1982 Legislative Session: 4th

Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The

following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 8467

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Rollback of taxes and user fees. Mr. Lea

–– 8467

Mr. Barrett

B.C. Tel layoffs. Mr. Mitchell –– 8467

Special employment programs in forest

industry. Mr. King –– 8468

Shipping of resources. Mr. Lockstead –– 8468

Committee of Supply: Ministry of

Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Fraser)

On vote 76: minister's office (continued)

— 8469

Mr. Howard

Mr. Brummet

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Richmond

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Barrett

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Skelly

Ms. Brown

Mr. Mitchell

Mrs. Wallace

Appendix –– 8490

MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I

have the pleasure today of introducing guests in the gallery from

Australia. They are with the Trade Development Council survey mission

to Canada and are looking at ways to cooperate in international trade

between those two great countries. Leading the mission is Mr. Keith

Bracken. He is here along with seven members: Mr. Roberts, Mr.

McKechnie, Mr. Pak-Poy, Mr. Rayner, Mr. Davies, Mr. Connolly and Mr.

Taylor. Also accompanying them is Mr. John MacFarlane, the Australian

consul-general from Vancouver. I hope the House will make them warmly

welcome.

Oral Questions

ROLLBACK OF TAXES AND USER FEES

MR. LEA:

I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The recession that we're

currently going through in the province is brought about in part by the

tax push effect of the current economic policies and taxation policies

of this government. The tax and user-fee increases over the past two

years have hit hard on the B.C. economy. Has the government decided to

help restore investor confidence by assuring this House, and therefore

the public, that B.C. will explore the possibility of rolling back

taxes and fees, at least until the economy has recovered from the

current recession?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker,

there was one word which I missed, but I think I have the essence of

the question. It was made very clear at the time of the budget speech,

which was introduced in this House on April 5, that we have made the

conscious decision to hold tax increases to the absolute minimum.

Indeed, that was effected by the budget, which was later approved by

this assembly.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, it was also

made clear — and it had been made clear some months before, in fact —

that a number of user fees, and there are literally hundreds of them

throughout government for a variety of purposes known to all hon.

members, had not been touched for quite some time. If the question....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I hear an interjection. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, a number of fees had

not been altered for quite some time and the user portion of the

user-fee principle had all but vanished in many instances.

If the question — I'm anticipating — is whether or not I

intend to produce another budget, the answer at this time is no.

MR. LEA: The Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing (Mr. Chabot) has indicated to the House that almost 2,000 B.C.

families face serious mortgage payment difficulties. The client intake

of the consumer credit and debtors assistance branch of the Ministry of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs increased more than 80 percent in March

1982 over March 1981. In view of the fact that Manitoba, Saskatchewan

and Alberta all have interest-rate relief programs for small business

and homeowners, has the minister and his government now decided on a

program of interest-rate relief for British Columbians?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

We have not decided on an interest rate reduction program in this

province. If the question is asking about future policy, I would not

want to leave members with the feeling that this is something which

might occur in the very near future. But a number of ministries are

very carefully monitoring our situation relative to similar problems

found, in most instances to a greater magnitude, in other provinces in

this country.

MR. LEA: As all the economic indicators

have changed since the introduction of the budget the minister brought

in, and it's obvious that we're in a far more serious recession or

depression than we were when he brought in the budget, can the minister

tell us why the government has not decided to bring in a new budget

that would take into account the new economic indicators that are now

available to us?

HON. MR. CURTIS: While it is true

that a number of indicators have shown a worsening situation since the

budget was finally prepared and made ready for presentation, I think it

is apparent to all hon. members that our budget was predicated for the

1982-83 fiscal year on it being a quite difficult year. Therefore we

were pessimistic in a number of areas with respect to revenues. I am

not yet convinced, although it is occurring in Ottawa tonight, that

there is a need for a new budget. As I have already indicated to a

number of my colleagues in government, there is clearly a need for

further expenditure restraint through the course of this fiscal year.

MR. BARRETT:

On a supplementary, can the minister tell us roughly by what percentage

the revenues have been off as related to his budget forecast?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

No, I don't have that information readily available. The question is

similar to one asked last week, not with respect to percentages but to

the date of delivery of the quarterly report. We are now two days away

from the end of the first quarter, and that information will be

available on

schedule at the end of July or within the first few days

of August.

MR. BARRETT: I find it passing strange

that the minister can't give a percentage, yet mentions that revenues

are off. Could the minister inform the House by what percentage the

revenues would have to be off before he would be on a critical path to

consider a new budget?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I find that question

hypothetical. I would have great difficulty answering in any way that

would be of use to hon. members.

B.C. TEL LAYOFFS

MR. MITCHELL:

My question is to the Minister of Labour. We all know that the problem

we are now having in the employment picture is not one issue; it's the

cumulative effect of many. Has the minister seen any of the financial

data that B.C. Telephone is using to justify the layoff of 2,200

British Columbians?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker,

it's really not my practice to request information about the internal

management of either companies or trade unions. The answer to the

[ Page 8468

question is, of course, that I have no

knowledge or access to any such information.

MR. MITCHELL:

As we all know, the loss of 2,200 jobs will jeopardize the employment

of another 8,000 British Columbians, resulting in a direct loss to the

economy of more than $15 million in purchasing power. Given the gravity

of the situation, has the minister decided to insist on seeing the

financial figures that B.C. Tel is using to justify the laying off of

all these British Columbians?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The

answer is no. I suggest that any such question would probably be better

directed to the federal government, under whose jurisdiction B.C. Tel

comes, as the member well knows. I think that upon asking for such

information, the appropriate answer would be given to me.

SPECIAL EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS

IN FOREST INDUSTRY

MR. KING: I have a question for

the Minister of Forests. The International Woodworkers of America

released figures this week showing that 37.8 percent of their members

in British Columbia are now unemployed. Has the minister decided to

mount a major spacing and thinning program in the forest sector which

is labour-intensive and could employ thousands of laid-off forest

workers?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: My ministry is carrying

on with its planned forest management work in the forests of British

Columbia, which is currently employing thousands of people who

otherwise would not be employed, both in silvicultural management and

reforestation work. Our program of employment-bridging assistance that

was announced sometime ago is now underway, and will offer

opportunities for literally thousands of employees to work in the

forests doing stand-tending work.

MR. KING: I think

the minister is aware that about 117 people have been hired under the

bridging program in B.C. — that's hardly thousands — and that the high

fire hazard has precluded many of the projects that were planned under

the bridging program. I'm asking the minister whether or not he's

considered any alternative employment program due to the high number of

unemployed people in our province.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure whether the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

went outdoors last weekend or not, but if he did, I think he'd have

found that there was quite a bit of precipitation taking place. The

fire hazard in the southern part of the province is now low to

moderate. As far as I know, the fire hazard has not precluded any such

job from getting underway.

MR. KING: I think the fire

hazard, low to moderate, matches the minister's ability, Mr. Speaker.

The fact remains that there are 117 people employed under the bridging

program. Does the minister think that that is satisfactory for this

time in our province's history?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

The member well knows that the program is now getting underway. We have

literally dozens and dozens of applications in place. Relative to the

forest hazard, Mr. Speaker, I think the mentality expressed by that

member would be similar to an extreme hazard to the people of British

Columbia in the economy.

SHIPPING OF RESOURCES

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development. In what has been described as an international

breakthrough by Lloyd's of London, it has been decided that two of

eight ships carrying coal from New South Wales in Australia to Japan

will be peopled by Australian crews and registered in Australia. What

steps has the minister taken to ensure that Canadians will similarly be

given the right to deliver their natural resources to market?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, the member should know that maritime policy is under the

jurisdiction of the federal government. Some of the members who sit on

that side of the House as advisers to the NDP caucus have been in

Ottawa, and while they were in Ottawa they didn't seem to have too much

to say, except to support the Liberal government and the policies of

the day. If you want the provincial governments to start taking over

all the jurisdiction of the federal government.... Lord knows we do

enough to support them now — one province in Canada that's able to at

least show some leadership in this tough economic time. But, Mr.

Speaker, I want to advise the members opposite that we don't want to

take on all the responsibilities of Ottawa at this particular time.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, I might point out to that minister that the federal New

Democratic members were the only effective members pushing for a

merchant marine in the whole of this nation, and were opposed by the

Liberal and Conservative governments. That policy has not changed.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. I must stop you now. That reminder might be

in order at some other time, but not in question period.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I tried not to

exceed the scope of the answer given to me by the minister.

Why

did the same minister not make it a condition of the northeast coal

deal to ensure that part of that raw resource was shipped on Canadian

ships before he signed the contract, as other nations have done?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I would like to advise the member that there would be no coal to ship

anywhere and none of the jobs would be available if his party had its

way, because that party would stop northeast coal.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's not true.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

If his leader keeps going around chastising our number two customer in

the years ahead, we won't have any coal to ship in either Canadian or

overseas bottoms. If the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) keeps

on supporting Ottawa in their ban of Japanese cars at port, we won't

have to worry about shipping coal, because we'll lose all the markets

and jobs. When you see the Teamsters, who have evidently broken ranks

with the NDP in marching against what is happening in Vancouver....

[ Page 8469

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Mr. Minister. Clearly,

the answer went beyond the scope of the question.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 76: minister's office, $228,769.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, I had some discussion with the minister in previous

sessions. It needs reiterating, I believe, because nothing seems to

have occurred in a favourable way with respect to it, I want to advance

to him that we have had in British Columbia for some few years now what

seems to be a policy of paying scant attention to what I would

generally call back roads in rural areas. In other words, I'm speaking

of roads other that the main arterial highways, roads serving smaller

communities and farming communities. Most of these roads, certainly in

Skeena, are gravel or dirt roads and have been that way for some period

of time. I advance the proposition to the minister that we should have

a formalized policy approach to dealing with back roads on a

consistent, regular basis — initially with respect to upgrading them

and then subsequently towards paving them — so that people who live in

the communities that are served by dirt and gravel roads will have some

hope that at some reasonable time in the future the roads to their

communities will be adequately black topped as are our arterial

highways and those highways serving main communities.

Another

proposition I want to put forward to him is that the Canadian National

Railway is upgrading the line through the northern part of the province

on its Jasper to Prince Rupert section. It is increasing the weight of

the steel and doing a lot of extra ballasting for the potential of

carrying a greater amount of heavier freight traffic by unit trains or

otherwise. The possibility exists that with increased rail traffic on

that line, it will put highway traffic in a more dangerous position

where there are grade level crossings than has been the case in the

past.

In talking just about Skeena, there is the one that

the minister and I have discussed before, namely the grade level

crossing at Carnaby. It is probably the worst one in that area, both

because of visibility and the sharp right-angle turns on and off it

once you get over the crossing. A number of accidents have taken place

there because of people not familiar with the road being unable to

completely negotiate the turns that are necessary. If increased rail

traffic is to come, there is a greater jeopardy facing those people.

In the community of Terrace, right in town, there are two

grade level crossings that are used fairly extensively now. People use

those rather than going uptown and going over the overpass that was

built a few years back. They are in need of having some action taken

with respect to them. Of course, between Terrace and Prince Rupert —

not all of them entirely within the constituency of Skeena; one

particular one at Tyee in the constituency of Prince Rupert — there are

three or four grade level crossings along that

section of the highway.

