dealing with that one, they all

go through in fairly rapid order.

I must say that when you

are dealing with the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and

Highways, a certain amount of far-ranging items can be talked about.

But let me say this: the matter of the Coquihalla would seem to be....

The Chair might remind all members present that the minister

responsible for the estimates we're dealing with now was

[ Page 6725 ]

certainly not the minister at the time the Coquihalla was being dealt with.

That

is very important. It's an important point that comes up in our debates

all the time, and in some respects, some of the actual discussions

around the Coquihalla are not really pertinent to the estimates that we

are dealing with. They deal with the Coquihalla, but in a different

sense than the estimates of the Highways ministry.

having said that and with all due respect, I thank the government House

Leader for what he said, and perhaps the member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew could continue and keep his remarks pertinent to the estimates

that we are dealing with at the moment.

MR. SIHOTA :

I am responding because the Attorney-General went back as far as 1933,

and I just want to cover some territory in the last few years. It will

become evident in a few seconds why it ties in with the minister's

budget. I dare say that the government House Leader, being from the

community that he resides in, probably doesn't want to hear the true

facts on the Coquihalla.

March 11, 1986, the fact is that in the government throne speech of the

day — and I am sure that the government House Leader will remember

this —

the government said that the project had been built "on budget and on

time." I am wondering again what the role was of the current

Attorney-General with respect to the drafting of that speech. What was

his role all along when questions were being asked in the House with

respect to the cost of that project?

Documents filed later

on in front of the MacKay commission of inquiry demonstrated that on

March 11, 1986, the government was well aware of cost overruns.

Moving

forward in time: on September 7, 1986, after the celebrated leadership

convention, the then Premier and Minister of Finance — the current Premier, no longer Minister of Finance —

filed what he called the "comprehensive review of the province's

finances" in the financial records that the Minister of Finance was

required to file. He showed that the Coquihalla, according to his

numbers, was $11 million under budget. What was the role of the member

for Kamloops with respect to that?

MR. CHAIRMAN : I

am sorry to interrupt, hon member, but I believe that there is nothing

pertinent to these estimates in what is being said at the moment.

Perhaps you could become completely relevant to the estimates that we

are dealing with.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Chairman, I want

to make this point then. As these cost overruns were occurring, money

was being deprived in other regions for necessary highway projects and

works, because of the cost overruns on that project. I think it is

legitimate to ask some questions to seek assurances that that isn't

happening now, in terms of seeing what steps the government has taken

with regard to that.

[3:15]

What

steps are being taken now to make sure that what occurred on March 31,

1987, when the current Minister of Finance chose to table the public

accounts of the province...? Interestingly, those public accounts

contained the false figures for the Coquihalla. They showed that the

project had been completed within budget. During the course of the

commission of inquiry — September 22 — the government,

through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, made its

submissions to the MacKay commission. Again, this is its own commission

that it selected on its own. It appointed its own individual, MacKay,

and what happened? The submission to that commission by the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways contained false figures for the Coquihalla.

would hope that there are things that the government has learned from

that. I would hope that the Attorney-General will one day stand up in

this House and clarify his involvement past and present with respect to

those projects.

Lest I get too far with respect to the Coquihalla — and

maybe it might be better for me to review what was said last year in

terms of the estimates with respect to what happened on the

Coquihalla — I think the member for Omineca, who has left, was

raising an interesting point. That point was in relation to who makes

decisions with respect to highway projects in this province.

would prefer you answer this question first. Firstly, is it true that

committees that that member has no input on made the decision he was

referring to? Was it based upon his submissions? If his submissions

were bypassed, could he explain why the member's submissions were

bypassed? It's a question of respecting the democratic wishes of the

people in the riding of Omineca with respect of who they elect as MLA.

it true, Mr. Minister, that those decisions were being made by regional

committees and not based on the member's views and, in fact, contrary

to the member's views in that instance?

MR. LOENEN :

I'm delighted to take my place in the estimates to firstly make some

general comments and also to ask some very specific questions,

particularly because transportation, as the minister well knows, is

perhaps the most important issue in my community because of our very

location.

We are an island community, and because of the

growth and our proximity to other communities, the transportation

routes have a tremendous impact on our community. Currently we are

anxiously awaiting the completion of the east-west freeway. We look

forward to that completion not because it will help our commuters all

that much, but at least it will do away with the disruption that is

caused by endless construction projects.

As the minister

knows, most of the benefits really go to the community south of us, but

we do have to put up with the inconvenience and the disruption that is

caused there. When you look at a community like Hamilton, a small,

sometimes forgotten corner of Richmond, it was completely severed by

this big

[ Page 6726 ]

freeway

that is marching through that community. People had to go about getting

to their school or their community park in a very difficult and

roundabout way. It is great to see that there will be a completion of

that and that we will see some compensation for the disruption caused

by that.

I want to commend the minister for last fall

deeding over to the municipality some eight acres of leftover

right-of-way for $1 in order to have that kind of a park there on the

east side of the freeway. I know that the people there are immensely

appreciative of that initiative.

In addition to that, they

keep telling me about the landscaping on the approaches. Some of the

mitigating factors, such as berming and some of the trees and shrubs

and buffer zones, ought to be worked on. When we compare the

landscaping on the north side and the landscaping on the south side of

the Alex Fraser Bridge, there is a remarkable difference. Certainly the

people in my community are taxpayers just as much as on the south side,

and we would like to see the standard of landscaping on the north equal

to that of the south. I would like to have the minister comment on that

to see whether we could get an undertaking from him that will take care

of that.

Another matter that is frequently brought to my

attention concerns the fact that on the north end of the Alex Fraser

Bridge there is no telephone. With the volume of traffic there day and

night, frequently there is need for an emergency telephone. The

neighbours there are often called upon in the middle of the evening or

night to provide help, which really ought not to be the case.

Just

switching away from that end of the community, it was great news to

have the Premier announce that this province will commit $5 million

towards a new or additional middle arm crossing. I can assure you that

the people of our community are immensely grateful and look forward to

the time when, together with the municipality, that bottleneck is taken

care of.

There has been talk about making the tunnel three

lanes of southbound traffic in the afternoons. My constituents have met

that piece of news with a great deal of uncertainty, perhaps even

unhappiness, because it will most certainly mean that those workers who

commute in and out of Richmond will have a much harder time getting

home in the evening. Anybody can see the volume there, and creating

another counter flow lane going south in the evening will simply block

the traffic coming into Richmond from the south, making it that much

more difficult. It may be great news for the people in Tsawwassen and

beyond in White Rock, but certainly it will be to the detriment of the

people in my community. I think we have to balance those interests. So

that piece of news has certainly not met with any kind of positive

response in my community, Mr. Minister.

When we look at the

Oak Street Bridge, we know that a tremendous amount of work needs to be

done in terms of surfacing the roadway. But more importantly, a divider

down the middle is badly needed. We have unfortunately had a series of

fatalities on the Oak Street Bridge which could have been prevented had

there been a divider. A number of head-on collisions occurred when

traffic crossed the centre lane. I would urge the minister to make a

commitment to the people of my community that a divider will be placed

there when roadwork and service work on the bridge is contemplated. As

mentioned earlier by the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith), who can

place a dollar value on a human life? We have repeatedly seen the

tragic results of fatalities on that bridge. One of the local papers

has been very active in promoting this.

