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)

TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5783 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Loffmark pension. Mr. Lauk –– 5783

Mr. Leggatt –– 5783

Mr. Macdonald –– 5784

Eckardt commission staff oaths. Mr. Macdonald –– 5784

Loffmark pension. Mr. Leggatt –– 5784

Eckardt commission staff oaths. Mr. Lauk –– 5785

Colenutt case. Mr. Macdonald –– 5785

Eckardt commission staff oaths. Mr. Barrett –– 5785

Colenutt case. Mr. Macdonald –– 5785

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 13). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

section 33 –– 5785

Mr. Howard

Division on

section 33

section 47 as amended –– 5786

Mr. Cocke

section 50 –– 5786

Mr. Levi

section 51 –– 5787

Mr. Levi, Mr. Nicolson, Mr. Hall

section 55 as amended –– 5789

Mr. Lockstead

section 58 –– 5789

Mr. Nicolson

section 61 –– 5790

Ms. Brown

section 62 5790

Mr. Nicolson

Report –– 5790

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 12). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

section 3 –– 5790

Ms. Brown, Mr. Lockstead, Mr. Hall, Ms. Sanford

Third reading –– 5792

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

Fraser)

On vote 189: minister's office –– 5792

Mr. Skelly, Ms. Sanford, Mr. Hall, Ms. Brown, Mrs. Wallace, Mr. Stupich, Mr. Mitchell

Tabling Documents

Report on agricultural aid to developing countries, 1980-81.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 5806

Appendix –– 5806

TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker,

on behalf of the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) and myself, I

would like to introduce to the House a group of visitors from the

constituency of Surrey. We have a delegation from the Ted Kuhn highrise

senior citizens' facility, a fine group of residents, and their leader,

Mrs. May Herrett. I would ask all members to make them welcome today.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, we have a group of school children from a grade 8 class of

Mount Prevost Junior Secondary School, together with their teachers and

other representatives from the area, visiting the precincts and the

gallery today. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, seated in your gallery today is a distinguished group of

visitors. They are journalists and representatives of British Airways,

who are visiting British Columbia. I would like to introduce, from

Ulster, Peter Carver of Independent Television, David Kirk of the Belfast Newsletter , Bill Flackes of the BBC, Bill Graham of the Belfast Telegraph and Colin McAlpin of the Sunday News ;

with them also are Jim Howie, James Milliken and Keith Hayes of British

Airways. Accompanying this group is Dick Lillico from B.C. House in

London.

The group is here to enjoy beautiful British

Columbia, but the journalists are also interested in our form of

provincial government. I had the pleasure of meeting with them at noon,

along with the Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the member for

Kootenay (Mr. Segarty). I had the pleasure of meeting with them at that

time, and I'm sure they would welcome the opportunity of talking with

other members during their stay in Victoria today and tomorrow. Will

the House please bid them welcome?

MR. SEGARTY: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to join with the Provincial Secretary in wishing

the media delegation from Northern Ireland a hearty cead mile filte. My

very best wishes to the representatives of British Airways in the

opening of this new transportation corridor from western Canada to

Britain.

MR. SPEAKER: I think Hansard will have fun with that one.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

pleased to know, along with members of the House, I'm sure, that we

have four distinguished guests in our gallery today. Mr. and Mrs. Joe

Brannan of the Georgia Bankers Association, and Mr. and Mrs. Herm

Chesney of Travel Planners International. They are accompanied by Mr.

Dennis Holmes, of our ministry. Both couples are here not only to enjoy

beautiful British Columbia and to meet many new friends, but also to

view us as a possible site for their 1984 Georgia Bankers Association

convention. That would be 900-odd delegates, and those are not Georgia

peanuts. I would ask you to all join me in welcoming them and hoping

they have a very good time while they're here, and that they come back

in 1984.

MR. DAVIDSON: Visiting with us today are

Professor Donald Balmer and his wife. Professor Balmer is with the

department of political science at Lewis and Clark College in Portland,

Oregon. For the interest of all members, Professor Balmer and his wife

have been visiting this Legislature for 20 years. I would ask the House

to once again give them a very warm B.C. welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members. from Chilliwack we have the grade 9 class of Timothy Christian School. Please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

LOFFMARK PENSION

MR. LAUK:

I have a question for the Attorney-General. I was thumbing through my

copy of the ombudsman's report on the weekend — it makes good reading.

Ralph Loffmark's pension was reduced as a result of a legal opinion

provided by the Attorney-General's department. Who requested that legal

opinion?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I thank the member for

his question. I find it somewhat amazing that he was thumbing through

his copy of the ombudsman's report last weekend when it wasn't tabled

in this House until last evening. Perhaps he would like to explain how

he has such prior knowledge.

At any rate, Mr. Speaker, the opinion from the solicitor in the ministry was requested by the then Provincial Secretary.

MR. LAUK: What ministerial official provided the opinion?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Harry Ferne, a barrister and solicitor, is a member of the civil

side of the Attorney-General's ministry. One of his responsibilities

was then and is today to provide advice to the Provincial Secretary's

ministry.

MR. LAUK: To what official in the superannuation branch did Mr. Harry Ferne provide the opinion?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am not knowledgeable at this moment of the answer to that question. I'd be very pleased to take it as notice.

MR. LEGGATT:

Could the Attorney-General advise the House whether he had discussions

with the Provincial Secretary prior to the opinion being requested by

the superannuation department?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no.

MR. LEGGATT:

Could the Attorney-General advise the House why his official failed to

cooperate with the ombudsman in providing the information that the

ombudsman requested?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In the course

of the ombudsman's investigation of this matter, Mr. Speaker, he sought

information from Mr. Ferne which fell within the area prescribed by

section 11 of the ombudsman's statute.

[ Page 5784 ]

MR. LEGGATT:

If you're looking at it as a solicitor-client relationship, I take it

the client in this case would have been the Provincial Secretary and

the solicitor would be a member of the Attorney-General's ministry.

Would that be the kind of relationship that existed?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEGGATT: Which ministry initiated the request for the opinion?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I have already responded to that question. It was the

Ministry of Provincial Secretary, under whose responsibility matters of

superannuation fall.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, my

question is to the Provincial Secretary. Did the Provincial Secretary

take it upon himself to make a request for an opinion surrounding Mr.

Loffmark's pension?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

MR. LEGGATT:

On a further question to the same minister, did he have any discussions

in cabinet concerning that particular pension? In particular, did he

have any discussion with the Premier concerning Mr. Loffmark's pension

before the request was made for an opinion?

MR. SPEAKER: Only the last part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, for the member's information, I think the matter under

question was dealt with under a previous minister, since it took place,

I believe, in 1979.

MR. MACDONALD: My question is to

the Attorney-General. In view of the fact that the Loffmark pension was

abruptly and illegally reduced after the last election, does the

Attorney-General consider that the ombudsman does not have the mandated

authority to investigate as to whether there was improper external or

political interference with the opinion rendered by the

Attorney-General's ministry?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr.

Speaker, the member is seeking a legal opinion, and he knows that that

is not a proper subject for questioning in this period.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, suppose somebody brought political interference —

successful or not — in terms of a judge sitting on the bench. Would the

Attorney-General not consider that that was a legitimate subject of

public concern that ought to be investigated, and would not the judge

so consider?

All right, there's no use.

Everybody

knows what happened: pure political vengeance against somebody who came

out with a political position. It never happened to any other

politician. No other pension was interfered with in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

ECKARDT COMMISSION STAFF OATHS

MR. MACDONALD:

I ask the Attorney-General a new question. Last August the

Attorney-General was asked to investigate whether the Eckardt

commission staff were required to take backdated oaths, and the

Attorney-General took that as notice. Now we're into May of the

following year. Has the Attorney-General decided to reply?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, based upon the examination which was made following those

questions, no evidence was disclosed that any member was asked to take

a backdated oath and none has been discovered.

MR. MACDONALD: I ask the Attorney-General: has he got the oaths of secrecy that were taken by these staff people?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

No, Mr. Speaker. They are in deposit and are held by persons who took

the oaths. In one case the oath was taken at the district registrar's

office in the courthouse in Victoria. I believe it still must be there.

MR. MACDONALD: Has the Attorney-General seen those oaths to see whether they are backdated or not?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I have not seen them. I'm advised that they were not.

MR. MACDONALD: Has the Attorney-General got copies of those oaths?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I do not.

MR. MACDONALD:

I would like to ask the Attorney-General how he can reach these

conclusions that everything is all right without having investigated

the evidence.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I conclude that based upon competent advice given by qualified people.

LOFFMARK PENSION

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is for the Attorney-General. One of the reasons that the

Attorney-General gave to the ombudsman for refusing to cooperate around

this particular case was the matter of solicitor-client privilege. As

the Attorney-General knows, that privilege is the privilege of the

client, not of the solicitor providing the opinion. Why doesn't the

Attorney-General waive the solicitor-client privilege or request the

Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr.

Wolfe) to waive the solicitor-client privilege so the ombudsman can get

on with the job of finding the truth about the Loffmark pension?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

As the member has currently stated, the privilege is not mine to waive.

This matter was dealt with at some length in a letter to the ombudsman

in January, to which there was no response. We believed that the

ombudsman was satisfied with the lengthy explanation he was given with

regard to our

interpretation of

section 11. Therefore it comes somewhat

as a surprise that this has been highlighted in his report.

