1981 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5703 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Petitions

Establishing the Windy Bay–Dodge Point ecological reserve.

Mr. Passarell –– 5704

Oral Questions

Additional income for income assistance recipients. Ms. Brown –– 5704

Queen Anne apartments application deposit. Mr. Lauk –– 5704

Failure of Vancouver travel agencies. Hon. Mr. Hyndman replies –– 5705

Mr. Barber –– 5705

Milfoil and knapweed control. Mr. Skelly –– 5706

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

Fraser)

On vote 189: minister's office –– 5706

Mr. King

Mr. Davis

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Hanson

THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Last weekend I

had the pleasure of the company of a couple from Wellington, in the

county of Shropshire, England, on a very brief trip through a part of

my constituency. Their company made me realize once again how fortunate

we are to live in this beautiful part of British Columbia. I would ask

the House to join me in welcoming Ken and Barbara Sankey from England.

MR. GABELMANN:

In the gallery this afternoon are a group of students, with a few

teachers and parents, from the North Island Secondary School in Port

McNeill. That high school serves as a catchment for much of the North

Island constituency. I'd like the House to make all the students and

adults feel welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd ask all

hon. members to join me in welcoming to our members' gallery two

visitors from far-away Perth, Australia. This is their first visit to

our province, and I do hope they will come again. They are the Hon. lan

Medcalf, the Attorney-General for Western Australia, and his child

bride, Mrs. Medcalf.

MR. MACDONALD: I'd ask the House

to welcome Mrs. Minnie Driesen from Vancouver and her friend Mrs.

Mervennee, of good Dutch descent, from Holland.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

With us in the gallery today are representatives from the Canadian

Manufacturers Association: Mr. Ted Newall, chairman of the Canadian

Manufacturers Association and chairman, president and chief executive

officer of Du Pont of Canada Ltd., from Montreal, Quebec; Mr. Jacques

Gagnon, who after June will become the next chairman of the Canadian

Manufacturers Association and is the senior executive vice-president

and director of the aluminum Co. of Canada Ltd. and the vice-president

of Alcan Smelters and Chemicals Ltd. of Montreal, Quebec; Mr. Roy

Phillips, president of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, from

Mississauga, Ontario; Mr. Les Strike, chairman of the British Columbia

division of the Canadian Manufacturers Association and president and

general manager of Stanley Drug Products Ltd. of Vancouver; Mr. Dave

Fraser, first vice-president of the British Columbia division of the

Canadian Manufacturers Association and general manager of Canadian

Industries Ltd. of Western Canada; Mr. Fred Veuger, second

vice-chairman of the British Columbia division of the Canadian

Manufacturers Association and president of CAE Machinery Ltd. of

Vancouver; and Mr. Frank Kenny, manager of the British Columbia

division of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, Vancouver. I hope

the House will make them warmly welcome here today.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, as we are living in a bilingual country, "Wit ik look die Dame uit Nederland Welkom aanbieden." Nobody understood.

Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to welcome someone I think many of us know.

He has provided us with the devotions in the House a number of times: Rev. Gilbert

of Trinity Presbyterian Church in Victoria, who has with him a visitor from

Londonderry, Northern Ireland, Mr. T.S. Mooney. I would ask the House to bid

them welcome.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Today we've had the opportunity to have a couple of visiting groups

from Langley. This morning an elementary school group from Glenwood

Elementary School in Langley had the opportunity to tour the buildings.

Some

of the members may also have had the opportunity to enjoy the music on

the steps of the Legislature this afternoon. I'm proud to say that

those students were from Langley. They had the opportunity this morning

to play for a group of senior citizens at Matson Lodge. Following their

concert, the students from Mountain Secondary School in Langley are now

touring the parliament buildings, and I hope the members will also show

their appreciation for the concert and for their visit.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of the arrival of the distinguished

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), is there any

indication about when she will be travelling into the chamber? There

are several people here who have indicated a desire to be introduced to

the hon. minister, and I would hate to point them out, in case the hon.

minister wasn't in the chamber. Is she on her way? Has anyone seen the

hon. minister?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: She's hosting a ministers' conference? I see. Well, under standing order 8, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, perhaps these are matters which would be

best discussed with the Whips on both sides of the House. We should not

be taking time in the House....

MR. LAUK: I just

can’t communicate to either of them, Mr. Speaker; I can't make hide nor

hair of what they're saying. But I do know that there are several

interested individuals, not the least of whom is the hon. member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who would like to see the minister today.

In the meantime, I'll defer to the hon. member for Prince George South.

MR. STRACHAN:

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to welcome to the House today

two fellows from Prince George: Bob Dick and Bill Kennedy. Would the

House please make them welcome.

MR. LAUK: I wonder if the hon. Premier could introduce the acting Minister of Human Resources today. Is that possible?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

Well, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) said: "Silly little games." We have a very serious question

to ask the Minister of Human Resources. If she's busy, who's the acting

minister? Shall we ask it of the Premier? He never knows anything. I

don't know why we'd ask the Premier. We'd have to ask the acting

minister.

[ Page 5704 ]

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, if the member wishes to gain the floor by virtue of a

point of order, that's in order. If the member wishes to introduce

guests to the chamber at this point in time, that is in order. In order

to have possession of the floor, he must have a reason to have

possession of the floor.

MR. LAUK: Could I introduce absent friends?

MR. SPEAKER: That's not in order.

Presenting Petitions

MR. PASSARELL: I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. PASSARELL:

I have a petition from the residents of the Queen Charlotte Islands and

the Western Canadian Wilderness Society. It's signed by 14,000

residents. It says: "Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that your

honourable House may be pleased to establish the Windy Bay–Dodge Point

ecological reserve for this special area for future generations to

observe and study. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray."

Oral Questions

ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR

INCOME ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS

MS. BROWN: My question

is to the Minister of Human Resources. It has to do with a question I

raised on May 12. I asked the minister to explain why the provincial

government was not going along with the federal government's guidelines

with respect to added income for income assistance recipients who work.

In part of her answer the minister stated that the ministry had a pilot

project in Victoria which lasted 18 months and was found not to be

successful. Has the minister decided to table the report of that pilot

project?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

MS. BROWN:

Is the minister reluctant to table the report because it clearly shows

that the way in which the project was set up in the first place, it was

doomed to failure? I would like to refer specifically to

chapter 5,

page 20, of the first interim report and to the addenda of the second

interim report of May 8. Is that the reason why the minister has

decided not to table this very condemning report?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The answer is no.

MS. BROWN: Has the minister any objections to me tabling the report?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, within the rules of the House the member can do whatever she would like with the report.

QUEEN ANNE APARTMENTS

APPLICATION DEPOSIT

MR. LAUK: My question is to the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Before I ask the question,

I think it's clear to the chamber that the Minister of Human Resources

would like something done with the report other than tabling it.

the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs — there he is; the

reflection from his glasses blinded me for the moment. Vancouver Park

Lane Towers Ltd. has been making a practice of requiring an application

deposit of $550 from prospective tenants. Can the minister advise the

House whether he has decided to take any action with respect to this

issue?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I think the member probably

refers to a matter which first arose to public notice this morning. I'm

awaiting a copy of the so-called deposit or application form. If the

member has one, I would value it and in so doing, Mr. Speaker, take the

question as notice. Once I've had a chance to look at the document,

I'll provide the earliest reply.

MR. LAUK: I'm understaffed, and I was able to phone around and get some information.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's not all you're under.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member has a question.

MR. LAUK:

This company, which owns Queen Anne Place in Vancouver, further

requires that successful applicants sign a tenancy agreement which is

not seen at the time of the application. If they refuse to do so, these

prospective tenants lose $300 from that $550 deposit. Has the minister

decided to recommend that his cabinet colleagues issue an order under

section 7(2) of the Residential Tenancy Act which would prohibit the

practice of fining tenants for refusing to sign any tenancy agreements

which they do not find to their liking?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I continue to recommend to my cabinet colleagues the

practice of first getting the facts before we decide what action, if

any, should be taken. That will be my practice in this case.

MR. LAUK: That's a policy followed by many of us, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question, please.

MR. LAUK:

Having gotten the facts myself, I'm putting it to the minister: has he

decided to recommend that action be taken under

section 7(2) of the

Residential Tenancy Act to avoid these further ripoffs of innocent

tenants in my constituency?

MR. SPEAKER: Order,

please. A question which may have been in order would very easily have

been jeopardized by the last statement, which was not part of the

question.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, we're in the

process of checking out that report and obtaining the facts. When we

have the facts, I'll be happy to respond to the member's question. I do

not propose as a practice to swing into alleged action on the basis of

third-party reports which I have not yet had the chance to have

verified.

While I'm on my feet, I wonder if I might answer a question which I took as notice on Monday of this week.

[ Page 5705 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

FAILURE OF VANCOUVER TRAVEL AGENCIES

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: In so doing, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) might well appreciate my caution in answering certain questions.

The

first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) on Monday of this week raised

several questions relative to certain travel agencies. The first was an

allegation by the first member for Victoria that a letter of Mr.

Cummings of April 25, 1980, to the registrar of travel agents "was not

even acknowledged, much less replied to." I'm advised that on May 2 the

letter in question was answered by the registrar of travel agents.

Before tabling with you, sir, a copy of that letter, may I read the

reply.

"Dear Mr. Cummings:

"Re: Winmil Holidays Co. Ltd.

"I am in receipt of your letter of April 25, 1980, pertaining to the above subject and appreciate your interest.

"With respect to your comments, I can assure

you that inspections by the registrar are carried out on an ongoing and

on a demand basis to ensure conformity with the Travel Agents

Registration Act. Should you wish to discuss this further, please do

not hesitate to call. I would be happy to meet with you.

Yours truly,

W.H. Rourke,

Registrar of Travel

Services"

Mr. Speaker, I'm further advised that Mr. Rourke at no time had

any followup request from the writer of that letter for such a meeting.

Secondly,

there were allegations of unconcerned replies to alleged telephone

calls of March and April 1980. I'm advised, upon a check being made

internally by the office of the registrar of travel services, that

there is no record of any such replies being given, and there appears

to be no record of the particular type of call, as alleged.

Thirdly,

there was a question alleging that the office of the registrar of

travel agents did not sufficiently monitor a package-tour bus operator

in the province about a year ago at a time when that company was in

serious difficulty. I'm advised, Mr. Speaker, that the company in

question about a year ago was called Tripmakers. It was discovered to

be in financial difficulty. Its continuing operation from that time

forward was regularly monitored and showed steady improvement. The

registrar monitored this business and its business recovery program,

and in so doing he estimates that about 500,000 travel consumers' and

creditors' dollars were protected. The only claim arising was the

single claim of $364.51, which was paid from the fund.

With

respect to events of this last weekend concerning the collapse of what

is called the Holliday group of companies, and with respect to the

further question about alleged non-monitoring, I'm advised that an

audit accountant of the travel fund reviewed the books of the Holliday

group of companies as recently as May 7 of this month and found a

positive financial position.

Further, I was asked whether

the ministry or the registrar was aware of any other British Columbia

travel agents facing this type or size of difficulty. I'm advised that

the registrar is aware of none.