They also need some work done to them so that there are overpasses or

underpasses and the highway traffic is not placed in danger by the

reason of the increased rail traffic.

don't know if the minister wants to take up a great deal of time in

replying to these matters. He may want to do it by correspondence with

some of these items. These are urgent, necessary things to deal with.

The minister should announce policy with respect to them and give the

people in that area some hope for the future that at least as far as

this minister is concerned, he has a policy position that is going to

make the roads more passable and better developed for the smaller

communities which they serve, as well as dealing with the grade level

crossing problem all along that line.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Just replying to the member for Skeena for a minute, I'll lay out the

problems that will be generated by the increase in trains on the CN

line from Prince Rupert to the B.C.-Alberta boundary. Yes, there's

going to be an increase. I'll try to summarize what we're faced with

there. The CNR are upgrading, and they will continue to upgrade for

more economic operation and speed. Regarding the interaction of Highway

16, which is the highway involved with the CNR from the B.C.-Alberta

boundary to Rupert, there are 13 grade crossings which have been

identified for grade-separation structures — these are structures with

capital-project expenditure by the Ministry of Transportation and

Highways. Four of these are in urban areas — two are in Prince George,

with one each in Vanderhoof and Burns Lake. Nine are rural highway

crossings. The cost will total about $65 million. Two grade separations

are currently under construction: the Ridley Island access and the

Highway 27 bypass at Vanderhoof. The urban ones that I mentioned

earlier are the Fraser River bridge and the proposed Foothills bridge

in Prince George, Burrard Street in Vanderhoof and Highway 35 at Burns

Lake. The rural ones are: Highway 16 at Tyee, Highway 16 at Kasiks,

Highway 16 at Pollywog, Highway 16 at Exstew, Highway 37 at Kitwanga,

Highway 16 at Carnaby — that one you mentioned — Highway 16 at Houston

West,Hansard bridge and the Ridley Island access; I mentioned those in

Vanderhoof earlier. So there is a big project there. We've got started,

and that's all. We won't have them all done, that's for sure, by the

time the coal trains are starting to roll. So we have some problems

ahead of us; I hope they're not too drastic.

The upgrading

of rural roads is what we're trying to do at all times. With the budget

being just barely enough, we have achieved some success. Policy-wise,

it seems that we still have to stick with the main roads in the case of

that area — Highway 16 — to keep them up to a good standard. If you do

that, you haven't a lot of money left. But we are conducting good

maintenance winter and summer on the rural roads, and trying to upgrade

them to paving on a permanent basis where there is a fair population.

As an example in that area, I think we've done fairly well on Highway

37, which goes north from Kitwanga to Stewart. We got over half of that

road paved, and it was almost impassable five years ago. But there is

no end to what we can do, and of course, our ultimate goal is to

upgrade these rural roads where people are living and try to get a

permanent cap on them. But it's just a question of funding.

the meantime the maintenance has been stepped up. I think our area

foremen out of the district and rural areas in the province do an

excellent job of maintenance in the summer, and I guess it shows up

more in the wintertime with the

[ Page 8470

snowploughing

and so on that's done. We try to keep them up to a safe standard and

try to get them improved on a permanent basis.

An example of

another road is in the Skeena riding north of Smithers. We're pushing

on that road and we have reconstructed part of that road to finally

link it up to Granisle; but there is still a lot to do on that. We have

spent a fair amount of money each year in the last three years on

rebuilding what was originally just a forest access road — as an

example of rural route improvements.

MR. BRUMMET:

There are several items that I'd like to deal with in the minister's

estimates, and I'll try to deal with them as briefly as possible. One

that I am concerned about and would like to bring up again is the

matter of spouses' travel on government planes. I think it's important

to the rural areas of this province to have ministers visit and see for

themselves — ministers and their staff. I think there is a greater

possibility for those ministers to come to our areas, and they've been

away from home for three or four weekends in a row, if they can bring

their spouses with them. If there is room on the planes, I would hate

to think that because of partisan tactics they are precluded from

travelling with the ministers. So I would hope the minister doesn't

yield to the pressures and, because of the criticisms, prevent that.

know as a member from roughly 800 miles from this capital city, in my

home town it's pretty important to obtain some equality with the bulk

of the members who are situated closer to the capital. But in 1979 we

made a decision that our spouses can on occasion travel to Victoria to

visit us. It may not be important and it may not be significant to the

members who are close to Victoria. The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell)

should be the last one to raise this issue about spouses travelling. He

of all people should appreciate how much that can mean. I recognize

that the spouse's travel is subtracted from any of the trips allotted

to members, and we're quite willing to go along with that. But I think

it's important that we too be allowed to visit our spouses periodically.

Speaking

of the member for Atlin, I am somewhat astounded by his continual

lobbying for more money on Highway 37. He seems to want more and more

money spent in his area. Since we're both in the northern part of the

province, let's make a slight comparison. People in our area are

pro-development and would like to see our resources developed. They

want to contribute to the economy of this province by that development,

and they would expect something in return. That member seems to want

all development moved out of his area, and then he wants the money

coming from our pro-development people to go into his area to build

roads to take the tourist traffic from our area into his area. I get a

bit resentful of that, and I'd like the minister to consider.... I know

it's difficult to make decisions about road-building on that basis, but

certainly I think some of the rewards — some of the money — should go

back into the areas where the people are in favour of producing that

money, rather than into areas where they want no production of wealth

but just want the services that the other taxpayers from other parts of

the province pay for.

I'd like to get onto a topic that has

come up periodically: the unfair advantage of some out-of-province

firms, particularly Alberta firms, in areas like mine which are very

close to the Alberta oil and gas fields. That's our bread and butter in

the Peace River country. Some of these firms seem to have a definite

advantage. Our people have to pay sales tax and they have to meet all

the conditions of the ministry of transport for the vehicles and trucks

etc. that they use in the oil and gas industry. Theoretically the same

regulations apply to Alberta truckers, but I would like to point out

one thing. I don't know if the minister is fully aware of the

implications. The regulations to Alberta truckers do not apply

off-highway, as I understand it; they are only governed by the ministry

of transport regulations on the highway.

Let me give an

example to illustrate this. A water truck working in the oil fields can

come in and get a $35 permit to bring a load into British Columbia.

That's legal. That truck can then deliver that load 50 miles or 150

miles out into the wilderness, and then stay there for months acting as

a water truck on that oil lease. The only time he has to pay another

amount is when he gets a permit to go back out of the province. In

other words, he's got a tax-free vehicle and other concessions as well

that give him a definite advantage. I know the regulations on highways

are comparable back and forth between Alberta and British Columbia, but

for any B.C. trucker that goes into Alberta the regulations apply on

highway and off-highway as well. I think if we just closed that one

loophole it would at least.... The free-enterprisers in my part of the

country do not want to eliminate the competition, but they would like

an equal opportunity. So the minister might consider whether those

regulations to Alberta vehicles can apply on- and off-highway. As the

minister is aware, we have places that would not be visited by any tax

people over a whole year. For instance, in the wintertime there are

roads that come into British Columbia, across the border, where they

can come in there and work for a month and never be spotted by anyone.

We have to keep in mind that the oil companies, unless there's a

penalty to pay, are going to use the people that they're used to,

because many of our oil and gas drilling rigs are from the Alberta side.

know there's quite a problem about the number of people that work in

our province for six months with Alberta licence plates. Again, I don't

think we want to eliminate that, because many times we need those

people, but it certainly seems to give them an unfair advantage over

our own people, particularly with respect to the sales tax, if they can

drive Alberta vehicles and work in our province on our resources.

One

other point. I don't know how much the minister could do about this

problem, but it's a serious one for people in the area; no one in the

southern part of the province would even think about it. Many places

along the Alaska Highway depend on light service, and that service is

provided by Coachways, an affiliate of Greyhound. Here's where we get

into the area of permitting — age plates, licences to operate and

freedom for anyone to operate. It would be virtually impossible to have

proper service maintained if anybody and everybody could do trucking,

because no one could make a living at it. But the reverse is then true:

when an outfit like Coachways has a monopoly, they seem to feel no

obligation to provide service. Let me give you an example.

tourist breaks down some 450 miles up the Alaska Highway, and all

that's needed to get that tourist back on the road is a set of bearings

at a service station. The person at that service station phones Dawson

Creek or Fort St. John, where the parts are available, and even goes to

the trouble to arrange, by taxi or some other way, to have that part

delivered to the Coachway station so as to ensure it goes up the

highway that day. Three, four or five days later, that part still isn't

there.

[ Page 8471

have written the company and I'm negotiating to try to get them to give

some service, and perhaps the minister might ask them whether someone

else might give the service if they're not prepared to do so. You have

a service station that can't give service and a tourist who's tied up

for five to six days, if it happens to be over the weekend, for the

sake of a bearing that could have been delivered in that one day if

they were interested in giving service. I think it works against our

tourist trade. It certainly works a great hardship on places along the

Alaska Highway that are completely dependent on this one service. There

is no such thing as saying: "If you don't like our service, go

somewhere else." That's it. There is no other service, other than

bringing it in by airplane, which, of course would be absolutely

cost-prohibitive.

I'll leave the minister with that thought.

I would certainly be willing to brief him on any of my correspondence

and negotiations with those companies. I might add that when it comes

from Vancouver, where they have to order an axle and it involves

Greyhound to Prince George and Coachways from there, it can take a

week; yet the way the buses travel, it really should take one or two

days at most. That changeover seems to be a callous disregard for the

needs of those people. I don't know how you can force people to give

good service, other than to make it a condition of their licence

perhaps.

I'd like to speak on one other topic. There's a lot

of pressure to raise the driving age to 18, and I would plead with the

minister to resist that pressure. We sometimes allow statistics to tell

us warped stories. If one-quarter of the drivers between the ages of 16

and 19 are poor drivers, we then tend to want to punish — or other

people recommend that we punish — the whole group, rather than consider

the other 75 percent and come down hard on the bad drivers. Many young

people in this province are, at the age of 16, perfectly capable of

driving vehicles, and in rural areas that's sometimes a basic need, not

a luxury. In large farming areas, young people need to drive to help

with the family farm and, if nothing else, to allow the parents to stay

at their jobs while they drive themselves around.

As for

this business of statistics, I think it's fairly well known that in

British Columbia we have statistically the worst driving record in

Canada. By deduction, then, you can say that the average driver in

British Columbia is the worst in Canada. I use that example because

that is not necessarily so; the average driver in British Columbia

could be the best driver in Canada even though we have a high accident

rate. It's that small percentage of bad drivers who are the worst in

Canada, not necessarily the average driver. So I'd like the minister to

resist the urge to raise that driving age and therefore punish an

entire group for the sins of some.

Another point, one that

has been raised in various ways, is capital spending for building and

improving highways. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) cried

about how little they are getting here on the Island. I fly over a lot

of this province, as well as my own area, coming in over the lower

mainland to Vancouver Island, and we'd like to have your problems here.

On a clear day you can see that every back road is paved; even back

alleys are paved. Over a period of years the emphasis has been on

providing funding to the more heavily populated areas. What they seek

in improvements would be basic necessities to us. So by comparison, the

roads in the producing areas of this province are bad.