[ Page

5785 ]

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is for the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government

Services. Will the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government

Services waive his privilege with regard to the opinion he received so

that the ombudsman has a chance to fully investigate the Loffmark

pension?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member inquiring into the future action of the minister?

MR. LEGGATT: Has he decided today to do so in view of the ombudsman request, as filed in this Legislature?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is in order.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I believe, related to this minister's responsibility on this matter,

that I've already answered the question in taking it on notice. To

answer the member's question, no decision has been made by ministry.

MR. LEGGATT: I think perhaps the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services misunderstood the question. I'll repeat it.

The

Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services has the right

to protect the solicitor who provided the opinion, because perhaps he

has a privilege surrounding some of that information. What I'm asking

now is: given the reasons that the ombudsman has provided to this

Legislature for failure to cooperate, based on an alleged

solicitor-client privilege, will the Provincial Secretary now do his

duty to this Legislature and waive that privilege so that all the facts

can come out in the Loffmark case?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I

believe the question the member asked is clearly out of order, in that

it deals with policy yet to be determined in terms of a report that's

just been submitted.

ECKARDT COMMISSION STAFF OATHS

MR. LAUK:

I have one question for the Attorney-General re the backdated oaths.

Has the ombudsman made any inquiries of the Attorney-General's

department with respect to the backdated oaths in particular?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: None of which I'm aware, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD:

There was an allegation by one of the staff that they took the oath

subsequent to the date that appears on the oaths of secrecy. How does

the Attorney-General know whether or not that allegation is true? Does

he know when the oath was taken, and if so, would he give the House the

date? When were they presented with the paper and asked to swear that

oath?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to that

particular matter, I don't know the date upon which the oath was sworn

nor anything with respect to the matter of dating. That particular

document is not to be found.

COLENUTT CASE

MR. MACDONALD: To the Attorney-General on another of his state secrets:

I asked some time ago about the John Colenutt case. He was arrested early in

the morning, when he shouldn't have been. I asked who ordered him to have

a psychiatric examination before he had seen a judge. Will the Attorney-General

say who ordered that examination?

MR. SPEAKER: The last part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member is misinformed. The gentleman in question was never subjected to a psychiatric examination.

ECKARDT COMMISSION STAFF OATHS

MR. BARRETT: On a supplementary, can the Attorney-General tell the House what date he was informed that the lost affidavit was indeed lost?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'll have to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT:

Since such a sensitive affidavit was a matter of public concern — and

he was notified it was lost — did it occur to the Attorney-General that

it might be wise on his part to notify the House that it was missing?

COLENUTT CASE

MR. MACDONALD:

Coming back to the other subject of Mr. Colenutt.... [Laughter.] When

you don't get any information, you strike out with that particular

government and especially with that ministry.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May we have the question?

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Colenutt said very clearly that before his appearance in court he

was taken to see a doctor whose name, I think, was Dr. MacKenzie — and

asked a lot of questions about his psychiatric condition. Does the

Attorney-General say that that statement by John Colenutt is incorrect?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I simply said he was not subjected to a psychiatric examination. I

might say that it may help the member to know that I'm waiting for one

further bit of information with respect to that whole matter before

making a determination as to what future course should be taken with

regard to the Colenutt affair.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 13; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

section 33 — continued.

MR. HOWARD:

I have just a very brief comment before

section 33 passes. Let's make

it clear what's involved here. There's been no indication given by

members of the opposition

[ Page 5786 ]

that

they're opposed to progress and development. That's a mythical case

made by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon.

Mr. McGeer) when he spoke earlier on this item.

It's

important to note that when the minister rose to speak, he did not rise

as the minister; he rose and identified himself as a member of the

board of directors of B.C. Hydro — a cabinet minister. In the course of

his remarks, even though he knew the information — because he is a

member of the board of directors of B.C. Hydro, and was speaking in

that capacity — about the reason for B.C. Hydro's desire to increase

its borrowing limit by $800 million, at no time did he consider it

worthwhile telling the committee what they wanted that $800 million

for. It's very important to remember that. The minister had the

information within his knowledge. He refused to give it to the House.

Instead, he took off on some wild accusatory statement about subject

matters which were completely fabricated.

Secondly, three

government backbenchers have spoken on this particular item before us:

the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), the member for

North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf),

each one of whom is also a member of the Committee on Crown

Corporations. Not one of them, except the Chairman, sought to indicate

that there was some rationale as to why he, the Chairman, had refused

to call the committee to meet during the time the Legislature is

meeting so that it could examine why B.C. Hydro wants this $800 million

increase in borrowing capacity. It's important to remember that those

who had the knowledge refused to give it to the committee, leaving the

committee with, I think, no choice but to say that the committee is

being stonewalled by members of the government, who know precisely why

they want the money but refuse to tell the committee why they want this

increased borrowing capacity.

I submit to you, Mr. Chairman,

that perhaps the reason the Chairman of the Crown corporations

committee stood in this House and asked that the House recess so that

the Crown corporations committee could meet was that he and other

Social Credit members of that committee know full well that if that

committee meets during a recess of the House they pick up $50 a day for

each time they attend a meeting. It's important to remember that too.

They're out to line their own pockets and not to do the public's

business.

Section 33 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem,

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

NAYS — ; 24

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 34 to 46 inclusive approved.

section 47.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper with respect to

section 47. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

section 47 as amended.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, the

section we're dealing with deals with the School Act,

particularly with respect to the assessment of machinery for school tax

purposes. It strikes me that, unless I'm incorrect, consistency would

have us amending in tandem the Municipal Act, so that the assessment

for municipal tax purposes would be the same. For instance, not long

ago I got a letter from a constituent indicating that he was assessed

$1,300 for a Xerox machine. There was a great danger that he would be

assessed a further amount in his little business.

I can

understand assessing Mac-Blo, and so on, because they're mainly

machines. But for small, secondary industry such as I'm outlining, I'm

just wondering whether or not this situation is in line with my

correspondent's need for school tax purposes. I'm wondering what plans,

if any, the minister has with respect to the whole question. Obviously

he's got something in the works.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Chairman, the amendment is required to correspond with the revised

definition of improvements for school purposes. I think that's the key.

I think the member has made an interesting point, but it is not

entirely correct, as I understand it, because out of this amendment

flows the instruction to the Assessment Authority. A companion

amendment to the Municipal Act is not required in this instance.

MR. COCKE:

Since the minister and I had words this morning, I would just like to

be relatively consistent with respect to my position, and thank the

minister. I think it's a progressive move, because this is necessary

for small business.

Section 47 as amended approved.

Sections 48 and 49 approved.

section 50.

MR. LEVI:

If we're nice to the minister, we might have an opportunity to get some

answers. As I understand it, this

section is going to make it possible

for the B.C. Systems Corporation to put up a building. I gather the

decision has already been made, and that this building costing more

than $30 million is going to go in Saanich. Perhaps the minister would

tell us.... I hope he's listening; he's got his hand over his ear, Mr.

Chairman. Oh, we've got his full attention. Can the minister tell us

what kind of a building is going there and how much it's going to cost?

Frankly, I think the cost in

[ Page

5787 ]

some way bears on something else we're going to be

doing immediately after this. Perhaps the minister would give us some

information on what kind of a building is going there, how much it's

going to cost and, particularly, who is going to build it.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. The Chair is having some difficulty in

relating the member's questions to the relevant

section of the

particular act, which simply substitutes "capital regional district"

for "City of Victoria." If the member can somehow relate that to the

Chair it would be appreciated.

MR. LEVI: Yes, I will. I'll relate it.

There's

a very interesting explanatory note on the other side which says: "The

amendment to

section 4 of the System Act permits the head office of the

corporation to be located anywhere in the capital regional district."

That's what we're dealing with here, Mr. Chairman. When the act was

brought in in 1977 the headquarters were going to be in the city of

Victoria. We're talking about a building. We're talking about taking

the headquarters of the Systems Corporation out of Victoria and putting

it in Saanich. That's why we have to have the amendment. If we have to

have the amendment, I think it's fair enough to ask the minister what

he's got in mind. I know he's not always very anxious to tell us about

the Systems Corporation, but I'd like to know what he has in mind here.

At the moment they have a building which acts as the headquarters

building on Fort Street in Wismer House. Perhaps the minister would

tell us.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The first member for

Victoria (Mr. Barber) corrected the member who posed the question, and

that spoiled my fun. It blew his speech, but it spoiled my fun as well.

While it is proposed that a new building is to be constructed in the

capital region — hence the need for the amendment under

section 50 —

the site that has been selected is in the municipality of Saanich but

not, curiously enough, in the constituency of Saanich and the Islands,

which I have the honour to represent in this Legislature. That spoiled

a good portion of the member's speech, but he'll make up for it on

another occasion.

Perhaps the questions would be more

appropriate under

section 51. Clearly, as the System Act now reads, it

would not permit the construction of a building other than in the "city

of Victoria." That is why, in this

section only, we are broadening the

permissive aspect of where it can be located to "the capital regional

district."

MR. LEVI: It will help the House if the

minister would tell us just one thing. How much is proposed to be spent

on the building? It has some relevance to something we're going to be

doing in a minute. How much is it going to cost?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

We do not yet know precisely. I think another question posed was: who

is going to build it? We do not know that yet either, inasmuch as by

proposal call we will be inviting submissions from the construction

industry, notwithstanding some minor difficulties which I'm sure can be

overcome. I can't tell you who's going to build it yet, because we do

not know that.

Section 50 approved.

section 51.