In addition,

there's a great need for a wheelchair ramp on the north end of the Oak

Street Bridge. Currently, the sidewalk does not allow the handicapped

any kind of access or egress.

We have looked at perhaps

some of the smaller items, but there are also long-term big items that

our community needs to address. I'm glad the ministry is talking about

a future crossing of the north arm at No. 8 Road and Kerr, I believe it

is, or Boundary. That's certainly a project that needs to be considered

very carefully. However, the long-term needs of transportation in our

area cannot be met simply by ever-increasing road and bridge

construction. Those roads and bridges, that concrete, seem to fill up

as fast as we put them down.

In an age when we're becoming

increasingly concerned about the environment, it is imperative that we

address long-term transportation needs by looking at public transit

systems that will move people around the airport, that very congested

area of the GVRD. I would recommend to the minister and the

transportation committee that he, together with the GVRD, immediately

initiate a study on providing commuter-rail service through the Arbutus

cut to connect downtown Vancouver and the town centre of my community

of Richmond. There are more commuters going into downtown Vancouver

from Richmond than from any other suburb in the lower mainland. That

alone ought to be enough reason to seriously consider the Arbutus cut

for commuter-rail service.

[3:30]

There are a few other small items that I would like to bring to the

attention of the minister. The motor vehicle branches are often cause

for tremendous frustration on the part of the people who need to use

them, and I think unnecessarily so. I cannot understand, for instance,

why those branches aren't open on Saturdays or after hours. The

Attorney-General is proposing that the courts be open Saturdays and

evenings. If courts can be open Saturdays and evenings, certainly motor

vehicle branches can cater to the people and become more

customer-oriented than they are.

Just another small item.

People stand in the lineups there for two hours or more. A small item

would simply be to have a number system, where you go in, take your

number and you can do something else, like go shopping or read a book,

instead of standing like animals in a queue forever and a day. It is

inhuman the way we treat the customers.

[ Page 6727 ]

HON. MR. VANT : I'll tell the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree).

MR. LOENEN :

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, if I mistook the ministry. I was under the

impression it was under this minister. I'll have to repeat it.

do have one further issue I'd like to raise, which in some ways is very

small and insignificant and yet very important. It relates to the fact

people travelling west along the Trans-Canada Highway.

MR. MERCIER : That's on purpose.

MR. LOENEN : I wondered about that.

You

can look at a map of the lower mainland, and it would be very

difficult, if you're not familiar with the situation, to see where to

exit the Trans-Canada Highway to find the community of Richmond.

MR. CLARK : What would they go to see?

MR. LOENEN : We have some wonderful tourist attractions, and I could name a few.

AN HON. MEMBER : Name names. Fantasy what?

MR. LOENEN :

It is with great pleasure that we look forward to the opening of the

Richmond equivalent of the Granville Island market on May 25. I would

invite the member to come out and see the opening of Bridgepoint, which

will be a huge success. It will be a tourist attraction. Of course, in

addition to that we have Fantasy Gardens, which is rapidly becoming

Richmond's very own biggest and best tourist attraction.

cannot believe that it is impossible for us to put a sign there. People

have worked on this forever and a day. I used to be an alderman. We

worked on it. The mayors have worked on it. Previous members of the

Legislature have worked on it. It seems to be absolutely impossible to

get your ministry to put up a sign there.

We get told it's

against the policy, but why not change the policy? Why should we have a

community of 115,000 people with all kinds of commercial and business

interests and activities taking place and have it virtually impossible

for people coming in from the Prairies, for instance, to find it? Where

do people turn off? They turn off in North Surrey. They immediately get

lost in the street grid there. They cross the bridge and turn off

somewhere in Burnaby, New Westminster or Vancouver. I have had personal

experience of friends that come in from Calgary or Edmonton, and they'd

end up on the North Shore because it's impossible for them to know

where to turn off. How could you tell that you had to turn off prior to

Langley in order to somehow find your way through Langley, South

Surrey, Cloverdale and through Delta and finally to Richmond.

really don't understand this. I have a whole pile of letters from the

ministry, and they tell me that if they gave it to Richmond, they'd

have to give it to White Rock, Port Moody and Port Coquitlam. If they

have as much trouble as we have, they deserve to have a sign. Then I

get a letter saying that you can't have too many signs along the road

because it's dangerous or because people can't read them. Why don't we

take a cue from what happens in the U.S., where they have great big

overhead signs.

You have had a tremendous increase in your

budget. Surely you could find a few dollars to put up a sign that's big

enough so that our tourists and our visitors don't get lost all over

the GVRD area. They'll know where to go.

This other argument....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Sorry, but the member's time has expired under standing orders.

MR. MOWAT :

I'm very pleased to hear what the second member for Richmond is saying,

and I would request that he carry on with this most enlightening

program so that the people in this province will finally know where

Richmond is.

MR. LOENEN : I am immensely, eternally grateful to my colleague. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll carry on for a minute,

This

matter of the signing. Mr. Minister, I am told by your people that it's

a danger to have too many signs along the roads. I don't travel the

Vancouver Island Highway very often, but recently I had occasion to go

there. I am astounded at the signs they Put up. There's a forest of

signs up there. You have these new blue signs, and every little

commercial establishment has its own sign showing the way to its own

little commercial establishment. Surely, if you can put up signs for

every little establishment.... I don't think the minister is listening.

Mr.

Chairman, I just wanted the minister to observe this. I get told you

can't have too many signs, because it's too dangerous. I find that on

the Island Highway there is a forest of signs. I recently went up

there, and every little commercial establishment has its own sign. I

tell you, if every little greasy-spoon restaurant can have its own

sign, then why is it that a community of 115,000 people can't have a

sign? Surely it should be possible for the minister.

I know

that the minister is a person of great common sense. He comes from the

great riding of the Cariboo, where everybody has a great deal of common

sense. Anybody in the Cariboo would look at that and say: let's use

some common sense; let's solve that problem; let's make it possible for

our visitors to feel at home, not to get lost in the back roads of

Surrey or Burnaby or other communities, but to be able to travel into

the lower mainland and know where they're going without getting lost.

Mr.

Minister, I'm not asking for much. I'm not asking for four-laning of

highways like some of my colleagues. I'm simply asking for a sign. I

know that this has been asked for for years and years. I think it would

be a great thing, if I did nothing else in my career, if at least I got

a sign saying where they can

[ Page 6728 ]

find

my community. I know that a lot of visitors and a lot of residents

would be immensely grateful if you would give an undertaking to

accomplish that. I look forward to your response.

HON. MR. VANT :

I appreciate that very enthusiastic speech by the second member for

Richmond, although I regret that he's decided to leave the chamber.