In general answer to the

questions raised, may I confirm that on Monday, two days after the

Saturday difficulties, under

section 27 of the Travel Agents Act, the

registrar obtained a court appointment of Mr. Donald Manning, chartered

accountant, as receiver of the defunct companies. Further, I am today

announcing the appointment under

section 24 of Fredrick Shandro, a

Vancouver lawyer who specializes in insolvency and bankruptcy matters,

to do two things: to investigate what happened and why, and to review

the entire events of the last year and make recommendations for the

future operation of the fund.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker,

may I observe that Mr. William Rourke, the registrar of the travel

fund, has devoted long and virtually continuous hours to saving the

holidays of more than 700 British Columbians. I want to thank him for

his efforts and assure the House that he enjoys my continuing

confidence for the very conscientious manner in which he approaches his

duties.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker. I'd like to thank

the minister for his speedy reply — certainly speedier than the replies

to the questions I asked last year of the then-minister, the member for

Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), who never answered at all.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Does the member have a question?

MR. BARBER: I have several questions,

I'm

pleased to be advised that the letter of April 25 was replied to. The

correspondent of April 25 says he never received such a reply, and I

can only take both parties at their word and ask the minister if he's

prepared to table in the House a copy of that correspondence so that I

may forward it to the gentleman who tells me he never received it.

Further,

is the minister prepared to table in the House the dates they were

conducted and the auditors who conducted them for each of the several

audits which I presume and gather have been conducted not simply on

Holliday Tours but on all of the other companies: Boyarski Tours, Lucky

3 Travels, Winmil Holidays, and so on, all controlled in effect by

Stephen Milne?

Will you give us the letter? I appreciate

your undertaking to do so, which, if I haven't misheard, was given

earlier. Will you tell us as well who conducted the audits, and would

you be prepared to table the content of those audits and when they were?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I believe I've already tabled the letter, so it should be available to the member.

With

respect to the second question, I think a fuller answer would be that I

am quite prepared to say that Mr. Shandro is going to conduct a very

full investigation covering not just the events of the last weekend,

but going back to last year. I have no hesitation in saying I will be

quite happy to release that report publicly upon its conclusion. It

seems to me that will cover all the matters raised by the member plus

many others of interest to travel agents and the public.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, we're aware that the fund protects the travelers. Our general question is: who protects

[ Page 5706 ]

the

fund? I wonder if the minister can advise whether it is within the

terms of reference of Mr. Shandro to consider such changes as may be

required in law or regulation to guarantee that we are not, once again,

in the position of one company or group of companies getting so heavily

into debt that we've now lost, apparently, 50 percent of the $600,000

fund. Is it within his terms of reference to tell us not only who

protects the travelers, but who protects the fund itself?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

I believe I stated a few moments ago in my remarks that his terms of

reference would include recommendations as to making the future

operations of the fund even better.

MILFOIL AND KNAPWEED CONTROL

MR. SKELLY:

My question is for the Minister of Environment. On May 4 Dr. Buchanan

of the ministry advised local governments in the Okanagan by letter

that unless they approved of the use of 2, 4-D to control Eurasian

milfoil within their boundaries, the pesticide permits for Wood Lake

and Kalamalka Lake would be withdrawn. After a special meeting with Dr.

Newroth on May 11, 1981, the Central Okanagan Regional District

reaffirmed its opposition to the 2, 4-D permits. Has the minister now

decided to withdraw the 2, 4-D permits for Wood Lake and Kalamalka Lake?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

The member has the correct point. Where the regional district or the

locally elected body is not in favour of our attempting to eradicate

Eurasian water milfoil with the use of chemicals — in this case 2, 4-D

— we will not do it. We have one situation where there is a question of

jurisdiction — whether it's within a municipality or regional district.

I believe that's the only one that's still in question. Where the

regional district or municipality — should the water body be within

their jurisdiction — has indicated that they do not wish us to continue

with the program, we're not going to do it.

MR. SKELLY:

I have a supplementary for the Minister of Environment. The Central

Kootenay Regional District recently voted against the use of pesticides

for knapweed control in Central Kootenay. Has the minister decided to

extend the policy that he has applied to the Okanagan area to the

Central Kootenay Regional District?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

My responsibilities deal mainly with aquatic weeds. I think that

question should be addressed to the Minister of Agriculture and Food

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon.

members, for the information of the House, the document from which the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) quoted

has been tabled with the House.

MS. BROWN: I would

like to ask leave of the House to table two documents dealing with the

Victoria earnings exemption project, which the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has been endeavouring to keep secret

from the people of British Columbia.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 189: minister's office, $213,962.

HON. MR. FRASER:

We were rudely interrupted for lunch, and I wanted to attempt to

complete the answers for the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead). I

think I was at the point about information officers, but he had a lot

more questions I'd like to try and clean up.

The next one

was regarding claims of automobiles as they relate to the Highways

ferries or B.C. Ferries. Yes, I recall that last year we said we'd do

something about it. One thing that's happened is that Highways claims

do not look after B.C. Ferries claims; they are separated. The notes I

have here from senior staff are that B.C. Ferries have their own claims

officer, and they're not referred to the Minister of Highways' claims

officer. It also goes on to say that if a claim is investigated and the

corporation is not liable, it is suggested the claimant makes a claim

against his or her own insurance with ICBC. If ICBC, having settled

with the claimant, consider they can recover the cost from B.C.

Ferries, then ICBC will make a claim against us — that is B.C. Ferries.

The driver of a vehicle going on or off a ferry is in charge of that

vehicle, and usually it is a driver error that causes the problem in

the first place. That's the advice I've been given on that.

have a further note regarding claims on ferries. We pay for blind-side

single-vehicle collisions. We do not normally pay for a driver who

drives too close on the driver's side and strikes the ferry. When two

vehicles collide, obviously the insurance companies take over. When a

vehicle has not got a legal underside clearance we do not pay. In other

words, if they high-centre on one of the ramps we refuse to pay that on

the basis that they haven't got the legal clearance in the first place.

I think I could just add to that. I see trailer hitches on vehicles

that haven't any clearance, even on a flat surface. They're far too low

and very dangerous for the people operating that unit, because the

trailer hitch, just by the motion of the vehicles, can get broken. It's

a very dangerous practice to have a trailer hitch that hasn't got some

clearance to cope with that. The on-off ramps present a further problem.

think the member brought up the fact that we got rid of some boats. We

did get rid of two older vessels, but what I failed to say, and I would

like to take a moment to say, is that we're now going to put tremendous

extra capacity in the system, starting right away. We have two $30

million jumbo vessels, I call them, ready to go. I'm happy to tell the

committee that the Queen of Surrey ,

the new vessel, will be in service on May 27 on route 2, Horseshoe Bay

to Departure Bay. She's been on trial runs, and the crew is getting

acquainted. The Queen of Oak Bay ,

a new $30 million vessel, is right behind. It's going on route 1 from

Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay. Further, it's the first time ever that we've

had a jumbo, vessel on route 1. There's been a lot of construction

going on — particularly in the terminal on the Swartz Bay side — to

accommodate this large vessel with the top unloading. Then the Queen of Vancouver and the Queen of Victoria

have been sliced in half and a third deck has been put in them. They go

from 194-car capacity to something like 300, and I believe from

1,200-passenger capacity to 1,500. It's hoped that both these vessels

with the additional deck will be on the routes prior to July 1 this

year. After spending $90 million in two years on vessels and docks,

I've said they'll all be in the

[ Page

5707 ]

service

of the B.C. Ferries system starting May 27 and hopefully all in service

by July 1, 1981. This actually gives 30 percent more capacity to route

2 and 25 percent more capacity to route 1. I am happy to report that to

the committee, Mr. Chairman.

I'd just like to make the

observation after that report that I don't want the citizens of the

province or members of this committee to go away thinking that all our

line-ups will dissipate; they certainly won't. In this affluent

province of ours, I have personally noted that if a holiday falls on a

Friday or a Monday, the long weekend starts on a Thursday due to

different work patterns and so on. It certainly starts for the B.C.

Ferries system. We have line-ups, and lots of them. I was in one at

Easter that took five hours to get on a boat at Swartz Bay. I don't

think the B.C. Ferries will ever be able to accommodate that kind of

thing. Otherwise, I think there will be a big relief in the system. I'd

advocate that our citizens do a little better planning. We're doing a

lot of advertising about where the problems are. We've asked for

cooperation from the travelling public for these peak periods.

essence, Mr. Chairman, the capacity of the B.C. Ferries system on a

12-month basis is used 50 percent of the time. I think we should

remember that. Mostly on long weekends everybody wants to travel at the

same time going to the same place. But even the experience we had at

Easter seemed modified somewhat for the May long weekend. The next test

will be July 1, and I hope that because of extra capacity we won't see

what we've seen earlier this year.

The member for Mackenzie referred to the CPR. In this case it's the Highways ferry system that is interested in acquiring the Princess of Vancouver ,

which is being put out of service by the CPR in a week or so, at the

end of May. Yes, we're looking at that. There are other people looking

at it as well. We think that the Princess of Vancouver

can be used on our Comox-Powell River run. We have to replace the

vessel there. The estimate of building a new boat in British Columbia

is $20 million. We think that the Princess of Vancouver

will accommodate this run and at probably less expense. That's as far

as I'd like to go at this time. They're negotiating, and we really

don't know what it's going to be worth, but after we acquire it we have

to make major modifications to it. It's my understanding that the major

modifications will cost about $10 million to accommodate our system. I

want to repeat that that has nothing to do with the acquisition costs

which we would have to pay to CPR for the boat.

You

mentioned using the CPR dock at the foot of Granville to relieve

Horseshoe Bay. I'm sure that has been looked at. It's not very

acceptable to CPR. I think we'd also incur some difficulty with the

city of Vancouver — causing further traffic problems in that busy area.

I guess that really applies to your suggestion of a Courtenay-Vancouver

route. It seems to us that we're not very welcome wherever we want to

go because of the traffic congestion we cause. That's why we're not

very popular tenants at Horseshoe Bay.

I would like to mention that we are trying to relieve the congestion at Horseshoe

Bay, and the board of directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the management

are looking at a scheme to use the Queen of Alberni , our truck vessel, and create

a new run in the system from Tsawwassen to Departure Bay. We haven't fully

decided on that because we want to talk to the trucking industry. We have talked

to them somewhat. Quite frankly, I'm very nervous about it. First of all,

will the commercial trucks patronize us and cooperate with us if we go from

Tsawwassen to Departure Bay? The other thing that I don't like about it

is that we will only be able to sail every four hours. In other words, it is

estimated it would take the Queen of Alberni two hours each way between Tsawwassen

and Departure Bay, a little bit longer than it would take to run from Horseshoe

Bay to Departure Bay.

It would have the advantage of relieving congestion at Horseshoe Bay. But if they won't use it and continue to use the Queen of Coquitlam or the Queen of Cowichan ,

we've achieved nothing. We have thrown around the idea that they must

use it, but that's getting a bit dictatorial and they have their

operational problems. In conclusion on that proposed new run, I don't

think we should even try it on a trial basis until our rush season is

over this year, which would be, say, September or October. But it

definitely has been looked at, primarily to relieve the congestion that

we have at Horseshoe Bay.

I want to say that most of these

decisions are made by the B.C. Ferry Corporation board of directors on

advice from our excellent management team. I would like to comment on

the board of directors. There have been some changes there, inasmuch as

I've stepped down as chairman of the board and am a member of the board

only. Mr. Stu Hodgson has become the full-time chairman of the board of

directors. He's an outstanding Canadian and we're really delighted to

have someone of his calibre. He's been on the job since February. The

directors have at least one meeting a month and sometimes two or three.

In practically all cases they are from the areas where the ferry system

operates. We have Victoria directors, Vancouver directors, a Sunshine

Coast director and a Prince Rupert director. They do a great job at

very little recompense. They are good citizens and I'd like to pay them

public compliment.