MR. LEVI:

This

section increases the borrowing power of the corporation from $25

million to $50 million. It's my understanding that the building will

cost in excess of $30 million. You may have to come back to the House

for another increase. You already have an extensive outstanding loan.

That's why I asked the question in the beginning. In all likelihood you

will not be able to pay for that building out of this capital cost

unless you're going to do it some other way. For instance, is the

corporation going to build the building? Oh, we're out of that now. We

can't deal with that. I'll have to deal with it in estimates. If the

building will cost in excess of $30 million — which I think it will —

you obviously do not have enough money in the increase of $50 million

that you're requesting. The capital costs on the building alone will be

in excess of $30 million. The presumption is that you're going to come

back again for it. Or is it that you're going to have somebody build

the building and then you're going to lease it? In that case life is a

lot easier for you.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman,

not all decisions have been reached with respect to this new

headquarters building for the British Columbia Systems Corporation. The

existing $25 million borrowing limit — the ceiling which is in place —

has not been fully utilized. Ten million dollars has been advanced to

the Systems Corporation to finance current activities, so it is not

correct to assume that we have fully committed the existing ceiling

which is now in the statute and is being amended by this proposal.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman, I don't think such an increase in borrowing authority

should pass without some comment. What used to be a pay-as-you-go

proposition — that is, the government under the old Department of

Public Works used to pay for construction of office space out of its

current budget, and no debt was incurred — is now, of course, through

this instrument, creating a debt instrument. In other words, if an

accountant had to analyze budgets between 1972 and 1975 and compare

them to budgets today, he would have to say, in all fairness, that

between 1972 and 1975 — and certainly prior to that under the W.A.C.

Bennett government — no debt was incurred in terms of providing office

space for various government ministries; it was a pay-as-you-go

proposition. In order to make a fair comparison now, you would have to

say that this government is in debt and is prepared to go deeper into

debt — $50 million in this one area alone.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This

particular philosophy is not altogether a bad philosophy, at least at

the philosophical level of having a public works corporation or systems

corporation or whatever — and they've taken a similar tack in both

situations. But it's very obvious that when computers were bought

before, these things were paid for as you went. This particular thing

really would have been a function — I know it's the Systems Corporation

and not the B.C. Buildings Corporation — of the old Public Works. What

we are doing here — once again, just as we did in the B.C. Buildings

Corporation — is creating debt. Things that would have been direct debt

in an earlier system of bookkeeping, but because we've created these

so-called Crown corporations which are not under the scrutiny

[ Page 5788 ]

the Crown corporations reporting committee.... If the Crown

corporations reporting committee were ever allowed to meet, it could

not go and investigate what is going on in the Systems Corporation.

So,

again, we're being asked to approve a very blank cheque, a great deal

of which will be for the construction of buildings. I suppose the other

will be to retire other types of debt capital which would be involved

in system expansion. I would say this is direct evidence that the

province is in an area of debt that was never incurred prior to 1975.

At least from 1963, 1964 or 1965 — whenever W.A.C. Bennett came up with

contingent liabilities and shot the arrow at the barge in Okanagan Lake

— until 1975, this was one area in which the province did not incur

direct debt. That's really what it is that we're voting for today. I

won't allow the government to have it both ways: to get up in this

House and say they're not incurring any debt when we know they're

incurring debt here, in B.C. Buildings Corporation, B.C. Ferry

Corporation and many other areas.

MR. HALL: Mr.

Speaker, I don't find a great deal of difficulty in supporting the

section, particularly given the argument put forward by my colleague

from Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), which deals with the new philosophy

that the government has undertaken of abandoning the pay-as-you-go

attitudes of previous governments and, in effect, running this thing

now as a Crown corporation, amortizing the payments — or whatever

expressions one wants to use in terms of handling its capital

requirements over a period of time — and doing it in an ever-increasing

number of avenues.

What is bothering me, however, is the

kind of supervision that this Legislature is building at the same time

we're faced with these pieces of legislation. That has been touched on

by the member for Nelson-Creston. It is one which, I think, all

legislatures are grappling with and one which is the subject of some

reports. Recently I, along with the member for North Vancouver–Capilano

(Mr. Ree), was part of an advisory committee to the Canadian

Comprehensive Auditing Foundation, dealing with the whole question of

the quality as well as the quantity of information provided to

legislators and the public regarding the accountability of government.

What we're finding is that more and more money is really escaping our

scrutiny.

Here we're asked to increase the borrowing

authority to double it, in effect — and that's probably the last we'll

see of it, except that somewhere down the road maybe one of these days

a committee might be lucky enough to be called and stumble across a

couple of vouchers. One of these days we might see some accountability

for Curtis Court, that marvelous Babylonian edifice in Saanich that's

being built for the B.C. Systems Corporation. I'm being jocular about

it; I'm sure the minister will allow me to do that. I can think of a

better name than Curtis Court, but it will do for the purposes of our

debate this afternoon.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hall Hall.

MR. HALL: Yes, Hall Hall will be quite fine, if you can find one.

The

fact of the matter is, though, that we've now got buildings all over

the place which the public accounts committee, for instance, can't find

rental details of. The president of the B.C. Buildings Corporation, Mr.

Dolezal, who may have something to do with this sooner or later, tells

me that over 1,000 entries are required on the computer to just deal

with rents, a stack of paper from a computer this high that the public

accounts committee or any legislator would have to look at.

Comprehensive

auditing is coming; value-for-money accountability is being required.

The quality of information is suspect, in my view. I'm not suggesting

for a second you shouldn't have the $25 million. The quality of

information which will be forthcoming in the long run for the

legislative purpose of accountability and scrutiny is what I'm talking

about, as more and more of the $6.5 billion that this government is

going to spend this year escapes from the Legislature. I don't argue

with the principles behind the decisions to form Crown corporations. A

quick total right now of our estimates book would show that over $3.5

billion goes out in straight transfer payments to other jurisdictions,

for which we've got almost no accountability in the real sense that the

minister and I understand that word — it was $3.7 billion last time I

just ran a pencil quickly down the columns. That's what bothers me when

we're simply asked for these one-line extensions to borrowing power.

share this thought with the minister. One of these days and we keep on

hearing about the statutes that are coming on financial administration,

controls and so on and so forth, but we've not seen them yet — we're

going to have to get down to it as responsible legislators and look not

only at this simple — in fact, now almost useless — book which is given

to us after we've listened to the Minister of Finance for some three

hours on some Friday afternoon called budget day, which is now becoming

less than the event it used to be.... I don't mean in that way to take

away from the minister's performance at all. I'm talking about the

event itself, as we're now overcome — indeed as the minister is now

overcome — by the fact we're even borrowing another $25 million to

house the B.C. Systems Corporation, which shows we're being overcome.

It's

the quality as well as the quantity of information that is going to

bedevil legislators, and I think what we should do as responsible

legislators is pay much more attention to that, rather than simply

voting yes and no on simple one-line amendments to borrowing powers.

It's that which has got members like the member for Nelson-Creston and

the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) worried about the quality of

information, apart from ideological differences we may have about

industrial development and so on. I again say, though lightheartedly,

we will in some years come to see a beautiful building built and opened

with full pageantry, but having escaped our perusal — that's what

bothers me — unless we change some of the controls. That can only go

back to the Ministry of Finance, Treasury Board and the way we conduct

our financial business in this province.

Sections 51 to 54 inclusive approved.

section 55.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to

section 55, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

section 55 as amended.

[ Page 5789 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Once again I rise to speak in support of the smokers and drinkers in

this province who are once again faced with a regressive tax imposed on

most of us by this province.

Before I make my remarks, I want to say again to clarify for this House and Hansard

that I don't condone the abuse of alcohol and tobacco. We can't discuss

alcohol under this section, but the tax is essentially the same. We're

all aware of the health hazards. What this tax really does is to tax

the poor — the people on welfare, the working poor and the working

people of this province — as heavily as it taxes those millionaires

comfortably sitting over there. It doesn't make any difference to them

that the price of a pack of cigarettes goes up 15 cents or 20 cents.

HON. MR. HEWITT: We quit.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Minister of Agriculture and Food is resigning. That's great. I just heard him say it.

makes no difference to those people, Mr. Chairman. Let me give an

example. In my riding there is a 54-year-old lady on welfare whose rent

was increased to $280 a month. Her maximum income was $331 a month;

it's been increased a bit lately, by the way. Her only enjoyment is to

buy a tin of tobacco and roll a few cigarettes. She simply can't afford

this regressive tax continually being placed on us by this government

which has no compassion or feeling at all for the working, the working

poor and those people on low incomes in this province.

What

are they doing with the money? That's the thing. If they were putting

it into the type of health facilities and social services required at

this time it would be fair enough. But they're not doing that. They're

building huge monuments to themselves such as B.C. Place. They're

subsidizing Teck, Denison and the Japanese with northeast coal. That's

where the dollars are going. I don't see why the working people and the

poor people in this province have to be the first assailed by this type

of regressive and — for the first time in the history of this province

— indexed taxation. In my view, the same goes for liquor.

wanted to get these remarks on record, because I think that somebody in

this province should stand up for these people who can't be here to

speak for themselves.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The argument

would be telling if it were based on accurate information. We are in

the very narrow confines now of a

section of a miscellaneous bill, and

I appreciate that I cannot stray very far beyond the rule which applies

to that section. But earlier this House dealt with a tax measure

designed to return more to the low-income earners — 75 percent of the

elderly people in this province — as a result of a tax credit. If the

member is speaking about the difficulties facing those who are not as

well off as everyone in this chamber, I think to be fair he would at

least have identified that other measure passed by a committee and this

House quite recently, which is going into effect next year. So, Mr.

