1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 12

[ Page 977 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Prayers.

D. Streifel: Hon. Speaker, I'd like bring the House's attention today to the visitors I have in the gallery: 75 students from Mission Secondary School and their teacher, Mr. Jones. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Schreck: Hon. Speaker, would the House please join me in welcoming Marg White, a resident of West Vancouver-Capilano, and her friend Shirley Embra of Victoria-Beacon Hill.

H. Giesbrecht: On a rare occasion, it's a pleasure for me to introduce someone from the riding of Skeena. We are fortunate to have with us in the gallery today three members of the Kitimat City Council: Ray Brady, Graham Anderson and Tom Goyert. With them is the municipal manager, Jim Gustafson. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Copping: I am very pleased to have a friend here, Mondee Redman. She worked very hard to get me nominated, yet I still consider her a friend. Would the House please make her welcome.

F. Garden: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to introduce one of the premier whitewater upside-down canoeists from the Cariboo, my constituency assistant Steve Hilbert.

N. Lortie: Hon. Speaker, we have with us today a group of students from Delta North, and with them are a number of exchange students from the province of Quebec. Would the House please make them welcome.

H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, just when everybody thought I wouldn't have any more people in my riding to introduce, I come up with one more. I would like to introduce to the House my constituency assistant Audrey Basaraba. Within New Democratic Party circles, whenever you mention the name Audrey, everybody asks which one, to which I always reply: Audrey Basaraba from Falkland. Please make my constituency assistant welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to the House probably the most formidable constituency assistant of all 75 ridings, and if you haven't had a chance to talk to her yet, I'm sure you will: Lois Mor.

H. Giesbrecht: Hon. Speaker, I see in the gallery someone I should introduce to the House. I'm fortunate today to have my constituency assistant Gail Murray here. Would the House please make her welcome.

C. Evans: All of us here are people who decided we wanted to run for office and were happy enough to get elected. I'd like the House to welcome a person who's more humble than those of us who are here -- Donna Macdonald from Nelson -- and who could be the MP if she wanted, but hasn't as yet decided to be.

Introduction of Bills

MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. R. Blencoe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Finance Authority Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The Municipal Finance Authority Amendment Act, 1992, contains amendments allowing the Municipal Finance Authority to expand short-term investment and interim financing pools to more public agencies, including school districts, hospitals, universities and colleges. The provisions will allow such public agencies to reduce their borrowing costs and take advantage of the higher returns on investments provided by the Municipal Finance Authority. This will permit more cost-effective and productive management of the taxpayers' money.

Bill 28 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. T. Perry presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled University Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. T. Perry: I'm pleased to introduce today Bill 23, the University Amendment Act, 1992, which contains proposed amendments to the University Act and the College and Institute Act. The purpose of these amendments is the following: (1) to repeal

section 80 of the University Act, which prohibits university faculty from forming faculty associations or trade unions pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act; and (2) to authorize public colleges and institutes to grant an associate degree in arts or science on successful completion of a two-year academic program that complies with provincial standards.

I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 23 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Presenting Petitions

D. Mitchell: I'd like to lay on the table a petition by citizens of Horseshoe Bay, British Columbia, who are concerned about the lack of consultation with respect to reports that the B.C. Ferry Corporation is going to institute all-night sailings.

[2:15]

[ Page 978 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I too have a petition. It is with regard to a gravel pit on Crown and municipal land in south Langley, specifically between Zero Avenue, 8th Avenue, 224th Street and 232nd Street. A group of residents are strongly opposed to it.

Oral Questions

STEWART-FIRESTONE CASE

D. Mitchell: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General.

Interjections.

D. Mithcell: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite would like me to refer to you as Mr. Speaker, and I'll do so.

My question is for the Attorney General, and it's with respect to the out-of-court settlement in the Stewart-Firestone case, which was finally settled on April 14. In an earlier question the Attorney General stated that the settlement had been reached between the parties. Yet news reports since that time beg for a further clarification of this matter. Therefore, can the Attorney General confirm who precisely initiated this settlement? In particular, can he confirm that it was counsel for the Minister of Labour who initiated this out-of-court settlement?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, I cannot confirm that, simply because it's not the case.

D. Mitchell: A supplementary question to the Attorney General. As it is clearly in the public interest to clear the air over this issue, could the Attorney General's lack of response to this have something to do with the fact that this settlement included a confidentiality agreement which may in fact prohibit or inhibit any comment on the settlement?

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, the question suggests debate and asks the minister to express an opinion. I would ask you to precisely state the question in an objective fashion.

D. Mitchell: Can the Attorney General confirm, with respect to this out-of-court settlement, that there was a confidentiality agreement signed among the parties?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Often in settlements of court cases there are confidentiality clauses. There was one in this case as well.

D. Mitchell: Surely the Attorney General must recognize that any signing of a confidentiality agreement between the Minister of Labour and the Crown constitutes a potential conflict which undermines a fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy: responsible government. Does the minister agree that a private confidentiality agreement cannot bind the Crown and should not prevent this government from releasing information about this out-of-court settlement?

Deputy Speaker: The first part of the question, as a

preamble, is argumentative. However, the second part of the question is a matter of seeking information.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, members of the House should know, if they don't, that the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services was not a party to this agreement, in the sense that the issues involved occurred long in advance of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin taking that ministerial responsibility. There is no question whatsoever, nor should there ever be any suggestion, that this was an issue involving the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. This issue took place some years ago.

Some of the loose ends in the proceedings occurred following the swearing-in but continued to have nothing whatsoever to do with that member's ministerial responsibility, nor with any cabinet member's ministerial responsibility.

PAYMENT OF MEMBERS' LEGAL COSTS

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier explain why taxpayers' money was used after November 5 to defray the Minister of Labour's legal costs in regard to the Firestone case, when the Attorney General has confirmed that government policy continues to preclude ministers from having their personal legal costs paid with taxpayers' money?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I have answered this question previously, and I thought the answer was quite straightforward at that time.

J. Weisgerber: Obviously it wasn't straightforward at the time. It continues to be a stonewalling effort by the government on these questions for some reason.

Can the Premier then explain why taxpayers' money was not used to pay his Minister of Labour's settlement costs? He has argued it would be appropriate to pay legal service costs where appropriate; then why not the minister's legal settlement costs? Why did the Premier decide that the minister's settlement costs were not appropriately paid by taxpayers' money?

[ Page 979 ]

have explained that yes, there was taxpayers' money to cover the legal costs of Mr. Stewart. I said that those costs were $93,000 and that the member from Esquimalt was reimbursed through the caucus global budget of the NDP caucus at that time. That amount came to approximately $36,000. That was the taxpayers' money that was involved. This is a clear....

An Hon. Member: Waste of time.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Not a waste of time at all. It's important for the taxpayers to know that. But to try and have this government go behind a confidentiality agreement of parties in a private lawsuit is improper and uncalled for.

Deputy Speaker: Final supplementary.

J. Weisgerber: First of all, what we were asking of the Premier was whether or not he would advise whether taxpayers' money had been used to pay the settlement costs; and if not, why would he consider it appropriate to use taxpayers' money to pay legal costs but not to pay settlement costs? That seems like a logical question.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, if I could perhaps assist.... Take your seat, please. The problem that the Chair has is to make a clear distinction between matters that happened prior to this administration taking office and matters that have happened since. I would ask the questioners to phrase their questions in a manner so as to elicit information, rather than argument and asking for opinions. Then we would be able to have at least an objective response on policy. If would that assist the member, it would certainly assist the Chair.

J. Weisgerber: Let's try this another way. The Premier is either unwilling or unable to tell us who paid the member's settlement costs. So be it.

We will be satisfied if the conflict-of-interest commissioner can confirm the Premier's opinion that there is no cause for concern with respect to this matter. Will the Premier at least ask the Minister of Labour to voluntarily provide to the conflict-of-interest commissioner a review of the settlement to remove any reasonable suspicion of a possible conflict of interest involving the minister or his benefactors? Will the Premier ask the member to refer the details of the settlement to the conflict-of-interest commissioner?

Deputy Speaker: The question again poses a problem for the Speaker, because it asks the Premier to take an action, which is not specifically asking for information, and I am having some trouble with that.

As I say, the Chair is having some problem with keeping the question in order. As the House knows, the Minister of Labour has no responsibility for matters which happened prior to his becoming the minister. We are getting into areas of nuance that I would ask all members to be very cognizant of.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I believe that we have answered the questions put forward in a forthright way and quite diligently. I think what's happening now is that members on the opposite side are now pursuing this strictly for cynical political purposes. They have been told where taxpayers' money has been involved; they haven't accepted that. The member for Okanagan West, in a letter to the auditor general and to the Deputy Attorney General, requested that they investigate this matter. They are investigating this matter. Those results will be before the House. The leader of the third party knows about that. He's just piling it on now.

We've been informed by the Minister of Labour, who was then the Attorney General critic in the opposition caucus, that there was no taxpayers' money involved in the private lawsuit.

The last two points, so we can clear this up.... I'm sure they're going to continue to pile on, because the opposition and the third party are clearly demonstrating a lack of fairness on this matter. The innuendos that they are directing towards a member of this Legislature are very unfortunate. They are asking the government to intervene in a private lawsuit. They are assuming that there were settlement costs, which we don't know. Nobody on this side of the House knows that. They're assuming that there was a settlement, and they're assuming that we can look behind the private agreement in this lawsuit.

This has gone way beyond inquiring in the public interest. It is strictly a cynical misuse of this question period by the opposition and now by the third party.

W. Hurd: Another question, again to the Premier. He's quoted in the media as saying that the whole incident -- referring to the Stewart-Firestone case -- was unfortunate, but using taxpayers' money to settle the case was cheaper than allowing it to go to trial. Can he confirm to this House how much the taxpayers saved?

Deputy Speaker: The member for Surrey-White Rock on a supplementary.

W. Hurd: A supplemental question to the Attorney General. The opposition has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the legal fees and damage awards assessed to the Minister of Labour in connection with the Firestone case were much higher than the $36,000 reported as having been paid from the caucus global budget, and that some of those costs were paid after he became minister. Will the Attorney General confirm whether the legal fees and the damage award were more than the $36,000 reported by the Premier in this House?

[2:30]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Like other members on this side of the House, I'm having some difficulty in understanding where the questions are going. We have been giving all of the information that has to do with the government for some time now. The $36,000 figure refers to the legal fees incurred by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. That amount -- as has been

[ Page 980 ]

noted a number of times -- was paid for out of the NDP caucus global budget, when we were in the opposition position. The settlement costs that the government and the taxpayers incurred totalled $12,500, and that dealt with Mr. Stewart. That's it; that's the total amount of taxpayer moneys that went to settlement costs. There's an additional $80,500 that went to legal fees for Mr. Stewart. The government paid for that; the Attorney General's ministry paid for that; the taxpayers paid for that.