Could

I just toss this suggestion at the minister? If you took the capital

spending, building and improvement money for roads — never mind the

maintenance; I know maintenance is necessary — for one year in this

province and put it into the rural areas, how much worse off would

Vancouver Island be in terms of roads? Let me tell you, it would make

an immense difference to the rest of this province. Those millions and

millions of dollars would probably upgrade our roads, and we'd be

cheering rather than complaining. I think we have to consider that

sometime. Far too often the population statistics are the determining

factor in where the money is spent. I think we need to look at

providing some services, in terms of roads, to the areas where the

wealth of this province is produced.

One specific item I'd

like to deal with is rural electrification, which in our area is an

important need. B.C. Hydro pays into a rural electrification assistance

fund, on a per-mile basis, to help projects that are not viable on

their own in the area of this province where well over one-third of the

electricity comes from. The REA fund is only credited where there is a

public road. Therefore Hydro's contribution to rural electrification

assistance has now gone up to $11,000 per mile, but only where roads

are designated as public roads. For instance, in the upper Halfway,

where we've been trying for three years to get a rural electrification

program, there are about 12 miles of road which the people wouldn't

even want improved. Down the road they certainly might, but at this

point all they want is somebody to designate it as a public road. That

12 miles would add $132,000 to the Hydro rural electrification fund

towards that electrification project. So far, the consumers have all

agreed to contribute at least $3,500 each, plus the cost of their own

hookup, which is a considerable amount. The Department of Indian

Affairs has agreed to contribute to the Indian reserve; there is the

school district, and various other organizations.

In other

words, that $132,000 could get that 12-mile project underway this

summer. I know it takes a lot of time, but I think that road could be

designated as a class 4 or class X, if you like, as long as it's a

public road so that the rural electrification program would apply. It

would make the difference this summer. I've been working on it for

three years; they've been working on it for ten or fifteen.

Another

area I want to discuss briefly concerns day labour road construction;

and I'd like to make a suggestion that might get more value. In the

Peace River area, because of the mud they have to work with on

occasion, they can only build roads under certain weather conditions.

The day-labour program has done a great deal to help with some of this

road construction, but to a large extent that program is governed by

the number of Ministry of Highways' supervisors on the road

construction project. When a number of projects are going on, some

supervisors have to be pulled from areas of less expertise and put on

projects of moving dirt or road construction. They then give the orders

on those road construction projects. They are also limited in the

number of hours they will work or they cost a lot in overtime. When the

weather is good, these contractors have to make their pay with $200,000

pieces of equipment, and yet their hours are governed. I know that some

steps have been taken to try to extend the hours. For instance, if it

is raining all week and the weather happens to be good on the weekend,

the contractors would be quite willing to work all weekend, but you

can't do that unless you have a highway supervisor there.

don't know what the percentage of cost is for that highway, supervisor,

but I would like to suggest that these contractors could be given a

small percentage extra in order

[ Page 8472

supervise their own construction. That may seem like letting the fox

play with the chickens, but in that oilfield country, when an oil

company gives a contract to one of the contractors to build a road,

they do not put a supervisor on. It's up to that contractor to build

the road properly and to set up the specifications. There is a check

and balance. If that contractor does not build a proper road, he either

fixes it or he doesn't get another contract, so it's very

self-regulating.

It behooves these contractors to get expert

supervisors that know how to move dirt, fill mudholes and how not to

cover up a slough with some sluff that's going to fall in later,

because if it falls in later they are held accountable. So there is

accountability of these contractors. Their very living depends on doing

a decent job. The ministry would also have engineers and people who are

expert enough to see that that road is properly built. It's hard for me

to come up with a figure, but if you added, say, 5 percent to the

contract, it may be far less that what it requires for your own

supervisors — inexpert, in many cases — and that 5 percent would put an

expert supervisor on the job. I'd like the minister to seriously

consider that suggestion as a possibility of gaining much more road for

the same amount of money — much greater value for the money spent in

our day-labour and road construction projects.

I'd like to

conclude by saying that we need to give consideration to more

expenditures on rural road building in our area. There are instances

where for the lack of two miles of connecting road, farmers have to

haul their grain 50 miles instead of 12 miles, and I can give specifics

on that. In certain times of the year they can't get their children to

school because of that lack of connecting road. I'd like to see the

basic needs of the people in the rural areas considered ahead of grade

1mprovements or even landscaping of perfectly good highways elsewhere.

For

the benefit of the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), who seems

to feel that anyone other than himself speaks far too long, I will

conclude.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I will

quickly run down the good observations made by the member for North

Peace River. First of all, there has been a fair amount of rural road

work done in the north and south Peace River, but it's not enough to

satisfy the MLAs in both areas. It's a question of funding. There are

other problems, such as a shortage of gravel in some areas, lots of

gumbo and so on, but we're getting there. I like the idea you had that

for one year we shut down all the capital work on the main highways and

put all that money into rural roads. Being a rural member myself, I'll

second that motion, but I don't think we can get away with it.

Yes,

we have had our problems with day labour under supervision where the

machine operators want to work when the weather is good. We have had

difficulty, and we've tried to iron those things out, but I think it's

ongoing. Our people have worked longer hours to do this, but there's

still friction — I don't know if that is the right word — but it is a

little better than it was three or four years ago, and I hope it

continues to improve.

The one that really interests me as an

MLA.... I have the same problems with B.C. Hydro power extensions. I

get a real kick out of the citizens in our province who are complaining

about their hydro bill being too high in the heavily populated areas. I

have a lot of citizens in Cariboo — and I know you have in North Peace

River — who would love to be able to pay a hydro bill; they have no

lights at all. The other irony of it is that the hydro main lines from

the Peace River to the lower mainland go right through their property,

but they're burning candles and lanterns in 1982; that's what's going

on right today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lone Prairie!

HON. MR. FRASER:

Yes, we heard about that a few years ago. But it's going on in the

Cariboo and it's going on in the Peace River, and it's regarding

financing and so on with Hydro.

But I wanted to tell the

member for North Peace River that I think we can help him with that one

area problem. You are being told by Hydro, as I understand it, that

because it isn't a public road you can't get the power extended. I'm

sure that Highways can convince them that that power extension can go

ahead. Highways would be glad to help. Maybe you have tried this, but I

know that in my own riding, that has happened. Hydro says they won't

put the power in because it's not a public road. We designate it and

then it makes it proper, but we don't necessarily have to spend the

money. A commitment by Highways is acceptable by Hydro. Whether we're

dealing with a different situation here or not, I don't know, but I

think you should immediately contact us if you haven't. There should be

a solution to that problem regarding the road situation.

appreciate your comments about the driving age. I guess you're not

supposed to refer here, Mr. Chairman, to prior legislation, but it

passed on the long Friday — Bill 4. The government is not going to

increase the age for young drivers to 18. In that Bill 4, the

amendments provide for less than a five-year driver's licence, and I

think that's the way the superintendent of motor-vehicles will he

moving. In his discretion, the younger people will probably get a

two-year licence to start off with instead of five.

But

you're absolutely right. The analysis on the 16- and 17-year-olds is

that less than 5 percent of them are causing the trouble. So that means

that 93 or 94 percent of them are just as good drivers as you are or as

I am. We don't want to penalize that percentage, but that's the

direction that that's going in, in response to raising the age limit to

On the other item that you brought up regarding

Greyhound Bus Lines, the observation I have there is that they have a

motor-carrier plate under the Motor Carrier Commission. It sounds to me

as if they're not living up to the conditions of their licence, and

they should be reported. They can lose their licence for that, or

certainly be reprimanded and corrected. That's the information that I

have to pass on there: they are definitely licensed. It's a question of

policing these things — inspections — and I might tell the committee

that we are hiring seven or eight new inspectors for 1982 under the

motor carrier branch to further tighten up on the abuse of the licences

that they have. We're getting a lot of complaints of non-enforcement. I

think this is another one here on the passenger express side.

Dealing

with Alberta and whether they're not regulated off-highway, I'm not

sure whether that's correct, but I assume it is. They are regulated

on-highway, It came up in the committee on Friday, but I'd like to say

further — I'm not Ottawa bashing, and I'm not Alberta-bashing either —

that we intend to put a checkpoint at the Red River junction

immediately to find out what is going on regarding licensing, coming

into the Tumbler Ridge setup from Alberta. Again,

[ Page 8473

more tightening up.... Some of these

new inspectors will find their way to the Peace River, checking the

licences.

I'd

like to relate a story that's going on. I think we're away behind

Alberta. I had a friend go into Alberta in the month of May with a dump

truck with B.C. plates on, and they got him in 24 hours. They not only

got him; they made him buy vehicle plates, and then he had to have an

operating authority, and they wouldn't sell him an operating authority.

Furthermore, they told him that he had to prove residency in Alberta

for six months before they'd sell him an operating authority. How could

he prove residency? He had to supply an Alberta medical card, and you

can't get that unless you have resided there for six months. Maybe B.C.

should be looking at some of these as countermeasures. But that has

actually happened.

This friend of mine — and I have a few left — after having to

pay

$700, $800 or $900 for his motor-vehicle licence, turned around and

drove home, because they wouldn't give him a carrier plate. And he had

to wait six months to get a medical card. That's how they're

administering their regulations. I guess a lot can be said in favour of

that, to look after their own people, but it seems to me that in

British Columbia we'd better start looking the same way. As I say, it's

being considered to have the same rules of the game as they have; and

yes, with some things that are going on, definitely Alberta has an

advantage. They have no advantage on a public road, but as you say, a

lot of tightening up has to take place to protect the British Columbia

people. I hope we can get that in place in 1982.

I appreciate your remarks about the spouses on the planes. I

think it's not a big issue; we've been public on that since 1979. When

the plane is going and there is certainly room, it's better for all

concerned.

I think that pretty well covers the observations of the member

for North Peace River,

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be brief this afternoon. Let me say first of

all that I agree with the minister and the member for North Peace River

when they say that spouses should be able to go on the plane with the

minister when the plane has a seat and they're going to do public

business. There is no question about that; I don't think there is a

member in this House who doesn't agree that we've been too uncivilized

for far too long in respect of spouses' attendance — with cabinet

members particularly, but with members in general. That's a good thing

for the government to do, and I think that should be said from both

sides of the House,

Mr. Chairman, I have five issues that I

want to raise this afternoon. That is by no means an exhaustive list of

issues in North Island; they are the five that I think require some

further attention beyond dealing with the district engineer, the

ministry staff or the minister himself, as I have done on a variety of

issues. They are five that the public, I think, would expect me to make

some mention of here in the estimates debates.

The first one

has been a perennial issue for the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and

me. And I am sure the minister expects me to talk about the Island

Highway bypass.

I understand — as does everybody in the

House and probably the whole population — that with the financial

impediments that the government has in these bad economic times, we

can't just demand expensive new highways here, there and everywhere. I

acknowledge that and make clear that I wouldn't put highway

construction or capital costs for highways ahead of a lot of other

important government spending that needs to take place in the province.

So I want to make it clear that I'm not demanding expenditures here

that might better be spent in job-creation or some other activity such

as funding hospital beds or whatever.