Member, be fair and balanced in your remarks.

The member

also spoke about the indexing of tobacco taxes. I'm returning here to

the specific point which is before us. I wonder why other provinces

have also found it necessary. The member knows why. Everyone in this

chamber knows why, and most people in British Columbia know why we had

to take a series of measures to increase revenues this year. It's

because of the national energy revenue grab. They don't seem to want to

admit it, but it's fact. Revenue projections for the provinces are down

— the western provinces in particular — as a result of policies of late

October 1980 and subsequent to that. The indexing of taxes now in

Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.... What are the taxes? What are we

looking at for a package of 25 cigarettes as the base, if you will, for

a fair comparison and much lower, Mr. Member, than in many other parts

of the free world? The member knows that. In British Columbia it's now

34 cents tax for a package of 25; Alberta, 8 cents; Saskatchewan, 33

cents; Manitoba, 35 cents; Ontario, 36.5 cents; Quebec, 34 cents; New

Brunswick, 34 cents; Nova Scotia, 25 cents; Prince Edward Island, 25

cents; and Newfoundland, 62.5 cents. In addition, I refer again to the

indexing which is in place in three other provinces and which

undoubtedly will be introduced in others as time goes by.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Through

this tax measure, as Minister of Finance, I don't comment on the health

aspects of smoking loose tobacco and cigarettes and so on. That's not

why I introduced the measure, and it's not why I speak to it today. It

is for others in other portfolios and for other members of this House

to speak as they see fit and as they read the material. I was

attempting again — I've said it through all these measures and through

others — to spread the unpalatable but the realistic tax burden over as

many segments of the population as possible, rather than to hit one

particular segment.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Normally I don't

respond to this when we're dealing with this question to the minister,

but he did make a lot of statements and did stray off the topic a bit.

I'm a bit surprised that the minister suggested that this Legislature —

the government particularly — is about to legislate morality in this

province determining whether people should smoke or drink or not.

Because some of them think it's a bad thing to do, let's tax the poor

buggers. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that isn't the way I view

the problem at all.

The fact is that I'm standing across the

floor looking at a government that has let certain industries off

practically scot-free in terms of receiving a fair return on our

natural resources where this portion of the tax budget, if the money is

really required, could have been made up quite easily. But they

preferred to let their friends off the hook and tax the poor people of

this province as they've been doing for so many years now. The taxes

are increasing, not decreasing. They'll be higher. A higher proportion

of our incomes next year will go to taxes to the Social Credit

government than this year or the year before. I don't want to hear all

that stuff about "we're going to revise taxes," and "there's going to

be a little bit down here." Any thinking person in this province knows

that overall taxes next year are going to be a heavier and heavier

burden on people whether it be property taxes or any other kind of

taxes. I could go on for some time, but we are in a very narrow debate

here. I think I'll leave it at that.

Sections 55 to 57 inclusive approved.

section 58.

MR. NICOLSON:

I wonder why these changes had to be made. Is there a particular

municipal work being constructed which has raised a problem where it

would be inequitable for

[ Page 5790 ]

the

people of the endowment lands, who sort of ride on the back of greater

Vancouver, I guess, not to provide the facilities? Are they that

destitute that they can't afford it? What is the problem? Is there any

specific municipal work that's been encountered that just wouldn't be

fair to be borne by the people in that area?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

No, there is no specific project or specific problem. The purpose of

the amendment is to provide that where all the beneficiaries of major

improvements, such as a new water or sewer line, cannot be easily

identified, the improvements may be paid from the general revenue which

exists in the University Endowment Lands administration account rather

than being paid from the taxes assessed to the owners of other

benefiting lands. In many circumstances — in the UEL and, I suppose, in

a number of other local government units as well — all beneficiaries of

major improvements can't be easily identified.

General tax

revenue should be the funding source for such improvements. An example

is in my own home municipality. While our property is not served with

sanitary sewers, we contribute a certain amount through our property

tax towards a sanitary sewer system because it is in the interests of

an entire community. Specifically, it could be argued that the property

occupied by my wife and me is not directly served. That's the intent of

the amendment.

Sections 58 to 60 inclusive approved.

section 61.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say I'm pleased that the

section is going

to make the Home Owner Grant Act retroactive to January of this year.

But I think I would be remiss if I allow this

section to go without

expressing once again my disappointment that the homeowner grant is not

going to be extended, as promised in the budget speech, to all disabled

people in this province. In fact it is going to be curtailed, based on

the criteria established in the regulations. A promise was made, and

that promise is not being kept.

This is the last time I'm

going to have an opportunity to ask the Minister of Finance to amend

this

section and the preceding one — I'm not reflecting on the vote —

which stated that regulations would establish which of the disabled

people would be eligible for the homeowner grant, rather than honouring

the statement made in the budget speech. According to the budget

speech, the grant was going to be extended to cover all disabled people

in the province.

The other thing I would have hoped is that

there would have been an amendment on the order paper by today dealing

with the word "handicapped." That's not there, and I want to express my

disappointment that the minister has failed to avail himself of the

opportunity to introduce two amendments which would make this piece of

legislation really work for disabled people in the province.

Section 61 approved.

section 62.

MR. NICOLSON:

Can the minister guarantee the members of this committee that

section

62 includes all of the numbers from 1 to 61. Are you sure?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied that the commencement

section serves the purpose for which it is designed.

MR. NICOLSON: In order to reassure the minister, Mr. Chairman, I can assure him that it does.

Section 62 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

Division in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill

13, Finance Statutes Amendments Act, 1981, reported complete with

amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 12, Mr. Speaker.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 12; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question about this

particular section. It deals with personal property being covered by

the taxes if it's ever used even on a temporary basis as business

premises. It's been brought to our attention that people in this

province who are foster parents to children with special needs are now

deemed to be small contractors, and they are given a contract which

they have to fill out. One of the foster parents brought to my

attention that she was advised that if she completes this contract her

place of residence ceases to be the family home for the duration of the

time that she has this particular child or has this contract with the

Ministry of Human Resources, and her home becomes a business premise.

I'm wondering whether in that event this particular section, in terms

of taxes, would apply to that family home. This

section says it applies

if a business is carried on there, even temporarily. Did the minister

discuss this with the Ministry of Human Resources or did the Ministry

of Human Resources discuss this with the Ministry of Finance to find

out about these special-needs foster parents in

section 3 who sign a

contract with the government?

For example, there is one particular foster parent who has been

responsible for a special-needs child for a number of years. When the

new policy came into effect she was presented

[ Page

5791 ]

with

a contract which she had to work through with the social worker and

sign. This woman was advised by an accountant — I don't know whether

this is true or not — that if she signs this contract, for the duration

of the time that the child is in the home and this contract with the

Ministry of Human Resources exists her family home becomes a place of

business. Was this worked though with the Ministry of Human Resources

or is the family home, for the duration of that time, then covered by

the tax in this particular section?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I've got a minor problem here in that I believe the hon. member has

been speaking with respect to

section 2 when I understood that we had

moved to 3. If the rules are not seriously transgressed I can assure

the member that the problem she has identified is not a problem under

this section. Real personal property is not affected by this amendment.

If I could assist the member at a time other than committee I would be

happy to do so, and if she is still not satisfied then we could discuss

it inasmuch as my estimates have not yet been presented. This is

designed with respect to specific instances which have created problems

for the tax collection branch and do not and could not relate to that,

which the member has spoken of.

MS. BROWN: Maybe I could just check with the minister on

section (

h) again. Is that the

section we're dealing with? Bill 12?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes.

MS. BROWN:

Oh, I'm sorry. You're quite right. I was dealing with

section 2(h). Mr.

Chairman, if it will not violate the spirit I would specifically draw

to the minister's attention (h)(3.2), where it talks about "...in

section 1 includes the employment or utilization of tangible personal

property by its owner or his employee in the course of carrying out

work or performing services for another person." That's the particular

subsection I was referring to, and he's quite quite right, it should

have been under

section 2. That was my mistake.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member's point about the spirit is well taken.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Since some latitude has been allowed to overcome the difficulty, I

again assure the member that this relates to equipment in specific

cases. If the member is not satisfied, there will be another

opportunity to discuss this, although I'd be pleased to discuss it with

her at any time.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I will be moving the amendment standing in my name on

the order paper regarding this section. This once again deals with mobile homes

and taxation. The reason I introduce this amendment is that I have a number

of constituents who've had problems. We were led to believe by the ministry

that when this measure came in it would be retroactive to 1979, but when the

act actually did come in it was only retroactive to 1980. To utilize an example,

I had a lady who is separated and has a couple of children, and lives in a trailer,

who had the sheriff pound on her door to collect back taxes. When I actually

became involved in the case, I misled the lady in telling her that this amendment

would be retroactive to 1979. That was just one case; there were numerous other

cases. So I'm now suggesting that the minister would be good enough to accept

my amendment to have this

section read "retroactive to 1979," and

really save these mobile-home owners a great deal of money and a lot of problems.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The government cannot accept the amendment. The member is correct: it

was dealt with last year. I think there was a debate at that time on

what was then Bill 3, the Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1980. The

cost implications are quite significant — that is one reason. In

addition, we do not collect tax retroactively; therefore we do not find

it possible to refund tax retroactively.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, the Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is out of

order in that it affects Crown revenues. I'm sure the member

appreciates the predicament of the Chair.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Chairman, there's one thing we should always have in mind when

we're looking at legislation this year: we've all been made aware of

the fact that this is the Year of the Disabled. Medical oxygen is one

thing which disabled people need very often. I am not certain — I'm

going to make a proposal to the minister — but I think there's some

difficulty regarding medical oxygen and the sales tax. I'm not going to

belabour the point. I know it's going to be a little tricky if every

member in the House gets up and lists a whole series of things he or

she would like to see exempted from tax. Nevertheless, there appears to

be some difficulty with medical oxygen. In fact, there appears to be

some question of why one should pay sales tax on oxygen at all. Be that

as it may, the question of medical oxygen should be looked at. I wonder

if I could have the minister's assurance that he'll put that on his

list of things to examine, i.e. the question of why we have to pay

sales tax on medical oxygen if indeed I am correct.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Medical oxygen is exempt from the tax when prescribed by a physician.