Part of the question was: is settling cheaper than going to trial? The settlement cost to the taxpayer was $12,500. I think most members in this House know that that's certainly cheaper than having gone to trial.

A. Warnke: I think the House should be reminded that the agreement that has taken place only took place on April 14 of this year, and that what we are discussing on this side of the House deals with those in November and December.

Deputy Speaker: Question, hon. member.

A. Warnke: My question is to the Premier. Following an earlier question in this chamber to the Premier concerning the rush to complete the out-of-court settlement in the Firestone suit, is the Premier now prepared to confirm that he received a letter dated November 27, 1991, notifying him that he might be subpoenaed as a witness in that trial in December?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I don't recall receiving such a letter. I will have our records searched to see if such a letter was received.

Deputy Speaker: The bell ends question period, hon. members. I will point out that it was an additional minute, due to the number of interruptions.

Hon. A. Hagen: I would like to answer a question taken on notice on Thursday, April 23.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Hon. A. Hagen: On September 24, 1991, the board of school trustees of Surrey School District 36 included an addition to Guildford Park Secondary, a new Scottsdale secondary school and a new Fleetwood secondary school in its 1992-93 capital request.

The board requested $15,409,800 for the Guildford Park Secondary School addition. This estimate, along with the estimates for all projects requested by school boards, was adjusted to reflect the anticipated inflationary increase from September 1991 to the time of the construction. The estimates were adjusted in the same manner as in previous years, and the adjusted amount for this project is $16,188,290.

The board requested $23,235,600 for the new Scottsdale secondary school. It was originally intended that the school would have a capacity of 1,100 students. As planning was finalized, it was decided, jointly with the district, that the capacity should be reduced to 900 students. The decrease in capacity reduced the cost estimate. However, a portion of the reduction was offset by the inflationary adjustment, and the adjusted amount for this project is $22 million.

The board requested $18,198,400 for a new Fleetwood secondary school. It was originally intended that the school would have a capacity of 800 students. As planning was finalized with the district, it was decided jointly that the capacity should be increased to 900 students. The increase in capacity and the inflation adjustment both increased the original estimate. The adjusted amount for this project is $20,500,000.

I have reviewed the request from the Surrey School Board for the above projects, and I do not understand the source of the hon. member's figures.

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call Committee of Supply in both committees.

The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

On vote 60: minister's office, $392,000 (continued).

J. Weisgerber: I understand the minister is probably waiting for some staff. In any event, I refer the minister to a letter that I believe he sent to all members on March 31 of this year. He indicates, in the current budget, that capital construction was $363 million in 1991 and this year it's reduced to $181 million -- a reduction of roughly 50 percent. I am wondering whether the minister supports that kind of reduction in spending, certainly an unprecedented reduction in spending in British Columbia to my knowledge. I don't recall that kind of slash to the highway capital construction budget in this province.

I'm wondering whether the minister supports that kind of reduction and how he would explain the decision to reduce spending in that magnitude.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We could, I think, start off by correcting a misunderstanding of the member opposite. I have a graph which I can provide him a copy of. It shows the year 1988-89. At that time I believe the member opposite was a member of a government that spent less money on the highway capital construction program. If you cannot recall that in memory, sir, you have a short memory.

With regard to your general comment, yes, I support it. Under the fiscal conditions that we find ourselves in, it is more important to put the limited funds that we do have into education, health care and social services.

J. Weisgerber: Well, it's a shame, then, that the Premier didn't choose to make you Minister of Education, Health or Social Services, if that's where your interests lie.

[ Page 981 ]

An Hon. Member: That's not what he said.

J. Weisgerber: It certainly is what the member said. I think a lot of people, after the Premier announced his cabinet, wondered why a rookie MLA would be given what has traditionally been one of the major portfolios. There was a great deal of interest, perhaps, in why the member for Burnaby North didn't get there -- and I guess that's in bad taste as well. But I think it was clear fairly soon after November 5, when the minister agreed that the cancer clinic in his own community wasn't a priority and one that he had campaigned on. It was clear even before the budget was brought down that the minister was promoting a 50 percent reduction in the ministry spending estimates.

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: Indeed he was promoting....

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: Hon. member, if you're going to heckle, at least stick around for the first part of the comments.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: Certainly he didn't.

Here was a rookie MLA, a new minister, who starts off, as I understand it, defending the cuts to the Highways budget. I don't think anybody could argue that spending has to be restrained in all areas of government, but I don't believe many British Columbians would agree with the decision of this government that the Ministry of Highways should be singled out for the kind of reduction that this government has seen. I'm curious about the decision of this government, based on the fact that the Peat Marwick report was critical of the lack of spending in this province to maintain the infrastructure.

Clearly highways is one of those areas in which you have to continue to maintain the system. This government, while it was quite happy to accept the criticisms of the previous administration by Peat Marwick, appears to have flown in the face of their recommendation dealing with Transportation and Highways. I wonder if the minister can explain the contradiction in the approach taken versus the recommendations in Peat Marwick.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: That had to be one of the longest non-questions in the history of this chamber. Number one, I didn't go about promoting a reduction; I went around signalling that there would likely be a reduction. Second, if the member opposite feels that we haven't chosen the right areas, I would be glad to entertain from him a letter, with the schools and hospitals in his riding that he might wish to close in order that we could further highway projects in his riding. And if he'll be so kind as to provide that to me, I'll pass it on.

As to the lack of rehabilitation, you're correct. The previous administration had shown a woeful lack of understanding of how to maintain a system. The Peat Marwick report will tell you just that. In a period of severe fiscal restraint here, we have managed to increase the amount of money being dedicated to the rehabilitation of the existing highway system. We've taken a very commonsensical, fiscally responsible decision that at this time we will not add to an infrastructure and will maintain what we have.

When we get out from under the fiscal -- and, I might even add, ethical -- mess that the previous government has left behind, we'll attend to the matter of adding infrastructure as we are able to afford it.

J. Weisgerber: It's unfortunate that either lack of experience or lack of willingness on the part of the minister suggests that the only solution to more highways spending is to close hospitals or schools. That simplistic approach demonstrates a lack of experience. Surely to goodness, in a $16 billion budget, your government could use a little bit more imagination in finding ways to look for economies. If you're looking for a suggestion, I won't have to write you a letter. I'll tell you today: get away from the fixed-wage policy. Abandon it today, and put $200 million more into the capital construction budget.

That will be a start. So instead of having a $181 million capital budget, you could have, simply by abandoning the fixed-wage policy of this government, a $380 million highway capital project.

[2:45]

Clearly you don't have to go around closing schools and hospitals. Those kinds of scare tactics and nonsense don't warrant any further debate in this legislature. Let's talk about the Ministry of Highways budgets and about the need to maintain the system. Indeed, there is a rehabilitation budget roughly equal to last year's, but surely the minister understands that capital construction doesn't necessarily mean building brand-new highways, that if you're going to totally rebuild a highway, it is a capital cost and not a rehabilitation cost, and that we've got to start with rebuilding the major arteries in this province from time to time.

If in fact you're going to rebuild a highway, four-lane a two-lane highway or twin a bridge, are those rehabilitation projects or are those capital projects?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I appreciate the member opposite's comment on arteries, because it was certainly the hardening of the arteries in the previous administration that led to its demise. I guess the voters passed judgment on what they saw as the technical competence of the Socreds, and we have but a small rump left. I think that probably indicates a valid judgment there.

A rehabilitation project, by definition, does not increase the capacity of the roadway; it is a rejuvenation or a restoration of the roadway. If there is an increase in capacity involved, it falls into minor or major capital.

J. Weisgerber: Well, the voters do pass judgment. They passed judgment on October 17, and they're going to pass judgment in another three or four years. If you want to get a hint of how that's going in Kamloops, do a

[ Page 982 ]

bit of a straw poll around your community. I suggest that you will find folks there thinking about the choice they made in your community.

In any event, if the minister wants to talk about politics and the judgment of people, I'd like to ask him about the effect of his decision to cut back on capital construction on the contractors and the people who work for them in British Columbia. What does he see as the effect on the construction industry of those changes in the amount of money allocated to capital construction?

Before I sit down and listen to his answer, I suggest that he may want to confer with his staff to find out whether the previous government had embarked on a policy of a five-year construction budget in order to give some continuity and level of activity that would allow contractors to make long-term decisions and to get a sense of what government was planning in the construction industry year to year and over a five-year term, rather than to see the kinds of peaks and valleys -- particularly valleys....

My question to the minister is: does he understand the effect of his actions on the highway construction industry?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Having been involved for some 20 years as the principal of a firm that I helped create, I have a full understanding of the impact that my decisions have had on the industry, which will probably result in some 2,000 jobs not being created in the sector of roadbuilding and as many as 220 jobs in the consulting engineering profession. I took the time to meet with both of those groups well before, in order to be straight with them, to look them in the eye and to tell them myself that it would be coming.

I would also point out that the capital construction projects we have created in health care and in education will be offsetting those numbers to a substantial degree.

J. Weisgerber: I'm going to avoid the temptation to start talking about the fixed-wage policy and whose jobs are being created and whose are being eliminated in that field, but just so we understand, the minister says that somewhere between 2,200 and 2,500 direct jobs have been affected by his decision. He shakes his head, so perhaps I'll sit down and let him clarify it for me.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We might run you through a quick course in addition. I said 2,000 in the construction side, 200 to 250 on the engineering side -- a range of 2,200 to 2,250 is my best estimate.

J. Weisgerber: This is going to be fun. I suggested that the range was going to be between 2,200 and 2,500. The minister says no, between 2,200 and 2,250. I suppose that there's something there that's worth pointing out; I'm not sure what it is.

In any event, it seems to me that the majority of those jobs -- or a large number of those jobs -- are of people who live in the Kamloops area. I'm surprised. Perhaps the minister should be given credit for having the courage to inflict the kind of pain in his own constituency that he obviously is doing as a result of that decision, and I'm not certain that there is a question there. It's a fact that the highway construction industry in British Columbia is centred in Kamloops, so I want to take the opportunity to commend the minister for making those kinds of tough decisions.

It takes a lot of courage to inflict damage on your own constituency in the interest of the greater good of the province, so I guess the minister should be commended.

I'd like to move on to some questions regarding the ministry's activity in obtaining right-of-way gazetting on disputed Indian reserves around British Columbia. It's a longstanding problem, and it's one that I know the ministry's been working on, but I would like to ask the minister if he's had any success over the last few months in finding a resolution, particularly in the area of Mount Currie and perhaps Fountain Valley and some other particularly sensitive locations around British Columbia.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There was indeed a very difficult situation left behind for us to inherit. I find that the ministry is in trespass in excess of 500 places around the province, and there are other problems related to the 1911 Gazette on top of that. I am pleased to say that we have established a process of negotiation where we have now resolved only two or three incidents. We are perhaps close on another half dozen.