Last but not least, I believe you

mentioned the central coast water transportation problems. I think

you're referring to statements made by myself and others about

inaugurating a central coast water transportation system; specifically,

as I envisioned it, it would be Klemtu, Bella Bella, Bella Coola and

Ocean Falls. As you know now, our large boat, the Queen of the North or the Queen of Prince Rupert

— whichever is on the run — now calls at Bella Bella and Ocean Falls.

Bella Coola hasn't any boat service other than from the private

enterprise side, and very little of that. Klemtu is really an isolated

Indian village that the present MLA is concerned about getting some

more service for, so they could be linked all in the general area. We

have looked and had studies, and we have not made any decisions about

that. We are getting propositions from the private sector, and if we

put it out to contract, if that decision is made.... We seem to have

all the facts together now, but I myself would like to know a little

more about Ocean Falls, which is a key player in what is going to

happen. It's a case of priorities of spending — we've spent a lot of

money expanding water transportation — and this one, no doubt, will

cost a fair amount of money, I would guess probably $2 million to $3

million a year if we put it out to contract. I just want to repeat that

Bella Coola has other alternatives. Bella Bella and Ocean Falls now

have the big vessel; Klemm really hasn't very much. I guess the up-side

of that is that if we put in this service on the central coast, the big

vessel would only stop at Bella Bella and wouldn't have to go into

Ocean Falls and back out again on the big run going north.

I think I've covered most of your concerns so far, Mr. Member. We'll wait for further questions.

[ Page 5708 ]

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I thought the minister wasn't going to finish there.

Unfortunately I have to leave for another appointment, and I wanted to

raise with the minister a number of the perennial problems which

afflict my riding before I go. I probably won't be able to stay long

enough to hear all of the minister's responses; nevertheless, I will

look forward to reading in Hansard the very positive and affirmative

commitments that he gives to me regarding the much needed work on a

variety of mainly secondary roads in my area that are a major problem.

I've had a good deal of correspondence with the minister and I think

he's generally apprised of most of the problems I'm going to raise.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Let

me say just before beginning on those problems that I've browsed

through the report which the minister has put out, and I note that the

bulk of highway construction work in the Shuswap-Revelstoke riding is

related to Highway 23 north from Revelstoke to Mica Creek. I would

point out, Mr. Chairman, that that road is not of great service to the

citizens of our riding. This is a replacement road made necessary by

the construction of the high Revelstoke dam,

whereas the original plan

was for two low-level dams and the existing highway would have done.

This is the second time the highway has been replaced, basically to

accommodate Hydro and the maintenance staff of the dam, rather than the

general citizens of the area who deserve some consideration too. I

point out to the minister simply that this kind of problem is irksome

to local people, when they see the general condition of their secondary

roads going to pieces and they see this major reconstruction, for the

third time, of the Big Bend Highway up to Mica Creek to accommodate a

handful of maintenance workers and Hydro's interests, while the

citizens — the taxpayers — are denied completion of the Mabel Lake

road, while there is no sign of progress as yet on the conclusion of

the bridge across the Okanagan River at Enderby. I appreciate that

there is a problem there in terms of Indian land. I want to ask the

minister specifically, with respect to the Enderby bridge, which the

mayor of Enderby and I met with the minister on a short time ago, if he

would agree to meet with Chief Wayne Christian of the Indian band and I

sometime early in June to see whether or not we can resolve this

conflict between the Highways ministry and the Indian band with respect

to the very small incursion onto the Indian land which will flow from

the construction of the new bridge. I would hope the minister would be

agreeable to that kind of meeting. Quite frankly, Chief Christian is

coming to Victoria, and I think it would be an excellent opportunity

for us to sit down together and see whether or not we can find some

solution to this long delay. That bridge is sorely needed. The existing

structure jeopardizes the public safety, in my view, and it's long past

satisfactory service as a safe structure.

The tourist

traffic flow to Mabel Lake which utilizes that bridge is increasing.

The number of summer cottages and the tourists travelling into that

area make it a heavily used secondary road. It needs attention and it

needs completion, both in terms of the bridge and in terms of that

centre

section of the road which is not yet finalized in terms of

construction.

I appeal very strongly to the minister. Our

chambers of commerce and city councils in the area and literally dozens

of citizens are appealing to the ministry and certainly to me to be as

persuasive as I can in getting his ministry to move on that thing. When

we're spending hundreds of thousands — probably millions — on the Mica

Creek road to accommodate Hydro, surely we can be sensitive enough to

serve the needs of the tax-paying citizens in general.

Another

road I want to mention to the minister again is the Grandview Bench

Road which is a branch between Grindrod and Deep Creek on the Salmon

Arm–Enderby Road; it is sorely in need of upgrading. It's dangerous,

and there are school children utilizing that road heavily. In the

spring, particularly, vehicles are quite frequently prevented from even

traversing it. It is very dangerous at times, so I would appeal for an

allocation of money to upgrade at least the corners and the surface on

that road.

One other road that the regional district of

Columbia-Shuswap is very concerned about is the Salmon River Valley

road. I think the minister is familiar with that. It goes between

Salmon Arm and the O'Keefe Ranch, approximately, on the Falkland

Highway. It's a cutoff through there. It's quite heavily populated and

quite heavily utilized. There are some right-angle curves on that road

with little wooden bridges. We're seeing an increasing number of

accidents because there are quite a number of large trucks using the

road now. In making their right-angle turns onto a small wooden

structure, some small private automobiles are either getting squashed

against the railing or battered up, certainly. Some serious accidents

and personal injuries are flowing from that. I would ask the minister

to look very closely at that. I believe he's had representation from

the regional district members on that one too. It should be a priority,

in my view.

Another one is the Skimikin Road, which goes

through from Chase to Falkland. It's heavily used, with a large

agricultural community in there. There is certainly a need for

upgrading of the surface — not major construction but better

maintenance, a higher allocation of funds for upgrading, and

improvement of the surface where sloughing and dangerous shoulders

occur. There are quite a number of those on that road.

Those

are the main ones which are problematic in my riding. I would

appreciate it very much if the Minister of Highways would take a look

at the situation with some sense of urgency. I've been raising these

matters now for the last two years, and I believe that the Highways

ministry has an obligation to give some priority to those areas I have

mentioned. I'll look forward to reading the minister's response in Hansard ,

and I will hopefully look forward to a meeting with him to further

discuss the Enderby Bridge, to see whether or not we can't remove the

roadblock that's been there up to now.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Chairman, I don't think I'll answer all the member's questions, but

I'll attempt to. First of all, concerning the observation about Highway

23, I'm inclined to agree with you somewhat; this is the second or

third time the road has been changed. I said this morning that that

cost has been about $100 million. Hopefully, it will be finished in

1981. It's a major project that Hydro paid us for doing, and of course

it was incorporated in the cost of the dam. But one other thing you

didn't mention I think probably helped, regarding getting timber out of

there — I think that was a factor involved as well — not only just

people but the economy and getting timber out from above.

much for that. About the other question, I'll be really happy to accept

whatever assistance you can give. I'll gladly have a meeting with Wayne

Christian, the chief. I've already

[ Page

5709 ]

had meetings with him. I am a little concerned

about meeting him again, because he put me on tape during the last

meeting we had. I'll gladly go ahead. We want to get that resolved.

That bridge is in bad shape. We'll certainly cooperate in any way we

can. He's got the Grandview Bench road. We're going to spend money on

that in 1981 — not very much; we're going to spend $100,000 or

something like that. That's a lot of money to committee members, but it

isn't today when we're doing road work. I believe a D-8 bulldozer now

rents at $85 an hour. It doesn't take long to go through that type of

money. If my memory serves me correctly, we worked on this road in 1980

as well. The member didn't mention that. I'll have to get information

on the Salmon River valley road and the road from Chase to Falkland.

This

riding reminds me a lot of my own. They've got rural cow-trails running

all over the place. They're delightful rural roads, but what is

happening is that even city people are finding them now. We have

increased traffic. It might be tourism and interested B.C. citizens, or

it might even be for logging. All of a sudden, where a quiet rural road

was quite adequate, the use of it changes and then all our troubles

start — particularly on the logging side, through failure of bridges

that are not adequate for that type of equipment and so on. It goes on

in many rural parts of the province. Our people grapple with them and

finally get them up to the standard they should have been at before the

increased density of traffic started — whether it be passenger or

commercial vehicles. I learned that governments don't work that way.

They wait until the demand is there even if they know the demand is

coming; then funds are finally made available so you can get on. That

pretty well covers what I had for the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

MR. DAVIS:

This minister is much too modest. I listened to him this morning,

saying that he did all the talking and his very capable staff did all

the work. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman — I'm sure you know — that the

minister is not only very accessible and understanding, but he gets a

great deal done. This is one of the reasons why he's so popular, not

only in this chamber but also generally throughout the province.

want to ask the minister a few questions. They essentially relate to

matters which have not been raised so far in his estimates. They

involve several important initiatives which I believe the government

should be taking now or very soon. I'll start in my own riding of North

Vancouver–Seymour. It's the only constituency in British Columbia — and

perhaps on the North American continent — which is connected by a

one-lane Bailey bridge with the outside world. The minister has heard

me say this several times before. It's also one of the very few B.C.

ridings which gets an average of less than $100,000 per year from the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Some get tens of millions.

Many get millions. So financially it's North Vancouver–Seymour's turn.

It badly needs a four-lane bridge over the Seymour River, approaches

which connect it to the parkway to Mount Seymour in the east, and an

interconnector with the Trans-Canada Highway, just north of the Second

Narrows Bridge in the west.

I don't blame the Highways

minister or his ministry for the delay in this case. It is, indeed,

quite the opposite. The regional highways engineer, Mr. Mike O'Connor,

has attended numerous — I might say, innumerable — meetings between the

district municipality of North Vancouver and the Squamish Indian band.

The problem is that the western approach to the Seymour River crossing

is on Indian land. This land is already criss-crossed with B.C. Hydro

and highway rights-of-way. The Squamish band, quite rightly, is trying

to correct a number of these ancient ills. It's trying to tidy up its

remaining property, while the district of North Vancouver, for its

part, is trying to make sure that future developments on and

surrounding the reserve don't conflict too violently with its planning

for the same general area.

Hopefully we'll have a

three-party agreement — Highways, the Squamish band and the district

municipality — in a few weeks' time. Then construction of this much

needed east west link on the North Shore can get underway. With it will

be the opening up of literally hundreds of acres of prime residential

land, reaching eastward as far as Deep Cove on Burrard Inlet. Remember,

these lots would be within a half an hour's easy drive of downtown

Vancouver when the connector is in. That's the kind of development

which many prospective homeowners will welcome in the 1980s.

second priority, one which rates highly with many North and West

Vancouver residents, is the building of the Cassiar Street throughway

in Vancouver East. It's one which the first and second members for

Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett and Mr. Macdonald) in this Legislature

should welcome also. It's the long-overdue link south from the Second

Narrows Bridge through to Trans-Canada Highway 1. Built to a six lane

standard and passing under Hastings Street and other east-west

connectors in a trench, it would relieve much of the congestion around

the PNE site. It would speed up the traffic on the Trans-Canada

Highway, and it would take a lot of traffic off local streets.

Incidentally, Cassiar and Hastings is presently the busiest street

corner in all of British Columbia. It would eliminate two red lights on

the Trans-Canada Highway. It is my understanding that there are only

four lights on all of the Trans-Canada Highway from the east coast to

the west coast; two of them are on the Cassiar connector and two are on

the North Shore in Vancouver. I know the minister would like very much

to eliminate those lights and improve the traffic flow in that part of

our province.