The

member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) was making some

comments. Obviously he didn't listen to my opening speech, or he didn't

take the time to read Hansard, but I did report on how my ministry was

faring in light of the MacKay commission. I don't want to dwell on what

happened in the terms of the commission of inquiry back in July '87,

but the auditor-general, in his annual audit process, did a follow-up

to the Coquihalla inquiry to determine if my ministry had taken into

consideration and had implemented the recommendations of the Coquihalla

inquiry. The auditor-general was satisfied that management appreciated

the need for improvement and that the general thrust of the proposed

changes was adequate and appropriate. Indeed, when the auditor-general

tabled his report on his follow-up, his overall comment — I repeat

this especially for the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, and I hope

he is listening in his office — was this:

"We found that the ministry has taken action on all of the

major recommendations made in the commissioner's report. As well, it has

implemented status- and cost-reporting procedures for its major projects. We

reviewed these procedures as they relate to the Okanagan connector project and

concluded that they could be relied upon to provide proper accounting for the

costs on the project."

To sum it up, the auditor-general is indeed satisfied that the ministry has

taken the initiative to implement the recommendations of the Coquihalla inquiry

respond directly to the second member for Richmond, I am happy to say

that the long-awaited east-west freeway should be opened this July.

We're also working this current fiscal year to expand the Alex Fraser

Bridge. As you know, it was designed for six lanes, so we're doing the

necessary work to open that up. It should, by the way, relieve an awful

lot of pressure and concern you have concerning the situation with the

Massey Tunnel.

Also,

I'm happy to report that once the interchange is finished — that

would be at the south side of the Alex Fraser Bridge —

we will do the landscaping and it will be of a quality similar to the

Boundary Road interchange, which I believe the same hon member

requested and which I'm happy to report has now been completed.

For

quite some time, of course, for both members for Richmond, the Dinsmore

Bridge situation has been a problem. With that proposal towards a

bridge lining up with the No. 2 Road, and with our concrete substantial

offering of $5 million towards that project.... Of course, it has to be

in cooperation with the municipality of Richmond as well as the federal

government. That is seen to be a very necessary transportation link.

think, too, I would like to say to the member that in the context of

our new sign policy we can consider his request. Certainly the policy

of this government is to allow all travellers to find their destination,

whether it be Richmond or any other municipality in this great province

of ours. For sure, we want to remove a clutter of signs that would just

tend to confuse people. Also, when it comes to signing of services, we

have certain standards. For example, a restaurant must serve at least

three meals a day or it wouldn't qualify to be included in our new sign

policy.

I think I've addressed most of the concerns of the second member for Richmond, and I certainly appreciate his remarks.

MR. GUNO :

I'm happy to rise today to take

part in this debate on the Highways

estimates. I just want to say that I listened with great interest to

the rather impassioned plea from the member for Richmond for more signs

on Highway 99. I think the question is rather appropriate to the

minister, in that he is an expert on highway signs.

I'll be

brief. I've been trying to get on here just to make a pitch for some

consideration of the road system throughout Atlin, which includes

Highway 37 and, of course, the road into the Nass. Listening to some of

my colleagues from the north, both from this side of the House and the

government side, I support their view that.... They all express the

concern that a disproportionate amount of the highway resources has

been allocated for areas other than the north. I think it's high time

we really took a look at and considered the very valid concern that

some of the highway needs in the north are continuing to be ignored.

listened last night to a CBC reporter who was interviewing the late

first member for Cariboo, who was Highways minister for some years. It

was a story about his travels throughout some of the highway systems in

my area. It seemed that he wanted to take along with him many of his

senior staff in order to have the experience firsthand, or at least to

take a look and see what the highway systems were like, and have this

hands-on experience. I thought that was rather intriguing. One of the

stories that interested me was when the former executive assistant to

that Highways minister was asked: "What happened during your trip

through Highway 37?" He said: "We spent a lot of time changing flat

tires." That was some years ago, but I dare say that very little has

changed since then, except that the volume of traffic has increased

tremendously. It has become, I think, a fairly significant alternative

route for many people travelling from the northwest into the Alaska

Highway system. While there have been little improvements made to

Highway 37, except maybe some improvements to some of the bridges over

some of the major creeks, it remains what it was about 20 years ago.

[3:45]

I think it was the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) who said that British Columbians, no matter

[ Page 6729 ]

where

they are, are entitled to safe and modern highways. I subscribe to that

principle, and I think we have to be concerned about how we allocate

highway funds throughout this province. Unfortunately, the biggest

factor is politics: you reward your friends and punish your foe. I

don't know what we in Atlin have done to this government, but it seems

to me that we've been punished long enough. We're quite willing to be

friendly. We're quite willing to sit down and talk to the government

about some of the things we may have done that have offended them and

made them neglect us for so long.

I just want to zero in on

the road to Kincolith. Again, I want to refer to the former Minister of

Highways, who has passed on. I would just like to have this opportunity

to pay tribute to him, because I know that when he travelled to

Greenville to open up the new bridge that crossed the Nass, he was

quite taken by the people, and I think the people of the Nass were

quite taken by him. They recognized his integrity and his commitment to

fighting for a better infrastructure throughout the north. At that time

there were discussions about the extension of the Nass road down to

Kincolith from Greenville. I understand that the minister made a

commitment that the provincial government would enter into a kind of

one-to-one sharing formula with the federal government if the federal

government were to come forward with funds.

My first

question is whether or not that commitment is still at hand. I think

it's essential that that road be extended, not only for the people of

Kincolith, who have to contend with boat and air travel and a scenario

of severe winter conditions that often leaves the folks isolated during

some of the more severe winter months, but also from a purely economic

point of view. It would open up that area and diversify the economy.

think the same applies to Highway 37. Right now the road system

throughout that whole region is geared for single-use resource

extraction. It is not consistent with any kind of planning for economic

diversity. I think that if the government were serious about meeting

the economic challenges throughout B.C., including the far north, then

I would urge them to consider expending more than just a trickle in

that particular area. In light of that, and more specifically, I'm

wondering what is planned for Highway 37. Are there any significant

renovations to be done on some of the bridge systems?

In the Nass, for instance, in the summertime.... I recently travelled through

there. I'm not exaggerating when I say that you literally take your life

in your hands when you're travelling there and those logging trucks are rolling,

and it's dusty and hot. You can't see anything for a few seconds; you're

blinded Because of the conditions, many of the travellers through that area are

extremely careful; that's why we haven't had more accidents. But I think

that is waiting to happen. Even as a short-term measure, I think that just oiling

the road would be helpful. But in the long term, extending the pavement from

the Rosswood area right into the Nass would be a tremendous improvement.

The

stretch between the junction at the Nass and Greenville is another big

concern. During runoff and heavy rainfall in the fall, vast stretches

of that particular road are often under water. That road is travelled

every day during the school week by buses full of school children. It

presents a very real danger to the children travelling this road. I have

heard very little about any funds being allocated by your department to

improve this situation. Again, I want to canvass the minister as to

whether there are any plans to address that serious problem, because it

has been brought to your ministry's attention time and time again. It

has been years and years since this has been brought to the attention

of your ministry. So I want to know whether there are any concrete

plans to deal with these situations in the Nass Valley.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. VANT :

It's good to hear from the hon. member for Atlin. He gave a little bit

of history. I know that the executive assistant that he referred to who

accompanied Alex Fraser up there was probably Jess Ketchum. Since that

visit, the actual amount of pavement on Highway 37 and Highway 37A has

gone from about 10 percent up to over 50 percent.