Our efforts are being well received within the aboriginal community to the degree of the Gitsegukla band holding a feast in my honour in order to thank me for resolving a problem within a few months that they had been unsuccessful in even entering into rudimentary negotiations on with the previous administration over 15 years.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps the minister would be a bit more specific on where he has enjoyed these successes. I'm understanding the minister to say that he has obtained gazetted rights-of-way in a number of reserves in British Columbia since he took office. I'm wondering what kind of success he's having, particularly at Fountain Valley.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The Gitsegukla is the one that has been resolved and signed. Alert Bay was a second one. There are three or four others that are getting close: the Penticton band, the Boothroyd, the band near Lytton -- the Fraser Canyon Indian band, I believe. There are one or two others. I could provide you with a comprehensive list of the ones that we feel we're getting close to resolving. There are a number with the Adams Lake band. As I say, I can easily offer a list, if you require it.

L. Fox: To follow up on that, I have a question with respect to those negotiations. Do they allow for permanent access for other British Columbians -- outside of the aboriginal people -- through those properties? Or is that part of the negotiations?

[ Page 983 ]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The settlements that we're seeking would be to obtain fee simple title to the lands that we are presently occupying with our right-of-way or with our roads -- where in many places throughout the province we have strayed outside our earlier legal rights-of-way. When we're finished the negotiation, we will have full rights to public access along what will be legal corridors.

L. Fox: I'll bring up a particular band about which I wrote the minister a letter -- you may not have seen it yet -- on April 23. It was on negotiations between your ministry and the Stellaquo band, near Fraser Lake. In these negotiations there has been no consideration given, by your negotiator or by Highways, to the concerns of a resident that lives through this reserve on a farm they have occupied since 1960 and their predecessors since 1921. It was originally deeded sometime around 1900. It was one of the very first pieces of deeded land in that area.

Just so I get it on the record, these people are Bob and Jacquelyn Peters. They are extremely concerned that if these negotiations are to be concluded as they are presently being put forward, they will not have legal access to their farm. I would like your comments on that.

[3:00]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Generally speaking, the settlements that we will negotiate will assure public access through the rights-of-way that we are negotiating for. In the specific instance that you are speaking of, the Peters have been given assurance that either their right-of-way will be protected or we will provide them with alternate access to their property.

L. Fox: That's reassuring. I know that one negotiator stated that.

The other side of the coin, Mr. Minister, is that at the same time they've asked if it would be okay if an independent appraiser could do an appraisal on the farmland. That question, having been put to them, obviously, as I'm sure you can appreciate, rang off many bells. They feel somewhat threatened that their best interests may not be looked after through this process. But if I can achieve your assurance today that they will, either through that road or through another road, have legal access to their land, that would satisfy me. I heard you state that, so I don't know if it's necessary for you to repeat it.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We will assure access.

L. Fox: I shall look forward, then, to your positive response to my letter, which is along those lines.

How many more of these kinds of things are out there in terms of the other negotiations? Are other British Columbians receiving the same kind of consideration as the Peters?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The ministry has catalogued in excess of 300 cases around the province where there is, broadly speaking, a trespass issue. But we anticipate that by the time the process is completed, there will be in excess of 500 identified cases.

While I'm on my feet, I would like to extend an invitation directly to the members of the third party and to the member of the fourth party that if you have any questions relating to B.C. Rail, the hon. critic has offered to have B.C. Rail questions available tomorrow afternoon -- any that he may have. I could arrange to have a couple of people from B.C. Rail over for just the afternoon, rather than keeping them waiting. Or conversely, if you think tomorrow morning is satisfactory, I could easily move their

schedule to tomorrow morning.

L. Fox: I appreciate knowing when those individuals and your staff will be available, and we'll certainly hold the questions pertaining to B.C. Rail until that time.

I have another concern. I was busy writing you letters on April 23. I wrote you a letter on behalf of a Mr. Erickson, who lives in an area called Manson Creek. The particular land in question is no longer being serviced by the Highways ministry. It was one of those roads that fell through the cracks with respect to forestry usage, highway usage, energy and mines usage.

Your ministry initiated discussions on a resource road policy about two years ago. I'm sure that I don't have to explain the purpose of the resource road policy to the minister, but perhaps I will, just so that it's on record. In many areas of the province, as you well know, we have three and sometimes four different jurisdictions over roads. I was kind of pleased to see this policy go forward, because as a member of the committee.... You're suggesting you are no longer using their findings as your guide tools -- certainly the initial program, the Freedom to Move program.

We identified that, in fact, there was much overlap in terms of planning, maintenance and long-term roadbuilding with respect to all three ministries. We had asked the province two years ago to consider a one-management structure for all roads, and the initiative was taken on by the Ministry of Highways to look into the feasibility of whether this could happen. If you're aware of this initiative, is it still moving forward? Is there still consideration being given to one ministry handling all roads -- Forests, Mines and Energy as well as Highways?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The process is underway, in that the policy has been drafted. But we have been holding back on implementing anything, partly waiting for the Commission on Resources and Environment to get underway and to define and make choices and recommendations about the kind of land use that we're going to do. But the idea of having one ministry responsible for all roads is still alive.

L. Fox: The reason I asked the question is that, under the policies today of the Ministry of Lands, if you have a lease on a settlement area and you wish to acquire it, you cannot acquire it under the present policy unless Highways guarantees you access. Therefore there are many people out there -- Mr. Erickson is

[ Page 984 ]

one -- who are not able to buy their land because they no longer have so-called highway access. They have road access, but they do not have highway access.

I recognize that you're going to be looking at the resource policy, but I would ask that you give consideration to moving forward with the network that we have, because it is really unfortunate that these people are penalized by this particular policy. I have requested the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to review their policy as to whether or not a forest road means access and so on. But in the interim, this individual cannot buy his land.

The other thing is that many individuals live on forest roads, and the only time they have access is if the Ministry of Forests authorizes its maintenance. If there's no logging on that particular road in that particular year, that road is not maintained, and in the winter months it is not snowplowed. We have a lot of people out there who are not guaranteed access to their land. So I would respectfully request that the minister review this policy and make himself aware of it, perhaps with the idea of bringing it forward as quickly as possible.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Part of the problem in the past has been that the different ministries had different standards for their roads -- for good reason. Part of the problem is the cost -- a financial consideration. If there's logging going on back there, the logging company can be paying for the maintenance of the road.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Indirectly, that's correct, but to a certain set of standards. When that economic use of the road is finished, there may be a few people at the end. We're looking at a policy that will accept, in some instances, a lower standard for that road, bringing it under the control of a single ministry. But by leaving it at a forestry standard, it saves us the considerable capital cost of upgrading it to our standards.

There is still the consideration of maintaining those roads year-round, at considerable cost and for the benefit of perhaps just a few people. From their point of view it's certainly desirable and perhaps essential, but from the other point of view it could be a major cost driver.

L. Fox: Just by way of explanation, it's not so much once a forestry road is vacated. Particular woods are cut in one area; next year they're cut in another area. It moves back and forth. The confusion is where one winter they have access and the next winter they don't. From their perspective, if they had no access, they would recognize that and deal with it. What becomes difficult is that they never know when they're going to have access, because it can change virtually within a given week.

I want to approach a bit of a philosophical problem that I have. Our leader touched on it earlier, but I want to broaden it a bit. As a businessman, when I look at the overall budget -- and I'll home in on yours -- I'm extremely concerned when I see the areas being cut. I recognize that we have limited funds. I'm not arguing that the government didn't have to have a restrained budget. Probably because I'm a northerner I'm concerned when I see the areas that we're cutting. Highways, 15 percent. That's only one of those areas. I'm not going to go on; you know the other areas as well as I do.

I am really concerned, because if we're ever going to have the dollars to build schools and hospitals and to meet our social needs -- education, health and so forth -- we're going to have to have a good, solid economy and a good climate to do business in. The cuts to highways are substantially affecting our area. Highways are not a pleasure or a luxury; they're very much a necessity.

Let me just deal with Highway 16 between Prince George and Vanderhoof. I could probably go right out to Prince Rupert and have the same kinds of concerns. For 60 miles in each direction -- or, if you want, 100 kilometres; I was up there when it was posted in miles, so I have a tough time not relating to that -- there are only two passing lanes. As the mayor of Vanderhoof for eight years, and previously as a school board chairman with a perspective on busing, I've argued that Highway 16 needs improvement, but we haven't seen it. That road accommodates 250 trucks a day, hauling logs from Fort St.

James to Prince George. Some of them haul two loads a day. They haul all the chips that go from Burns Lake right through to Prince George. It has all your truck traffic heading to Alaska. It has horrendous truck traffic on it, and yet we only have two passing lanes. Given the fact that you have cut your budget, have you got anything in your budget for improvements to this situation on that strip of the road?

[3:15]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I appreciate the member's comments regarding the importance of roads -- broadly speaking in the hinterland, which is, of course, where I am from as well. We had some very tough calls to make, and, of course, there are some things that you can defer with less pain than others. We felt that we could defer an interchange or a bridge for a year at acceptable social costs, but we felt we could not defer on schools, on getting kids out of portables, on earthquake-proofing schools and on some of our basic hospital demands. Those we could not defer for a year. By statute children have the right to a place in our education system.

We had these tough choices to make, and I know from my engineering background that the decision that I made impacts economically not just on the people who are not working, who might otherwise be, but also on the general economic activity that roads facilitate. I am well aware of that. I am well aware that the transportation mess in the lower mainland contributes not just to economic woes but it also contributes to environmental woes and, yes, even social, where people are held up unnecessarily for hours at a time. I am well aware of all of that.

With respect to the specific road that you are speaking of, Highway 16, the Yellowhead, I do point out that it's a very long road. Yes, there may only be a

[ Page 985 ]

couple of passing lanes, but the typical traffic is only in the 3,500 to 4,000 vehicles a day. By the standards that we have elsewhere in the province, it is such a light load that it is very difficult to justify major expenditures to work toward a multi-lane road. Within reason, as we can, I fully agree with the idea of putting in additional passing lanes where possible and trying to build it up that way into a safer road. In terms of the overall priorities of the city, when we are dealing in some congested areas with 80,000 cars a day, it is difficult to justify a lot of expenditure where we have 4,000 a day.

L. Fox: I would like to point out to the minister that as the north goes, so goes the south. Look at the amount of dollars -- and I invite you sometime to look at the numbers -- that the North Central Municipal Association has put forward with respect to the amount of dollars that flow out of the north and come into the lower mainland. I also invite you to come up to that

section of Highway 16 that I'm referring to and travel on it on a Friday night and on a Sunday night and virtually all weekend. I'm not sure where you got the 3,500 vehicles a day -- and those may be correct; I do not have those numbers before me -- but I can tell you that the type of traffic, if those numbers are correct, is substantially different than having just cars. Long lines of logging trucks create an extreme hazard, because people get tired of following behind these logging trucks and start to take chances in order to get by them. That's what creates accidents.