I'm inclined to agree with the member with respect to why oxygen should

be taxed at all. There are some anomalies. There will continue to be

anomalies with respect to exemptions. I invite all members of the

committee — and I mean this most emphatically — in the course of each

year to comment verbally or in writing with respect to those items

which they believe should be exempt or — and it's not likely — those

which should not be exempt. We very carefully monitor the suggestions

which come forward, and where possible we attempt to accede to those

requests.

I hope I've answered the question of the hon.

second member for Surrey. Medical oxygen, prescribed by a doctor, is

sales tax exempt.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to make a

short reference to paragraph (z.6), which provides new exemptions from

the sales tax: "yard good materials and clothing patterns sold to make

clothes." As I understand from the budget speech given by the minister,

he had a number of representations from women who wanted to have yard

goods exempted so they could make clothing for their children without

having to pay sales tax on the yard goods and patterns. Children's

clothes are exempt from sales tax. They made a very legitimate point, I

think, in suggesting that patterns and materials used for making

children's clothing should be exempt. But of course it was impossible

for the minister to exempt only materials used

[ Page 5792 ]

for

children's clothing, because there is no way the minister would be able

to determine how that material was going to be used, so he made a

general exemption of material and patterns.

I'm afraid there

aren't enough women in the Ministry of Finance. Any woman could have

told the minister that you cannot make clothes of any kind, whether

children's clothes or adult clothes, unless you have thread, buttons,

zippers and all of these other materials required in order to make the

clothes that the people were requesting this sales tax exemption for.

So he's included materials and patterns, but I'm afraid that women who

make clothes for their children in an attempt to save money and avoid

the sales tax are still paying tax on some of the essential items they

require to make those clothes. I'm hoping that he'll get some more

female advice in that ministry to point out that other things are

necessary if we're going to have this sort of thing exempt from sales

tax.

One other point. A lot of people who knit clothes for

their children say: "Why should materials alone be exempt?" I know the

minister's going to say: "Oh, another exemption." But if he's going to

be consistent, there are a lot of people in this province who knit

sweaters for their children to be used at school or to be used at any

time. These people find that they have to pay the full sales tax on

this material. Undoubtedly they can save money by knitting their

children's clothes, but the minister has somehow overlooked yarn goods

as part of this exemption.

I would move an amendment, Mr.

Chairman, but it would be out of order. So I'm just going to have to

ask the minister — I know you're surprised — to please consider

woollens, that is yarn goods, as well as the other materials needed in

order to make clothes. I'd appreciate a comment from the minister.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I have probably caused a few gray hairs in the consumer taxation branch

of the Ministry of Finance with the exemptions I've introduced in 1980

and 1981 since assuming the post of Minister of Finance. I'll cause

some more gray hairs next year, because I believe that through careful

examination of those items which are exempt from sales tax, we can

assist a variety of individuals in our province.

With

respect to findings — I've had sufficient advice from those who sew to

know that findings and notions is the appropriate word, all the other

things which go into it — we saw that that would be very complicated to

monitor. It's a question not just of the ease and comfort of the

officials in the consumer taxation branch, but of the reality with

which various taxes can be levied and the additional cost. Having

received the information, I consciously realized that, as the member

has observed, to exempt only material for children's clothing would

have been completely impractical.

I had two choices: to

ignore the requests which had come in particularly over the last year

and carry on with the taxation of that material, or expand it. I

decided to expand it. Then we did discuss, in fact, notions, findings,

buttons, zippers and all the other things which go into clothing made

at home for the person doing it or for a child or whoever. I finally

had to draw the line somewhere. It may be argued that that was not the

place to draw the line, but in view of all the other decisions which

were being made with respect to taxation measures and all the

activities leading up to budget, I drew the line there.

Similarly,

I drew the line with respect to yarn for the knitting of clothing. I

can't tell the committee that we will offer further exemptions next

year. But I've heard from a number of people who say: "What's the

difference? What is the difference between material — manufactured

cotton, corduroy or whatever it may be — and yarn which then ends up as

a sweater?"

There is another point, getting back to the yard

goods and the associated items which go into clothing. We also did not

feel that it would be right to move into the area where drapery

materials would be exempt from sales tax. I felt that way then and I

feel that way now. What are you buying the needles for? Are you buying

them to make clothing or are you buying them to make draperies? It's a

very gray area. As I say, most of the gray is to be found in the heads

of those who administer the tax, because this guy in the portfolio

wants to increase the exemptions.

MS. SANFORD: Mr.

Chairman, I would like to bring to the attention of the minister that

it is not just those people, for instance, who knit a lot who feel that

they have been left out in this particular proposal; it's also the shop

owners. When I go into a woollens shop, she complains about the shop

which is just two doors down that sells yard goods which have been

exempted from the sales tax. Yet all those who purchase wool in her

shop have to pay the full additional 50 percent sales tax, and she

objects to it.

Sections 3 to 7 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 12, Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1981, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North...Alberni.

MR. SKELLY: North Alberni? I think that's the way the judge would have done it, if he'd had a chance.

Mr.

Chairman, I have a number of issues I'd like to bring up with the

Minister of Highways, and I'll do them briefly. First of all, I'd like

to thank the minister for his efforts on the west coast of my riding,

as well as the efforts of his staff to persuade the federal government

to continue management of the Tofino airport and to continue the

provision of emergency services at that airport. As the minister is

aware, that airport

[ Page

5793 ]

is one of the key transportation facilities on the

west coast of Vancouver Island, and thanks to the efforts of his staff

and their contact with the federal department, we were able to keep the

emergency services out there. The minister also promised to put some

money into the airport at Tofino, Mr. Chairman, and possibly he can

tell me what progress there is in the development of that airport.

the minister will know, the number of tourists coming to the Long Beach

area of the west coast of Vancouver Island is in the hundreds of

thousands every year. We have a poor highway connection between the

east coast of Vancouver Island and the west coast, and the minister

promised to upgrade that connection last year to the tune of $30

million. It gets more as every year passes, and I would like to know

what progress is being made on that section. I know that the minister

is four-laning certain sections of the western end of the Tofino

highway, and also that he has promised to repave the Spring Cove road.

It's a bit of a disappointment to the citizens of my area that he

promised that as far back as 1979, and as every year passes he promises

it for the next year. In the last letter I have from the minister he is

promising to pave that

section in 1982.

I know what this

government means when they talk about permanence, Mr. Chairman. We

found that out in terms of the social services tax — to permanently

reduce it means you're going to raise it within a few years. But I hope

the minister's promise is a little more etched in stone than the

Premier's promise that the tax will be reduced permanently. I'd like to

find out from the minister just exactly when we're going to have that

section of the Spring Cove road in Ucluelet paved and upgraded, because

that was promised as a part of the boundary expansion for the

municipality of Ucluelet, and they've been waiting for that now for

three years. During the opening part of his estimates the minister made

some statements on accidents, planning and that sort of thing. We're

accused of not making positive suggestions to this government. The

problem is that when you do, they're ignored and you get frustrated and

negative. That is a bit of a problem. So I'd like to make an effort

again.

Earlier today we were talking to people connected

with the road construction industry in British Columbia. They would

like to see some long-term planning done for highways in this province

so that they know how much money is going to be spent over a period of

years. This is done for the Ministry of Forests now that they have a

five-year funding program and we know what kind of money will be going

into the development of the forests of the province over a five-year

period.

If we had that for the Ministry of Highways, then

those involved in the construction industry would know exactly when to

gear up on equipment spending and when to hire labour. They would know

that certain projects would be done at certain times during the

five-year plan. Those plans could be revised every year to encompass a

new five-year period.

I'd like to pass these papers over to

the minister to show him what's done in Saskatchewan. Every year, in

advance of the highway construction season in Saskatchewan, they

produce a map. The citizens of Saskatchewan will then know which roads

are being reconstructed or rebuilt. Tourists can then avoid those

sections if there's a problem, and commercial travelers who travel

around the province on a regular basis can re-schedule their routes to

avoid those areas.

They also publish what they call a

"project array," which is a

schedule of grading and paving so people

will know exactly what's happening in the province. I think it's a good

thing to do. The average politician could pick these up the first thing

in the year and send them out to his constituents and say: "This is

what the Minister of Highways is doing in my riding." It's not a

political thing at all. It's something that happens on a regular basis

and is scheduled according to a five-year plan.

In order to

take some of the political heat out of highway development and perhaps

the minister should consider this type of thing for the province of

British Columbia. I'm passing these over to the minister as a positive

suggestion for him in highway development in this province. I'd like to

have the minister's response on that proposal. There's no charge. It's

a gift of the government of Saskatchewan.