But it needs to be said that there will be some capital

expenditures

in the next fiscal year — as there is this year and will be in all the

years to come — within the minister's responsibility, and I would argue

that of all the priorities for large capital expenditures in highway

construction in this province it would be hard to find a more pressing

and urgent need than the bypass, particularly between Bowser and Middle

Bay just north of Campbell River. That stretch is one of the most

dangerous pieces of road in the province; the RCMP describe it as a

death-trap. I'm terrified driving it myself, as I do two or three times

a week at least, and I know that most of the people who drive that

highway — particularly between Campbell River and Courtenay — find it

to be a pretty terrifying piece of road and pretty heavily travelled,

as I know the traffic counts indicate. I'm not arguing for new money

that would come out of some other programs that are probably more

important in these times, but I think the minister would have a hard

time justifying another

section of new road of comparable cost being

more important. It's essential that that first stretch be completed

between just north of Campbell River and Bowser. It's 90 kilometres, I

believe, and apart from acquiring some land, I suspect it's relatively

easy road building. There is a bit of a problem over the Campbell

River, but in terms of site selection, both over that river and along

the corridor to be chosen....

I think the minister should note that there has been

relatively

little, if any, criticism of any of the alternative proposals. What

that tells me is that the public is aware of the desperate need for the

road, and they are prepared to overlook some considerations in terms of

the environment, or farmland, or other considerations that come into

play. They are so desperately in need and in want of that road that

they don't even complain about some of the site corridors that have

been proposed. I think there's a clear consensus now up there as to

which corridor could be developed pretty well the whole distance, and I

suspect that the only impediment at the moment is money. To that, I

would argue that this is one of the greater needs in the province, and

I hope it could be considered in next year's budget, if not this one,

obviously.

The second issue is the proposed Tahsis-Woss

road. We're talking about an isolated west-coast logging community with

two, soon to be three, sawmills and a fairly large logging operation.

It is very much an isolated community — 44 miles of gravel to get to

Gold River, and then a twisty, terrible paved road from there to

Campbell River. The alternatives for them are to go directly via Woss

Lake onto the Island Highway, which is a much shorter route. It would

open up timber resources.

I have appealed in the past to the

minister to proceed on this particular road as a public highway. I

think perhaps now the minister might want to, perhaps at the

ministerial level or at the staff level, have some discussions with

Forests about whether or not it might be more appropriate as a

section

88 road, for the time being, to open up some timber reserves in that

particular direction. It may be that we can build a Forests road for

about $5 million — $4.1 is the estimate —

whereas when we're talking

about Highway standards, it would be

[ Page 8474

approximately

$30 million to $35 million in last year's dollars. It might be that the

solution is a Forests- standard road through to Woss.

If the

minister rejects that and intends to continue upgrading the existing

Tahsis-Gold River road, I implore that that road.... If there's going

to be any paving done on that road, don't do that paving without some

very major reconstruction. There are enough accidents on the road

already, but if there's pavement with the way that road is aligned and

constructed now, even with some of the straightening and rebuilding

that will be taking place, the amount of black ice and treacherous

driving in that part of the province in the winter will create real

good business for the ambulance crews and the hospitals in Gold River,

Tahsis and Campbell River. I suspect we'll keep a few of those

government jets flying too, taking people to Vancouver, because that

will be a real deathtrap.

So my appeal to the minister is

that if he has rejected the idea of building a public highway from

Tahsis to the Island Highway, then perhaps he might put all of those

decisions on hold and have some discussions at the staff level with

Forests to see whether or not an alternative can be found — the

requests were made virtually unanimously in Tahsis — by developing a

forestry road.

The third issue is the Quadra ferry — the

ferry between Campbell River and Quadra Island. I understand the need

for not proceeding as planned with the different ferry service, and I

am not critical of that decision. I'm not standing here to ask the

minister to speed up or reinstitution the earlier

schedule of

improvements; I recognize that that's not possible, and I'm not

complaining or being critical about that. My request in respect to that

ferry is a very simple one. The minister has indicated that the ferry

service will terminate on September 11, because various ferries are

going in for refit and moving around and that kind of thing.

It's absolutely essential that somehow the various refits or

scheduling be done in a way to allow that second ferry on the Quadra

run to stay on until the Thanksgiving weekend. I'm only talking about

another month or so, and it's really very important. I think if that

one alteration to the refit

schedule was made, we wouldn't have to have

files two and three inches thick on the Quadra ferry, as I have, as a

result of the feelings of people on that island. I think they have

moderated their demands. I certainly respect their views. I respect the

position the minister is in, and I think the whole problem for this

year can be solved very simply by extending that second ferry for one

month.

The fourth issue relates to the early ferry in the Alert

Bay-Malcolm Island-Port McNeill run. There are an increasing number of

people who work — when there are jobs; there are not too many of them

right now — in the forest industry who live at Sointula on Malcolm

Island and at Alert Bay on Cormorant Island for a variety of reasons.

The climate is slightly better, the housing prices are cheaper and on

and on. There are quite a variety of reasons why people like to live on

those islands. People who work in non-service, industrial jobs have to

get to Vancouver Island by private boat, and in November and December

that can be a pretty treacherous business on those waters. I know the

minister rejected outright the request for an earlier ferry run on that

particular route, but it's something that would serve a very needed

purpose. Although it may not be possible in this year's budget — and I

understand that — I would hope the minister would seriously consider it

for inclusion in next year's budget.

The final question

relates to the discussions that are going on between Transport Canada

and the provincial government over the question of subsidies for some

of the private ferry and marine transport services provided on the

coast. I'm thinking particularly of the freight services on the west

coast of Vancouver Island. The last thing I've learned about this from

the minister is in a letter dated April 7, in which he tells me that

the subsidies paid to the private operators have been extended by two

months. That's more than two months ago. I gather that the negotiations

with Ottawa are not yet complete. I'd appreciate knowing at what stage

those negotiations are and whether or not the subsidies will continue

to be paid while those negotiations continue, and also if the minister

would tell us his view as to what that final arrangement with Ottawa

should be in respect of these subsidies provided to marine freight

services on the coast.

With those five questions, Mr. Chairman, I will sit down and

wait for the minister's answers.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Chairman, to the member for North Island, I can answer most of your

questions fairly speedily, I think. First of all, going from back to

front, regarding your concern about the west coast operators, I don't

think we really have any problem with Ottawa. I'm happy to tell you

that all the contracts to continue the west coast operations have been

awarded by the B.C. Ferry Corporation. They called tenders and the

tenders have come in. There were some problems for a while, but I've

just been advised by Mr. Baldwin that the new contracts have all been

awarded for the west coast operations.

The early ferry for

Alert Bay-Port McNeill. I've heard of that for a year or so, and we

tried to get additional funding. It will cost about $115,000 to put

that on, and that wasn't approved. We'll try again in the next budget

round.

Some improvements have been made on the Quadra ferry.

You made a reasonable request, and we'll took into extending it from

September 11 to Thanksgiving. I don't know what is involved, but we'll

certainly look at it and see if we can accommodate it.

The

road from the community of Tahsis to Gold River is, as you know, a

forest access road, and we helped them financially with it. It's never

been brought properly into the highway system — right or wrong — and

now the community of Tahsis wants another road built from Tahsis to

Woss. Maybe they're correct, because the road from Gold River to Tahsis

is being used for active logging and that's not a very good mix with

cars and that going over it at the same time. We have a real problem

there. We haven't any solutions at the moment, other than leave it the

way it is. The observation that I've been given by senior staff is that

forestry is not interested in building a road from Tahsis to Woss under

section 88, their reasoning being that there is no timber involved. So

I pass that on to you. Regarding your concern about paving, no, we

wouldn't pave the existing road from Gold River to Tahsis until we get

it sorted out properly.

The last item you had is the

Courtenay-Campbell River bypass. Just for your information, that

project doesn't cover quite all the area that you're talking about, but

we have put out the submissions at a cost of $130,000. The final report

has been distributed for review and comments by municipal government

agencies and other interested groups. The report indicated three

routes: inland, coast and a middle location. The weighing of all

engineering, environmental, land-use,

[ Page 8475

socio-economic

and cost factors resulted in the middle location being the recommended

corridor. That's what's out for comment. The project costs for

construction in the optimal route would be $166 million in 1980 prices.

I think that pretty well answers your questions.

MR. RICHMOND:

I have just two or three comments and questions for the Minister of

Transportation and Highways, and I'll be as brief as possible. First of

all, I'd like to thank the minister and his able staff in both Kamloops

and Victoria for the tremendous job they've done on the Mission Flats

Summit Drive connector road, which was promised last year about this

time and is now nearing completion. It will be a tremendous asset to

the city of Kamloops in that it will provide a much quicker route for

residents of the North Shore to get up to the new subdivision in

Aberdeen, and will also get most of the heavy truck traffic out of the

downtown area. It will be welcome. Mr. Minister, I'm sure that we'll be

cutting a ribbon on that before too long.

Secondly, some

upgrading is about to commence on the Yellowhead Highway between the

weighscales and the CNR junction. It's a piece of road that has needed

upgrading for a long time, and I'm pleased to report that work is

progressing there with fencing and some gas line crossings. We should

be moving some dirt there, Mr. Member, within the next week or so.

have three questions for the minister, and I'm sure the people of the

Kamloops constituency would like to hear it from him. The number one

priority in the area, of course, is the Halston Bridge — the second

crossing of the Thompson River. As we all know, this bridge has been

promised by many MLAs for many years, but I'm pleased to report that as

of 1981 — late '81 and early '82 — some progress is actually being

made. I would appreciate it very much if the minister could bring us up

to date on exactly where we stand on that bridge. I know it's a long,

slow, tedious process, If it weren't, it would have been built a long

time ago.

MR. COCKE: Why spoil a perfectly good

promise by keeping it?

MR. RICHMOND:

It's been promised by too many, I'm afraid, Mr. Member for New

Westminster, both from your side of the House and our side of the

House. We are making progress, and I would like to hear from the

minister exactly where we stand on that.

Secondly, the

minister mentioned the Coquihalla Highway in his opening remarks. I

wonder if he could pin down a more precise date as to when he expects

the Coquihalla Highway to reach fruition. It is very important to the

people in the interior of this province, particularly in Kamloops and

the Merritt area. The residents of the interior rely on the highways, I

think, to a far greater extent than do the people in the lower

mainland. I know that in these difficult times the minister is

competing with 17 other ministries for what few dollars are available,

and I wish him well in that competition. If he needs any help, just

holler and I'm sure we'll be right behind him. The Coquihalla Highway

is very important to our area, not only for pleasure driving but for

the movement of freight to and from Kamloops. I wonder if he could pin

down a closer date on that.

Thirdly, the fencing

requirements on the highway system, especially in the North Thompson

area, have been let go in recent years to a certain extent due to lack

of funds. I wonder if the minister could address that problem. The

ranchers in the North Thompson are facing tremendous problems with

their livestock and the deterioration of fencing. I would ask the

minister to address that.

In closing, I would like to

commend the minister and his department for the recent changes to the

Motor Vehicle Act. I think they are long overdue and a step in the

right direction, and, coupled with the new ICBC rate schedule, will get

most of our bad drivers off the road, I hope. Certainly it will go a

long way towards that.