If you looked at the revenue that comes from fuel taxes on that strip of road, you would give it a lot more priority than you're presently giving it. However, I'll leave it at that. I'm going to do some research with respect to those numbers and give them to you at a later date in written form, because that was part and parcel of the development of them. The minister and the government would find them extremely interesting.

The other day, when we talked about municipal participation and particularly boundary extensions, you made comment that you had $6,000 in your budget.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Six million.

L. Fox: Six million? Oh yes, that's right. I'm not used to dealing in those big numbers. How much of that is due to commitments entered into in prior years that you're fulfilling in your five-year agreement, and how much of it is money available for boundary extension this year?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: In general, the amount budgeted has exceeded the requests for restructuring. So there's no backlog to catch up on. We're anticipating for the present year, even though we've reduced the amount from seven-odd million to six, that we will still have sufficient within the budget to satisfy all the requests that would flow through municipal affairs to us for restructuring grants.

L. Fox: I understand; I went through the program. I understand that when you enter into these agreements, it's a five-year phase-out agreement. Obviously some of the $6 million has to meet agreements signed prior to this year. How much of it is unallocated, and how much is committed to agreements signed prior to this year?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'll have to take this specific question on notice and give you the hard numbers as soon as they're available.

L. Fox: Thank you.

Previously, with respect to that program, the Ministry of Highways played a large role in negotiating that settlement with the municipalities in terms of identifying what the maintenance costs would be in that phase-in period and entering into that agreement. Can you tell me if there's been any extra emphasis given in upgrading those particular roads in terms of the environmental requirements needed in some of these areas -- like dust control and so on -- with respect to those roads over what was done prior to your administration?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: As part of the incorporation agreement, not only might there be some improvements to the road -- drainage, the road surface or what have you -- prior to restructuring, but following restructuring they could also apply for cost-sharing grants to upgrade the roads, where I believe we pay 75 percent of the upgrading cost.

L. Fox: I find that interesting. Is that more than alternative roads? Is that the total road grid going into the new boundaries that you're talking about?

The Chair: There was an agreement to permit the Premier to make an introduction, hon. minister. I believe everyone is aware of that, so I'll recognize the Premier for just a moment. He has a statement to make.

Hon. M. Harcourt: It's not a statement I want to make; it's an introduction that I am delighted to ask leave of the Legislature to make.

The Chair: I believe leave was agreed upon. Nonetheless, if it's agreed with everyone, proceed.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I have the distinct honour of welcoming to British Columbia two Canadian space pioneers who were our astronauts in the recently completed Discovery flight of January 22-30, 1992. I would like the House to give a very warm welcome to Dr. Roberta Bondar and Major Ken Money. They are the two astronauts who were on the space shuttle Discovery mission, more formally known as mission IML-1.

I think we were all there with the two of you when you were in space, seeing this beautiful planet of ours. I was talking to Roberta and Ken about what Canada looked like from the air -- a magnificent, huge, wonderful country. They felt very proud to be able to count their blessings at being Canadians, and I think that's a good message to all Canadians: instead of thinking of what's wrong with Canada, look at what's right with Canada. Certainly here are two people who are what's

[ Page 986 ]

right about Canada, and we would like to give you a very warm welcome to British Columbia.

The Chair: We now proceed with the Minister of Transportation on vote 60.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The municipalities have to apply and the ministry has to agree beforehand on which roads will be accepted as part of the grid system. Costs have to be worked out on all of that. Everybody has to sign off on it before the residents would be put to a plebiscite or what have you. The total is known beforehand and can be budgeted for. I hope that answers your question.

L. Fox: I was going to ask if this could be retroactive. When my municipality expanded its boundaries, it didn't get that opportunity. Is this a new policy? How old is this?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The program has been around for some time, but the application for capital participation has been here for about three years.

Going back to a previous discussion about the Yellowhead Highway and the fact that it would be nice if there were more than two passing lanes in either direction, I just asked my officials to give me a very rough figure. First of all, we have to stress that the way to go is to add passing lanes. If you were to try to upgrade the 850-some kilometres between Prince George and Prince Rupert to four-lane all the way, an exceedingly rough cost for doing that would be on the order of $4 billion.

Both Highway 1 up the Fraser Canyon -- which has higher traffic and a good mix of trucks too -- and Highway 3 across the southern side of the border are fundamentally two-lane roads. A number of passing lanes have been added to the Fraser Canyon portion. They each have volumes of around 5,000 a day. You can see the magnitude of the problem facing any government trying to address these issues.

The direction we should be going on the Yellowhead is to put in more safe passing lanes to make sure that people aren't held up behind those trains of trucks or that trucks are not held up behind trains of trailers. People can get on their way more safely.

[3:30]

L. Fox: The problem I'm having with those general numbers is that they don't reflect the peaks. When you talk about X number of vehicles a day, usually they take a traffic count, extrapolate it over so many days and that's your average. I would invite the minister to come and drive that road at any time between now and the end of September. Even as far as Highway 27 up to Fort St. James, that's when all the boats and RVs are coming out for the weekend. Trucks are still hauling. You've got the shoppers who are travelling back and forth between smaller and larger communities.

I invite you to come and have a look, really see the pressure that is put on that highway and then argue the same thing: that we should extrapolate this same kind of rationale throughout the whole highway. However, I'll leave that.

There is an agreement with the feds with respect to sharing costs on Highway 16, as it is the Trans-Canada. How are negotiations doing with respect to increasing federal participation so you might achieve some of these improvements, which you quickly flagged with the scary figure of $4 billion? Perhaps you could give us a progress report on how you're doing with respect to it.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There was an agreement on the Yellowhead with the federal government to the tune of $16 million, but it has expired. We have received no money from the feds on the Trans-Canada system for decades.

I don't at all want to leave you with the impression that I am dismissive of the concern that you have. It's real; I understand. The peak-traffic problems are real. I see it driving east from Kamloops along what is fundamentally a two-lane Trans-Canada Highway all the way over to the Alberta border. I see it up the Golden hill, up the Kicking Horse. I see it running north of Kamloops. I see it coming in from the northeastern suburbs of Vancouver -- these horrible traffic jams. There are the jams on the Island. Without a word of a lie, we could expend $5 billion in the next few years on highway and transportation problems and not waste one cent.

The problem comes in when even if you look at the spending graphs over the last eight years, the average for capital might be in the order of $300 million. When you're trying to attack a $5 billion budget -- or some might even say a $10 billion budget -- $300 million at a time, you're losing ground almost every year even at that rate.

So I have proposed a number of ways of approaching this. I've first proposed that we change the process of funding highways and go to capitalization, where we could say we're going to complete, for example, the Island Highway. As construction proceeds and as demand occurs, we could borrow up to $1 billion and pay it off through a sinking fund over the next 30 years -- but get on with the road.

I've also proposed that the feds ought to be paying a little more on the parts of our highways that are part of the national highway system. There is some movement in the direction of a national highway policy. The first stirrings have occurred over the past few months -- such that we call upon the feds to spend a decent amount of money on the Yellowhead and the Trans-Canada -- both on the mainland and the Island. Lend us a hand. Other parts of the country are lent a hand from time to time. We need it now.

Lastly, I've thrown out the notion that at least in the greater Vancouver area, where there is, all by itself, $4 billion or $5 billion worth of pent-up demand, we could proceed with borrowed money to construct some needed bridges, roadways or tunnels, and use a user-pay philosophy. We could introduce modest tolls in order to create the sinking fund and get on with it. Other than those alternatives, we could run further into debt on the deficit side or not build the roads. I prefer a

[ Page 987 ]

combination of capitalization and the possibility of some selective tolls.

L. Fox: I know that you stated with respect to tolls and with respect to that whole philosophical approach you're using that you had run something up the pole in order to see what kind of response it got during question period. Have you had the opportunity to deal with this within cabinet, or are you still running it up the pole to see what my response might be?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, it is not government policy. It has not been discussed in cabinet. Had it been discussed in cabinet I probably wouldn't have told you, because I believe in my oath of cabinet confidentiality.

L. Fox: That's the kind of answer I thought I would get.

I want to go back to transportation with respect to the other $6 million or $6.5 million in transportation regarding municipal programs. How much of that is in the airport assistance program?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There's been a major cut there. It had been running in the order of $4 million a year; the budget for this current year is $400,000.

L. Fox: Obviously you're not doing much other than perhaps a little planning with respect to local or municipal airports. Has that $400,000 been allocated? Is it there to be available for application?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The lion's portion of it has been committed. There is a relatively small amount left, but of course we're early in the fiscal year as well.

L. Fox: Given the fact that there has been a downturn in terms of dollars put into the program, has the program itself had any changes with respect to what it takes to qualify?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, there are no fundamental changes to the program. It is just strictly a case that, under the fiscal situation we find ourselves in, was one of the areas that had to give for at least this fiscal year.

L. Fox: You may have stated this the other day and I apologize if I missed it, but given the fact that we've only dealt with a little over $6 million in that area, could you expand on what the other $6 million goes for? Is that for alternate roads through municipalities?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Is the $6 million that you're referring to now with respect to the municipal incorporation grants? I don't quite understand the follow-on from the ATAP program, or the airport program. There's no connection between those two, and further, there's no connection between that and the secondary highways programs or the bridge assistance programs. It's strictly the incorporation programs.

L. Fox: Perhaps I can rephrase my question. You just show $12.829 million in transportation policy planning and municipal programs under STOB 82, and of that I am under the understanding that your air transportation assistance program is in there, as well as your restructuring program with municipalities. That leaves, in my view, something around $6 million that has been.... I guess I was wondering what that allocation was for.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The program is made up of $0.4 million for air transport assistance; $1.5 million for bridge assistance, where we may agree that we would like to encourage them to upgrade a bridge because it indirectly serves our purposes; secondary highways for capital projects, $4 million; secondary highways for maintenance, $0.6 million; and then the municipal incorporation grants of $6 million. That would total up to the amount you referred to.

L. Fox: With respect to the capital portion of the secondary roads, it's $4 million dollars, if I heard you correctly. Is that presently available for municipalities to apply for, or has it been previously allocated? Is it committed dollars?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: They have been applied for in the process of evaluations, and I think recommendations are going back to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. My staff have prepared, from the applications, a list of what they have selected and that will be on its way to me shortly for approval.

L. Fox: Could I ask what the total requests were in that category?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The total of the applications was $4.8 million, and the total again for the budget is $4 million, so the total for the recommended list is going to be about $4 million.

L. Fox: Does the maintenance area of this same

section include sharing with respect to traffic lights, railroad crossing lights, and those kinds of traffic control mechanisms used jointly by highways and the municipalities?

[3:45]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, that $0.6 million would be related strictly to the day-to-day maintenance of the travelling surface of the road.