The minister also

expressed his concern about the increasing number of highway accidents

and the loss of life and property in the province of B.C., especially

the fantastic increase over the last year that brought the death rate

and property damage rate from accidents back up to the historic level

they occupied back in 1972. That was just before the former Minister of

Highways lowered speed limits on rural roads.

Everybody

knows that highway deaths and accidents are a combination of speed and

impairment, probably alcohol. So we took one of the elements out of

that equation, and that was excessive speed. You'll be interested to

know that in 1973 and 1974 we had traffic deaths totalling 833. After

the speed limit was lowered in 1976 those deaths dropped to 635. In

other words, we saved about 200 lives simply by lowering the speeds in

the province of B.C.

When this government came to office,

the rural highway speeds were increased again. At the same time, the

traffic deaths have started to go back up. They're back up at historic

levels: 722 in 1977 and 823 in 1980. I'd like to ask the minister if

over his term in office he has examined the effect of increased speed

limits on highway deaths in the province of B.C.

We congratulate the Social Credit government for bringing in seatbelt legislation.

congratulate them for bringing in Counterattack. That's the way I think

policing should go in this province. People should be examined as to

their condition to drive, whether their cars are in good mechanical

shape, whether they're wearing seatbelts and that type of thing. I

wonder if the minister has separated out of these conditions the effect

of his increasing speed limits throughout the province on increasing

traffic deaths back to their historic levels.

At the same

time the minister said he was going to get tough on people who

consistently violate the law, people who were caught driving while

impaired, and that type of thing. But I think the punitive approach is

only one approach to the problem, and I would like to suggest an

alternative. It was one I discovered when I went down to Queensland,

Australia, a few years ago. In Queensland they live a richer life in

their legislative assembly than we do here, Mr. Chairman. For example,

you would have a chauffeur if you were the Speaker of the House in

Queensland. One day when I was visiting the House in Queensland the

Speaker gave me his driver, who took me out to some of the beaches

north of Brisbane, and I asked him some questions about how they

licensed their drivers and cars and how he managed to get a job as the

driver for the Speaker of the Queensland National Assembly. He was a

Labour Party member and the Speaker in the Queensland National

Assembly, or whatever they call it,

[ Page 5794 ]

was

a Liberal National Party member. He said that down there a probationary

driver will have a P (for probation) placed on his licence plate so

everybody knows who the guy is, and if he's been involved in a traffic

infraction or had his licence lifted recently in a drinking and driving

case they'll attach a letter to his licence plate so that everybody on

the street knows they should avoid this guy like the plague because he

doesn't have a very good driving record. It's also a bit of a

punishment, because Australians like to feel themselves very competent

physically. To have one of these things on your licence plate is very

embarrassing, and you'll do whatever you can to get rid of it,

including driving within the law.

On the other hand they

reward excellent drivers. This is the

part I'm trying to convey to the

minister. On an excellent driver's car they have an M plate, which is

master driver. This is a person who has a record of no accidents,

hasn't violated the law, doesn't have speeding tickets and has probably

taken defensive driver or professional driving courses. I would

encourage the minister to also reward the good drivers, rather than

using strictly the punitive approach to driving infractions and bad

drivers. This is a way of encouraging people to do up their seatbelts,

obey the law, keep their cars in good mechanical condition and not to

drink and drive. I support the minister's efforts to use the punitive

approach and take drivers who are consistent and flagrant violators off

the road, but I would like to see the minister use the other approach

as well — that excellent drivers who wish to have their reputation made

known to other drivers should be rewarded. I would offer that as a

positive suggestion to the minister so that he can't accuse me of

always being negative.

I'm not concerned about being called

negative by that minister, because he came up to my riding during the

last election, accused me of being negative all over the block, and I

got a higher vote than I've ever had. In other words, the people felt

there was a lot to be negative about. I was doing what the people

wanted me to do in that case. And they still do, because they think

this government is a lot to be negative about.

For a little

while I'd like to talk, and possibly make some positive suggestions,

about highway planning and integrating highway planning with planning

in the forest industry, the provision of energy and the distribution of

energy throughout the province. One example of where the lack of

coherent, integrated planning on the part of this government is causing

serious transportation problems is on central Vancouver Island. Let me

just outline the problem for the minister so that he can take some

steps to clear it up. This is a short speech with many positive

recommendations. Here's an example. Chips are being hauled all the way

from the Quesnel area in the minister's riding down to the coast across

the Strait of Georgia and Johnstone Strait, over central Vancouver

Island to Port Alberni and also up to Elk Falls. The reason these chips

are directed that way is that they're bringing additional electrical

energy to Vancouver Island over the Cheekye-Dunsmuir powerline. The

resources are simply not on the Island. They have to be brought in to

Vancouver Island, because at the present time we're using up virtually

all the fibre resources we have. So we're now bringing the chips in

from the interior. We're bringing the power in from Squamish and

processing those chips in Port Alberni and Elk Falls on central

Vancouver Island.

The result of this is that we have chip

trucks going over the Alberni highway about once every 15 minutes all

through the day and night. We also have the Pacific Rim National Park

at the west coast end of the highway. During the summer we're going to

have hundreds of thousands of tourists, as I pointed out to the

minister before. Every one of those tourists will be hung up in a long

line behind chip trucks hauling chips all the way from Quesnel and

Williams Lake into Port Alberni.

To me it seems bad planning

to have observed the availability of a pulp and paper complex in Port

Alberni and Elk Falls and to have provided extra electrical energy to

those complexes without any natural resources being available to them,

except resources which could be hauled over the highway system of the

province, thus causing congestion, frustration, increasing the risk of

accidents and forcing the Minister of Highways to upgrade those

highways to the tune of millions upon millions of dollars, which

virtually amounts to a subsidy to the companies who are processing

those chips — as is the electricity. As a result, you have a situation

which doesn't make any economic sense either to the Minister of

Highways or to the people of the province as a whole who have to

provide the electricity and the chips.

I'm just wondering

whether there's a system of integrated planning whereby the minister is

made aware of what problems are going to be created on the

transportation end of the equation when Hydro agrees to provide

electricity to those large mills on Vancouver Island, when the Forest

Service agrees that those chips can be provided to those large mills on

Vancouver Island, and yet transportation over the public highway system

is inadequate to handle those chips. It's not much of a problem in the

wintertime, but during the summer, and what they call the shoulder

season in the tourist industry, it's going to be a painful and

frustrating problem. People are going to get frustrated, attempt to

pass where it's illegal and put the whole area at risk for accidents

and for loss of life and property. What is the planning involvement of

the Ministry of Highways?

I'd like to ask the minister

another question along the same lines. The minister is responsible for

B.C. Rail and, at least in a policy way, for transportation in general

throughout the province. We have a railway on Vancouver Island that's

grossly underutilized — the Esquimalt to Nanaimo railway system. Does

the minister have the power — if not the statutory power, at least the

persuasive power — to talk to the forest and transportation companies

involved about getting the chips off the highway system and onto that

underutilized railway system? Here is an opportunity for us to get rid

of that large industrial traffic on the highways, which in the summer

are fully or over utilized, and get it onto a railway system which is

underutilized. Has the minister investigated the problem? Does he have

the power to order the chips off the highway and onto the railway

system? We don't want the chips taken away from central Vancouver

Island. The people at Elk Falls and the people at Port Alberni want to

continue processing those chips into pulp and paper. We would like to

have the transportation problem eliminated. We feel there is an

underutilized system, in the form of the E&N Railway, to do it. We

would like the minister to use his persuasive powers on the forest

companies and on the CPR to try to remove that traffic from the

highways.

The alternative is spending a tremendous amount of

public money to expand the highway system, taking up a lot of farmland

and residential land. It could become a serious problem in that area of

central Vancouver Island. The best alternative appears to me to be the

railroads.

[ Page

5795 ]

The other question I was going to ask the minister today has to do with the spraying program of the Ministry of Highways.

I understand that spraying programs will take place along highway

rights-of-way in a number of areas to remove certain types of

vegetation. It was my impression that the minister would eliminate, as

far as possible, the use of chemical pesticides and herbicides within

his ministry. Has that been the case? Has the ministry cut out the use

of chemical pesticides and herbicides? If so, what alternatives have

been developed? Is he looking into vegetation control alternatives that

don't involve the use of chemicals? I'd like the minister to outline

his vegetation control program and answer the question of whether they

are still using pesticides and herbicides.

This is the final part of my question with respect to rural roads in the Alberni

valley. I've been at the minister a number of times over a number of years

on this issue. During his introductory remarks on these estimates, I think he

pointed out that about 90 percent of the roads in the Alberni district were

paved; I don't think the percentage is that high. Unfortunately the percentage

is distributed this way: even if 100 percent were paved, the 8 percent that

isn't paved is included in spots along the roads that are paved. That becomes

a problem. As I mentioned before, the minister is known as "Pot-hole Fraser"

in some sections of my riding.

MR. LEA: Did you steal my name?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Lea, Lea. Pot-hole Lea. You've got the wrong name.

MR. SKELLY:

I would love to have the wrong name. I would love to say no, Fraser

doesn't have a single pot-hole in the province. Some of the pot-holes

are as big as the Fraser. This minister is getting a bad name in my

riding; I'd like him to improve it. The problem is those rural roads in

the Alberni valley. I'll name them for him, but he probably knows them

by heart: Beaver Creek road, Cherry Creek road, Sproat Lake road, McCoy

Lake road — you can probably think of a few that I've missed. Those

roads are covered with pot-holes.