The one remaining thing I would

certainly like to see, as I think most members in this House would, is

vehicle inspection stations other than in the lower mainland. I realize

the constraints of budget, but I would ask the minister and his people

to keep that in mind because it's something that is sorely needed in

the rural areas of the province.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Answering the member for Kamloops back to front, being from the

interior, I feel the same way as you do — that we should be getting on

with more mechanical inspections. I don't think the government would

supervise it, but I think we should be using the private sector. We're

working on that now. I don't expect immediate action, but maybe within

12 months we can get the private sector to carry this out for a fee

under the supervision of the motor vehicle branch. The provincial

government doesn't have to worry about staff or the capital investment

that would be required to build their own stations. There is no

question in my mind that we need more mechanical inspection in other

areas of British Columbia besides the lower mainland and one station on

Vancouver Island.

Regarding the fencing requirements in the

North Thompson, we'll certainly take a look at that, Mr. Member. The

people on the North Thompson won't like this, but we will be fencing on

the road in the Kamloops area. Where we have real problems is from

Logan Lake to Kamloops and Logan Lake to Ashcroft. The cattle there are

in the thousands and they all range right on the main road. I guess

what I'm saying is that there is higher priority there than the North

Thompson, but we will be getting to the North Thompson as well.

The

Coquihalla from Hope to Merritt. The Coquihalla is a huge project.

While they're working on it at the moment, it's going a little slower

than expected. I don't believe you'll see the Hope to Merritt

section

until 1989. That doesn't include the Hope to Kamloops section, as we

already have Highway 5 there, but if everything goes well we should

have some traffic rolling over the brand new

section by 1989. We are

talking here of having a four-lane freeway from Hope to Merritt with

limited access, which would shorten the distance from Kamloops to

Vancouver by some 60 miles. We're just starting to get into the tough

mountain country there now, and it's going to take a lot of money and a

fair amount of time.

Regarding the Halston bridge, yes, I've

heard about this project before, and so have several MLAs. I'm happy to

tell you that we expect to conclude a deal with the Kamloops Indian

band any day for the property that's required. This year we have

allocated $0.8 million for this project to commence, so I think we're

on the road. The ministry has a large structure to build there across

the North Thompson River. I might say that I have personally dealt with

the Kamloops Indian band on their access, and they're not as

unreasonable as we would think. Thanks to a lot of people involved,

including the MLA, I believe we almost have a deal and we

[ Page 8476

can get started and hopefully call a

tender for that large, badly needed structure.

appreciate the remarks you made about Mission Flats. Yes, that road is

just about completed, and it will take a lot of traffic out of downtown

Kamloops, particularly the chip trucks that had to go through there to

the pulp mill. I want to assure the city of Kamloops, Mr. Chairman,

that I understand observations were made by some members of city

council a short time ago that the Mission Flats road was too steep for

the trucks to get up and down. I can only say to the people of Kamloops

who made these observations to please give our efficient engineers a

little more credit for brains than that. The road is another grade in

the B.C. highway system, but it's certainly not insurmountable and will

not cause difficulties. I guess the only thing they could say after

this promise was carried out was that the road was too steep, but I'm

sure the city of Kamloops will appreciate the fact that it will take

the heavier traffic out of the city, particularly going to the pulp

mill, and not through Columbia Street in downtown Kamloops. I think

that answers the questions.

MR. COCKE: Mr.

Chairman, I rather smiled when I heard about the second crossing of the

Thompson River. I'm just wondering how many times we hear about

crossings.

I would like to deal briefly with the third

crossing of the Fraser River, as it's dubbed. I note in the minister's

remarks the other day that this has in fact been rather delayed. If I

understood what he had to say, it was something in the order of 1986

when we could expect something to really get going there.

Here comes the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). He

should go put out a few fires — that way he'd be useful.

criticism of that potential crossing is the utilization of the

Queensborough Bridge as part of the proposal. As many of you know, I

have commuted back and forth to Victoria for some 13 years. During that

period I have noted that there is now relatively heavy traffic on the

Queensborough Bridge. The proposal is to further extend the traffic by

using the Queensborough Bridge as part of the Annacis crossing.

For

years New Westminster has borne the brunt of highways problems in the

lower mainland. Until recently, there was no access whatsoever to

provincial funding — not a nickel for any road in New Westminster,

whether a connecting road or anything else. Nothing came from the

provincial government. Finally, there was a little help: the Barnet

overpass. Then there was

an act of the Legislature which gives the

province power to participate in our road situation.

I know government members spend very little time in New

Westminster; they fly over it.

AN HON. MEMBER: I was there Friday.

MR. COCKE:

Yes, I got your invitation. It was very nice of you. You make it nice

and easy for yourself; you've got an airplane. I've got to use Alex's

ferry; so I couldn't get to the sod-turning.

New Westminster

sits at the hub of the lower mainland. The Pattullo Bridge was put

through. The traffic from and to that bridge goes right through the

heart of our town. The other end of our city is very much affected by

the Port Mann freeway. Now they want to take the west end of our city

and totally choke us to death. That is just a bit much.

Now

that the minister has decided that some more time will be taken on this

project, take a look at a better place to put the crossing —

particularly not the utilization of the Queensborough Bridge as part of

the crossing.

I would depart from that subject for just one

second. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon.

Mr. Phillips) talks about the downtown area falling apart were it not

for his contribution — which has yet to come to any kind of fruition. I

would like to remind the minister that it's the roads and the fact that

you stole ICBC headquarters out of the downtown area of New Westminster

that have placed it in its present position of jeopardy. This

government should forever hang its head in shame.

Just for a

moment I would like to talk again about the ferries. I am a great

supporter of the ferries in this province. I think it was one of the

most significant moves made by Premier W.A.C. Bennett in his entire

career.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I was not

against it then, I've not been against it during, and I'm not against

it now. The minister could well put his nose to the paper and do

something about industrial development in this province, instead of

sitting and harping while people are on breadlines.

Mr.

Chairman, back to the ferries. A number of people I have talked to

have, I believe, a major concern about the possibility and the problems

of fire. I asked the minister a year or two ago for the reason that

there was no foam equipment on the car decks. If gasoline were to

ignite on the car decks, I think we would have a good deal of

difficulty dealing with it. I recognize that there is foam in the

engine-room, but I believe that there should be some way of dealing

with fire, through foam, on the car decks. I believe that you can

probably do it better now than you ever could before, by virtue of the

fact that a new regulation of yours — and I applaud that regulation —

is that passengers must not remain on the car decks during the time the

ferries are plying the waters. That's a good idea, because we don't

need any potential for trouble down there. But I do believe that a

better ability to fight fire on that deck is necessary. We now have

enough car decks.... The ferries are really becoming quite spectacular

— they look like floating highrises.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

You see, the minister still hasn't taken my advice. He's done nothing

about unemployment; he just sits here in the House and heckles. That's

the best contribution that minister can make.

MR. SKELLY: He should take Doug Heal's

advice.

MR. COCKE: That's right.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr.

Chairman, I would also like to compliment the minister on the Motor

Vehicle Amendment Act — which one should not compliment him on, because

I noted that the member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) was reflecting on a

vote taken in the House, and now I'm doing the exactly the same thing.

But I just want to reiterate what I said then. As tough as we have

become in this province, we are not tough

[ Page 8477

enough.

Every single day — and we've all read again this morning about the

havoc wreaked by drunken drivers and irresponsible people behind the

wheel.... Sooner or later in this country we're going to have to see to

it that people answer for their negligence. I believe the courts are

too soft, even with the laws that we have, and I think prosecutors are

a bit chicken. I know that they've missed a few, and that makes them

hesitate to pursue an indictment, but I think we must get a lot tougher

than we are. I believe that the provincial government should lean on

the federal government with respect to the whole question of a person

having the right to withhold a blood test in order that blood alcohol

may be checked.

So, Mr. Chairman, I will leave the minister

with those happy thoughts: Queensborough Bridge is out of bounds for

your crossing; 20th Street cannot be an arterial highway because it

goes practically straight up and down; and how about some foam on the

ferries and a little less foam for the drivers of automobiles.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Chairman, to the member for New Westminster, I'll go from front to

back with yours because I haven't got a reply to you on one item —

hopefully it will be here by the time we get there. Dealing with the

Annacis crossing and the part the Queensborough Bridge will play, we

have written the city and told them that we want and are going to use

the Queensborough Bridge in the total concept. As a matter of fact, the

city of New Westminster are tickled to death to give up their

responsibility for looking after it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Yes, they said that. I'm not saying that they agree with the use we're

putting it to, but they certainly agree that the burden will be taken

off them when we take it over. That's the plan — rightly or wrongly —

and we've advised them of that.

You're right regarding the

Royal City. It seems to me they've sliced the Pattullo Bridge from the

freeway, and now the Annacis. They have actually had nothing from the

province but, as you mentioned, we've changed the funding setup in this

Legislature and I have made them an offer this year that we're prepared

to discuss and take over responsibility for some of the streets. And I

think 60th — I'm not sure — is the one where we back the cars up from

the Pattulla Bridge right back to Burnaby. But we are prepared to look

at that; we've written them accordingly and are waiting for a reply. I

think that they'll probably be treated a little better now than they

were in the past regarding funding by the province for their street

system, which we certainly use provincially.

I have a note

here to the member regarding federal regulations about ferries and

foam. Federal regulations specify water sprinklers instead of foam. We

have sprinklers and we have sprinklers. Foam would be blown away from

the open car decks. That's the reply I have to that. So what we're

saying here is that federal regulations specify water sprinklers, and

that's what we have. Our management feels that the foam would get blown

away, in any case.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, this

little exchange in committee wouldn't be necessary if the Minister of

Highways would get down and do his job in Vancouver East with that

Cassiar mess. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and

I have been pressing the minister time and time again to get on with

cleaning up that mess, and what does he do? He spends his time flying

over there. I want to tell you this, Mr. Chairman: if the minister got

stuck in that traffic a couple of nights in a row, he'd know what a

situation it is over there, and he'd get busy and tell his staff to

pick up their shovels and get to work over there. I don't blame his

staff.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Sure he spends more time in

Exhibition Park; he's an exhibit — the Neanderthal minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT:

I didn't start that, Mr. Chairman. Broadway Bob knows what the best

show in town is, and he said that the minister is out there at

Exhibition Park.

MR. SKELLY: He's talking about horseflesh.

MR. BARRETT: No, he's not talking about

horseflesh; he's talking about the results of a parade. That's what his

promises are.

Look

here, Mr. Chairman. The people in that area are getting absolutely fed

up with the delays, the stalls, the studies and the excuses. It's a

mess. One of them came up to me the other day and said: "If Cassiar

Street was in downtown Quesnel, we might get some action." So I'm going

to take a petition to Burnaby and Vancouver city councils and order

them to annex Cassiar Street so we can have some results, based on

patronage. If we can't get them on logic, let's have them on patronage,

but let's get some results somehow.

Mr. Minister, I planned

a four-hour analysis of the traffic patterns of that particular

section, and I'm going to really let you have it unless you get up here

— and I don't want to threaten you, I just want a promise — in this

House and tell me that as soon as your estimates are through, the money

necessary to clean up that situation will be passed through your

department, and you'll get on with cleaning up that particular traffic

problem. It's an easy one to solve. All it takes is money. We've got

all the engineering done, all the traffic studies done and everything

is done and ready to go. All you need to do is to tell the minister

sitting next to you that instead of pumping money into Japan by

subsidizing all that coal for the Japanese, so he can run for mayor of

Tokyo, a little bit of the money's going to be spent here in British

Columbia for British Columbians. What's wrong with that? Do you agree

with that? I know you do. Just nod your head. There! He nodded his

head. That means that the minister announced that the contracts are

going to be let for the Cassiar Street bypass and tunnel.