L. Fox: There's only one other area I had, and I guess it's more a philosophical question than crunching numbers. It becomes increasingly concerning to myself, as well as to a number of individuals whom I have talked to, particularly in northern B.C., with respect to the makeup of our road base. It seems that we spend a lot of money in resurfacing these roads only to see the heavier trucks within a very short time dish them. Are we exploring the idea of having different road surfaces that would handle these weighted trucks, or are we looking at changing our regulations with respect to the

[ Page 988 ]

load levels or the number of axles or whatever in order to reduce this kind of wear?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: On the matter of the rutting -- or, as you call it, the dishing -- of the road, it is, of course, an ongoing concern. We try to address that on a maintenance basis through the rejuvenation of the travelling surface. In order to try to prevent the problem from developing in the first place, we are looking both at the utilization of stronger asphalt and at enhancing the strength of the subgrade.

L. Fox: I know that there have been presentations made to Motor Vehicles, particularly to the licensing, with respect to adding extra drive axles to the trucks. In essence, instead of a tandem truck you would have three drive axles. It has been rejected by the Ministry of Highways engineers because of a safety factor. Yet it is being used in the Northwest Territories and some parts of the States. Can you tell me if you are presently reviewing that particular area to see whether or not that would help reduce this rutting?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: You could raise that question in the estimates of the Attorney General. That is his responsibility.

D. Jarvis: I have a couple of short questions pertaining to my riding over in North Vancouver-Seymour, the Lonsdale area. You have in your wonderful brochure here -- which, I may add, is a superfluous expense, but nevertheless it is very nice to have -- that we have $80,000 since March 31 to be spent on the Lonsdale interchange. Can you tell me what that is for? I am under the impression, having driven over it in the last couple of days and the last couple of months, that it was completed well before.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: You're correct in your observation that the construction is complete. It is a reflection of some payments due to contractors that had not been completed. The $80,000 is strictly the tail end of payments on previous contracts.

D. Jarvis: I have another short question, and I believe another member is going into it in more detail later on. It is the infamous Westview interchange. I would like to know where your plans are for that.

That leads into my third question. It regards a sound barrier and a Mr. James in the 200 block West 25th, which is ostensibly the Upper Levels Highway. The government has examined it and found out that there is a high decibel of noise, and they say that there should be a sound barrier up there. This is on the north side of the highway. The excuse is that they will not do it because they're waiting for the Westview interchange to be put in. Are those people in that area going to have to wait months? Years? What's the situation with that? Why not put in that sound barrier in that area -- in the 100-200 block of the Upper Levels Highway -- now?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The reason for constructing the sound-attenuation walls at the same time as the overall project, of course, is just a matter of the economies of scale within a contract. It can be done less expensively. The interchange would likely have been underway this year, save for the fiscal situation we find ourselves in. It will stay relatively high on the list of priorities. Should sufficient funds be available next year, it will proceed. They will have to wait until that time for the sound barriers to be constructed.

L. Fox: I got so excited there by all your answers, I forgot the most important question of all. It relates to the Freedom to Move document. Countless hours of volunteer work were put in. People from all walks of life participated in public hearings throughout the province -- people from the rural community, people from urban areas. A dedicated crew of volunteers travelled around, particularly in our region, and spent a week on the road developing the priorities based on the wishes of the people.

I guess the reason for the question is that I was a bit concerned about a statement you made on Thursday in the estimates. Do I understand you correctly in that you have thrown all this out, and that it's no longer going to be useful for your government and your ministry to understand the wishes of the people of British Columbia, and specifically Prince George-Omineca?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: What I had indicated was that the specific animal called the "Freedom to Move account" is no longer operative. All of the information that was picked up in the public meetings and in the planning is still part of the planning, still part of the priorities. I'm sure that in the process of selecting the projects that we carried out, or that we are proposing to carry out for this year, both in terms of capital and in terms of rehab, ministry staff made use of that information.

I know they made use of something, because not a single recommendation came from me, politically, as to what projects ought to be done this year. They followed the normal priorities that they had all over the province, and put forward those projects as this year's program. I'm sure that they made use of the information picked up in the public meetings that you refer to and the public meetings and the planning processes that have occurred all over the province, and will continue to do that kind of thing.

J. Weisgerber: I'm encouraged to hear that the minister intends to continue the process, or at least one similar to it.

The regional transportation planning process, through the regional advisory groups, asked each of the eight regions in the province to form a committee, to get membership from around the region and to agree on priorities. When we started this project two or three years ago, I was skeptical about taking citizens from an area as large as the Peace River region, for example, and getting them to agree on a series of priorities for capital construction and rehabilitation.

All of us were pleasantly surprised at how realistic the expectations of most British Columbians are, in relation to the transportation system in this province. Clearly, most of them wanted to see improvements on

[ Page 989 ]

the existing structure. There isn't, in my mind, a huge demand for new roads. There is certainly the desire, particularly in the north and central parts of this province, to see significant improvements to the transportation system.

I would genuinely encourage you to look at that system as it exists and to support its continued activity. There are, as the member for Prince George-Omineca said, individuals who volunteered countless hours of time to hold public meetings and talk to their constituents and people from local government, regional government, etc. I think it has been a very useful exercise. If the minister wishes to comment, that would be great.

I would like to ask a reasonably short series of questions with regard to projects in my own constituency that basically flow from the prioritization of the regional transportation committee.

In region 8, the northeast region, the clearest priority for every community was the completion of renovations or new construction and rebuilding of the Hart Highway, particularly in the Pine Pass area -- the bottleneck on the one road leading into northeast British Columbia. There is about a 25-kilometre stretch that is currently under construction. I'm hoping to get confirmation from the minister that the project will be completed as had been scheduled, I believe -- over the next 18 months or so.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Before I comment directly, I made this invitation available to the members of the third party before the leader of the third party came back in: if you have any questions relating to B.C. Rail, I'm going to have some officials here tomorrow afternoon, if that would be convenient. If, in concert, it's decided to do it tomorrow morning, that would be even better. It would facilitate some meetings that my officials have to go to. If the critic would agree to that, we will

schedule it for the morning.

With regard to the public process, I'm in full agreement with the member opposite that there's a wealth of wisdom in the public, if you make a legitimate effort to consult them, as I have in a previous life as a consultant, at public meetings on behalf of clients. The public is full of very practical ideas. They're economical; they're patient. If you go the whole route, certainly it takes some time and there are some costs associated with it, but it's the only way to do it. I have no problem at all relying on the wisdom of the public, and I will continue to do so.

With regard to the specific project that you raised -- the Hart Highway -- the member opposite may know that we have budgeted for the current fiscal year some $4.9 million to proceed on elements of that. That is one of the larger new projects that we're undertaking in the coming year. Yours is a reasonably large district, but you can appreciate that inasmuch as we're only spending some $180 million over 75 ridings, the average is closer to $3 million. We're so magnanimous that we're giving you a $4.9 million project right there in your own back yard.

[4:00]

J. Weisgerber: First of all, I understand that it will work fine for both of the opposition parties if tomorrow morning you have some people over from B.C. Rail. We certainly would be happy to accommodate that.

On the $4.9 million I'm not certain. My memory doesn't serve me well enough to know whether or not at that level of expenditure.... The goal initially was to see the road completed and paved in 1992. Clearly we're not going to meet that objective. There is highway work to be done -- construction grade work, preparation and paving. I'm wondering if you could be more specific as to when, in your budgeting or projections, that would be completed.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The worst segment, some 6.5 kilometres from Link Creek to West Pine Creek, is under construction and scheduled for completion this calendar year.

J. Weisgerber: I'd just as soon try to find out, if I could, when you expect that 25-kilometre section.... I'm not even certain of the length, but there's a project that includes three bridges and a considerable amount of grade work. What I'm trying to find out is when that new road, which is really the last of the old Hart Highway, will be reconstructed. Will that be completed within this calendar year, or will there be work left to do after this calendar year?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, this will not complete the whole project. Depending on fiscal considerations, it could still take several calendar years to finish the whole thing.

J. Weisgerber: Obviously there is a great desire in the Peace region to see this completed. I expect the minister understands that there is one road that connects the Peace River region of British Columbia with the rest of the province, and that's the Hart Highway through the Pine Pass. There simply are no practical alternatives to travelling over it, so we'd like to see it concluded as quickly as possible. Having said that, I will try to move on to something else.

In conclusion, could the minister give us a sense of the total cost required to complete the project? We know that you are going to spend just under $5 million this year. Is it going to cost another $20 million or $25 million to complete it? If that's the case, are we looking at four or five years at the current spending levels?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'll have to take the question under advisement and give you an accurate answer.

J. Weisgerber: Fair enough. I don't want to spend a lot of time on that. Perhaps I can just pose a series of questions that the minister may want to get back to me on. I appreciate that he had written that I might call and get some information. I attempted to do that a couple of times. Perhaps I wasn't as persistent as I should have been in getting through.

We are concerned in the region with the paving of about 20 kilometres left on the Heritage Highway, the

[ Page 990 ]

connection between Dawson Creek and Tumbler Ridge. The road grade is completed. It has sat for about a year, and it is now ready for paving. I'd be interested in knowing when we might expect to see that paved.

We're also interested in the repaving of the Rolla road, north from Dawson Creek to the Clayhurst bridge and north of there. We're particularly concerned about the completion of the access road to Monkman Park, which was a unique project undertaken a couple of years ago, involving the Ministry of Forests, the forest tenure holders in the area, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and the Ministry of Parks. The road is very nearly completed, but it does require some additional work, which everyone was hoping would be completed this year.

If the minister has any information he could give us on any of those roads, I would be delighted. If he would give me an undertaking to get back on them, that would satisfy me as well.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: All of the projects you mentioned are ready to go, in terms of design. When we proceed on construction will be totally dependent on the fiscal condition. I would hope that we will be able to proceed on some of them in each of the several coming fiscal years. If projected growth rates are borne out and if all the problems that we're aware of are resolved, it will be sooner; if not, obviously later.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to pursue one last series of questions, and then I'll allow it to move on.

In the northeast part of British Columbia you have basically an extension of the Prairies. As a result, you have a grid-road system similar to what you'd find in Alberta or Saskatchewan. I take it from the minister's nod that he's familiar with that. That's a situation I not only will talk to you about here today but have talked about to other Ministers of Transportation. The points raised in Peat Marwick on maintaining the system are particularly applicable to the grid-road system in the northeast. It's basically a gravel road with various levels of road construction.

Some of them are pretty basic; some of them are fairly high-grade roads. But there needs to be an ongoing commitment from the ministry and the government to maintaining and improving that rural grid-road system. The graveling of the roads themselves is probably the major component. The maintenance contractor probably has a responsibility to maintain culverts and those kinds of things. The roads simply deteriorate over time. The gravel is pounded off or pounded into the roads.

In my opinion we simply aren't putting enough money into the grid road system, and we haven't for some time. I'm hoping that the minister can give us an indication, which is motivated to some degree by the Peat Marwick report, that regarding this issue of maintaining and rehabilitating the grid-road system across the province, wherever it exists -- but I'm most familiar with it in the northeast -- there will be, within the ministry, some new emphasis or perhaps a substantial increased allocation out of the rehabilitation budget directed toward those kinds of roads.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: In the North Peace and South Peace districts about $1.5 million is being spent in the rehabilitation of gravel roads, which is to say mainly the regrading and application of fresh amounts of gravel.