I know that the present mayor of Vancouver and

some members of the Vancouver city council are dragging their feet on

this one, but sooner or later they are going to have to make up their

minds about a Cassiar Street connector — whether it should be in a

trench or in a more expensive tunnel, and if it's a tunnel, who should

pay the additional tens of millions of dollars for this vital

intersection. Surely the province shouldn't have to foot the bill for

100 percent of the cost of this nominally $100 million facility, when

it's the city of Vancouver which is responsible for all the delay, and

when the city also is toying with the idea of a tunnel when financial

considerations, neighbourhood priorities and indeed safety indicate

otherwise.

I'd like to ask the minister what progress, if

any, has been achieved in recent weeks re this Cassiar connector, and

whether he has heard anything at all from our two NDP members for

Vancouver East on this matter. Is the Leader of the Opposition, for

example, in any way interested in this vital transportation artery in

his own area? Is the second member for Vancouver East, the former

Attorney-General, lobbying with his party friends in city hall in

Vancouver to get this problem resolved? It's one which affects not only

Vancouver East but also Burnaby and all of the lower mainland

municipalities indirectly.

On finances, just to refresh everyone's memory, is the Highways ministry prepared to put up the $100 million or

[ Page 5710 ]

more

it will cost to expropriate property and build the Cassiar connector

through Vancouver East to Burnaby? What, if anything, are Mayor

Harcourt and his council saying about this bottleneck in our street and

highway system, which the province is prepared to move at provincial

expense, if only the city would give it the go-ahead?

Still

on highways, I believe it's about time we started planning for a third

route to the B.C. Interior. It would run north through Pemberton and

directly into the south Cariboo country. It would cut between 100 and

150 miles off a trip from Vancouver to Williams Lake or to Prince

George. It would relieve some pressure, at least, on the Trans-Canada

Highway through the Fraser Canyon. It would improve the service by

truck from the lower mainland into the Peace River area as well.

While

I applaud the minister's efforts to build a new four lane highway from

Hope through the Coquihalla Pass into the southern interior, I think

that another highway north from Vancouver is at least as important to

the citizens of B.C. — certainly to the citizenry north of Clinton.

After all, the geographical centre of the province, as the Chairman

well knows, is due north of Vancouver. But to go north we have to go

out of our way at least as far east as Hope. There's all that country

north of Pemberton to be opened up. There's the southern Chilcotin

country as well. No one knows this better than the hon. Minister of

Highways, who represents that particular area. It's a vast inland

empire. It's about time that we, with all our provincial wealth, modern

equipment and construction techniques, made it easier for our people

not only to visit the Cariboo country but to make their livelihood

there as well.

I know the minister is going to tell me that

he's spending many millions of dollars this year and next year on the

highway from Vancouver to Whistler. He's straightening out the worst

sections of Cheakamus Canyon, but there's a lot more to do between

North Vancouver and Squamish, especially in the 100-mile gap between

Pemberton Meadows and Big Creek in the Chilcotins, if we're to have a

real third route, one that can be traversed year-round from Vancouver,

north to the interior. That route running through Bralorne has to scale

two passes, one at Hurley Creek and the other leaving the Bridge River

watershed going north. The engineering required to build a highway

through those passes is by no means insurmountable, and the tourism

potential of this little-known part of the province is second to none.

We're

going to have to bypass Howe Sound for much of our traffic as the years

go by. Sooner or later we're going to have to build a highway directly

north from the Second Narrows Bridge in Vancouver. It would run 12 or

15 miles up the Seymour River, and then through a two- or three-mile

tunnel into the Indian River watershed. The Indian River, as you know,

discharges into the extreme north end of Burrard Inlet. From there it

would continue more or less in a straight line to Squamish. This way we

would cut some 40 miles off the run to Whistler, and 40 miles, of

course, on any run to the central interior, and make it a much easier

drive in the first 60 miles from Vancouver as opposed to the tortuous

drive along Howe Sound today via Horseshoe Bay and Britannia Beach.

Specifically,

I ask the hon. minister whether his ministry has any long-term plans

with regard to a direct north-south route from Vancouver to the

Cariboo. If so, where, roughly, would it go, and when might we see the

first real work begin on the link from Pemberton Meadows, north through

Bralorne to Big Creek in the southern Chilcotins?

I'm not

forgetting Vancouver Island. Also, I'm not forgetting the congestion

which is developing at the B.C. Ferries terminal at Horseshoe Bay in

West Vancouver. The answer, in my opinion, insofar as the Strait of

Georgia is concerned, is a ferry crossing from Iona Island next to the

Vancouver International Airport to Gabriola Island just south of

Nanaimo. This is a one-hour ferry crossing across the Strait of

Georgia. It's a crossing over only 17 miles of open water; not 34

miles, as is the case now, from Horseshoe Bay on the north shore of

Burrard Inlet to Departure Bay in downtown Nanaimo. In other words,

it's a much shorter run: half as long and half as much time. There

would be less manoeuvring at each end. Half as many ferries could carry

the same number of passengers, cars and trucks. The saving would

certainly pay for two new terminals, one at Iona and one at Gabriola

Island, with some to spare. Most people living in Vancouver, New

Westminster, Richmond, Surrey and up the Fraser Valley would find this

a more direct and convenient route to Nanaimo and north on Vancouver

Island. It would save them a lot of time. It would also reduce the

congestion on the First and Second Narrows Bridges over Burrard Inlet

to the North Shore — congestion which we experience now. Horseshoe Bay

would still be needed as a jumping-off point for theSun shine Coast.

The occasional ferry would also run from Horseshoe Bay to Gabriola

Island. But the congestion caused by ferry traffic in downtown Nanaimo

would also be eliminated. Anyone on Vancouver Island who was headed for

the Vancouver International Airport would find an Iona-Gabriola

crossing the route to take to the mainland. To put it another way, a

short Iona-Gabriola ferry crossing over the Strait of Georgia would

save a lot of gasoline, a lot of wear and tear on vehicles, literally

millions of hours in crossing time, take the bulk of the population

more directly to their main destination, reduce the need for another

bridge over Burrard Inlet and relieve congestion both on the North

Shore and in downtown Nanaimo.

What would be needed, of

course, would be a suitable highway connector from, say, the Oak Street

Bridge in Vancouver, over the Fraser and along the north side of Sea

Island to the Iona terminal. This is no engineering feat. It's really a

matter of getting our lower mainland municipalities together and

planning a ferry-feeder system which makes sense both from a traffic

flow and an environmental point of view. This is no small undertaking,

but it's certainly possible. It's very definitely desirable.

Could

I ask the minister another question? What is his ministry doing about

this Iona-Gabriola crossing? Are any provincial transportation people

working on it? Have B.C. Ferries been given any marching orders in this

connection, and are there any recent estimates of costs as to terminal

approaches, etc? As I see it, this is a major requirement. It's a

several hundred million dollar crossing; not several billion dollars,

as a fixed-link bridge-tunnel would cost, but several hundred million

dollars nevertheless. It's certainly cheaper than continuing to build

more ferries — any number of additional ferries at $30 million a copy —

and manning them with the required number of ferry workers. The

Iona-Gabriola crossing would be much cheaper, especially in the long

run, than adding more and bigger vessels to our existing Strait of

Georgia ferry routes. It's peanuts as compared with northeast coal or

the financing of a modern light-rail rapid transit system in the

greater Vancouver area. It's the best possible link between our two

principal centres of population on the coast, the lower mainland and

Vancouver Island. The sooner we get at it the better.

[ Page 5711 ]

Still

on the subject of a new ferry crossing over the Strait of Georgia, I

would like to see a cost-benefit study done, comparing the building of

an Iona-Gabriola link with that of putting more and larger vessels on

our existing runs. It would show that the addition of a short one-hour

crossing would have an excess of benefits over costs of the order of

three or four to one,

whereas reinforcing our present routes might be

of the order of one to one. Clearly we're losing money by failing to

act, if this is true. We're not using our imagination. Worse than that,

we're not planning ahead even as much as five years into the future.

New

stretches of highway are needed on Vancouver Island. That's apparent

from a recent study released by the ministry. I know the minister is on

top of that subject. Following B.C. Hydro and old railway rights-of-way

will avoid the built-up areas and leave the best waterfront locations

for residential and other purposes. Already we can drive to Port Hardy

with relative ease. Before this decade is out, Vancouver Island will

have first-class express highways running from one end to the other.

But

here I'd like to make an aside. Why does the government also have to

run a government-owned bus system on Vancouver Island? It's putting

enough money into the road system, and it's trying to get people to

ride the E&N Railway. I can't see why we don't leave long-distance

highway transport on Vancouver Island for the private sector. We do in

the interior, we do in the north. It's generally the rule elsewhere in

North America. The taxpayer builds the roads, the user pays the rest.

To that extent it makes sense in the rest of the world, so why not here

on Vancouver Island?

While I'm still on the subject of

user-pay, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to refer again to B.C. Ferries.

Commercial traffic across the Strait of Georgia should pay a commercial

rate. B.C. Ferry rates should cover all costs: salaries, wages, fuel

and capital. These B.C. Ferries rates shouldn't be subsidized by the

taxpayer. As it is, B.C. Ferries is tending to drive private

competitors off the water. It's done this with the passenger mode.

Perhaps that's inevitable. But it's also doing it with trucking, and it

could easily do it with container freight as well. Hopefully B.C.

Ferries will limit its activities to traffic of the roll-on, roll-off

variety. It has to, or the ferry union will really have Vancouver

Islanders by the throat. Not only will the CPR have left the scene

insofar as the barging of truck trailers is concerned, but there will

be little private sector help left in the event of a B.C. Ferries

shutdown in the future.

I'd like to ask the minister what

the government's pricing policy will be with respect to commercial

traffic across the Strait of Georgia. Is B.C. Ferries going to charge

commercial rates — that is, for commercial traffic — or isn't it, and

are these rates going to be set in such a way as to tolerate a certain

kind of competition? Or is the government intent on socializing all of

our roll-on, roll-off traffic on the west coast?

Finally, a detail: I gather B.C. Ferries will shortly be ordering another Queen of Alberni -type

ferry. This is the fast so-called overheight ferry, which carries big

trucks between Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay currently. I gather a second

ferry of this kind may be ordered, built and running between Horseshoe

Bay and Nanaimo by 1984. My question really is: why not run this

particular type of ferry, these overnight, freight-carrying ferries, on

a 24-hour basis? They're fast, efficient, and could easily be run on a

three-shift basis. They could carry trucks running at night, and they

could also look after a substantial number of cars and passengers which

presently have to wait until the following morning to go to their

destination on either side of the Strait of Georgia.

Finally,

a word about the Highways ministry's own ferries — that is the ministry

ferries as opposed to B.C. Ferries. The rates they charge, both on the

coast and throughout the rest of the province, should be rationalized.

In some cases this would mean rate increases, some of them even by a

factor of two or three or four. But common sense must also prevail

here. Where the ferry crossings are lightly travelled, or where the

traffic is highly seasonal, or where the community served has no other

access to the outside, then perhaps there should be no user charge at

all. The cost of administering a toll system, certainly if the crossing

was lightly used, could use up much of the income obtained from the

fares. So in those cases there should be no payment whatsoever. But

there are other crossings intensively used, and they should pay more. I

say this not only for the Highways ministry's own ferries, but also for

B.C. Ferries, In other words, the big volume, extensively travelled

routes should be user-pay to a significant extent at least. But on the

thin, lightly travelled routes, especially those connecting small

communities to the rest of the province where those communities have no

alternative means of transport, the charge should be zero — in other

words, free ferry service — because these people also pay taxes and

they aren't receiving any substantial transportation service from the

government of B.C. now.