Mr.

Chairman, I want the minister to understand — and he understands — how

serious that problem is. The people over there do get upset over the

fact that every single day commuters are going through their tranquil

suburban area looking for shortcuts to avoid that traffic. There must

be something you can do. There must be some way that we can proceed to

relieve that very serious problem in that area. Mr. Chairman, do you

know what happens when people's tempers flare up? They got involved in

that barrier dispute there, and then we set up this great planning

committee. We had a great planning committee going. We had huge

community meetings — it was terrific. Your department staff went over

[ Page 8478

there

and took nothing but abuse. Every time they got abuse I stood behind

one of them — right behind him. But, Mr. Chairman, after all that

excellent public relations work by those civil servants.... And let me

tell you those civil servants in your ministry really did a terrific

job. They should have got danger pay, because people were mad, and they

still are mad.

My colleague for Burnaby, and my colleague

for Vancouver East stood up and did a terrific job in this House

pointing out the seriousness of the problem. I'm proud of those two

MLAs. They've done everything possible. Where did it all stop? It

stopped at the minister's desk. The minister is the living proof of

Harry S. Truman's admonition that "the buck stops here." It sure did.

We haven't seen a buck since it stopped there. Mr. Minister, all the

work has been done by the MLAs. I want to thank the hon. former

minister, Mrs. Dailly, for the terrific job she did. I want to thank my

colleague, the hon. Alex Macdonald, for the job he did. I won't thank

them formally because I can't mention their name in committee, but if I

could I'd mention that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

MR. BARRETT:

He's out there trying to help that problem while you're sitting in here

doing absolutely nothing. All you do is sit over there on the back

bench and go "Where is he? Where is he?" Mr. Chairman, if that member's

got nothing positive to offer to help solve the Cassiar Street problem,

he should at least be quiet.

All the minister has to do is

stand up this afternoon and say in this House that he wants to tell the

member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), and the two hard-working,

brilliant. aggressive, thoughtful MLAs for Vancouver East — those two

humble MLAs — that all of their work has been now brought to the point

where he agrees and he's going to order the money spent to clean up

that Cassiar Street mess. You don't have to make a long speech. I'll be

the first person to go over there and say Alex Fraser is a wonderful

guy. Don't vote for him, but he's a wonderful guy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the committee could

be reminded that we are not to mention a member's name in the committee.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I will not

go over and tell them what I think of Alex Fraser.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT:

I have to confess that I like the minister. If I go around telling

everyone that I like the minister, he won't be in the cabinet anymore.

I've taken all kinds of approaches working with the minister. I've even

tried to use a little humour, but now I'm getting mad. Before I go any

further I want to give the minister the opportunity right now — I'm

giving him fair warning — to save himself a lot of trouble. Please get

up and tell us when you're going to clean up that mess on Cassiar

Street. I'll give you that chance right now.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate

the observations of the Leader of the Opposition and the MLA for

Vancouver East. We're actively pursuing that terrific problem. I want

to tell you that I do watch it very closely from Exhibition Park. I can

see the corner, and I watch the vehicles there. It is the busiest

corner in western Canada. I said that before in committee. We are

involved with the city of Vancouver, as the members from that area

know. Both the city and ourselves have acquired a lot of property so we

can do something with Cassiar, and we have it outlined for better or

for worse. Our engineers outlined a trench to widen Cassiar, and the

city of Vancouver agreed with us, but the citizens of that area took

exception to that. That's their right. They thought that we should

examine a tunnel as an alternative, and that's what we're busy doing

now. For the information of the members in the committee, our engineers

don't feel that a tunnel will be functional and will not be able to be

operated properly. But in any case, the city and ourselves are now

going ahead with an independent study really to see whether these

observations are correct; that is, that a tunnel wouldn't be operative.

I'm

aware of the.... I like to call it "rat-running" through those

residential streets wherever there's a really bad problem, and that's

what happens when you haven't got an adequate artery to carry the heavy

traffic between the end of the freeway and the Second Narrows Bridge.

But, Mr. Chairman, regarding this very large problem, I would hope that

we can decide what to do by the end of this calendar year. The last

estimate I saw on the job was about $25 million, and I think that will

have escalated now because of inflation; I think that was a 1980

figure. So that's really where we're at — that in six months' time we

go tunnel or trench. I have some faith in our senior engineers. They

say a tunnel won't work, and if a study shows that, then we're ready to

go with the trench operation. The property is pretty well all acquired

— the right-of-way and so on — and that's where we're at with that.

can see that we have to get on and make some decision. I think the

citizens who are concerned regarding the trench need to be told the

same thing by independent people; and they will be told that. I think

they'll accept it; that's what I hope.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I

had to threaten the minister to get that much information, but it

worked. Six months....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

You've been "actively pursuing this problem," were the words you used.

How can you actively pursue it watching it from the race-track? You

know, I think you've been counting all those cars and dividing them by

the number of fingers on your hand and coming up with the number of the

horse you want to bid on. I hope you've been winning, because we

haven't been winning anything over there. What's taking so long for

this study about a tunnel? I think you're under pressure from the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), and if you tell me that your

engineers are already saying that the tunnel is no good, what do we

need another six months for? Do you know what six months will do to the

cost in terms of inflation? We've got people unemployed. If you're

going to go cut and cover, say so, but what are we waiting for? You've

made your mind up already: you don't want a tunnel; your staff doesn't

want a tunnel, you've bought all of the land. I think a tunnel would be

appropriate; I would have ordered a tunnel. I want that on the record:

I would have ordered a tunnel.

[ Page 8479

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

A tunnel on Cassiar Street would have been more appropriate than two

tunnels up at Tumbler Ridge to give our coal away to Japan, Mr.

Minister. If you're going to subsidize all that coal to Japan, that's

the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. We should have jobs here in

British Columbia. There it is: shut down our resources. People are

unemployed who could be working there in Vancouver. But obviously the

minister is not going to go for a tunnel — I regret that. If you're not

going to go for a tunnel, if you're going to go cut and cover, you've

acquired all the property, what do we need to wait another six months

for? What's taking them so long with that independent study? Where are

they doing it — in China? Who have you got working on it?

MR. SKELLY: Pat McGeer.

MR. BARRETT:

That's a different tunnel. You know, we're not talking about the tunnel

that the Minister of Science and Technology wants from Victoria to

Tsawwassen or to the university so that he can get home a bit faster.

You spent a million dollars on a tunnel study for Dr. Pat McGeer, the

MLA for Point Grey — science's answer to real life, the minister of

technology — spent a million dollars on a tunnel. You've got the most

beautiful islands in the whole world to travel by on a ferry for an

hour and 40 minutes, and it's a Social Credit answer: block out the

reality scenery, go into a tunnel so you'll miss the Gulf Islands,

Thank goodness the minister suppressed that. I know that the Minister

of Highways suppressed Dr. No and his ideas.

But look, Mr.

Minister, time is short for both of us. I want, through you, Mr.

Chairman, your name to go down in Cassiar Street history. We'll call it

the Fraser Tunnel, I can see it now; just imagine the opening. We could

all be standing there and we could use the rented bands that have been

used three times to announce tours in the stadium. Maybe we could get

them on a leftover day and get twice the work out of them. Maybe we

could get the only contribution that the member for Kamloops (Mr.

Richmond) has given to this Legislature. We could get his rube band for

half price and go over there. Can't you see it now? We could have the

B.C. Spirit logo underground. There it is: the first underground B.C.

Spirit logo. We could wave one of those $12,000 ads for the Vancouver

Canucks — all those wise decisions you've made for spending money. We

could find three empty bottles of Pouilly Fuisse, fill them with water,

and crack them against the wall and fake it that it was a launching.

The way you guys throw money away in this government we could have a

heck of a good time — just with leftovers. But, Mr. Minister, while all

these fellows are blowing this money on Broadway shows and high-class

bottles of wine, I don't even know how to pronounce the wine — Pouilly

Fuisse? I'll tell you what, I'll buy a $3 bottle of porch climber to

celebrate the opening, grown and bottled in the Cariboo — gooseberries.

If we just had a little bit of the money you guys waste over there in

cabinet tours, overruns, high living, just a little bit of it for good

old Hastings East.... I'll even pick up a $2 bet on a horse for you, if

you want to watch the traffic go by.

MS. BROWN: I wouldn't trust them.

MR. BARRETT:

You wouldn't trust them? I don't want anyone else to listen to this

conversation. You and I understand each other, Mr. Minister. Never mind

politics. This is above politics; this is votes.

All right.

I accept that you're going to finish the study, but I don't understand

why it's taking so long. If you've already made up your mind that cut

and cover is the best way to go, why are we waiting? What I would like

to hear from you now is to stand up and say: "Okay." Give me a deadline

on when the report is coming in, and I’ve me a deadline on when you're

going to let those contracts. That's all I want, and the $3 porch

climber is yours.

HON. MR. FRASER: I appreciate the

Leader of the Opposition's observations on several matters. Dealing

with this project, I guess our engineers did prefer the trench; there's

no question about that. Somebody mentioned a tunnel, but where we

actually lost the time in studies and everything else was in trying to

get along with the public that is concerned. As I said earlier, it's my

understanding that the city council of Vancouver were in favour of what

we were recommending until the citizens of that area came up and said:

"No, we want to have a look at the tunnel concept." All I can say is

that we're responding to them, and the studies should be finished by

the end of the year and then we can get on with the job. It's a very

high priority for us from the traffic standpoint alone, particularly

that intersection of Hastings and Cassiar. I can't predict what will

come out of the study, but there is one observation I will make: I

understand from our engineers that if they support a tunnel we'll have

a little different concept; I believe two and a half times the cost of

the trench.

MRS. DAILLY: I was going to talk about

the Cassiar intersection, but I doubt that I need to add too much to

the words of the Leader of the Opposition, who has expressed far better

than the rest of us could the frustration and the concerns. and the

hopes that we have that something will finally be done about it. At

least we have some statement from the minister, and we will continue of

course to keep in touch with you on behalf of the citizens, to check on

that progress.

I would like to express thanks to the

minister for a letter I recently received from him. I wrote to him

expressing concern on behalf of the citizens of North Burnaby about the

traffic flow. I appreciate the fact that the letter was fairly detailed

in answer to the questions that I posed to the minister. I’m sure he's

had enough letters, petitions and expressions of concern from the

citizens of Burnaby North who are becoming, increasingly concerned

about the fact that Burnaby North has become a traffic corridor for

surrounding municipalities. I realize there is no easy solution; I

accept that. Burnaby is a beautiful municipality to live in, but the

problem of the increasing traffic from other areas is somewhat

diminishing its former beautiful liveability. I know the municipal

council of Burnaby and the minister have been attempting to alleviate

some of the problems. A major problem is that when you fix up one

problem in the area, you may create another in a surrounding area,

want to speak on behalf of the people in Burnaby North and, without

being too parochial, say that we want to maintain the identity being a

very liveable region. In answer to one of my questions, the minister

mentioned that the Barnet Highway, Clark Drive to Cliff Avenue program

will be proceeding. but that it's presently in the design phase. This

will

[ Page 8480

of course divert some of the traffic

presently using the Lougheed Highway.

specific question to the minister, which wasn't really addressed in the

letter is: will it proceed on schedule? I know you stated that it is in

the design stage. I just wondered if the plans are to have it frozen

there, or will this one get the go ahead? It would certainly alleviate

some of the problem.