The maintenance program on

that road is inadequately funded; your staff in Alberni admits that

there is inadequate funding. They say it would take an extra million

dollars just to clean up the backlog and get the maintenance program

working on a year-by-year basis. What plans does the ministry have to

provide additional money to that area, in order to upgrade the road

facilities so they can be maintained on a year-by-year basis? There is

so little money expended in that area now that the roads are

deteriorating more and more on a year-by-year basis. I'd like the

minister to answer that question.

The last thing I'd like to ask about is the Alberni Cumberland road. The

minister puts an average of about $50,000 a year into that road. It's helpful:

it cleans off some of the corners that make it difficult for car travel; it

removes some drainage problems by installing culverts here and there.

I'm wondering what plans the minister has this year for the Alberni-Cumberland

road. As I've pointed out year after year to the minister — and I've

pointed it out to you, Mr. Chairman; but I've never seen you on the road

— this road is developing into part of a circle route. People are even commuting

to work on this road from Cumberland to Port Alberni. They require annual upgrading

of the road. I would like to know what plans the minister has for that section.

HON. MR. FRASER:

With the consent of the committee, I would go back to the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace); yesterday we adjourned abruptly during

her list of questions. I'll speedily cover those. First of all, on

hazardous cargo, which the member brought up, we are in negotiation

and we in this province have said that we would cooperate with it. We

have not yet decided in which way we are going to cooperate. But the

federal bill is in place, and we are now dealing with the government of

Canada as to how we can support this legislation. whether it's

concerning rail or road.

You're correct; nothing has

happened. I might say, Mr. Chairman, I don't think anything will

happen. In my opinion, at the rate that negotiations go on. I'm really

don't think that anything in the way of a law being in place, and which

could be enforced, will happen for at least six months. That's my

experience, but I'm taking a very minimum calculated guess at that.

Regarding

the manufacturing of licence plates, this is a good question. I've

looked at this since I've had this responsibility. We've tried to get

them manufactured in our province in the quantities involved. Nobody

seems to be interested. We have tried to get them established here and

have used the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development to

help encourage it, but still with no luck.

The Deputy

Premier and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) asked

us two years ago to look to the disabled having the project of making

licence plates. They have been approached, but it's my understanding

that they said they can't handle it. So what we do is go by tender call

for licence plate requirements, personalized as well as ordinary, and

the business goes to the low bidder. It has been in Montreal, but I

believe that firm is looking at moving. We're now in discussion with a

branch in Calgary and we're trying to convince them to come to British

Columbia instead. So that is the issue regarding the manufacture of

licence plates.

Apparently I owe you an apology regarding a

letter I didn't answer. I had it here, and in fact the letter was

answered. I might say that our office handles a thousand letters a

month, and we reply to that many per month. I had the information here.

The chamber of commerce were the people who wrote the letter. I believe

you sent a copy up, and I believe they also wrote the letter to the

Minister of Tourism. That ministry sent the letter to us for a reply

and we did so in early August 1980. The apology you deserve is that you

were not sent a copy of the reply. That's what I apologize for. That

was a distinct oversight. The issue, of course, was the Crofton

Saltspring Island run, and the reply was negative. We didn't intend to

upgrade the service. They wanted longer hours on that ferry.

haven't got an answer for you on the accountants. We'll call them about

putting Powell River Bridge, French Creek Bridge and so on under your

riding. I agree with you they shouldn't be there. I imagine the

accountants have a reason for it, but I think we can find other places

to put them. Maybe they can charge them all to the Cariboo, Mr.

Chairman, since Cariboo is getting blamed for everything. As a matter

of fact, when I looked at your observations I found there was a bridge

under the Cariboo riding that was in Cowichan-Malahat as well.

[ Page 5796 ]

have a note here about the Honeymoon Bay park and something about the

relocation of the road. I just made a note about it. I haven't got all

the replies to that. The Crofton road is still under study, and that's

the reply to that. I don't know where to stop or start on the Lake

Cowichan road, but I'll give my version of it. We wanted to put a seal

coat on this road last year and proceeded to do so, but I think an

error was made and a grinding process took place that ground off more

material than it should have. From there on, we were in difficulty.

Only now, after attempting the seal coat that failed, are we paving the

road with hot-mix. In hindsight, I guess that's what should have

happened in the first place. But I might say in defence of seal coat

that we use hundreds of miles of it every year in the province. Seal

coating is what the engineers use to get further life out of our

pavement, and under really good weather conditions it's excellent and

might add five to ten years to the pavement base by putting a proper

asphalt and rock cover on it and sealing the water out. That's the

point of it. But if we get into weather difficulties while applying it,

we've got a real mess. The ministry is looking at cutting down seal

coating to areas with drier weather where we won't get caught with

weather changes, but it has been a successful program.

The

job on the Lake Cowichan road is one that definitely failed. I guess by

the time we're finished — from start to finish — we're looking at a

cost of $2.5 million. We started to put the seal coat down and are now

going to permanent hotmix for the pavement on that road. I'm not so

sure whether they're paving it or not, but they should be — that is,

with hot-mix. I might say, when I mention the cost, Mr. Chairman, that

that hasn't anything to do with the cost of the claims that ensued from

the failed seal-coat job. I don't know whether anybody has got a handle

on the exact costs or not, because we're still dealing with them.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I have that information here somewhere, but I just can't find the note

regarding the claims for vehicles. You're asking when it will be

resolved. I've got the answer here somewhere, but I've got too many

papers here. I'll come back to it.

To the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) regarding relocation of our facility

in his area: we're still looking for an alternative. Our landlord is

the B.C. Buildings Corporation, and they are pursuing a, site. He's

right that we want to move out of there in Burnaby-Willingdon, and BCBC

is involved to provide the land and buildings for the alternative

facility. We're also dealing with the District of Burnaby regarding the

relocation of that maintenance yard. We found an alternative, I might

say, and the District of Burnaby turned us down on it; they didn't want

us to go to the alternative. So we're still pursuing another site.

Dealing

with the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), I haven't got the information

here yet on Tofino airport, but I appreciate your remarks. You know, we

closing the Tofino airport.

I always enjoy the planning side

of things, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate that we have a planning

division and everything, but our plans all seem to go out the window

when we start to tie the planning to dollars. Our government doesn't

give us a fixed five-year budget. It's pretty difficult, and you can't

plan around a general principle. But when you're talking five years,

you might not attain your objectives. I agree that planning is

certainly necessary, but whether that will be backed up by reality when

you get into the financial side is another thing.

MR. SKELLY: What about in forestry? They do it there.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Yes, they've done it in forestry. I realize that the government has

laid that on a five-year program, but we certainly haven't done it in

Highways. We do it in theory, but then we can't deliver if there is a

shortage of funds.

Regarding accidents, I'd like to hear

from all members of the House regarding what's going on in their

highways system regarding accidents, but I don't subscribe to your

theory that accidents have increased because of the increased speed

limits that we've brought in. I might say that where we have increased

the speed limits in the province, it's only where we've improved the

roads first. I particularly refer to passing lanes and so on that we've

been putting in. On our arterial two-lane roads we have 80 kilometres

per hour where our engineers think it's safe. We also have sections

posted at 90 kilometres per hour; that's really the only change we've

made in speed limits, on two-lane arterials where the engineers

consider the sections safe, and this is probably after a repaving job

or in an area that hasn't shown any previous accidents. I don't think

the two are intertwined at all.

Yes, it is correct that in

my opening remarks I said we were bringing in legislation to toughen up

— as you say, "punitive." I guess that is to some degree. I might make

this observation. I think we've been nice guys for quite a while. We've

gone through that process, and there are some motorists who have

responded and some who haven't. You'll also find in the new legislation

provision for a provisional licence for new drivers and drivers who

have been suspended. They're not going to get their licences back.

Depending on the severity of their penalties, they're going to get a

provisional licence. I guess I would say that the good drivers get

rewarded by not having to bother with court or anything else. They also

get rewarded through ICBC. That's the observation I have there. They

get a consideration there with their better driving record.

MR. SKELLY: They go up but they don't go up as much. Some reward!

HON. MR. FRASER: That's correct.

You

hit on another subject which hasn't come up in debate, and that's chip

trucks. I'm glad my colleague the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) is here. I'm not alarmed, but I'm concerned about the number

of chip trucks. I like to see them because of the jobs they create, but

for the life of me I can't understand, as you say, why they're hauling

chips from Quesnel or Williams Lake in the Cariboo to Port Alberni by

truck. Not only, as you say, do we have a railroad on Vancouver Island

under capacity, the E&N, but we have our own railroad, the BCR,

from Quesnel and Williams Lake to tidewater at Squamish and North

Vancouver. These chip trucks are running parallel to them for about 600

miles. I can't understand it. That's my answer. I've asked the

industry. By the way, we have no way of ruling them off the road. They

buy the licence and adhere to the laws of the country, and there's

nothing wrong with that. But on the economics of it I can't understand

how they can compete with the railroads

[ Page

5797 ]

that have chip cars and all the rest of it. Apparently they can or they wouldn't be doing it.

think the other thing is that in a lot of cases where chips are picked

up by truck, once they've got it loaded they figure it doesn't cost

much more to keep going and take it to where the chips are eventually

going to be consumed — in other words, rather than load it at the chip

pile, then haul it to the railroad siding and have the railroad take

it, and then have to offload it again. That's an answer I got from the

industry.