J. Weisgerber: I want to sincerely thank the minister and commend the government for that commitment. Having said that, as the MLA over the last few years, it was my analysis -- and more important than my analysis -- and my discussion with the local staff that they would like to see about $1 million per constituency, north and south, per year on an ongoing basis invested back into the grid-road system. I'm not trying to be critical. I think that $1.5 million or $750,000 per constituency in that regard is an excellent start forward, and I do commend you.

I would encourage you to continue funnelling money into that grid-road system, because it's important. As I drive around my constituency I'm quite honestly amazed that I don't hear more from my constituents about specific examples of lack of gravel, particularly on the road.

I'm going to conclude by thanking the minister, because I think that's a genuinely worthwhile commitment to the Peace region regarding the grid-road system.

J. Dalton: Mr. Minister, I have in front of me an MLA briefing package on 1992-93 capital and rehabilitation projects. I know that some MLAs in the Liberal caucus have received this, and I've talked to some other MLAs who have not. I have not, as yet, received a personalized copy for my riding of West Vancouver-Capilano. Do I take that to speak volumes, that there's nothing happening in the way of projects within my riding?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I believe that a letter went out to all MLAs of all parties. The packages have been available in my office, and quite a number have dropped by or sent somebody to pick them up. I have in front of me copies of the ones that are in your own personalized package -- just waiting for you. There's not a great deal. But on bridge projects, there is about $400,000 for the Lions Gate Bridge and about $100,000 for a couple of interchanges. But the larger amount for Lonsdale, the $80,000 in the budget, is actually to pay for work already completed. So it's a little dry in your neck of the woods this time around.

J. Dalton: I rise with a smile. I shouldn't be laughing, because the particular point I want to raise in a moment is certainly not a laughing matter to many of my constituents.

I thank the minister for his response. I actually have not seen the letter inviting us to come by and pick up the package, although I will certainly see that that is done. Obviously, however, the information contained therein is brief, at best, as the minister has admitted.

Earlier today when I was in my office -- and this is why I actually came back into the committee -- I overheard one of my favourite topics, Westview, being discussed by the member for North

Vancouver-Sey-

[ Page 991 ]

mour. I raise that point, Mr. Minister, and I don't want to go over old ground, because I know your response. You said that Westview will not be dealt with this year, and that's not unexpected, I must say. I was not happy, however, to hear your response that perhaps next year.... Obviously that was a very guarded comment.

[4:15]

I raise Westview in particular because the Upper Levels Highway forms the southern boundary of my riding, and Westview is right at the very integral part of my riding. The southern riding next to mine is North Vancouver-Lonsdale. The Upper Levels Highway carries on through my riding into West Vancouver and beyond. Westview has been a sore point on the North Shore for many years. I've been a lifelong resident of the North Shore, and I think back to probably 25 years ago, when some of the corner lots of Westview were bought up in order to hopefully put in an overpass or an interchange. Today is 1992, and we still haven't got to the point of a real prospect of Westview being brought on-line.

The point I want to make to you, Mr. Minister, is that it is not only an inconvenience to many of the people who use that highway -- both North Shore residents and others -- but there's a real safety problem with the absence of a Westview interchange or even the prospect of one being constructed.

As the minister knows, Lonsdale has now been completed, and we could even bring in some discussion about the Cassiar connector, which produces an excellent free flow of traffic until you get to the Westview intersection of the Upper Levels Highway. In particular, the safety problem that I see -- I'm not aware of any specific accidents, but I can almost guarantee there are going to be some -- is that as you head west through the Lonsdale interchange and you go downhill toward Westview, suddenly and unexpectedly, I'm sure, people find a traffic light.

The traffic light at Westview is, to my knowledge -- other than the one at Cache Creek, which I've commented on earlier in this House -- the only one left on the Trans-Canada Highway in British Columbia. It is going to be a safety problem, so I would like to hear from the minister, if possible, some specific assurance that the Westview project will not be given short shrift or shunted aside for next year, and that this traffic bottleneck and safety hazard will be attended to.

I might also point out that there's a major shopping centre at one of the corners of the Westview intersection, and I know that it is very difficult to access. There have been accidents at the shopping centre entrances. The problem is that the traffic light causes traffic to back up. There are vision hazards and many difficulties.

Perhaps the minister would care to respond, and I can get back to my constituents with a ray of hope and some light at the end of the tunnel.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think it's self-evident that I agree with the member opposite that we need an interchange at Westview; I think that goes without saying.

It doesn't go without comment, however, that it's the last traffic light on the Trans-Canada. I can think of about four or five of them in Kamloops. But at least from Horseshoe Bay, particularly if they go the Coquihalla route and we eliminate the Westview one, the next one will be in Kamloops. That's correct. It's about a $45 million project to undertake, and as much as we would have liked to have been able to proceed even with some elements of it this year, it is not possible.

I'm guarded about next year, simply because I really have no idea as to exactly what the fiscal fortunes of B.C. are going to be. I guess I know the projections as well as anyone. If the projections hold out, I would anticipate that we'll have a slightly fatter construction budget, and we can start to undertake either all of the projects or at least part of the projects. I would like to be able to give the member opposite assurances that we would proceed in the next fiscal year, but I am unable to give that assurance and would not want to mislead you on it.

If you would believe it, and it might be difficult, there are quite a few intersections in the province that would stand higher in terms of accident records. So we have not only that particular problem to solve but many others as well.

D. Symons: I'd like to continue just a little bit on that last thought. I have some concerns with what you say of the projections for the next fiscal year, that there might be a slight increase. I'm not so sure that that will even take care of inflation which might occur over that period of time, nor really take care of the fact that it's not just this year that the Highways ministry has been in a sense shortchanged. It's been going on for quite a few years, and the actual maintenance and rehabilitation programs are under par for what they should be for just maintaining their own. A slight increase will not keep up with just the status quo. We're going to need something more than that.

If we can, I want to get back to the estimates in the book. On Friday afternoon I was just about to start with the capital construction

section of that under vote 61. I notice under here that there are some significant expenditures. One of them that drew my attention was the $220,000 under the information and advertising publications section. Are these expenditures necessary for that advertising, and could there be less advertising or more effective use of tax dollars in that way? What sort of advertising publications does this figure cover?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The amount is some $250,000, which is about one-third the magnitude that it was the previous year. It represents a sort of a rock-bottom figure for just the routine advertisements that the ministry must put out: road closures, project tenders, weight-limit restrictions -- putting them on and taking them off. A wide variety of notices like that must be published in newspapers across the province. It's been reduced to about the very least it could be reduced to.

D. Symons: I hope the minister will accept this next question in the vein that it was asked by one of the honourable members who is now on the opposite side, but was on this side a couple of years ago. His question

[ Page 992 ]

at that time was: is the cost of changing the name of the past minister to the current Minister of Highways on the highway signs contained in this advertising, and how much might it cost to reflect the change in government, the change in minister, by changing signs?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm pleased to say to the member opposite that one of the first decisions which I took upon assuming the office was that my name would not go up on those signs. We saved a lot.

An Hon. Member: You have a nice name, though.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It's a mellifluous name -- melodic and other things.

We saved probably tens of thousands of dollars by not replacing signs all over the province. We used the simple expedient of getting some appropriately coloured tape and covering up the name of the previous Highways minister -- no offence meant. At the present time, the policy is that we will not put on these signs elements that could be changeable. I anticipate that you will not be seeing my name on the signs. It is not because I don't need the advertising; it's because it would not be fiscally prudent to do so.

D. Symons: I commend the minister. I think that's great, because when we become government, that's something I would make sure we do. I certainly hope that the other ministers will catch on, and that hospital signs and all the other ministry signs that may occur where a sign is needed won't mention the minister. I think you might set a very good trend so that the next government will have to follow suit on that. I would certainly commend you for doing that; I think it's very responsible.

R. Blencoe: Was that the main difference between you and the Liberals?

D. Symons: Well, I think what may be on the signs, if something must be there, are the various ways in which the taxpayer pays for it, whether it be provincial, federal or municipal. But other than that, the dollars are paid by whatever pocket is being picked from the taxpayer. That's the way it should go on the signs -- and the only way. We don't have to name the ministers, because it's the people who pay for it. I congratulate you for making that move.

Under the heading of "minor highway capital construction," could the minister outline for us the projects covered under this subheading and maybe just give us a flavour for the types that are considered minor projects?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: By definition -- and it's really just a matter of convenience -- minor projects are those that are less than $50 million. Major projects typically are projects that run on for several years, such as the Island Highway; they would be above $50 million.

If you just want half a dozen examples, I could read a list: the Vedder interchange on Highway 1 out of Chilliwack; the Stave River bridge at Mission-Kent; some minor design work on the Trans-Canada Highway east of Kamloops, $60,000; construction on Highway 3 at Sparwood in the East Kootenays. Those are the sorts of things. The amounts range from very low design costs -- I see figures here as little as $60,000; some of it is property acquisition and individual amounts as little as $10,000 -- on to construction costs in the $4 million to $5 million range.

D. Symons: I assume these would include the Westview interchange, the passing lanes referred to earlier and this type of thing that would most likely come under minor highways construction.

If we can look at some of the individual major construction jobs, there are quite a few questions going. I notice that there are nine of them listed under the votes that would be, by your definition, something over $50 million. These nine have actually been ongoing. If I look back even two years in estimates, I find the same nine down there. There don't seem to have been any added to it, nor none taken away. So I would like to follow through with each of those nine to see what stage they are at in the process, and when we could expect the completion of them and the possible adding of new major capital construction in the province.

The first one named here is the Fraser River crossing and connectors. I assume this would include the new Fraser Bridge and then the east-west connector in Richmond. How far along is that project at the present time? What percentage of it has been passed, and how close are we to completion of that project?

[4:30]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The amount expended to date is in excess of $500 million, and yes, that was the new Annacis crossing. Had we had full and bottomless-pit funding, we might have expended up to $32 million this year on it. The actual amount to be expended for the current fiscal year is in the order of $2 million. We have work to do on the Hamilton and Westminster interchanges. There's some utility relocation work to be done and some property to be acquired, but the full scope of work that would be within the Fraser River crossing and the connectors to it has not been defined.

D. Symons: This would be a project that you might define as "with room to grow." As the communities around it grow, I suppose by your last statement that this will grow to match the needs. The total was $500 million. You said that $32 million could be spent this year, but you're down to the $2 million that's budgeted for it. There's obviously a fair percentage of the project as currently seen that has still to be completed, I would assume.

I wonder if we could move on to the next project, which is the Okanagan connector. It's one that I was taking a look at back in March, and we were discussing various aspects of the Okanagan connector. Again with that one, how far along...? Well, it's obviously quite far along. There's only a small amount being expended this year. Will the $520,000 that's budgeted for it complete all the work on the Okanagan connector?