I'd like

to thank the member too for acknowledging the construction of that new

bridge at Aiyansh. I can fully understand when he talks about logging

trucks and dry, dusty roads. Like Atlin, my own constituency of Cariboo

has a vast amount of dry, dusty roads as well. It does take time, of

course, and a lot of money to get roads paved. It can't all happen in

one year. But certainly we could look at some form of dust control

where there are heavy volumes of traffic.

He specifically

mentioned a question regarding the road to Kincolith. I think this is

the road which goes from Greenville to Kincolith. Like some of my

predecessors, we had agreed to 50 percent funding for that road. But at

this point in time, we haven't received any funds from the federal

government in regard to that specific project.

I would like

to say that this year near Bob Quinn Lake, we are going ahead with the

building of the Bob Quinn Airport. It is also a vital project for

ensuring that people and the necessary supplies can get into that

country. The people mining out in the Iskut Valley — from Skyline Explorations and Cominco and so on —

assure me that they would make adequate use of that airport. Of course,

that will be right alongside Highway 37. As the hon. member no doubt

knows, for quite some time the aircraft were actually landing on

Highway 37. With the increase in traffic volume, it's not a good mix to

have aircraft landing on one of our highways.

This summer

I'll be coming into Atlin, and I want to see firsthand the road

situation there. I have, of course, been up there since becoming the

minister. I made a trip to Meziadin junction and as far as I could get

through Bear Pass. I was actually going to go all

[ Page 6730 ]

the

way over to Stewart, but that's when we had all those avalanches.

Indeed, there were no less than 23 avalanches on Highway 37A between

Meziadin junction and Stewart. On Highway 37 north up near Ningunsaw

Pass we had a major avalanche, one of the largest my avalanche

technicians had ever seen. They measure an avalanche on a scale of one

to five, and that one came in at 4.5. It left a deposit on Highway 37

about 50 feet deep and 1,000 feet long. This indicates the ruggedness

of the terrain and the difficulties in some months of the year to keep

those roads open.

So in the summer I plan to visit that

area and further pursue some of the concerns which the member for Atlin

has shared with me.

[4:00]

MR. GUNO :

I'm happy to hear the minister say he'll be in the area to see the

situation firsthand. I just hope it doesn't take more time even to deal

with some of the more immediate problems that I outlined, such as the

tremendous dust, which presents not only a hazardous driving condition

but also, I would submit, an unhealthy situation in the Nass. It

permeates the whole valley and into the communities. We're talking

about rock dust, which can, as I understand it, cause silicosis, a

serious disease of the lungs. I think we have to be far quicker in

terms of time-scale in dealing with that particular problem.

understand that some study is being undertaken to see the viability of

extending the road from Iskut through the Iskut Valley, the Stikine and

down into Wrangell to service some of the mining activities. Is the

minister aware of that study, and what are the ramifications of such a

road system?

HON. MR. VANT : I believe the study that

the hon member is alluding to is to be completed by, I think, the end

of June of this year. The road into the Iskut Valley would be a.... I

guess you could call it a road to resources. Certain interests, both

mining and forestry, would like a road built in there. I'm advised that

it would be impossible for that road to really get to tidewater because

of the rock bluffs and sheer cliffs at that end. It would be

impossible, actually, to build a road right to Wrangell, because

Wrangell, Alaska, is on an island.

Currently, some of those

mining companies have their supplies come to Wrangell by marine

transportation, and then they take them in by helicopter to their

sites. So various interests want to build an industrial road and have

very limited public access. If the Ministry of Transportation and

Highways were going to get involved in that road, of course, it would

have to be built to a certain standard. And once I spend public funds,

it has to be a very accessible public road that would not be restricted

in any way.

I would like to add a little more about some of our plans, because I know the

member is interested in improvements to Highway 37. We plan to continue work

north of the Meziadin junction. We want to construct two or three new permanent

bridges; we're planning to do the Blue River bridge and the French Creek

bridge. We would like to extend the grading and sealing on Highway 37. Currently

we're doing some survey work about six kilometres out and up as far as Bell-Irving

bridge No. 2. We would like to do more work, right up to the Hopegood logging

access. So we are continuing to make improvements on Highway 37 a priority.

MR. LOVICK :

I have been waiting for a long time to get back into this debate. It

seems a curious phenomenon, but somehow members on the other side are

resolved to take up all the time. I'm intrigued by that. However, let

that happen. I want to pose a very direct question to the minister just

to clarify, and then I am going to yield the floor to another hon.

member who wishes to speak.

First, though, an observation.

Mr. Minister, we are indeed having a rather protracted debate. Some of

the observations made on both sides are lengthy. Some of your answers

are rather lengthy too, and that's good; I'm sure we all appreciate

your effort to provide us with information. But I'm wondering if we

could perhaps jack up the enthusiasm somewhat, because I'd like to

suggest to you that you might try giving the same amount of gusto and

drive to your presentations as you would say if you were doing an

interpretation of the Book of Revelation from the pulpit or something.

It's getting a little dull, and a number of us are having difficulty

paying attention. So I'm wondering if you could just jack it up ever so

slightly. I offer you that free, gratis and for nothing — and with no

attempt, of course, to criticize.

I don't want to belabour

the point, but the question is this. Is it true that the construction

work on the so-called Vancouver Island Highway project that I referred

to earlier today will not begin in the summer of 1989, though that was

indeed laid out in the

schedule published in November 1988? Should I

tell people that there will be no construction this summer despite what

they were told before?

HON. MR. VANT : The answer to the hon. member's question is no.

MR. DAVIDSON :

I have just a few points I'd like to raise with the minister. Firstly,

dealing with the Massey Tunnel, I would like to know if the minister's

staff has reached any determination as to the three lanes southbound in

the evening. As the minister knows, there are virtually thousands of

motorists lined up at night to go through the Massey Tunnel, and while

the staff has indicated for many years that it would cause an

inordinate delay for northbound cars, I still feel that the vast

majority of motorists must be accommodated. I'm sure that with a little

bit of ingenuity and imagination, a method can be devised whereby even

for a period of one hour the tunnel could be opened for southbound

traffic.

The three lanes also in the morning for northbound

traffic — it seems that there's almost a fixed timetable in place. The

tunnel opens at a certain time and it closes at a certain time,

notwithstanding anything that might happen to the contrary. For

[ Page 6731 ]

example,

if there's a tie-up in the tunnel or something, the other lane is still

closed at approximately 8:30 in the morning. There's no reason that I'm

aware of that the people on site at that time can't be instructed to

use just a little bit of common sense and leave the tunnel open for an

extra 15, 20 or 30 minutes. The majority of the motorists must be

accommodated even though it inconveniences a few people on the other

side going the other way. In addition, of course, with the Alex Fraser

Bridge we can now divert traffic with simple sign programs to get them

into that area as well.

The second point I'd like to raise

is that of the bus lane. In other jurisdictions, motorcycles are

allowed to use the bus lane. We've already allowed ambulances to use

it, but the difficulty with motorcyclists.... The member will be aware

that there's a growing number of motorcycles in British Columbia. You

have a situation where the traffic is totally tied up for miles. You

have people on motorcycles, and motorcycles don't have fans to cool the

engines, so what is happening is that the motorcyclists are now going

between the lanes of traffic or off to the side. I guess all of us who

ride motorcycles have done this on occasion, because the bike just gets

too hot to operate, particularly when you're forced to wear a helmet.