I was disappointed that after studies

by your engineers you decided to increase the Lougheed Highway part of

Burnaby by an extra two lanes where we get all the problems at the

Willingdon interchange. Most of us felt it was certainly time for that

to be done. Apparently your engineers feel that it's going to create

more problems at Grandview, 12th Avenue and 1st Avenue corridors, which

you presume would have to absorb a further 1,200 vehicles. I can

appreciate that problem.

I do want to ask the minister if he

has been aware of the tremendous increase in the number of accidents —

perhaps it's just general frustration — involving the people who live

in the Lougheed Village at the northeastern end of the Lougheed Highway

in Burnaby. That area has so many highrises now that it has almost

become a little town on its own. The people who live in that area have

great difficulty just getting out of their area before getting onto the

Lougheed Highway. Of course that has created frustration, which

increases accidents. I think that was one of the reasons — only one, of

course — that the people of North Burnaby hoped something could be done

about the Lougheed Highway. I want to ask the minister if his engineers

have been able to give him any advice on what we can do about that

terrible traffic problem for the people who live in the northeast part

of Burnaby when trying to get on or off the highway.

I have

one more question. Today I received — and I'm sure most MLAs receive

them periodically — a letter from the Deputy Minister of Municipal

Affairs, who states that a number of applications received under

part 5

of the revenue sharing regulations have now been completed. He advises

the Burnaby council that limitation of funds has prevented approval of

certain projects. All those projects, of course, deal with the

upgrading of roads in Burnaby. Some are in the south, in Edmonds. My

colleagues from Burnaby-Edmonds, from Willingdon and from the north....

When

a decision is made through Municipal Affairs that the money cannot be

provided, what kind of consultation takes place between your staff and

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). This is a

considerable setback to the council. I hope you can give some rationale

or explain to us how they make their decision to send these letters to

the council with just a carbon copy to you when it's basically a

highway problem, as well as finance.

MR. SKELLY: If the minister wishes to

reply, I would be pleased to defer to him.

have a number of Highway issues that I would like to bring to the

minister's attention at this time. First, I would like to thank the

minister and his ministry for completion of the project in Ucluelet —

the Alberni-Tofino highway project — and the paving of Spring Cove

Road, which has been a problem in that area for a number of years.

Since about 1978 the minister has promised to deal with the Spring Cove

road, as well as with some of the problems of the grade 1n the pavement

on the western end of the Ucluelet-Tofino highway. I'm very pleased to

say that that project now appears to be complete, and I would like to

convey to the ministry the thanks of the people in that area for the

work that was done.

It's interesting that I drove out to

Ucluelet last week to congratulate the graduating class of 1982 from

Ucluelet Secondary School, and the road had just been completed at that

time. It was completed before, when I was teaching at that school in

1969, so the pavement and the grade at that end of the road seems to

have lasted for about 10 years. I'm wondering if the minister has any

plans to upgrade the construction of that road. Soon after the road was

built the grade started to fall, and voids developed in the pavement.

As the minister probably recalls, a whole

section of the road slipped

into Kennedy Lake at one time, and the ministry had numerous trucks

there and got the work done in record time. I was wondering if the

ministry had any plans to relocate the road from Port Alberni through

to the west coast. There have been suggestions that it be relocated

around the north end of Kennedy Lake, and there have been other

suggestions as well. I wonder if that's considered to be the final

alignment of that road, or if there are any other proposals in the

ministry to relocate that highway.

Another problem that

seems to develop in that area on a year-by-year basis is the problem of

alignments of the road between the national park boundary and the

villages of Tofino and Ucluelet. Those roads remain in about the same

alignment as when they were the original logging roads or military

roads a long time ago. There are some pretty dangerous curves and dips

in those sections of the highway. Over the years the ministry has been

spending roughly $25,000 a year to widen and shoulder the roads, but

still the curves remain and the problems of the alignment remain. I'm

wondering when the ministry is going to take some action to improve the

alignments of those roads. At this point, well over 100,000 people —

probably 200,000 to 250,000 people in a good year — come out annually

to visit the Pacific Rim National Park. It's one of the major tourist

attractions on the west coast of Canada. It's important for the safety

of tourists, and to attract tourists to the area, that those roads be

well constructed and in good condition. I would urge the minister to

take a careful look at those sections of the highway to see what he can

do as soon as possible to straighten up some of those sections and

eliminate the dangerous curves and dips.

I would also like

to thank the minister for the work he's done on the Hot Springs Cove

trail. As the west coast of Vancouver Island and my constituency has

opened up, tourists are now moving into the area north of Tofino. There

are a number of attractions there, one of which is the hot springs at

Refuge Cove. While the NDP was in government we managed to acquire that

land as provincial parkland, but the trail into that park has

degenerated pretty badly. A proposal was made by the Hesquiat Indian

band, which is now relocating back at Hot Springs Cove. Their village

was destroyed by the tidal wave of 1964, but a number of the families

have now moved back. They have asked to establish a regular contract

with the minister that would employ some of their band members to

maintain that trail through to the park at Hot Springs Cove. I'm

wondering what progress has been made on negotiations between the

ministry and the Hesquiat Indian band at Hot Springs Cove.

have been in touch with the minister fairly recently to convey to him a

petition from the residents of Bamfield. As members of this Legislature

will probably know, the community of Bamfield is divided by a waterway

that's locally call Bamfield Creek or Bamfield Inlet. Many of the homes,

[ Page 8481

businesses

and also the school in Bamfield are located on what I suppose you would

call the west side of Bamfield Inlet. There is no road access to the

east side. People have to use boats or whatever marine transportation

they're able to obtain at the time. The Indian villages located on the

east side have no highway access to the school, even though they supply

a good number of the students. It's extremely difficult for the Indian

band to provide road transportation in the form of a school bus down to

the public floats in Bamfield on the east side, then across to the west

side, so that their children can have good access to the school, There

has been some suggestion that a new school is going to be located on

the east side of Bamfield to provide better access, but the same

problem will remain. People will have to come across from the other

side.

Why does a perfectly good school have to be relocated

at the cost of several hundred thousand dollars, when it's possible

that the school district and Ministry of Transportation and Highways

could get together to provide a better form of access? I know how

difficult it is for a local school district and a Ministry of Highways

to come to some kind of agreement on to how to spend money; whether

education dollars can best be spent providing access, or whether that's

a legitimate expenditure of highways dollars. I urge the minister to

take a careful look at the problem in Bamfield to see how he can

improve access to the west side of the inlet so that those people can

enjoy the same highway benefits as anyone else in the province.

response to my requests and the petitions from Bamfield, the minister

has suggested that this is very low on his list of priorities. Bamfield

is a small community, but it's a community of growing importance as a

result of the growth of the tourist industry, the opening of the phase

section of Pacific Rim Park, and the increasing respect in which the

oceanography station at Bamfield is held in the academic and

oceanographic studies community, not only in Canada but around the

world. That centre is sponsored by five western universities in Alberta

and British Columbia. Their research is at the forefront of marine

technology and oceanography; and the work done at that station will

have considerable economic benefits for the citizens of British

Columbia in terms of developing our marine and fisheries resources,

including marine plants. This community deserves a little more

attention from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways than it has

received in the past, because of the important role it will play in

British Columbia in the future. I urge the minister to take another

look at that problem in Bamfield, and attempt to improve access between

the east side of Bamfield, which is provided with highway access to the

rest of the province, and the west side of Bamfield.

Last

year during the minister's estimates I talked about advance planning.

The minister suggested that he would like to have a five-year budget of

the kind we appropriated for the Ministry of Forests at that time. We

see what's happened to the Ministry of Forests' five-year plan. I also

pointed out to the minister what was done in Saskatchewan, where they

put together a project array so that tourists and people throughout the

province will be aware. They have a map showing highway development

projects in that province for the coming year; and it's a tremendous

advantage to tourists to know which areas and highways to avoid. It's

also a tremendous benefit to the people who are working on those

highways, because if tourists are aware that the highways are being

worked on they'll take a little more care or avoid those roads

entirely, which contributes to the safety of construction workers on

Highways' projects. That's at least as important as making sure

tourists are able to travel freely around the province.

recommend this type of approach to the minister; and I've sent him a

copy of the 1981 Saskatchewan highway construction array. The 1982 one

will probably have a different minister's picture on it, but it's no

less a good plan for that reason.

I would also like to ask

the minister what happened to the Vancouver Island transportation

project. Maybe the minister explained this to the House when I was

absent on opposition business.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY:

It's interesting that a member can be absent from the House on

government business, but not on opposition business. Isn't that

strange. Maybe that's something we should look into by way of

substantive motion, as you Clerks put it.

The Vancouver

Island transportation project was proposed by the minister back in May

of 1981. It was announced with some fanfare and press releases at the

time. The minister suggested that he was intending to stimulate

discussion about the proposed planning approach as part of a

consultative process to be initiated from the outset of this project —

whatever that means — and he outlined a number of objectives. I'm

wondering what happened, looking at discussions of transportation

problems on Vancouver Island over the last year. Since this document

was presented I haven't seen any public meetings convened or the

ministry really furthering this proposed plan.

In fact, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm)

was recently travelling around Vancouver Island and through the Fraser

Valley proposing to do away with one of the main transportation links

on the Island, Pacific Coach Lines Ltd. and a number of people

expressed concern about the difference between what that minister was

advocating and what the Minister of Highways appeared to be advocating

in his transportation document — more integration of the transportation

modes on Vancouver Island and more public discussion of how those

transportation facilities could be integrated and used to better

advantage. It seemed that the people on Vancouver Island — at least, at

the meeting I attended in Nanaimo with the minister — were concerned

that something was going to be happening to Pacific Coach Lines prior

to anything coming of the minister's Vancouver Island transportation

project. If the minister could explain just what is happening with that

project, when we may expect some kind of more intensive consultation

with the public on Vancouver Island and some outcome to that....

I would also like to talk with the minister about airports in

my constituency. Again, within the last few years, the ministry has

been of some assistance in making sure that services continue to be

provided at the airport in Tofino. But this year Port Alberni has sunk,

into some fairly desperate economic circumstances. As a result of the

decline in the markets in the forest industry and as a result of a

number of problems relating to the operation of the single major

company in the Port Alberni area, MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., we're in

serious difficulties. Thousands of people are out of work in that area.

During the summer 1,200 people are expected to go on welfare and they

will, as a result of that, end up as a drain on the provincial economy.

I'm talking about 1,200 people who

[ Page 8482

formerly

earned a base rate of $11.50 an hour or better now ending up on welfare

along with their families. I don't have to tell the minister that

circumstances are desperate for those people. They are concerned that

work should be provided for them in the Port Alberni area.