[ Page 993 ]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The expenditures to date have been some $220 million, with anticipated project costs -- and these are all in 1987 dollars, by the way -- being about $225 million. So it's in the very final stages of tidying up. I see some property settlements and some other very minor costs related to project management and helping out Peachland with the water supply. The budget for the current year is about half a million dollars, with perhaps another $2 million to follow at some time.

With respect to your question on the Fraser crossing, I might mention that one of the major unknowns right at this time is the Queensborough Bridge and what we might do with that. It might be cheaper to tear it down and build a new one than to upgrade it to current earthquake standards. That decision is in the process of being studied.

D. Symons: Knowing the Queensborough Bridge quite well, I can see the problems with the off ramps and on ramps on the north side of that bridge. There could be some real problems just trying to upgrade the current structure.

On with the Okanagan connector. It now ends up in the Peachland area. Are there plans that in the future the highway will be continued up the west side of Okanagan Lake, rather than funnelling all the traffic...? A good portion of it now goes over the floating bridge.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It's an open question on that end. We're contemplating a new bridge crossing over Okanagan Lake, tying in with a partial bypass around Kelowna. There's a possibility of something on the west side. Eventually we will have to deal with the problem. Part of this falls under another category here, the Highway 97 project. But somehow or other we've got to develop a better connection all the way up to the Trans-Canada. The project hasn't even reached the point yet where it has been scoped out. At the present there is no intention of extending another Coquihalla connector someplace else. But we do have some problems on Highway 97 that we have to solve.

D. Symons: You must be able to see my notes here, because my next questions are about crossing Okanagan Lake at Kelowna and the problem of a north-side connector through the city of Kelowna. As the bridge traffic flows through the downtown core of the city, the traffic situation becomes quite difficult. The Coquihalla has been sort of a mixed blessing to that area in that it has managed to bring even more traffic into an area where there were already difficulties.

That brings us again to the problem of Highway 97 from the U.S. border up to the Trans-Canada. You say that the whole picture isn't drawn for that road construction in the Okanagan. I am concerned. Is there no long-term planning? There must be some regional long-term planning. This has been a problem for decades now. Surely there must have been some plan put in place a considerable time back, and you're working toward the development of that plan in order to alleviate and get ahead of the problems that are developing. That area is growing at a fantastic rate now.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I didn't mean to indicate in a previous answer that there is nothing underway or nothing specifically planned on Highway 97. There are a whole variety of upgrading programs for segments of the road between the border and Salmon Arm, and even over toward Kamloops. There is much additional work left to be done.

The budget for the current year on Highway 97 is about $5.5 million to address sections along the road. Some areas where we simply have not had the cash, we've had to, as I've said, button up a few sites and leave them in a uncompleted condition for another year.

I was referring earlier to trying to get additional Coquihalla traffic through or around or across Kelowna somehow and connect it into the road going north. That part of the connection has not yet been resolved. We are expending some $50,000 on a study relating to the second bridge crossing in Kelowna. I've met with the mayors of Sicamous and Salmon Arm; I met in Kelowna with the mayors of Vernon, Kelowna and Penticton; I've met separately with the mayor of Penticton; and I have discussed all of these problems along there on the phone a couple of times with the mayor of Osoyoos.

I gave them our assurance that we are well aware of the problems and that we're working on them as quickly as our funds permit.

Some of the remaining sections are very expensive -- very expensive rock work, very expensive property-acquisition problems and some environmentally sensitive areas along there as well. We don't want to destroy the lake shore unnecessarily. We don't want to cause unnecessary up-slope problems. It's very, very expensive and is being done in bits and pieces. It was started by the previous administration over a number of years, and we're carrying it along to completion. The expenditures to date have been some $62 million. I cannot offhand give you an estimate of completion, but I could provide your office with that if you'd like.

D. Symons: I guess I have concern -- and you might not have meant it in quite the way you said it -- when you say "bits and pieces." I am concerned that we don't build our highways that way, and that may be the way it is going to happen with the Island Highway as well: where we do a little piece here and a little piece there and eventually all these pieces get joined together. By the time it is finished the highway needs a total rehabilitation program again. It can be spread over a long period of time if that is the approach we take to highway building, I would think.

I know that there is a good amount of Highway 97 that seems to be four-laned now. There are just some sections in there that produce bottlenecks because of the fact that they aren't four-laned. It would be great if that could be carried on to complete the project and make it viable for the communities involved. I know the mayors up there -- I've spoken to a few of them myself -- have great concerns over the delays that are occurring in that area and the traffic that is generated through their towns.

[ Page 994 ]

The next area here is the Cassiar connector, and we have discussed that fairly well in previous questions. I believe you've given the indication that the amount budgeted for this year will pretty well complete that connector. That just confirmed that, I guess.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Relatively speaking, there is minor work to complete on the Cassiar -- some of the noise-attenuation walls and finishing off some of the planting of what look to be large window boxes stacked up. Those will all be planted and irrigated. We've got some additional seeding or sodding to do in some places. There is one off-ramp which will take the traffic coming north on the Cassiar, just after the tunnel, and lead it down around to the docks. If I'm not mistaken, it will be wrapped up in October. The ramp down to the port will be open in June.

Final pavement would be on that ramp in June; landscaping and noise barriers completed by October. I think the total amount involved is in the order of $5 million -- closer to $8 million, I am advised -- to wrap up the project this year.

D. Symons: I'm sure that the residents in the area and the people driving that route, and it's a goodly number, will certainly appreciate that it's always nice when a project is drawn to a completion.

Carrying on to the last figure here, because it's in the same neighbourhood as the Cassiar connector.... The last item under the highways capital construction is the Second Narrows Bridge and approaches. I wonder if you could outline what the project is for that, and how far along that project is now. Will those approaches be on the north side, or is it going to be the Vancouver side? North or west, I'm not quite sure of the direction at that point. I guess it would be the south side -- Vancouver side -- or the north side on the North Shore. Is that where the major portion of this work is going to take place?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The Cassiar connector has been built to accommodate six lanes. It's presently configured as four with fairly wide shoulders, but it is designed to accommodate six;

whereas, of course, the Second Narrows is six. But we have two additional lanes that we would like to get on there to accommodate the traffic that comes in from the side.

On the far side, all the way up the cut onto the Upper Levels, there is a great deal of money to be expended ultimately to raise the standards on that side. So when we talk about the Second Narrows Bridge and the approaches, we're fundamentally talking about the North Shore approaches. To upgrade the bridge, we're contemplating an expansion from six to eight lanes on the bridge, plus all of the improvements that need to be made on the north approaches. We could well be talking a quarter of a billion dollars.

[4:45]

D. Symons: So that was about $8 million for the bridge, and you'll have in excess of $200 million for the.... I misunderstood.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The structural changes that would be required to add two lanes on the bridge would be in excess of $100 million, and although we haven't scoped it -- and I don't mean to call this out as a definitive price -- there could easily be $100 million or more on the far side to bring those approaches and interchanges up to snuff.

D. Symons: Then by the amount that's budgeted for this year, this is just very preliminary work on that. When those are done, I guess this will impact again on my colleague's Westview interchange. We certainly want to make sure the whole thing will go along at that time.

This is at what stage of the work? Has there been work done before? Is this more or less the beginning of this project, or how far along is it? We've got an awfully long way to go, by the figures you've given me.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: That whole project is at what you would call the conceptual engineering level, with some very, very preliminary design effort being done to try to scope the project.

D. Symons: I wonder if we can take a look at the Island Highway, which is a sore point in many communities along the Island here. It has been a long time coming, and they see its completion date as a long way off. There isn't a great deal of money budgeted for this, considering the scope of the project. I'm wondering if you would give us an idea of the time-frame of this project, which sections might be priorities and when we can look at a more or less completed project.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: You're correct in your observation that there has been only a start made on this project, and that the funds being expended this year are very minor. The current cost estimate is $1 billion plus, and the amount expended to date has been about $135 million, so it's not much more than 10 percent complete. We are looking at a budget allocation for the coming year of about $26 million. If you are interested, I can indicate roughly how that $26 million is going to be expended.

D. Symons: The mean amount.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There's some on the inland Island Highway project, which would be just north of Parksville. About $1.5 million is going to be expended on the Nanaimo inner route; that will be mainly design and some property acquisition. There will be about $1.5 million on the Goldstream-Nanaimo reach and about $5 million along the Pat Bay Highway, and that's about it for the major project elements. As I say, it will total about $26 million in the current year.

You can see that even if we get to expenditure rates of $100 million a year, we're looking at the rest of the decade. It is my hope that my colleagues and members opposite will join me ultimately in supporting a revised method of funding so that we could capitalize this project. If we do that, I might see the possibility of delivering the project by the turn of the century.

[ Page 995 ]

D. Symons: Yes, my concern on this is that as it delays, property acquisition costs and construction costs are going to go up. So the figures in your estimates now are going to be ballooning as time and delays take place. This becomes very important to the possible completion date; in a sense, the sooner we get it through with, the less the cost will be in the long run, because we're going to have these factors increasing costs as it goes along.

I have some specific questions dealing with the Island Highway that I'll get back to after I finish with specific capital construction ones. But one thing you mentioned in your answer a moment ago was the Pat Bay Highway. Would the majority of the figure that you gave me apply more or less to the McKenzie intersection, which is currently being worked on?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It's been pointed out to me that in our preliminary budget allocation for the McKenzie, we planned on expending just short of $4 million. Construction of the bypass and features associated with the bypass, like the detour route, is underway right now. Because of a decision I took last week, we will now be expending about $1.4 million further at the McKenzie interchange.

As I outlined in the House last week, we will proceed with the excavation of some of the old alignment of McKenzie Avenue and move material to form what's called a preload on the part of the Pat Bay Highway that's immediately north of the intersection. That's in preparation for full-blown construction in the next fiscal year. I took that decision to save the investment that we've made in the bypass and to assure everyone that the project would be completed in advance of the Commonwealth Games. In addition, we're spending about $1.25 million up at the Lands End interchange.

The total on the Pat Bay is going to be about $6.6 million.

D. Symons: You mentioned Lands End, and that brings up a point that I'm not quite sure of. Where does the Highways ministry end and the Ferry Corporation begin? Is it at the gates of the ferry compound? This question impinges on a question I have for the other end, in Tsawwassen. I'm concerned about the parking that we have at the terminals. A good number of people have contacted me regarding the fact that they would love to go on the ferry as foot passengers, but parking is extremely difficult for them. This would be one way of cutting down on the number of people who are using the ferries.

I know that that's not under your jurisdiction right now, but certainly parking at the end is a problem. Is that your problem, or is that the Ferry Corporation's problem?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: That's the Ferry Corporation's problem. There have been some negotiations back and forth as to exactly where our responsibilities end and B.C. Ferries' responsibilities pick up. It's somewhere this side of the toll booths for the ferry. They've got some additional space out there, because occasionally their lineups back up into that area. Roughly speaking, that's where the responsibilities are transferred.