As far as a number of up-coast

points are concerned, I'd say this: if a new highway or road has been

built into a remote community, then there's really no need for a big

expensive ferry to call in. Generally speaking, roads and highways are

much cheaper to maintain and operate than ships are. A good highway to

the rest of the province, especially if it's backed up by an airport,

should mean no ferry service. Conversely, if there's no way of getting

out of one of these relatively remote communities other than by water

or by air, then a ferry service must be considered. I say considered

because the air mode is often the best, especially as far as passengers

are concerned.

This brings me to my last point, Mr.

Chairman. Perhaps I can phrase it in terms of a question to the

minister. Has the government considered, or is it now considering, the

establishment of a transportation voucher system which would give these

prospective users of provincial transportation services a choice — I

mean those who live in remote and difficult to-get-at locations,

especially in northwestern B.C.? Then British Columbians in those

places could go by air if they wanted to or by water on a neighbour's

fishboat or by a commercial surface carrier, whichever was most

convenient to him or her at any particular day or month of the year. A

proposal along these lines was made to the government by the director

of transportation studies at the University of British Columbia, Dr.

Karl Ruppenthal, in 1978. In my view, it's bound to be a better system

insofar as convenience to the user is concerned — at least users in

those remote and poorly served areas. By relying primarily on the

private sector, it will be less expensive to administer than an

elaborate government-owned ferry system or a government air lift and

ferry system would be in the 1980s.

Mr. Chairman, those are

all of my questions for the moment. I know they involve transportation

policy to some extent, but they also raise matters to which I know the

minister has given a great deal of thought. So I'll listen to his

response with interest.

[ Page 5712 ]

HON. MR. FRASER:

To my hon. colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour, I always appreciate

his observations. They're well thought out. He has another advantage

over the rest of us — he's also a good professional engineer. So he has

that professional expertise as well, and it's much appreciated.

don't know just where to start, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to

deal with the Bailey bridge in North Vancouver–Seymour, and tell you

that I've always thought since I've been minister that it's a disgrace

in the metropolitan area of our great province. While I don't want to

blame anybody, it is again involved with the acquisition of Indian

land. I'm happy to report to the committee today and to the member who

represents that area that an agreement has been reached. We have

acquired the land. Someday we'll all know how much it cost, but it's a

lot of money. It's my information that the Bailey bridge will be

history in North Vancouver–Seymour, hopefully within 18 months. What

has been holding it up is acquisition of the right-of-way.

have here the same problem that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr.

King) brought up. We have to have the land there for that structure and

the natives want tough conditions attached. We've been negotiating with

them for some time, but we haven't concluded that. I've sat in on some

of these negotiations, and I might say that they're very interesting.

The native people have a lot of cause to be tough with us. In the case

of North Vancouver–Seymour, I think the government has taken advantage

of this people's lands in the past, no matter who the government or the

Crown corporation was. When we want more land, they're coming along and

saying: "You correct the mistakes you made in the last hundred years to

start with, and then we might consider talking about what you want to

take now."

The same applies in the Enderby situation, where

we have public roads through their reserve. We want further land to

construct a bridge on. We don't need very much land, but they're

saying: "Oh, no. You clean up the mess you made 50 years ago, because

we can't find where any permission was given to put these roads on this

reserve. They're our lands." They're correct there. So there are two

sides to every story and that's their side of the story there.

Negotiations take time. In a lot of these cases we are cleaning up

errors of the past. I only say that factually, not critically. Things

are different today.

I'm happy in the case of the Bailey

bridge in your riding of North Vancouver–Seymour. Hopefully we can get

on and get construction started this fall. I'd say that it could be a

Christmas present for December 1982. That's roughly 18 months.

The

member mentioned the building of the Cassiar Street throughway in

Vancouver East. This is a vital piece of road that has to be upgraded.

The best way I can describe it is that the freeway ends and then we go

down to a street system to get to the Second Narrows Bridge. At the

corner of Hastings and Cassiar in the city of Vancouver we have the

busiest intersection in the province of British Columbia. No matter

what day of the week it is, thousands and thousands of vehicles of all

descriptions are going through there. It's way over capacity. What have

we done about it? We've done lots about it, but haven't achieved very

much. We're dealing with the city of Vancouver because it's their

street. We have offered to correct this. I believe the cost in 1979

dollars was about $30 million. That will have escalated now. Our

engineers recommend a sunken street on Cassiar. Then we got all the

sidewalk engineers in, as we do when we deal with municipalities, and

they said a tunnel has to be built. Our engineers say no way.

any case, we were dealing with the city of Vancouver in 1980 and had

come to some policy arrangements. Then we had a change of government.

As a minister of the Crown, I might say for the press that I find this

very time-delaying, regardless of party politics. I find, so often,

dealing with 147 municipalities in this province, that we would just

about get a deal set by October of the year and the old yearly

municipal election bandwagon would start rolling out. Where we think we

have a deal, all of a sudden I find out — particularly in this

ministry, being in the centre of the municipal election battle, pro and

con — that all the negotiations we had going are invariably thrown out

the window and we start all over again with a new council. As you know,

the city of Vancouver is on a two-year basis, as are some other places.

But 50 percent of our municipalities' councils change every year. I

find it very difficult to make progress, based on that fact of life. I

appreciate that if, say, 40 percent of the people on the council are

new, everything has to start from square one again.

dealing with Hastings and Cassiar, there was a change of government.

Just prior to the change of government the city of Vancouver had asked

for what we call a multi-disciplinary study to evaluate the proposed

freeway design and other alternatives. Terms of reference had been

agreed to by staff. That was where it was during the elections of

November 1980. I have recently written the new mayor of Vancouver and

suggested we have a meeting and see where we're going on it. I haven't

heard a thing about it — maybe staff have — from the new mayor of

Vancouver. I don't know what their attitude is. We feel that it's a

very necessary improvement to our network, that it's an advantage to

the city of Vancouver and an advantage to all the people of British

Columbia.

We have bought I don't know how many houses to

make way for the widening of Cassiar — I might say on behalf of the

city of Vancouver — and they've acquired a lot, through the parks

branch and so on. When I get about an hour off a month I spend it near

Hastings and Cassiar. I was looking there the other day and there are a

lot of dwellings boarded up. We'd sure like to get on with it. There is

a big investment already in acquisition of property either by the city

or by us and it is my understanding that whatever money the city has

spent for acquisition of property, our ministry ends up paying them for

that as well — and that's fine. That's where it's at.

The

other comment I have on this serious bottleneck is that we have this —

as I like to call it — rat-running going on in the Burnaby North

riding. There isn't adequate capacity on the road, so the motorist

takes the quick way out and tears all over residential streets. Where

municipalities won't live up to their obligations of moving their main

traffic, we have this running through residential areas that shouldn't

be happening at all, if we would upgrade the main arteries. It's

serious in the East End, and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour

(Mr. Davis) has asked what contribution we had from the Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Barrett) and his seatmate the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I kept

them informed of what was going on, but I can't say that I've had any

real pressure from the Leader of the Opposition or the member for

Vancouver East, because this is in their riding as well. All we have is

the agreement that I keep them informed, and I've done that, but there

hasn't been much to inform them about, because not a great deal has

been going on. I would like their help in trying to move on to get

something done about it.

[ Page 5713 ]

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour

mentions a third route to the B.C. interior running north from

Pemberton and into the Cariboo country. Well, I'd sure like to buy

that. What we've actually done, Mr. Chairman, is taken over the Duffey

Lake road and put it from the forestry inventory into the highway

inventory — now that is a public road — and we go from North Vancouver

to Whistler to Pemberton and across the Duffey Lake road into Lillooet.

I might say that that's a gravel road from Pemberton over to Lillooet;

it's a fairly good alignment, as the engineers say. We try to maintain

it 12 months of the year, but because part of it is in an avalanche

area, it might be closed for a couple of months. I don't know whether

it was closed last winter, and maybe it wasn't, because we didn't have

heavy snow, but that is another route there now. Then of course you

come out at Lillooet and go on Highway 12 to Highway 97, which goes

north. We have started on that and we intend to keep on upgrading.

Where it isn't on the route that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour

recommended....The engineers tell me the other route is very difficult

and far more expensive than this one. We have made, I guess we'll say,

a feeble start. But when I'm talking about Highway 99, I think that the

member certainly raised a big problem that we're aware of: we haven't

really a decent road from North Vancouver to Squamish. Someday somebody

is going to have to make a decision to get out of Howe Sound. To get

out of Howe Sound is quite simple. We go up into the Greater Vancouver

Water District's reservoir area, and again we're not very popular. The

decision would be simple, if that's all we had to do.

The

present road is confined between the railroad and Howe Sound, and only

a week or so ago we had a rockslide that closed it. We haven't got an

adequate road from North Vancouver to Squamish; we're trying to make it

adequate. Then we go from Squamish to Whistler, and we're working at

that now. We're eliminating Cheakamus Canyon, and there has been

horrendous expansion at Whistler — hundreds of millions of dollars; I

can't believe it when I look at it. If the members haven't seen it,

they should go and look at it. But again their vital link, of course,

is the highway. We had floods last winter. But we are expanding that

road. The road's not too bad from Whistler north to Pemberton. As I

say, it's not an urgent matter; it isn't something you lie awake at

night and worry about, but somebody's going to have to.... The road

from North Vancouver to Squamish is completely inadequate for the

modern-day density of traffic, and the traffic is getting denser every

day.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The member for

North Vancouver–Seymour raised so many serious transportation policy

items that I want to take some care in replying. He dealt with the

Strait of Georgia ferry crossing from Iona Island to Gabriola Island.

Mr. Chairman and members, I told you earlier in committee that we're

putting $90 million worth of new boats into the water between now and

July 1 to try and keep up, but at B.C. Ferries we know that policy

decisions are going to have to be made. We're not going to be able to

accommodate the ever-increasing traffic load on B.C. Ferries; it

averages at least 10 percent per year. If we keep putting these large

boats in the water, they're going to start hitting each other pretty

soon. It seems to me that a large decision has to be made by B.C. Ferry

Corporation directors in the form of a recommendation to the

government. They're going to have to look at Iona-Gabriola or any other

alternatives that have been around for years. In 1969 I heard

discussion in this Legislature about the Iona-Gabriola crossing. I

didn't know very much about it then, and I didn't worry about it. It

does cut down the time to cross to approximately three-quarters of an

hour. Maybe it's the right way to go.

There's one thing on

which I'd like to correct the member for North Vancouver–Seymour: B.C.

Ferries now have a ten year plan, where this is being discussed. The

ten-year plan is not written in stone. It has some rough outlines of

what they feel should happen to this very important transportation link

to 1990, how it would be financed and so on.

Regarding the

proposed Iona-Gabriola route, a decision on it or on an alternative

route has to be made at a policy level within the next 12 months, so

that it would be in place to look after the ever-increasing use of the

ferry system. Maybe I'm a little optimistic, but I don't think the

decision as to where we are going should be left for, say, two years.

Once the decision is made, there are bridges to build from Gabriola to

the Island; there are a lot of things to do if this is the route

decided on. I've heard different figures mentioned, but I'm not too

interested in figures. The policy decision hasn't been made. Time rolls

on, and with inflation, figures are only approximations when you are

moving into construction time-frames. But I think we are getting pretty

close to where somebody has to face the music on the facts of the ferry

system.

One thing I'll say on behalf of the government is

that the government has made a policy decision that we're not going to

build a tunnel, or whatever it is; that is out. I think that brings

things into focus. We'd better get on with the question of what we are

going to do with this very vital transportation link and its expansion

in the immediate ten-year future.

I agree with the member

for North Vancouver- Seymour in his observation that this is the better

thing to do, and the government agrees with the bridge-tunnel concept.