One

of the things that has been discussed in recent times is relocation of

the airport in Port Alberni. I suspect that's one of the few airports

in the province that the minister has not flown into, because of the

difficulty of predicting weather and winds and because of the short

length of the runway. I'm wondering what involvement the ministry has

had with planning and with furthering the new airport project in Port

Alberni. If the minister is not aware of it, I'm a supporter, as a

private pilot, of a new airport for the area. I think it would add

considerably to the economic development and diversification of Port

Alberni, and I would urge the minister to take the initiative on this

project. I know he's cut back in the funds for the airport assistance

program, but I think that the way this government spends dollars can

assist communities like Port Alberni which are desperate for jobs at

this point. I think that it would be important if the minister

initiated contacts with people in the Alberni Valley to try to advance

that airport project so that we would have work available in the

Alberni Valley as well as some diversification in the economy. So I

would like some comments from the minister on that project as well.

Last

year I brought to the minister's attention a positive suggestion for

motor vehicle licensing. I suggested to the minister that people who

had been in violation of the Motor Vehicle Act and who had an

inordinate number of points on their driver records should be forced to

display a licence plate on their cars which indicated that they were

probationary drivers. I indicated to the minister that this had worked

successfully in some areas, particularly in a few states in Australia,

and I understand that the state of New South Wales still has this

requirement. It's interesting to see a guy driving around in a Camaro —

which is considered a macho car, a sports car — having to display a P

plate, meaning he's a probationary driver or isn't as capable a driver

as others. It's a real incentive for people to drive properly and to

eliminate that probationary status.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The minister rejected that proposal entirely, but I'd like to

read from a column by Gorde Hunter in the Victoria Times-Colonist

in which he said:

"The

NDP representative from Alberni offered a new method of licence plate

designation. He would make it mandatory for those convicted of impaired

driving to carry special licence plates telling the world that he or

she is something less than a good citizen and-or a good driver. Come on

now, Robert, you know the government isn't going to institute something

as sensible as that. You know drunk drivers and those who drive while

under suspension rarely get more than a slap on the wrist. You surely

know that these potential killers seem to have charmed lives insofar as

the law is concerned.

" Skelly's suggestion is

not only good, but long overdue from someone with a little legislative

voice. He pointed out such licence identification has been used in

Australia for some time. Good drivers have a capital M on their plates."

I didn't suggest this, but he suggests

that the drunks carry a special plate, and maybe that's a good idea too.

think one of the problems that we have in this province and in this

country is that we tend to use negative reinforcements which don't work

with many people and, in fact, often aren't very visible to the general

public, and as a result they don't work. Everybody likes to retain a

little status in the community and among his peers, especially where

his car is concerned. It seems to be the one place where American

drivers are concerned about preserving their status. If a driver were

forced to display prominently on his car that he is less than a good

citizen with respect to his driving ability or driving practices, I

think it would have a tendency to reduce the number of unsafe drivers

on the road.

While I'm talking about those kind of

incentives, I'd like to mention something that appeared on television

maybe within the last year where the cities of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia,

and Mississauga, Ontario, instead of using the radar traps to catch

people, put points on their licences. You have this endless cycle of

being caught in radar traps, having additional points placed on your

licence, paying additional ICBC premiums. It's really a process of

entrapment and the kind of thing that I oppose. In Dartmouth, Nova

problems. They point out that this area is patrolled by radar, and they

also show prominently on the sign how the public has complied with the

speed regulations in that area. For example, on one day they'd have 75

percent compliance; the next day they'd have 80 percent. They found out

that the drivers got concerned about the positive reinforcement that

these signs provided and were careful to drive slowly in those areas.

I think in areas where speed is a problem the ministry should

consider, instead of having the traditional radar traps, which do

nothing but frustrate drivers and create problems for the police,

having a more positive incentive to drive safely where radar patrols

are fairly regular and the signs show how the public complies with the

law, and how well drivers are doing rather than how poorly. Again it

puts the whole situation in public, it lets people know how safe

drivers in a certain community are, and I think that it's a better way

of reinforcing good driving practices than the negative way of

constantly catching people in radar traps, issuing them points for

speeding, frustrating them, and creating additional financial problems

for them when there is a possibility of success using the other

technique.

The last thing I'd like to bring to the minister's attention

the problem of motor vehicle inspection stations. Possibly he's dealt

with this before as well. At the time that I represented the area which

included Parksville, Qualicum Beach and the surrounding area, drivers

and automobile owners from that area were required to take their

vehicles to Nanaimo for motor vehicle safety checks. There's been a

great deal of opposition from that area because it's close to Port

Alberni, and drivers from Port Alberni are not required to have their

cars safety-checked each year. As a result, the citizens of the

Parksville, Qualicum and surrounding area feel that they are unfairly

treated by the law. The law has to be fairly and equally applied around

the province, or else not applied at all.

I would like to

know what plans the ministry has for expanding the motor-vehicle

inspection system. If vehicles are required to be safe in some sections

of the country, they should be required to be safe in other sections.

But right now it simply creates problems for those who live in areas

that are

[ Page 8483

adjacent to cities such as Port

Alberni where those safety checks aren't required.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I said earlier in the estimates that we'd like to use the private

sector to expand motor-vehicle inspections. We're just starting to

really took at that. Don't look for anything in a hurry, but I hope

inside of 12 months we'll have a few going in certain areas.

haven't considered special licence plates — I know the ministry has —

since last year when you brought it up. I was aware of Mr. Hunter's

column. I think it's a little early. We haven't done anything about it.

Regarding

getting the airport assistance, we have had some contact with Tofino

because of the scare that Transport Canada were going to pull out. We

still feel that way, but they're saying that they'll continue using

federal Parks people, I think it is, to help. Those are the notes I

have. I don't think it will happen overnight. In the meantime, it's

their airport,

Yes, I have landed on the Port Alberni strip.

But we have no correspondence from them. Maybe that should he handled

through the regional district. That's what most of them are. The notes

I have here say that they haven't contacted us.

Regarding

the Vancouver Island transportation study, part of that has taken

place, but it's really only starting. It will go on for a while yet. A

discussion paper was circulated to carriers, municipalities and

regional districts in May 1981. We didn't have public meetings. The

discussion paper stimulated discussion on a wide variety of issues,

including the level of service provided by the current highway system

on the island, requirements for additional highway capacity, level of

service offered by B.C. Ferries and future alternates for the

E&N

Railway. The forecast of development on Vancouver Island was prepared

by Garth Edge International, a Vancouver-based consultant. That study

included interviews with representatives of a broad cross-section of

the Island's business community, including forestry, mining, fisheries

and tourism. My notes go on to say that this consultant forecasts that

the population of the Island would increase from 475,000 in 1980 to

735,000 in 2001.

The study is continuing. Approval is being

sought to initiate another phase of the Vancouver Island transportation

project. This phase will produce forecasts of freight and passenger

traffic over the next 20 years. This will be a six-month project. It

will provide input for future policy development work to be

accomplished in the fiscal year 1982-83. In addition, work on specific

issues such as the E&N passenger service and Pacific Coach

Lines

will continue within the framework of the Vancouver Island

transportation project.

I like the idea of the map from

Saskatchewan you sent. Yes, I guess the minister's picture will change.

One observation I have is that it's difficult for us to predict what

we're going to do that far in advance. Saskatchewan seemed to be a

little ahead. In other words, we don't get approval so early that we

can get a map out and get it around. I see that one problem about it.

We're glad to cooperate with the school district or the Indian

band to try to help solve the problem in Bamfield.

Regarding

paving, improving and relocating roads, we haven't any real plans

there. As you pointed out, we've just completed that paving project —

if it is completed. I guess it is just about complete, so we're making

a little progress.

The member for Burnaby North (Mrs.

Dailly) mentioned the revenue-sharing. Revenue-sharing is a program

done this year to a gross of $15 million. We assist the Ministry of

Municipal Affairs in arriving at what qualifies in the different street

systems in the municipalities; it's our advice they accept. Then we

have to battle over the cutting up of the money. It's a new program,

and in the last three years it has gone from $3 million, I believe, to

$15 million. It's very Popular with the municipalities, and rightly so.

In the case of Burnaby, I understand we have approved this year $3.2

million for the BNR grade separation. Because of that, we kicked out

their other applications. They got a fair hunk for the one project. I'm

aware of Burnaby's feelings about their traffic corridor: it just

happens to be where they're geographically located. We enjoy working

with Burnaby council. We get a lot of support and we try to help all we

can when they're developing liveable regions. It certainly is a problem.

You

wrote asking us to add lanes to the Lougheed Highway. The reply was

that there is no point in adding lanes because the Vancouver street

system cannot accept more traffic, therefore, Vancouver would need to

designate more major streets. That's our reason for not doing anything

with Lougheed.

I believe you mentioned something about the

Barnet Highway, and would four-laning be delayed because of funds. The

answer is that design work is proceeding, and when it is completed next

year funds will hopefully be available. So we're saving we hope there

won't be a delay, but there could well be if there's a delay in funds.

I think that pretty well clears up most of what of what I had

for today.

MR. SKELLY:

One supplementary question, a short one that I forgot to put in the

first part, concerning Highway 4 between Parksville and Port Alberni.

The last time I discussed this in the Legislature with the minister he

suggested that work would begin on that

section after completion of the

Lantzville

section of Highway 19. I note from the last annual report of

the Ministry of Highway, which I think is 1980-81, that the survey work

is 100 percent complete, design work about 80 percent complete. When is

the ministry going to put that work to tender, and when will we see

some work done on that

section of the Alberni highway around Cameron

Lake, given the minister's promise that it would be done after

completion of the Lantzville section?

HON. MR. FRASER:

I'm happy to say that I think we're going to see the end of the

Lantzville section. We've had lots of problems in getting it done, but

it's supposed to be complete in July or August. We want to go to the

road you're talking about, subject to funds being available, and I

can't predict that. I hope it will be next year, but I really can't say.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair]

MS. BROWN:

I have three issues that I want to raise with the minister. The first

has to do with getting out of Burnaby in the mornings to Vancouver, or

to anywhere, for that matter. It's getting worse: it's almost

impossible. If one takes the cutoff, the traffic backs up from Canada

Way getting onto the freeway and the overpass. You can forget about

Kingsway; just write it off as a bad job. It's not possible to move an

inch on Kingsway. If one takes Canada Way and tries at the Boundary

Road cutoff to get onto 12th Avenue, the traffic backs Li again, If you

have to get to work by 8:30 or 9

[ Page 8484

o'clock

in the morning and you're coming from south Burnaby, you had better

leave home by 5:30 a.m. at the very latest, because it's just not going

to be possible to get out of Burnaby unless you do.

I want

to ask the minister what's happening with Kingsway, certainly between

Edmonds and 12th Avenue. It's an absolute nightmare all day, not just

during the peak hours. I know I've raised this issue with the minister

a number of times and have asked that something be done, either putting

in another lane or wiping out all the parking on Kingsway or something.

The traffic bottlenecks there have reached a stage now where they

cannot continue much longer.

I want to raise a specific

problem to do with one of my constituents who ran into one of the

minister's potholes. I realize that it's not possible that the minister

should be responsible for every pothole, but this was a particularly

vicious pothole that attacked this gentleman on January 25. He said

that on the evening of January 25 he was driving his veh