D. Symons: On the Island Highway again, we've mentioned the Nanaimo inner route. Have all these decisions -- going along the various courses of the decisions -- been made in consultation with the communities involved? How much involvement has there been with the regional area and the immediate community where this is taking place? How much input have they had before the final decision has been made?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: A great deal. Many, many. I have met, just since I took office, with groups from Nanaimo, and on three occasions I met with the mayor and a portion of her council. Extensive input. And there will no doubt be extensive consultation before the final details of the design of the inner route are finalized.

L. Reid: My riding is Richmond East, as you know. We've had some difficulties on Highway 99 with the lack of appropriate bus lanes. Is there going to be some provision in place to ensure that a bus lane runs down the middle of the highway as opposed to the far lane, which does not allow any safety factors to be considered in terms of vehicles needing to pull over?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The B.C. Transit part of it belongs, of course, to another minister, but I would point out that there was no criticism of the conditions of the highway associated with the accident. The reason that the bus lane was in the first instance put on the right-hand side was to facilitate the exit and re-entry at the Steveston Highway. If the bus lane is on the inside, the bus can't get off. There are some discussions ongoing, however, with B.C. Transit to see whether it might not be placed with suitable protection -- a guard rail or concrete barrier -- separating it from the regular traffic.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

L. Reid: I appreciate the comments, because I believe that the research has borne out the fact that bus lanes should be on the inside of highways, and I would trust that we'll continue to look very carefully at that area.

My question -- I believe this is your jurisdiction -- is on car-pooling. Is there some kind of incentive to encourage that kind of traffic on our highways?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I don't know that I can agree with the member's comment that it's well established that the bus lane should be on the inside. They are on the inside in some instances and not in others. One problem you have when you put it on the inside and put a barrier beside it is that if somewhere along a several-kilometre reach you have a bus that is suddenly inoperable, you have a completely blocked bus lane, and other buses in that line are going nowhere. If you have it over on the right-hand lane, you can at least get it over onto the verge of the highway, and you still have a bus lane. So it's a bit of an open question as to where the bus lane should best be.

[ Page 996 ]

L. Reid: My question was pertaining to car-pooling. Are there any incentives in place on behalf of your ministry to ensure that we treat the road infrastructure with more care and provide more incentives to people to reduce the number of automobiles on the road?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We have not only within the ministry itself a car-pooling program, but the construction of the Barnet-Hastings Highway includes a high-occupancy-vehicle lane. In public comments that I've made in a number of forums -- most recently when I floated the balloon of tolls -- I pointed out that one way tolls can be used in an inventive manner is that you can have no tolls for cars with three or more passengers, van pools, buses or what not; but if you want to take your tonne and a half of metal into town all by yourself, you've got to pay a toll.

[5:00]

We're very cognizant of the general idea. I'll speak for myself. We do not solve the transportation problems of either the Capital Regional District or the Greater Vancouver Regional District by building more lanes, bridges, tunnels, concrete and flying ramps. Even though as an engineer I happen to believe that all of the above are beautiful, they don't solve the problem. We have to be inventive. We have to make some improvements to our traffic system. We may well need a bridge across the Pitt River. We may at some time in the future need a bridge across the Fraser at Albion or need to enlarge the tunnels at Deas Island, but I believe this should be done in a very measured way.

Whatever is done ought to be done in such a way that it fits in with public transit -- bus, commuter rail, rapid transit, SkyTrain or SeaBus -- and we should use an overall policy of some improvement of the roadway system. After all, our commercial vehicles need to use the roadway system. It benefits all of us economically to have an efficient roadway system, but we should be encouraging people to leave their cars at home or to at the very least car-pool.

L. Reid: Certainly your last comment is very well taken: i.e., it's appropriate to encourage folks to leave their cars at home. The residents of my riding are very keen cyclists. They wish to commute by bicycle in and out of town. We have not made adequate provision in the riding of Richmond East for that. Certainly the entire riding of Richmond needs some extensive work. Two of the major concerns are the Oak Street bridge for cyclists to enter town, and the tunnel to enter through Ladner, Tsawwassen, etc. Any provision to ensure that cyclists' safety is uppermost in the mind of the government....

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think it's completely fair to say that in years past highway designers paid little or no attention to the needs of cyclists. It's understandable, because it has only been in the last few years, relatively speaking, that the idea of bicycle commuting occurred to anyone. The cost of building an additional lane on a bridge such as Second Narrows or Port Mann is in the tens of millions of dollars, and one would not have done that 15 or 20 years ago to accommodate one or two bikes a day.

But we have entered a new period where more and more people are going to want to ride their bikes. In fact, the transportation studies occurring both here in the capital region and in the greater Vancouver region are incorporating not only elements of public transit, elements of car pooling and high-occupancy lanes, but they'll be keeping cycling in mind as well.

We have made efforts to make the Cassiar somewhat cyclist-friendly. We can't run them through the tunnel; it's simply too dangerous. For good reasons, highway engineers like to separate high-speed traffic from low-speed traffic. I have been pressed on numerous occasions by, shall we say, professional cyclists, by people who commute long distances: "Why can't I be on the freeway? Why can't I go through the tunnel?" Well, it's not as simple as that. You cannot say on a sign "cyclists permitted if they are very competent, mature adults with a lot of experience." We cannot mix 13-year-olds going through a tunnel for fun with professional commuter cyclists.

There are some places that we just simply cannot allow cyclists, in the name of safety. Deas Island Tunnel would be an example. But we can in those instances pursue the idea of bus racks on transit vehicles, or I have been told that in some instances on the Deas Island there is a trailer pulled through a few times a day during certain periods. But maybe that's not enough.

Maybe we have to think a bit more about either extending that service even further to make it a more frequent service to ferry bicycles, and that in new construction in progress we pay a significant amount of attention to the needs of cyclists, right from the shoulders of the road, right through the bridges, right through the entire project.

L. Reid: I too would like to float a trial balloon. I'm curious to know if the idea of special transit cars to carry bicycles has come up in discussion at the cabinet table, so folks who take their bicycles part way can also involve themselves in transit or in the LRT, and hopefully arrive safely at work.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: You would have to put that question to the Minister of Finance when it's his turn.

D. Symons: If I just cycle along on that chain of thought for a moment.... I was at a meeting in your office a while ago; it was a group of people from the Bicycling Association. Having used the Deas Tunnel shuttle service that was there, I have found that in my case, because I'm getting a little older and not so fast as these professionals to whom you refer, I don't make it back from the ferry quite in time for that last shuttle through there. One of the people made the recommendation that you might consider the tow-truck on standby there waiting in case it is needed along that portion of the freeway.

It could be used as a shuttle service sort of all the time rather than having an occasional shuttle service with a trailer there. Have you

[ Page 997 ]

carried that thought forward at all, and is there going to be any movement on that?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I recall the conversation we had in my office, but it is pointed out to me that the tow-trucks are there for emergencies. If something happens in that tunnel, we have to be able to access it and do something within minutes -- as quickly as possible. If the tow-truck happened to be on a shuttle service pulling a rack of bikes through the tunnel in the opposite direction, it could be many minutes, ten or 12 minutes before it could get turned around and get back to the crisis. So for that reason we cannot spring it -- we would have to provide an additional vehicle at additional cost in order to provide that service.

D. Symons: Yes, I guess I would go back to the previous comment of the hon. member on this side about possible bicycle racks on the buses that go through. It would be another way of looking at that problem, having it more frequent, because they go through hourly or even every half-hour most of the day. That's, again, another minister's responsibility.

Going back to the tunnel, which is a great problem in our area of the province, I have heard a suggestion that the Steveston Highway onto the freeway through the tunnel ramp.... Consideration is being given to closing off that approach and making it so that the last on ramp to the freeway and through the Deas Tunnel would be at the Westminster Highway entrance. Is there any validity to this? Maybe you can assure us that it isn't taking place. There would be an awful lot of people on the south end of Richmond who would be terribly inconvenienced by such a move.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: For years and years -- probably ten or 15 -- before I was Minister of Highways, I often wondered why they didn't close that entrance, because what happens in situations like that.... Another example is a minor park entrance on the causeway going up to the Lions Gate Bridge. That entry of a few vehicles queue-jumping from elsewhere can cause massive tie-ups all the way up the causeway. It's a problem of streamlining cars in.

Having said all that, it has been looked at as a means of streamlining the flow into the tunnel. It would be faster; you would not have nearly the lineups entering the tunnel if it were not for that entrance. But there has been no decision on closing it, nor is a decision even pending.

D. Symons: I am reassured by your statement, because there would be 30,000 people on the south side of Richmond who would be terribly inconvenienced for access to the tunnel if that were the case. It would add a good number of miles and that much more pollution for them to get down to the Westminster entrance and then double back basically to where they started from.

One other question dealing with the Hastings-Barnet corridor. You discussed it briefly a moment ago and said that you were thinking of a high-occupancy.... Built into it now is a high-occupancy-vehicle lane. Is that project on target? How far along is it? Is its targeted completion date likely to be met, or has it also been postponed by cutbacks in the Highways ministry?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The estimated project cost is $90 million. Expenditures to date have been $18.7 million, with allocations for this year of $9.6 million. You'll see that we're only about one-third done on the overall project.

D. Symons: Is there any projected completion date, then? This will certainly help a great deal the traffic on the feeds into the Trans-Canada or onto Lougheed Highway. They have a more direct route from the north shore of the Fraser in through the Barnet connector.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The target date for delivering the HOV lane is 1995, but the delivery of this project, like virtually every other major project, will depend on future fiscal situations.

D. Symons: Tied in with the Barnet-Hastings corridor, there has been a suggestion -- and I think it was more than that -- that there would be a water connection between the Port Moody end and the SeaBus terminal in Vancouver. Would that come under the Highways ministry, or is it going to come under B.C. Ferries, or is that some private enterprise project?

[5:15]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The initial concept was to have it operate under B.C. Transit. Now I'm not pretending to be the minister responsible for B.C. Transit, but I can tell you that nothing too much has come of that particular notion, partly because there are some very severe tidal currents in the vicinity of the Second Narrows Bridge. There's a very onerous speed limit through that area, which is extremely low -- like five knots, seven knots or something. By the time you've added in that element, probably not too many people would be interested in riding on it.

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways relating to the Sea to Sky Highway, Highway 99. I've certainly had an opportunity to discuss that highway corridor with the minister, and we've had some good dialogue. The committee may be interested in knowing that we had a delegation of five mayors meet with the minister. It was a very good meeting, and some good information was shared. I think that there is some good dialogue continuing now as a result of that.

My question to the minister is a general one, and it relates to Highway 99. It's a much-travelled route with a very high volume of traffic. Over the course of the last number of years there have been a number of studies into alternate routes, alternate ways of accessing the whole corridor from different watershed routes. I'm just wondering if the minister could inform the committee today as to the status of these various studies.