On a hot day it's an impossible situation, and it begs for correction.

All that is required is to allow motorcycles to use the bus lane. This

is not uncommon. Seattle, for example, with their bus lanes, and other

jurisdictions, allow motorcycles to use that lane. It requires simply a

minor amendment to the regulations to allow that to happen.

The

final point I'd like to make is regarding the Oak Street Bridge. I know

there are plans and the ministry is now looking at possibly putting

another lane on the Oak Street Bridge. In the meantime, would there be

anything to prevent three-laning the Oak Street Bridge in the morning

and allowing traffic to go up, say, to Park Drive and then turn off?

The

real problem developing now in the mornings is that the traffic is able

to get through the Massey Tunnel but is being bottlenecked at the Oak

Street Bridge. By making Oak Street a three-lane going northbound in

the morning, you can accomplish a great deal in removing that

bottleneck. Some of the traffic will turn off for Marine Drive east and

west, in any case; the rest can carry on to Park Drive, where you can

do the same thing as on Georgia Street in downtown Vancouver.

the evening, there's no need to change the traffic patterns on Oak

Street, but by three-laning the southbound traffic on Oak Street

Bridge, a great deal could be accomplished in that area as well.

These

are three areas that I hope the minister can shed some light on and

help alleviate what is, I think, one of the greatest bottlenecks

anywhere in the lower mainland.

We all recognize the

tremendous growth that's taken place south of the Fraser; we recognize

the fact that the Alex Fraser Bridge is going to be used more and more.

But still it is not going to help significantly reduce the traffic

tie-ups through the Massey Tunnel, which are now at a stage equal to

the situation before the Alex Fraser Bridge came into being. I would

appreciate if the minister could share a few thoughts with us on that

and maybe provide some reply.

HON. MR. VANT : Yes,

the second member for Delta raises three excellent points. First of

all, I can understand his concern about the Massey Tunnel. I'm very

pleased to inform him that by September 15, we hope to have a very

sophisticated electronic counterflow system installed, so that we can

indeed have at the appropriate times three lanes of traffic flowing

southbound. Currently we manually direct traffic and put those dividers

down and everything, but if we have this sophisticated electronic

system in place, it can give us some flexibility. We can see how the

traffic is flowing and which volumes are heading in which direction,

and we can change it and get the most use out of that tunnel.

I will certainly take under advisement his suggestion regarding motorcycles being allowed to use that bus lane.

The

third part: the Oak Street Bridge is a very aging structure. Part of it

is in the Chairman's constituency. The member for Delta suggests a

possible counter flow on that bridge, but I'm advised that because

places like Richmond are net employment areas in the morning — a lot of

people drive to Richmond to go to work — there is even flow of traffic

both ways.

Actually, in conjunction with the need for major

rehabilitation of the Oak Street Bridge, and as the second member for

Richmond (Mr. Loenen) pointed out a few minutes ago, there's a safety

need to have a divider down the centre of that bridge, and currently

there isn't room for that. In a major rehabilitation program, we could

add extra lanes, and that would solve the problem. I don't think the

installation of a counter flow at this time would assist that much on

the Oak Street Bridge.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I'm going to see who talks about motorcycles. No, let's go to Vancouver East.

MR. CLARK :

I want to talk about the B.C. Ferry Corporation and follow up some of

the stuff we've been talking about in question period. Before I do

that, I would like to ask just one question, if I could, arising from

the previous discussion about the Coquihalla.

[4:15]

The minister stated that the auditor-general gave a clean bill of

health to Highways with respect to implementing recommendations flowing

from the MacKay commission. But the auditor-general also talks about a

critical problem — in fact, the critical problem in terms of financial

accountability with respect to the Coquihalla — which was the shifting

of money between sub votes. In another part of the auditor-general's

report, he suggests that it is still going on in government today in a

generic sense. I want to ask the minister whether he's saying that

while the auditor-general has said this has not been

[ Page 6732 ]

addressed

by government in a general sense, it has been addressed by the Ministry

of Highways and, therefore, can he assure the House that within the

Ministry of Highways, there is no transferring or shuffling of money

between sub votes, which was one of the problems that arose as a result

of the MacKay commission of inquiry?

I see that the staff

is reviewing that question, so I'll keep talking very briefly until the

minister is prepared to answer. It is the important question, it seems

to me, because that's where the members of this House, the Legislature,

have fundamental accountability. It's fine for us to approve global

budgets, but if the ministry has the ability to shuffle money between

sub votes, it confounds political accountability. It's vitally

important, in my view and in the auditor-general's view, that that

practice be stopped. I want to see whether, in fact, this ministry has

stopped that practice.

HON. MR. VANT : Very briefly,

I just want to assure the second member for Vancouver East that in my

time there has been no shifting of money by sub votes that I'm aware

of. I intend, along with my staff, of course, to work diligently to

abide by the wishes of the auditor-general and to fulfil the

recommendations of the MacKay commission.

MR. KEMPF :

I've got to take the minister back to the north and back to Omineca for

a while, because I really didn't get an answer to my question with

respect to priorities.

I heard the Attorney-General (Hon.

S.D. Smith). I couldn't agree more with the Attorney-General with

respect to the expenditure of Highways funds in British Columbia. If I

had my way, the Highways budget would be twice that billion dollars

that it is today — no doubt about it — but we'd see a little more of it

spent in the north. Never have I ever gotten up in this House to speak

against expenditures of taxpayers' money for highways and roads in

British Columbia, and never will I.

I am concerned at this

point about priorities and who sets the priorities. I think we've got

to revisit that question, because I am going to stay here until I find

out who it was that advised the minister that he should go ahead with

the Stella Road connection prior to expending money on other projects

in my constituency. Who was it, Mr. Minister? Was it the regional

economic development liaison officer for the state of Nechako who made

that priority decision? Was it the three Social Credit hopefuls who sit

on the Omineca constituency association who made that decision? Who was

it, Mr. Minister, that suggested to you that this project take

precedence over others? It's very important to the people — the public — of my constituency.

This great minister of state program

isn't working very well for the people when you see such priorities as

this take place. I've got to know who made that decision. Was it the

transport planning committee for the state of Nechako? Was it the

political hack who runs around with the $45,000 salary, an open

expense account and a vehicle in my constituency? Was it him? Was it

Barrie Carter? Who was it who made that decision?

certainly wasn't the MLA, and the decision wasn't made on the

priorities held by the people in that area. So who made that decision?

Who suggested to you, Mr. Minister, that you go ahead with this project

over others?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just before you go ahead,

Mr. Minister, maybe we could ask the members who aren't wishing to

speak to sit or be quiet, one or the other. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr.

Minister.

HON. MR. VANT : Who sets the priorities is

the question. I think, historically, that there have always been a

number of players in this priority-setting. There are all kinds of

people who lobby me as the minister, because I make the ultimate

decision on the advice of many people, including my staff because, hey,

certain projects or possible projects are identified by maybe a local

mayor or an MLA. I might initially think that that's really a good

idea, and then I find out that, gee, there's no right-of-way acquired,

or engineering work has to be done, or there's some kind of technical

problem so that particular project can't proceed immediately.