Another

question the member asked is really interesting to me. Why does the

government have to run a government owned bus system on Vancouver

Island? I'd like to make it abundantly clear, Mr. Chairman, that it

doesn't come under my responsibility. But it really is a good question,

because in the rest of the province the private sector looks after

that. Through my riding, Greyhound Bus Lines — I have no shares in them

— go through the Cariboo and into Prince George and over to prince

Rupert and back three times a day. I've never heard the Greyhound Bus

Lines complaining that they're losing money, but the Vancouver Island

bus line will lose $10 million this year. I don't know if I said I

agreed with you, Mr. Member, but those are the facts of life. Why?

Again, it doesn't come under my jurisdiction. The member wanted a reply

and that's as I see it.

He also dealt with the idea of running the Queen of Alberni

— commonly referred to as the truck ferry — on a 24-hour basis. That

has certainly been kicked around somewhat. We have no ferries running

24 hours a day at the present time. I think Mr. Gallagher will agree

with me that we have to have some downtime in a 24-hour period to

service these large and fine vessels — to fuel them and so on. But I

guess it's not impossible. Right now the Queen of Alberni

starts work every day at 6 o'clock in the morning, long before you

people are awake, and finally ties up at 10 or 11 o'clock at night.

She's certainly doing her share. But I guess we can close the gap

further on that.

[ Page 5714 ]

Regarding

the rates of the Alberni that the member brought up, a real policy

question and one of great concern to the government and the board of

ferry directors is the rates we charge for commercial vehicles. I'd

like to advise the committee that we have burnped the rate for

commercial vehicles quite substantially in the last 12 months. We now

have a rate per foot; I believe it's $1.80 a foot. That rate is not

based on what Charlie Gallagher or Alex Fraser grab out of the sky;

it's based on the cost of running the Queen of Alberni . It's not based on profit, but based on the cost of running the Queen of Alberni .

Maybe at that rate we should have a profit, but we've never had a rate

before that would cover the total cost of operation of any vessel,

including the Queen of Alberni . We now have that.

Why

is it so important? I'd like to make one observation for the Island

members particularly. You see only the tip of the iceberg when I talked

about the Princess of Vancouver

going out of service with the CPR. What they have left is a tugboat

service — a barge. I predict here today that it will be out of service

in two years. I haven't got that from the CPR, but I predict that here

and now. This is an important tie to the rate that we charge

commercially. When they're gone, we only have one option left for the

Island — B.C. Ferries — and that worries us. They now charge more than

we do. I understand the CPR says that that's not enough. I guess from

the size of that company, they can probably take the money they have

invested in CP Marine on the west coast and put it somewhere else where

it will do more good for the shareholders of CPR. As I say, I predict

that we've seen the tip of the iceberg with the Princess of Vancouver

going. I think more are going. It is quite a worry. B.C. Ferries are

left with the responsibility of all the marine transportation to the

Island.

The member mentioned ordering another Queen of Alberni .

The board of directors have not made that decision. It's only under

discussion. Once a decision is made for a second truck ferry, it will

take approximately two years to build.

The last item is

Highways ferry rates. There is always a lot of discussion about that.

Some Highways ferries are fairly good and some are pretty antiquated.

Some have a toll and some don't. In any case, the fact is that we have

raised the ferry rates on Highways ferries. It was approximately

doubled last year. The revenue from the Highways ferry system — I

believe we operate 35 vessels — is $2 million a year. I want the

committee to remember this: the operating cost is $20 million. That

vote is in highway maintenance. That's where that is picked up, so the

gap is quite substantial.

Thank you very much for your

contribution, Mr. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour. I've tried to hit

some large policy matters for the committee.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, could I ask leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

The national government has a program called Open House Canada in which

students are exchanged from one part of the country to another. One of

the schools in my constituency — the Fort Langley Junior Secondary

School — has been fortunate in having, as its twin school, a school

from St. John's, Newfoundland. They've been in Fort Langley and they're

in Victoria today. I'd like very much to introduce the students from

Fort Langley Junior

Secondary School and the 40 students

from St. John's, Newfoundland, along with the people who are

accompanying them. They are three teachers from Newfoundland: Clayton

Handrigon, Herb Hopkins and Jan O'Brian, and from Fort Langley, a

teacher from the secondary school, Diane Gorton, and Mrs. Pitt, one of

the mothers of the children. They're all led by the sponsor teacher,

Burns Maddin, from Fort Langley. I'd like you all to make them very

welcome.

MR. GABELMANN: I was amused in listening to

the member for North Vancouver–Seymour and the minister discussing the

issue of the Bailey bridge in North Vancouver. I'm the MLA who arranged

with the Highways minister of the day to put that bridge in seven or

eight years ago. At that time it was going in for about 18 months at

the most. It was a temporary bridge to repair the old structure that

did cross the river at that point. I think it's a typical length of

time for these Bailey bridges to be in operation. Later on in my

comments I want to talk about another Bailey bridge in my present

riding.

Today I don't want to make any broad philosophical

comments about transportation, but rather to talk about a number of

very specific issues that are almost exclusively North Island political

issues. They have been raised by various people in my constituency —

not only by the public, through letters, phone calls and public

meetings, but also through municipal councils and regional districts. A

couple of the issues are a little broader than North Island, but most

of them are North Island issues.

On the question of fares on

ministry ferries, there's a lack of understanding in the community

which uses those ferries on the coast of the reason that a ship, boat

or vessel sailing in fresh water should be free and one sailing in salt

water should cost money. That's a policy distinction that doesn't make

much sense. I don't know what the quality of the salt water does to

suddenly create some fare on the ferries. It may be cleaning barnacles

— I don't know what it is. But there is some illogical policy in effect

in that respect, when most of the inland water ferries are free.

would agree, in general, with what I sensed as a developing theme

coming from both the member for North Vancouver–Seymour and the

minister about the way in which fares should be applied on those

ferries. If the ferries are serving communities that are not otherwise

served by transportation links available to an automobile, then the

people who live on those islands should be able to use the ferry system

in the same way I can use the highway system from Campbell River to

Victoria. It is, in effect, free — apart from my gasoline tax for the

number of gallons of gasoline I burn. Perhaps the fare should be the

equivalent of the number of gallons of gasoline that would be burned.

That's such a minimal amount that it wouldn't be worth collecting.

seems to me that the policy which should be developed is one that works

toward a solution where a kind of commuter card or pass would be issued

to people who are dependent on the ferry to get from their home to the

nearest highway, and people who are casual users of the ferry —

tourists, visitors or other people that are casual users — should pay

an appropriate fee. I think that's a policy direction that should be

worked towards on all the ferries operated by the ministry. I know the

political problems that are involved in that, but I think a

rationalization like that could be sold and would be appropriate.

That's all on that issue.

The major issue this afternoon is one that relates to this document, which you'll recognize, Mr. Minister. It's the

[ Page 5715 ]

"Vancouver Island Inland Highway —

section from Mud

Bay to Menzies Bay...Study." I spent almost all of yesterday afternoon

reading the report. I read all the copy and studied most of the maps

fairly extensively. From my layman's point of view it's a comprehensive

report. I'm not an engineer or qualified at all to make any technical

judgments, but it's a report that I sense to be well done. It's quite

comprehensive and very well done.

In that connection I want to read a headline from a Province newspaper printed in 1949. The headline says: "Island Highway Linked to Election." They've reprinted that headline in today's Province .

There's a lot of skepticism on central and northern Vancouver Island

about this inland highway. The old-timers there tell me it's been

surveyed, resurveyed and talked about since at least 1949. I hope this

study, which is a consultant study and not a ministerial study

directly, is finally a firm indication that the bypass will occur.

want to raise a couple of questions. Most of the questions do not

relate to the route selected. I have a general bias toward the same

recommendations that the report makes, which is that the middle route

be chosen — roughly the hydro access line. Obviously there are some

variations. There are some real complications crossing Campbell River

itself, with the park and various other problems up there. But in

general my own bias would be that the recommendation of the

consultants, the mid choice, be taken as appropriate. To take the one

close to the existing highway would, I think, interfere too much with

existing settlement: to go back to the base of the mountains would make

the road like a ghost town much of the time, because a lot of the local

traffic would not use it. To be specific, in the Campbell River area

one of the real needs is to get the pulpmill traffic from the pulpmill

through Campbell River and then down through Willow Point, Shelter

Point and often down through into Comox, because there are a lot of

people who live in Courtenay, Comox, Black Creek, Merville and that

area who work in the pulpmill. If the inland highway is way back

against the mountains, those pulpmill workers are going to think twice

about driving 20 miles out of their way to get home. Those kinds of

considerations have to be taken into account as well as the technical

and environmental concerns, property acquisition and all those other

concerns that exist. But in general I think there would be some

widespread support for that hydro line right-of-way route which, as I

say, is the one the consultants recommend.

On page 24 of the

report, in talking about the natural gas pipeline which would come up

the Island and in some cases interact with the highway, it says: "It is

most likely that the gas pipeline will be designed and built before

detailed design of the highway is carried out." In going through the

report I was trying to pin down when we might see a bulldozer or

chainsaw on the route. I gather that we won't even see design details

completed until after the gas pipeline is built. It will be at least

three years, I would guess, before we see that. I wonder if the

minister could clarify that comment.

On page 73 they talk

about future growth of tourism. Tourism has been growing at about 9

percent per year in that area. They say that between 1986 and 1991 — in

other words, from five years until ten years from now — there will be

an almost half-halfing. The growth in the tourist industry will be cut

almost in half in that second five years of the next ten. From

everything I've heard to date about this highway, according to the

minister it will be ten years from now before the road is built. My

appeal there would not only be because of tourist shortfalls or growth

cutbacks in the second five years. Basically, the time-frame for this

highway should be speeded up.

The traffic flows in 1979 — a

summer average, basic Highway 19; we're not talking about the excesses

in Courtenay and in downtown Campbell River — show that the average

daily traffic count is 8,500. In 1991 that would go to 15,200 — not

quite but almost double in the ten years. That highway can't take

double the traffic, even with the nice new paving we've got now between

Campbell River and Courtenay and the little bit of widening, the odd

curve straightened and those kinds of things. I'm sure the minister

knows, and anyone driving that road knows, that we can't take any more,

much less doubling. Yet according to the report, it will virtually

double in ten years. It will increase by 50 percent in five years. I

don't know how the existing highway is going to take that. You look at

some of the stories in the local press about the death rate on that

highway — the number of accidents and the number of people who are

killed — between Courtenay and Campbell River particularly. The police

call it the "path of death." That's not going to change very much even

with a new coat of pavement, because the basic alignment hasn't changed

— the ups and downs. I don't know the engineering terms for it; "the

horizontal and vertical alignments" makes the most sense to me — those

haven't changed very much. We've got some real problems. If the

minister is still talking about a ten-year plan for this road, we've

got some problems in terms of handling that traffic if the projections

are anywhere near accurate.

There's a curious statement on

page 123 of the report, which is hopeful. I'd like the minister to

confirm this. It's in a

section dealing with tourism impacts. It talks

about the average number of vehicles in the area from May to September

which are tourist-component only. They talk about there being almost

3,000 tourist vehicles in the area in 1981. In 1985 they expect just

over 4,000 — about a 50 percent increase again and consistent with the

other figures. Then they have a gap between 1985 and 1986. In the gap

it says: "New inland highway constructed, summer of 1985." This is in

the report. I see a few smiles in the far back row. This would be

welcome news indeed, Mr. Chairman, in Courtenay, Campbell River and all

up and down the Island if this consultant's report is predicting

anything near what could be achieved. I appreciate that these things

take time. You haven't even selected the precise route yet, so how can

you start building. We appreciate all of that. All I would urge you to

do is see whether or not we can target the summer of 1985 as a

completion date. That would meet all the needs and demands of people in

our area, I'm sure.