But

I want to assure the member for Omineca that the local regional

transportation advisory committee only recommends certain short-term

and long-term priorities. They are not the decision-making body.

Also,

as was alluded to earlier in the question about allocating funds from

one vote to another, when a minister does decide to move funds from one

subvote to another, it isn't done at the whim of the minister; it's

done using the appropriate method through Treasury Board, where it's

well documented. I think the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Clark) knows that all ministries of government from time to time

occasionally do — and I have been advised by my staff they actually do — through the proper method, through Treasury Board, make a good issue

paper, having a good argument for why the funds are needed for a

particular project or whatever.

Occasionally this does

happen in my ministry. As I said earlier, sometimes some projects in a

particular fiscal year cannot proceed for technical reasons, or

because, as I said, the right-of-way hasn't been acquired. Rather than

just leave certain funds in limbo, why not use those funds for another

worthwhile project that perhaps an MLA like the member for Omineca has

as a priority?

MR. KEMPF : We haven't answered the

question. We went around and around it, but we haven't answered the

question. It's a very simple question. Why was it the decision of the

minister to go ahead with this project rather than others?

it's the minister — and I heard the Premier say earlier that it was the

minister who makes the decisions on advice from the hinterland — then

who in the hinterland suggested to the minister that this

[ Page 6733 ]

project

was a priority over others? In that very immediate area the minister

need only go back to his files and he'll find letter after letter from

the member for Omineca in the past few years . . .

MR. SERWA : Who's that?

MR. KEMPF : You'll learn who that is soon enough.

...suggesting priorities for this particular area in my constituency. I

ask again, Mr. Chairman — and it's a very simple question — who was it

who suggested that this project be a priority in my constituency?

Because I didn't. Do we live under a democratic system or don't we? Or

has democracy gone out the window in British Columbia? You know, I've

heard several times in the two days that this minister's estimates have

been before this House how we politicize the dollars in Highways. Is

that what you're doing here? Who suggested this project as a priority,

Mr. Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just before we proceed

with the next speaker — and there were several people standing —

perhaps.... We don't normally have this many members in committee.

Perhaps in view of the fact that we're well in excess of a quorum, we

could try and keep it down a little bit.

HON. MR. VANT : Quite frankly, I can't personally recall anybody particularly recommending that particular project.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. Please wait to be recognized.

MR. KEMPF : That makes the next question quite simple. Why did the minister choose this project?

HON. MR. VANT :

I think the member for Omineca is somewhat naive in his approach. He

thinks that every little project throughout the province is personally

picked by the minister. Actually...

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANT : No, I didn't say that.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. Let's continue just listening to one at a time.

HON. MR. VANT :

A lot of projects are put on stream because of advice from various

sources. Naturally one of the sources is the staff within the ministry.

The district highways manager identifies that there is a certain need,

and that may or may not have been identified by the MLA for the area;

it may or may not have been identified by a mayor in an area, or any

other citizen. But for sure, I and my ministry take note of

correspondence received from a certain area, from all sorts of citizens.

There

are other technical reasons why a certain project should go ahead and

one shouldn't. It's not just a purely political process, I'm very happy

to report.

[4:30]

MR. KEMPF :

I've got all the time in the world. Perhaps we could adjourn this House

and have the minister go to his office and phone the district manager

in Vanderhoof to find out whether in fact he finds this project to be a

priority over the others in that particular area. Perhaps we could do

that.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Are you putting the question?

MR. KEMPF : Is this question period?

MR. CHAIRMAN : No, I'm asking you if you're putting the question for adjournment.

MR. KEMPF : Certainly I'll be putting a question.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I wanted to know if you wished the Chair to call the question for adjournment, as you discussed.

MR. KEMPF :

I'm asking the minister if he would like that. He told this House just

a few minutes ago that perhaps it was the district manager in

Vanderhoof who made this decision. I've got to get to the bottom of it;

it's very important that I get to the bottom of this issue. It goes to

the very roots of the democratic process, the very reason for the

British parliamentary system. Who in a particular constituency makes

suggestions to the minister as to what should be done — in this case,

in highways? That's a very important question, hon. members. I'm sure

you all agree. It goes to the very root of the democratic system.

The

minister says all kinds of people make them; I don't doubt that. In

this case I want to know who made the recommendation that this project

be carried out over others, and I'll give the minister an out. How fair

can you get? Is the minister prepared — because I know full well that

this project hasn't started — to tell me that he's willing to take

those dollars and put them into another project that is a priority in

that area, a project that all of the engineering has been done on, that

all of the surveying has been done on, and that in fact only needs

blacktop? The surface for it has been in place for three years. Is the

minister willing to take the recommendation of the duly elected

representative for that area and divert the dollars from the Stella

Road East project to one that is a priority of the people in that area?

MR. BRUCE :

I note that there could be some concern about the spending of some

dollars up in the Omineca region. I have a few thoughts on what we

could do with some of the dollars there, if there's a problem.

Following up some of the comments the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D.

Smith) made a little earlier about highway development being both social

[ Page 6734 ]

and

economic, particularly sometimes on the social side of things in jobs

and the expansion of the economy and the like, there is on Vancouver

Island a new initiative that we've been working on in concert with a

number of communities: the proposal of a link from Cowichan Lake

through to Port Alberni.

I suppose if you follow the

thoughts of social and economic development in the aspect of community

stability, this linkage between these two communities would Indeed be a

very major shot in the arm for both the Cowichan Lake area and for the

Port Alberni region. As the minister is aware, there has been a

tremendous amount of community support up and down the Island. This

project in itself not only impacts upon the communities of Cowichan

Lake and Port Alberni, but it also directly affects the economic and

social viability of Cowichan-Malahat, the city of Duncan, the

municipality of North Cowichan, and the communities of Chemainus,

Ladysmith, Nanaimo, Parksville and Qualicum. What we would actually be

doing by linking these two communities is providing a circular route

for tourism development and for visitors from other parts of British

Columbia and Canada and from around the world who come to our area to

see much more of Vancouver Island.

Interjection.

MR. BRUCE :

Certainly, as my colleague from Victoria knows, Vancouver Island is a

very beautiful spot. It's a very beautiful part of British Columbia,

and many people are coming here. To be able to provide other

alternatives and other areas that people could visit would be of

benefit not only to our region but certainly to the Capital Regional

District as well Much of the wilderness& area that we talk about,

the new role and the manner in which people are looking more and more

to wilderness activities and the like.... With the linkage of these two

communities and a road through this area, it would provide much greater

of Vancouver Island.

Also from an economic side, the

ability of traffic, trade and commerce to go to and from Alberni

through Lake Cowichan, and down to the lower region of Vancouver Island

and Victoria, would have a very significant economic impact. Currently,

of course, as one would see with the road networking and not being able

to go the way the crow flies — the region of Port Alberni, of course,

having to go back out onto the highway and all the way down — there

would be a sizeable reduction in time-frame of travel from Port Alberni

through to this area. I think it would impact greatly on the future

expansion of the whole area of Vancouver Island and the province as a

whole.

As I mentioned, there is strong community support

for this, and to demonstrate that community support, last year we had a

cavalcade. We had two cavalcades, actually. We had one that started in

Cowichan Lake that went through the existing road network that's there

right now — as the minister, I believe, is aware — to Port Alberni. At

the same time another cavalcade from the Cumberland area went through

the Comox Valley to Port Alberni. There we met, several hundreds of

people, in a strong show of support for this type of linkage.

Again

there will be a cavalcade — and it's very timely that we're on the

Highways estimates — that will be occurring this weekend on May 14.

MR. BLENCOE : Tell us about the cavalcade.

MR. BRUCE :

I would like to tell you about the cavalcade. And perhaps the member

for Victoria might like to try and venture just a little bit further

north of the Malahat than I think he's had the opportunity to. He might

like to come up through the Cowichan Valley — where I believe even some

of his relatives live in that great constituency of Cowichan Malahat —

and take the opportunity of coming up through to Cowichan Lake; drive

the road and see what the outdoors is all about, see what this great

province of British Columbia really is all about, and see what this

linkage.... Because I too would like to hear from the member for

Victoria his words of support for this particular project.

know that the minister has been doing some work on this; and also

through the regional development, the ministry of state process, with

the hearings done in regard to transportation, this particular project

has received a great deal of support. I appreciate that there is a

project manager who is currently looking at it all. I would hope that

perhaps the minister might be able to give me some update on this

particular issue so that on Sunday, when we gather as a group after

another successful cavalcade, I'm sure, we could mention to the people

just what in fact is occurring.

There are a couple of other

points I would like to cover in the aspect of highway development

specific to Cowichan-Malahat. We have an area that's as famous as any

in respect to highway and road development, the famous Mesachie

corners. I'm sure that most of you here, if you haven't already heard

of Mesachie, will know about Mesachie. We're having a grand opening on

the Mesachie corners occurring later this month up in that community.

It wasn't a long stretch of work that needed to be done in distance,

but it was a long time in getting done; many years.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

like to think that perhaps it was because of the more recent

representation the community has had that we were able to get the

project underway; we picked the ball up and got the work underway. But

I would like to commend the Ministry of Highways for the job that was

done there: the straightening of those corners. Many logging trucks are

working up and down that road neck, and they were tight, narrow

corners. It has been straightened away now. It's greatly improved.

But there's a little twist to this whole story of the Mesachie corners. It's not just a question of blasting

[ Page 6735 ]

through,

moving rock, filling gullies, laying gravel and sand and paving it all.

The way these Mesachie corners were to be straightened out could have

meant the elimination of some 19 or 20 historical trees. These trees

were actually brought to the community, oh, I guess some 50 years or so

ago from around the world as the community developed there with the

forest industry. Some of the pioneers of our community saw fit to bring

these trees to the area.

Although we were seeing a fairly

positive development in these corners to be straightened, and it is of

great benefit to the community, there was great consternation among

people who live in Mesachie itself — and actually throughout the

constituency — that because of the plans that were being developed we

could be in the position of losing all of those trees or a goodly

number of them. I think it's important to point out, because sometimes

it's thought that the Ministry of Highways is only there to blast a

road through with a damn-the-torpedoes, full-steam-ahead sort of

approach. But with a great deal of community work and participation

with the ministry staff and the minister himself, we were able to put

together a design so that the corners were straightened out, which was

a plus to the community, and we were also able to save these 19 or 20

historical trees.

I think that that's an important point to

note. From around the province, I suppose, a lot of people would drive

by those trees and might not consider them to have any historical value

at all. But those trees mean a great deal to our community and to a

number of the pioneers who lived in the area. As I mentioned, through

cooperation and conversation and the like, we were able to come up with

a design that satisfied both the straightening of the corners and the

saving of the trees.

Just to have a little fun with that,

next weekend on May 18 or 19, we're having our own official opening of

the Coquihalla, only it's the Mesachie corners. It's also our

historical days — heritage days — in the community of Cowichan Lake and

Lake Cowichan, so it ties in really nicely. We're going to have a lot

of fun It's a good news project; it's been good for the community.

MR. BLENCOE : No overruns.

MR. BRUCE :

No overruns. It's been properly done, well constructed, environmentally

sound and protective of the trees there. We're going to have a nice

little commemorative event there. Again, I would certainly welcome the

member for Victoria if he'd like to come up and see how the job is done

and what you can do when you get the community working together —

people working together — for the province of British Columbia and the

communities in which they live.

You might want to come up

to that, because it will be a lot of fun. We're going to have a few

speeches You could come up. I'll give a nice speech; I would introduce

you. There would even be some tea, coffee, crackers, cakes and the like

for you. I think it's important to mention that.

When we

talk about social and economic development — and I think this is

important because Highways plays such an important role in all of this — the other aspect is the economic and social development in a

community like Lake Cowichan. We've had some serious and difficult

times in that community, but that community is alive and well. We are

going to move ahead in spite of some of the difficulties that we have

been faced with.

As I stand here today, let it be known

that a few years from now, you will look at the Cowichan Lake area and

the village of Lake Cowichan with the same appreciation as for

Chemainus and for a number of other small towns throughout British

Columbia. It certainly will become a destination area in the southern

part of Vancouver Island for visitors coming through.

[4:45]

When we talk about Highways and the aspect of social and economic

development, let me tell you what it means to a community like Lake

Cowichan to have a simple little project be given the green light to

get up and get running. For some years we've been attempting to get the

curb and gutter program put together. It's not just a question of

turning to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and saying:

"Come and do the curb and gutter in that particular area." It's also

part of the local budgeting process, where there are dollars available — or perhaps some years they aren't available — to be able to

participate in that cost-sharing initiative.

This year — of

all the years — it has come together. The Ministry of Transportation

and Highways has given its blessing, as I understand, so that the curb

and gutter project will be underway. The community itself has the

dollars necessary to do the sidewalk work and the municipal dollars

necessary to participate in this program. But when you see the actual

development taking place and the crews working, the improvement to the

entrance of the community is really quite staggering. In total dollars,

it's not very significant relative to the global budget of the Ministry

of Transportation and Highways or what you may find in some of the

larger centres around the province.

To that community, the

project shows that there is faith, determination and a future for the

community — albeit a small project that in itself is not going to make

a difference to the economic and social viability of the community. But

it shows they are not alone, and that this will enhance the entrance to

the community. Other works, I am sure, will begin throughout the rest

of that main street to take advantage of some of the downtown

revitalization programs for facade improvement.

I'd just

like to express at this time how important it is. I would hope — and I

am sure — that the minister would make sure that this project will be

up and running as quickly as it is feasible to put together. I say that

because of the psychological importance to that community. It may be

that somewhere in the hopper, that project is going to happen and would

perhaps be done in September or October,

[ Page 6736 ]

because

it's not a big one. It would have a very strong significance to that

community if we could see it occur in June or July, if the planning has

been done and is in place. To give it that little nudge would mean a

lot to the community.

Finally, before I sit down, I would

like to speak a little about the Ferry Corporation and about our

British Columbia ferry fleet. I've mentioned this before; there is no

ferry service in the world that compares to what we have here in the

province of British Columbia and here on Vancouver Island. The service

between Vancouver Island and the mainland is exceptional. However, I

think there are a couple of things we could do on the B.C. Ferries

system that wouldn't necessarily be a high cost, if any cost at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I regret to inform the member that his time has expired.