When you look at the figures, if you go

through to 1991, which is the ten-year number that has been talked

about, you go from 3,000 tourist vehicles to just over 12,000 — a

quadrupling. There is no way that the road system that exists up there

can handle that kind of traffic volume.

I won't say very

much more about the by-pass. I hope the headline and the story in the

Province are — I'm not quite sure how to put this, Mr. Chairman.... We

will all gain politically should the road be built, but that's not why

it should be built. It should be built because it's long overdue. It's

one of the worst areas — as I'm sure the minister knows — in the

province for highway problems. I won't say more about it than that at

the present time.

In recognizing what the needs are in each

constituency, presumably the ministry has to make some priorities. We

all do. As I said to a group of high school students this morning

[ Page 5716 ]

who

were down from Port McNeill and the surrounding area, to meet all the

needs that I hear of in North Island we would have to have a tripled

and quadrupled Highways budget. Then we could just begin to do the

kinds of things that everybody is demanding that we do. We all have to

make some choices. In making my comments in these estimates, I make

some choices too. While I will raise five or six different issues in

doing that, I want the minister to understand that each of the issues

does not have an equal importance or urgency.

There is

unanimity that the urgent priority is the bypass of the Campbell

River-Courtenay area. That's not just something that is asked for by

people who live in Campbell River and Courtenay. That is particularly

asked for by people who live all the way up the Island, who are trying

to get down to meet a ferry and who often miss the Nanaimo ferry

because they don't take into account that it takes an hour to get

through Courtenay on many days, particularly Friday afternoons at 4:30

— which is about the time I go through there going north on Friday

afternoon, and it seems to take me forever. This is something that

everybody in our constituency — and in the constituencies of both Comox

and North Island, I think — would see as the priority.

There

are, however, other things that need to be done. I'm not going to

mention them all. I'm only going to mention a few of them. There are a

whole variety of them,

We have a beautiful highway — the

best part of it, anyway from Menzies Bay right to Port McNeill. It's

gorgeous from Sayward to Port McNeill. I think that next to the skyway

— Salmo-Creston — it's one of the nicest roads in the province. It's

well engineered. The speed limits are ridiculous because your car just

can't go that slow on a road that's so great. Fortunately, the police

are expanding their radar traps.

When you get to Port

McNeill and are on your way to Port Hardy, you've got to drive over an

old logging road with pavement on it. The logging road was built in the

days when trucks were under-powered, so it goes this way, that way and

curves around. Every corner that's imaginable is found because it's

attempting to follow grade. In one place there's a hill that might be 3

percent. The guy who designed the road back in the late 1940s tells me

that he made a mistake and it was too steep. In short, the road is

absolutely inadequate. You come off the new stretch from Port Hardy

down to just south of the airport turnoff, and from there through to

Port McNeill you're driving on what is, in effect, a paved logging

road. It's a treacherous road. There are many accidents because people

aren't expecting that kind of grade. There must be some decisions made

soon to realign that road. It's not expensive work in there. There's

not a lot of rock work and there are no big hills. It should be

relatively simple work.

There are two issues involved in the

three communities of Gold River, Tahsis and Woss that I want to talk

about. Essentially, the problem is that the people of Tahsis have this

terrible 44 miles of forest access road to get out of their community

to Gold River. I've driven that road many times. Sometimes it's

passable. Sometimes it's flooded and you can't get through. I know

there have been problems with the ambulance getting out of Tahsis

because there are a couple of spots where the road is flooded,

sometimes two and three feet deep. The community — through the general

comment in the community and also through the council of the community

— have been pushing for a road from Tahsis to Woss and up past Rugged

Mountain.

I had an opportunity a month or two ago to fly

over that proposed route in a helicopter, down Woss Lake to the

existing CanFor logging roads on the east side. That's tough terrain.

I'm not an engineer and I don't know how to build roads, but I would

agree that it's a very difficult road-building area. I gather that the

ministry has looked at it. I also gather that you've looked at the

costs of upgrading the connection between Tahsis and Gold River going

the other way. The figures I saw most recently indicate that you've got

an expensive proposition either way. Some decision — like so many other

issues that are in front of us — is going to have to be made soon, one

way or the other. The community very overwhelmingly wants the Woss

connection because it's quicker, it's lower and they claim there

wouldn't be as much snow clearance, although that one pass is fairly

high.

I can't make the judgment. On the one hand I've got

the village council and the people telling me that they want the new

road through Woss and on the other hand I've got the Tahsis Co. saying

that it's insane and that it could never be built and that the logical

thing to do is to go through Gold River. The position I've taken on the

matter is that I want to see what the costs are either way. I want to

see what the benefits and problems are for going either way. Hopefully

we'll get a decision soon so we can put the arguments and what not that

are going on in Tahsis to rest. What we have now is not good enough.

The existing road to Gold River is just not satisfactory for a

community the size of Tahsis.

(Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

have a lot of forest access roads or, in some cases, logging company

roads in my riding in the various TFLs. Many of these serve public

communities use, sometimes more than they serve the TFL or logging

company use. I think a policy that said "publicly used roads should be

public roads" would make sense. At the present time we upgrade and

maintain a lot of these roads by writing off stumpage through

section

88 of the Forest Act. I would just as soon have the stumpage come in,

have it collected, have the Highways budget increased by a similar

amount, and have these roads become the responsibility of the Ministry

of Transportation and Highways. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me

that, for example, the road north of Woss from the Island Highway —

through to Zeballos and onto Fair Harbour — should be in the control of

CanFor and then Tahsis. That's a public highway. When I drive that road

there are freight trucks, tourist vehicles and vehicles from logging

companies — Doman's, Crown Zellerbach and other companies — using the

road, yet it's a road that is controlled and maintained by two logging

companies. Why should the Tahsis Co. spend as much time and money as

they do maintaining their

section of the road, when they are only a

partial benefactor, a partial user, of the road? They are a significant

user, yes; the major user, yes; but not the total user. So the whole

policy of publicly used roads remaining under the Forest Service

responsibility or forest company responsibility doesn't make sense to

me. If they're publicly used, they should be public highways, in my

judgment, and I'd be interested in how the minister sees that.

Now

to the Bailey bridge — and the minister knows, I'm sure, I'm referring

to the Bailey bridge over Marble Creek. I'd be interested in knowing

what the timetable is for the construction and the realignment of that

bad corner there and the construction of a new bridge at that

particular point.

[ Page 5717 ]

There

have been some problems with the bridge; I gather that there has been

some strengthening of it, because it tends to bow in the middle

whenever there is heavy weight on it. Nevertheless, people in Port

Alice particularly are concerned that there be some decision made soon

about the construction of that road. They also would like to have the

road straightened out between the Island Highway and Port Alice, but I

said to them that that's pretty much low down on the priority list and

that there are some other issues that will have to come ahead of that

one. So I'm not asking you to do that at the moment, but I am asking

you to consider, or tell us if you can, when the new bridge will be

constructed there.

The municipality of Port McNeill has a

road which is in effect one of its main streets; it is named Campbell

Way after a former member of this House, and there are continuing

problems. It's not only the main link into Port McNeill, but it's also

the main road into the ferry terminal, which then takes you on to

Sointula and Alert Bay and is therefore very clearly a public highway.

There have been some concerns — and I know the minister heard from the

mayor when he was last in Port McNeill, and he's probably heard since

from the mayor and his council — about the need for some quicker action

on some of the curbs and sidewalks and guttering that needs to be done,

and then the repaving. I mention that just to remind the minister.

Erickson

Road in Campbell River. We've got a perplexing one here, because it's a

municipal street in many ways, but it connects the Island Highway to

the municipal airport, but it's obviously a major airport facility that

is used by PWA. I don't understand why that road couldn't be rebuilt on

a one third, one-third, one-third basis, and why we can't say to the

three levels of government, federal, municipal and provincial: "We'll

get on with that job on a one-third basis each and just reconstruct

that road." It needs to be realigned as well and reconstructed totally.

So I ask the minister for his comments on that.

Before I go

to a couple of comments in conclusion on the ferries, I'd be interested

in the minister's reaction, if he's able to give me any today, about

comments that are made by people who live on the Oyster River about the

way in which the bridge was constructed and the abutments were placed

on Highway 19 being the major factor for the flooding we had which

destroyed several homes on the Oyster below the bridge this year.

People had built in locations that were surrounded by trees 80 and 100

years old that had obviously never been affected by flooding over many

years. On the other side of the river there was an obvious outlet. a

flood plain, if you will, for excess water. This year in the December

26 flooding the water went in a direction that it has apparently never

gone — at least for the last 50 or 100 years — and ripped out all the

trees and houses. When you look at the way the bridge abutments — if

that's what you call them, the supports — are built, it very clearly

directs the water right in a new direction. I wonder whether there is

much consideration given to those kinds of concerns. I assume there is

— I don 't know for sure — but in this case it doesn't appear as if

much concern was given to the way in which the bridge supports were

built in order to make sure that the river continued to flow in the way

that it had always flowed.

I want to say thank you and a

good job done about the Quadra ferry — the two ferries. The ministry

was going to put in a larger single ferry between Campbell River and

Quathiaski Cove. We now have the two-ferry system running which started

on the long weekend a week or so ago. I had a look at the passenger

loads last weekend. They were running freely and well and they were

being well used. There doesn't appear to be any problem at all with the

two ships crossing in that fairly difficult channel. It's just working

very well, and everybody is pleased. All those hundreds of people who

wrote to you, I know, would write to you again and say thank you if

they were good letter writers. But I do want to say that that's a vast

improvement.

I've written a letter to the minister about a

news report in Campbell River saying that there's an intention to berth

both ferries overnight in Campbell River. I hope that is a mistaken

news report. It's essential that one of the two ships be left on the

Quadra side for any emergency runs required in the middle of the night.

That's the situation with the Cortes ferry. Occasionally there is the

need to make an emergency run. So I hope it will be be left on the

Quadra side.

The final issue I want to raise is the

possibility of an early ferry run on the Alert Bay-Sointula–Port

McNeill triangle. The problem is that a lot of people work in logging

operations on Vancouver Island, and they live in Alert Bay or on

Malcolm Island for a variety of reasons; the climate is better and

housing is cheaper. You can still buy a building lot in Alert Bay for

$8,000 or S9,000 — they're going begging. People like to be able to

commute to work. The small-boat solution is not particularly

satisfactory. Even though it costs $100,000 or so a year, according to

ministry figures, I would urge that that early run be established. It

would be of great use to a lot of people; it would allow people to live

in the non-congested areas of Alert Bay and Malcolm Island, as opposed

to the very tight housing situation in Port McNeill. In fact, in many

cases it's impossible to buy a home or a lot in Port McNeill. I know

it's a lot of money for a limited run, and I appreciate that. When you

look at the additional expense for families who have to live in Port

McNeill as opposed to Alert Bay, they would be saving many times more

than $100,000 a year if they were able to have that early run and know

that they could get to work. The earliest you can get to Vancouver

Island now is 8:30. They should be able to get there by 7 or 7:30 for

regular work time.

I appreciate the minister's comments.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I appreciate the remarks of the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann). First of all, your comment was very interesting regarding

the story in the Province

this morning — that it's a re-run of a 1949 story. I just want to say

that I was interviewed by the reporter who wrote the story today. It

was his speculation that it looked like the election of 1984. As for

the election speculation in the story, it was never discussed at all in

the interview I had with the reporter. So I guess that was picked up

from the story that came out in 1949.