MR. CLARK :

I want to canvass with the minister some questions regarding the sub

votes, as it appears the minister has got a different answer from the

one he gave me earlier. It may be as a result of more consultation, but

it concerns me, so I want to get it clarified. Exactly what is the

status of moving between sub votes?

HON. MR. VANT :

I'm very glad that the second member for Vancouver East seeks this

clarification. In the context of his original question I assumed.... I

guess you can't really assume anything when you're speaking to this

House. When I made the comment about shifting of money by sub votes, it

was in the context of your question to do with the Coquihalla. In my

time there hasn't been any shifting of money by sub votes affecting the

Coquihalla. I think that is the clarification you're seeking.

MR. CLARK :

Then I would like to know the status of transferring funds between sub

votes in your ministry as a whole — not simply the Coquihalla but all

programs within your ministry.

HON. MR. VANT : If

there are any which are done or contemplated, they're all done through

a very proper process, which very appropriately involves Treasury

Board. If the hon. second member for Vancouver East wants to get into a

very detailed analysis of this process and everything, perhaps he

should discuss it further with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Couvelier), who is ultimately responsible for those kinds of things,

which affect every ministry of government, not just my own.

MR. CLARK :

You can be sure that I will deal with this in the Ministry of Finance,

but I want to canvass it with you a little bit, because to me it seems

fundamental.

The fundamental failing identified by the

MacKay commission, which delved into how there was a $500 million

overrun on the Coquihalla and how that could be concealed from the

Legislature, was the shifting of money between sub votes. I want the

minister to understand this point. There used to be roughly 20 votes

under the Ministry of Highways. I don't have the estimates with me

right now, but I gather there are about four votes now and many sub

votes. So what is identified as a major failing of financial

accountability that contributed to the Coquihalla cover-up — if I can

use that word — was the ability to shift between sub votes. In answer

to questions on the Coquihalla the minister said: "We are following all

the recommendations of the MacKay commission." That does not appear to

be the case if the minister is saying that they are abiding by all the

recommendations of the MacKay commission except for the one that says

they should not be allowed to shift money between sub votes.

That

is a fundamental question that hasn't been dealt with and should be

dealt with. I wonder, since he's got other advice here, whether he

wants to clarify the ministry's ability to shift money between sub

votes.

HON. MR. VANT : I'm not too sure that all the

arguments the hon. member is putting forward are actually based on the

MacKay commission, but I want to assure the member that in terms of the

finance and administration operations in my ministry, all reallocations

must be consistent with the general purpose and intent of the vote

descriptions and the government's current initiatives. In light of the

MacKay commission we did reduce the number of actual votes in my

ministry, which I believe Commissioner MacKay requested, so that it

would be much clearer. But there is a very proper procedure to be

followed, and I think it assists anyone concerned to follow what

reallocations have occurred, for what good purpose and exactly how much

money was involved in any particular specific reallocation.

MR. CLARK :

But it's not a public process, Mr. Minister. The fact that you go

behind closed doors and appeal to Treasury Board for permission to move

money between sub votes I understand. That's not a proper process, in

my view. The proper process is that those things are voted on in this

chamber. That's what led to the non-accountability that the MacKay

commission talked about. It's fundamental to what we do here in this

chamber. We approve spending for specific projects. The government is

in complete control of what projects are spent on, as long as they come

to the House for approval. If they can then leave here and move money

between sub votes, we're confounding that political accountability.

That's what was at the heart of the MacKay commission. The minister

went to great pains here repeatedly to say they were following the

MacKay commission; it now appears that on this critical question you're

not. Does the minister understand the logic that I'm trying to follow

here?

HON. MR. VANT : Actually, I think the member is

referring more to the auditor-general's report right now than he is to

the MacKay commission report.

[ Page 6737 ]

MR. KEMPF :

Mr. Chairman, I've got a multitude of things to talk about with respect

to my constituency, but there's no point in proceeding until we get

answers to questions already asked. This is such a very important

question, because if it's not answered, there's no real reason for any

of us to be here, this supposedly being a democratic process. So we've

got to get to the bottom of it. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to be

difficult. I don't want to be repetitious. I just want an answer. What

I'm going to do for the minister is make it simpler....

HON. MR. VANT : Are we still on the Stella Road connection?

MR. KEMPF :

We're still on the Stella Road connection, yes. I'll make it easier for

you. I'll give you multiple-choice. Who was it that set the priority

for that particular project? Was it the minister? Or let's start

higher. Was it the Premier? Was it the minister of state? Ah! We

haven't touched on him yet. Was it the minister of state who made that

decision? He really should be making some decisions; he's spending

three-quarters of a million dollars of the taxpayers' money to support

an office in Smithers, in the state of Nechako. He should be making

some decisions, for three-quarters of a million dollars a year — and

that's only half of the budget he has for the minister of state; he's

got another three-quarters of a million for Dawson Creek, for another

politically oriented office.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF : We're doing this multiple-choice.

Was

it the Premier? Was it you, Mr. Minister? Was it the Minister of State

for Nechako? Was it the political hack for the area, the regional

economic development liaison officer? I can even give you his name, to

make it easier: Barrie Carter, who is paid $45,000 a year to run

around in a Bronco that the previous Minister of Highways had to get

rid of. Was it him? Was it Treasury Board? We heard them mentioned a

few moments ago. Who was it? Who was it, Mr. Minister, that made the

decision to set that priority in my constituency? While you're thinking

about that I'll give you another couple of questions.

really am very interested in another project that you mentioned here,

the Stellako River bridge. I'd like to know, Mr. Minister, how many

dollars you're going to spend on the upgrading of the Stellako River

bridge in this fiscal year.

[5:00]

HON. MR. VANT :

The multiple-choice questions. For the first seven people he mentioned:

the answer is no, none of them. I think he began with the Premier and

he ended with the regional development liaison office.

If I

could very simply cancel this little, tiny Stella Road connection

project.... I am getting messages, as there are many other MLAs who sit

in this House and represent other constituencies who would be happy to

have a project in their constituency instead of in Omineca. But to get

a little more direct in response to the member, the actual decision for

this very modest project, to increase the Stella Road connection from a

very narrow one-lane to a two-lane.... It's about 1.5 kilometres in

length. It's very slight upgrading and some gravelling. It's located on

the north side of Fraser Lake. It was a decision actually made by the

district highways manager, so that it would be a little easier to

maintain all the roads in that area of the Omineca constituency.

MR. KEMPF :

Well, at least we've found out who set the priority on that particular

project. I am amazed to learn that it was a single-lane road;

incidentally, Mr. Minister, it was not. Of course, I wonder about where

you get your information in general, and that's the reason I ask about

the Stellako River bridge, which in a letter dated April 14, 1989 — that's not very long ago — you said was going to be one of the

priorities and one of the projects in my constituency in this fiscal

year.

I am sure you will be happy to know that you won't

have to spend those dollars either, because that bridge was completed

over a year ago. I wonder where you get your information and how you

set your priorities. If you've taken the advice of the district manager

over that of the duly elected representativ