You started off

talking about salt water and fresh water regarding ferries. It's a very

interesting argument to me too. Discussion is how policy is set. I

guess you can argue pro and con. I know the story of the interior ferry

system. As I understand it, in the old days ferries crossing a main

river like the Fraser or the Skeena were put in to have a continuing

highway connection to the other side of the river. In the old days, as

that progressed, they got to the ferry business in salt water. Maybe

from the start they established that there'd be a fee structure on the

salt-water side. I agree that it's always been very difficult for me to

explain the difference. Now, of course, we're operating some very

substantial ferries free of charge; we have no intention of changing

that. Maybe we

[ Page 5718 ]

should

be looking at salt water...and I'm suggesting we take it off. We don't

seem to have a policy that is explainable — that's what it seems to be

right at the moment. I don't in any way want to suggest that we are

going to equalize them by putting on fares where we haven't got them.

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) won the last election

based on that rumour. I don't want that to happen again. The rumour was

flying that if you voted Social Credit in Nelson-Creston, all you were

voting for was putting fares on the Kootenay Lake ferry. It worked

really well; I know he got a substantial majority. Again, I want to

dispel any thoughts that we're putting a fare on the ferry at Kootenay

Lake or other places. I addressed that, on behalf of the government,

last year. We had no intention of putting fares where we didn't have

them.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I appreciate

your observation regarding the middle location, Mr. Member. It's fairly

new to me. I might say that I believe our ministry feels the same way

as you do. The middle location seems to be the thing. But I'm a little

worried when you talk about time-frame or when anything can happen.

I've had my fingers burned rather badly in that area, as you know, and

I don't know how long the public discussion will go on. I refer you to

the Courtenay Bridge and so on. The public discussion is taking a lot

longer than calling a contract and the construction. That's fine with

me, but it does delay things. I think there'll be lots pro and con. I

only hope our ministry can get the general public to come to the same

conclusion. It would speed up when we could start if they all agreed on

the centre location. I keep on emphasizing to the committee that our

biggest problem in the highway system is acquisition of right-of-way.

We can break the treasury branch pretty fast, but the acquisition of

right-of-way is a problem wherever we go now, and a very serious one.

We have to be very careful, whether we're four-laning a two-lane road

or building a new road. Last year this ministry spent $20 million of

public funds in acquisition for roads alone, and naturally it is

spiralling because of the cost of real estate. Our people do an

excellent job of negotiating for property, but it's a very slow process.

I've

made a note about the gas line on the right-of-way. I think you said

the gas line may be in the right-of-way before we are. I'm pretty fed

up with gas lines and telephone lines on our right-of-way. They dictate

what we can do, and as we're the landlord I think it's about time we

started telling them. B.C. Tel and B.C. Hydro come along and say: "Oh,

you can't build that road, because we've got a dirty old rotten

telephone pole or hydro pole there." One of these days they're going to

get a surprise, because I'm going to ask some friends that drive D-8s

to push them out of the road, quick. They're there, and maybe we

shouldn't worry about revenue, but I think they would respect us more

if we got some revenue out of them. This is a personal opinion, but if

we charge them for being on our right-of-way they'll only pass it on to

the citizen, whether it's in telephone rates, hydro rates or whatever.

But I'm getting pretty fed up with the way they hold us up.

The

gas line is coming, and yes, we deal with the gas line. The gas line

will come fairly fast, but I hope we've got a line on our right-of-way,

and if they get on our right-of-way it will be by permit. That's what

we have our senior people for. If they're going on our proposed

right-of-way, they'll have problems with us if they don't go where we

want them. I think we've got to get a lot tougher in the ministry than

we've been in the past over use of our rights-of-way. Corridors are

fine talk and everything else, but I think all these people have got to

be a little cooperative. As I say, some of them are not even under

permit on the highway right-of-way; others are. But when we want to do

something with our own ground and right-of-way, they say: "Oh, no,

we're too busy. You can go jump in the lake." As I say, one of these

days we aren't going to jump; we'll take a D-8. When we want to improve

our highway system we have to worry about their cables underground and

their poles above ground, and it costs us a lot of money. At least they

could pay that share, I think. I tell you, you hit me in the funny-bone

when you talked about the gas line and the right-of-way.

Tourism

growth. I don't know about that. I would say that beautiful part of our

province will.... I don't agree with the consultant that it's going to

drop off to 5 percent. In that part of the country I think it would

stay at the level it's at or get greater, unless the federal government

stops everybody from fishing, which they seem to be trying to do.

The

8,500 vehicles a day is predicted to go to 15,000. That's in the

report, and I realize that. Obviously there are going to be real

problems before we get the route built. I think we are paving right now

between Courtenay and Campbell River, or parts of it. We'll just have

to ad hoc and live with it. That's really where we're at, Mr. Member.

The people along Highway 19, as you know, don't want us to expand

within that right-of-way, so we're trying to sneak through with some

passing lanes and so on, and repave the existing service. Hopefully we

can live with that until we get something proper for through traffic.

agree that the new road to Port Hardy is an excellent, beautiful piece

of road. The engineers and contractors in our province deserve great

commendation for putting that through. I might say that there were a

lot of environmental problems and everything else, as you're aware, but

it's certainly a great credit to them and to all the people of our

province — the new

section north from Sayward to Port Hardy.

MR. GABELMANN: Port McNeill.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, you have some observations on Port McNeill–Port Hardy.

Gold

River–Tahsis and a proposed one to Woss Camp — I have flown that in a

chopper, as you said you have, Mr. Member. That's really tough country.

It reminds me of the Cariboo where there's a lot of solid rock. As our

engineers say, that's a tough one. It seems to me that the existing

Gold River–Tahsis road is the one we have to upgrade.

Regarding

your observation about logging roads, private and public — I've thought

a lot about that one. In some we're getting better cooperation than we

had. Yes, they were paid for by public funds through write-off of

stumpage. We have conditions in the province now where the public wants

to use these roads, and they really paid for the roads, but it's

dangerous for them to use them. In some cases on some of our logging

roads they're using 16-foot bunks. If you come along with a Honda

you'll get cleaned out, for sure. This is where our conflict is. I

really don't know the answer. We want the loggers to keep going,

naturally — for jobs and so on. I don't think we're very far away from

reviewing some policy matters in this area.

[ Page 5719 ]

Marble

River Bailey bridge — we tell the people there that we're going to

replace the Bailey bridge. It won't fall down, I'm assured by the

engineers. They'll really sag, but they won't fall down. I have great

faith in Bailey bridges. I always take delight in concerned citizens

saying: "The bridge is rotten; it's going to fall down." I always bear

in the back of my mind that if that happens — hopefully nobody gets

hurt — we can have a Bailey back up again in 24 hours. I've experienced

that personally. They're a great innovation in short-term help. They

shouldn't be up seven or eight years, but they are. That one is going

to be replaced in 1982. Don't hold out too much hope for straightening

the road. The priority is on a permanent bridge across the Marble River.

Campbell

Avenue, Port McNeill — I visited there with my cabinet colleagues, in

January I think it was. The mayor abruptly changed the name of the

creek, the stream and the street to Junior Fraser River because I came,

and it was pouring rain. We are going to do something about it finally.

The Port McNeill community wanted to put that free-flowing water in a

pipe down that ditch on Campbell Way. They'll get their pipe to do that

in 1981.

Erickson Road, Campbell River — you opened up a big

one there, Mr. Member. This is where I'd like to do a little

fed-'bashing. The airport at Campbell River is a federally operated

airport. I don't know how many miles it is, but I've driven Erickson

Road several times to get out to the highway and hit the pot-holes.

It's a fair distance — four or five miles, something like that. It's

worn out; it's shot. We're at an impasse. I agree with you: I think a

fair sharing formula should be one-third, one-third, one-third. I don't

think the District of Campbell River disagrees with that. I'm just

saying that you're spinning your wheels. It's just hopeless. We'll be

at an impasse forever. Ottawa will take the stand that.... I find they

cooperate with us provincially on everything as long as it doesn't

involve bucks — they think we're great guys. But here we have a case

where we're saying that Ottawa should pay a third. I agree, and the

district agrees, I'm sure. We could arrive at it and fix this very

essential road. It is not in our road system as a province; it's in the

district of Campbell River and, of course, it serves a federal airport.

I only hope it's resolved. I do resent Ottawa's attitude. I would

hazard to guess that the Campbell River airport makes a profit for

them. The profit goes back to Ottawa, but nothing comes back out.

have the same situation in our highway system. Based on last year, our

highway system earned about $200 million for the province in gas tax.

The provincial taxpayer owns and operates that system. Something that I

can’t get the press or anybody to talk about is that Mr. Trudeau's

Liberal government put an excise tax on in 1975. The provincial highway

system in British Columbia last year earned the federal treasury $175

million. We get nothing of that back. I don't know how good Canadians

we have to be, but we're really first-class Canadians — we're Cadillac

Canadians — because the revenue comes from this province. This is a

small matter, but a big matter in principle. We don't get any of it

back, contrary to public belief. Not one red cent comes back from the

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, we get $8 million a year plus a cost-of-living

allowance for ferries. But don't forget that you've seen in my estimates

that the total subsidy is $63 million. So don't think they're big sugar-daddies

by giving us $8 million plus, probably $9 million this year. Not one dime comes

back.

have the reverse going on with the provincial highway system. It's paid

for by the taxpayers of British Columbia, but it's used as a

revenue-gathering source for the Liberals in Ottawa. All I've got to

assume is that they send it to the poor boys — Ontario, Quebec and the

Maritimes. I don't know. They're not paying any of their debt off with

it; it's just getting higher all the time. That's the situation there.

But

back to Erickson Road. I think it's ridiculous when we get into these

kinds of things. I say to you, Mr. Member, that the nigger in the

woodpile is Ottawa.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was that?

HON. MR. FRASER:

Well, the fellow that's holding the whole thing up is Ottawa — not

holding it up, but financially. I don't see why it should be, because

it's a federally operated airport.

I haven't got the answer

on the Oyster River bridge, Mr. Member. You said that maybe — I have a

note here — the piers caused the flooding. This worries me when you say

that. The engineers say they will investigate this particular case. In

general, we do a complete hydraulic study and maintain channel work as

required. So we don't divert streams without permits first of all, and

then with great care. I hope that isn't the case, but we'll certainly

look into it.

The Quadra ferry. Yes, I'm happy that we got

the two ferries. We got the second ferry there with much difficulty, as

you know. It seems when B.C. ferries or Highways ferries go into a

shipyard, they do their best to dump them on us. I think it was one of

these ferries that was tipped over in the shipyard, but they still got

the second ferry back. I'm pleased to hear you say that they're

operating. I don't know about the point that you make about two at

Campbell River overnight, but we'll look into it. Oh, here's your

answer: we'll tie one up each night at each side.

The last

item you had was the Alert Bay ferry. I've been working on that for

some time. That was picked up when we were up in Alert Bay. I'm

inclined to agree that we can work something out, but we haven't done

it yet. In other words, we could have an earlier ferry in the morning

so the people who live there could commute to work. But we have crew

problems; we'll have to plan ahead for more crew. It's a little

difficult to work out. I think that pretty well covers what you brought

up, Mr. Member.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I wanted

to ask the minister a couple of specific questions about highways in my

constituency. I can appreciate he might not be exactly familiar with

them. Perhaps his officials are. First of all, I'm interested in the

Mary Hill bypass and the progress on that particular route. Now I

notice the contract has been let for the major overpass, for which I

congratulate the minister. I'm glad that's been done.