It's all over our province. They're also hauling

chips from Kitimat to Prince George and Prince George to Kitimat, I

believe. I guess it's nice, it creates jobs and that, but I don't know

how the market stands it. When one of the big units has a problem and

rolls over — we've had that during this last winter — it closes our

highway completely for a period of time. Generally speaking they do a

good job, but because of weather changes and so on.... It doesn't

matter how good anybody is, with the elements against them they're

going to get into difficulties. That's my observation. We have no way

of.... I suppose we could — again, you use and I use the word

"punitive" — increase their fees, but we have no intention of doing

that.

We were into spraying programs earlier. You asked

about certain chemicals. I'm not sure of that, Mr. Member, but I am

sure we don't spray anywhere in the province if we haven't got a permit

from the pesticide control board. Just like you or me, Highways has to

get clearance from them. They're the bosses who control that. A note

has just been handed me saying that under noxious weed control one

permit has been received this year for the application of 22 pounds of

Tordon 22K and 176 pounds of Round-up to control Canadian thistle and

knapweed between Parksville and Duncan. The right-of-way area involved

is approximately 20 acres.

We are doing some paving on

Highway 4 in the Kennedy Lake area. We're calling the tender in July.

We do keep going on your roads. You didn't give us any credit for the

guardrail we put up. That was a safety measure on your road. I know

your people there appreciated that. But you want to remember that in

Highways there's always something to do. We don't ever get all caught

up.

The last-but-not-least item is the famous

Alberni-Cumberland road. I've never heard of a road that's more

important to communities than that one. Of course the members know that

this road is through tree-farm licences — it's not a public road. In

cooperation with the Forest Service and the company we are getting a

little done each year, but I was very disappointed to find everything

we did last year was flooded out in December 1980. So we have to start

all over again, but we intend to spend about another $50,000 there this

year. We want to keep up with it, but there's this conflict with the

TFL that the companies are not too happy about. We intend to pave the

Spring Cove road later. I don't know what "later" means, though.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Chairman, I know the government is looking for positive suggestions

from the opposition, so I'm going to give the minister a number of

positive suggestions affecting the constituency of Comox. He's going to

have such a list of positive suggestions, I think it's going to take

him a number of weeks to even sort them out.

I think the minister knows that the most congested

section of highway on the

entire Island right now is in the Courtenay area. There is only one bridge that

crosses the Courtenay River. My colleague the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann)

mentioned the other day the length of time it takes him to get home now because

of that hour's wait he has to endure trying to get through the Courtenay

area.

The

second bridge is under construction, and we're very pleased about that,

particularly since this summer the 1981 Summer Games are going to be

held in Courtenay. There's some feeling of desperation among the games

committee members. I would like assurance from the minister this

afternoon that that bridge and the approaches will be ready by the end

of August so that when we have an additional 3,000 or 4,000 people

suddenly arriving in Courtenay, we're not going to have two-hour

lineups, rather than the one-hour lineups we now face.

would also like to make a few comments about the study that came out

the other day with respect to the inland route from Mud Bay through to

Menzies Bay. I generally concur with the remarks made by the member for

North Island. There's just no way that that highway between Courtenay

and Campbell River can accommodate the kind of traffic that's predicted

in the study. They're talking about an increase of 50 percent in the

next five years and 100 percent in ten years.

The minister

himself has admitted to me in various speeches — I make a speech on

this road every year and the minister has indicated it to me — that

this

section of highway is one of the most dangerous in the province.

Every year, we get an increase in the volume of traffic on that road

between Courtenay and Campbell River. Five years from now, it will be a

50 percent increase. There is no way we can accommodate that kind of

increase on that road, even though at the moment they're putting on a

new coat of paving. I think they have taken out a couple of the worst

of the corners. But the minister knows that, and I would like very much

for the minister to assure us this afternoon that he is not talking

about ten years for the completion of that inland route but four to

five years at the outside. Can the minister indicate this afternoon

when he will make a decision on the route selection? I think that the

middle route selection as outlined in the study itself is the one that

I would tend to prefer, as my colleague from North Island has also

indicated.

It seems to be the one that has the least impact

on the environment, in terms of the agricultural land. It seems to me

it also would not have the same impact on the current population in the

area, because if you're going to build it right next to the one that's

already there, you're going to have great difficulties in terms of

acquiring property. When can we anticipate that the route will be

selected and the road will be finished? I'm hoping that the minister

can give us some assurance at this point that he's not talking about

ten years down the road, as he has on a number of occasions when he's

been in the constituency of Comox.

It's a pleasure to have

two MLAs fighting for this road now. With the redistribution, my

colleague for North Island and I will continue to raise this issue with

the minister and hopefully get the kind of action that is urgently

required in order to put in that inland route.

On a new

subject, I was really quite pleased to note that this year in their

contract proposals the ferry workers are negotiating for improvements

for the passengers who ride on those ferries. This year the contract

proposals for the ferry workers includes improvements in food services

on the ferries and in accommodations for those people who are waiting

for ferries in these long lineups. This is rather a novel approach. I'm

really hopeful that those ferry workers will be successful in

negotiating what we as MLAs on this side of the

[ Page 5798 ]

House have been calling for year after year since this government took over the operation of the ferry system again in 1976.

have the same number of pot-holes that the MLA for Alberni (Mr.

Skelly), the MLA for North Island and the others have been raising. A

positive suggestion is to increase the amount of money that goes to

maintenance now so that we can cut down on the number of complaints

that are coming in with respect to those unpaved roads.

Related

to unpaved roads, the other complaint that I get a lot is that the

number of times that the crews are out oiling the dusty roads is

reduced year after year. I appreciate that the cost of oil is

escalating at a horrendous rate. Unfortunately the budget for

maintenance, which includes oiling, is not increasing at the same rate

as the increase in the costs of maintenance. As a result, the poor

crews in the various constituencies of the province are forced to cut

back on the amount of maintenance work. That's why we're here today

raising the question of improvements in terms of the roads that are not

paved.

I'm wondering if the minister or the ministry has

undertaken to do any research which might cut down on the dust on these

unpaved roads by using some other product other than oil. We all know

what's happening to the price of oil. We can all see very easily that

that, price is going to continue to increase at a tremendous rate. I'm

wondering if any research is being done to find some alternative

product that might be utilized to keep down the dust on the roads.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about blacktop?

MS. SANFORD:

Well, blacktop would be the best answer, of course. A positive

suggestion I made earlier was that they increase the number of roads

that are being paved and put in new inland routes, etc.

The

other brief question I would like to raise relates to the Nanoose

section which is now under construction. They're four-laning the

section, and I fall to understand why it is taking those crews so long

to get that four-laning done. It seems to me that it's been going on

for at least two years. I know it's a big job to change the route and

four-lane, but they just get one

section done and then they have to

undo it again, because they forgot to put culverts in or some other

problem. I'm sure that this particular

section is taking more time than

most sections of construction in the province. I'm wondering if the

minister might have any comments as to why it is taking so long to

four-lane the

section at Nanoose.

HON. MR. FRASER: I

have a few quick answers some good news and some bad. First of all,

Madam Member, you can phone home and tell them that the bridge will be

open by July 31, 1981.

MS. SANFORD: What about the approaches?

HON. MR. FRASER: Everything will be ready — the bridge and the approaches

— by July 31, 1981. Please tell them that it would have been open a year ago

if we hadn't had so much public controversy over it. I'm happy to report

to you that this large project will be completed. Give the credit to the contractors.

We had two excellent contractors for the approach as well as the bridge. While

they've had some problems with floods and so on, they're still ahead

of

schedule and intend to have it all cleaned up by the end of July 1981.

The

inland road. I can't say that it will not be ten years but only five.

The route selection and so on.... The consultant's report is out there

now for discussion. I go back to the discussion we had about the

Courtenay Bridge. The discussion took a lot longer than building it,

after we got it settled. I don't want to get caught in that. The member

for North Island and you have stated your position. That's great. I

hope that happens at the other elected levels: locally, Courtenay,

Campbell River and the regional district. Then I think we could get on

and be able to give some definitive answers.

Regarding

pot-holes and the maintenance fund increase: there is an increase in

maintenance funds this year which is probably about equivalent to

inflation. I'm looking at the global picture for the province, and I

believe we're up $15 million or $17 million. We now have almost $200

million for maintenance in the province. That's gone up substantially

since we've been government. I would also say that one problem we have

is the terrific escalation of oil that you're talking about. We have

not increased the funds to look after the cost of that particular

product. It's 10 percent or 12 percent across the board. The price of

oil has gone up more than that, and it's going to continue to. Research

goes on continuously to find something different. Of course, we don't

use oil in all cases. We use calcium chloride, as well, for a dust

retardant. Of course, the answer we all want to see is permanent paving.

Regarding

the last job, Mr. Chairman, the member was a bit out of her riding.

You're referring to four-laning north of Nanaimo to Nanoose.

MS. SANFORD: It's my riding.

HON. MR. FRASER: Oh, is it? Pardon me.

That's

a very large contract of about $5 million. I understand that that job

should be wound up by the end of July. I question that, because that

contract has been tied up with weather and there are other contractors

in there twinning bridges. I only hope that it's all complete and

buttoned up by the end of July. I think at least that the new road will

be paved.

That contract fooled everybody. When they started

off they opened the whole country up — right now, overnight, within 60

days — and everything seems to be slow since then. But they're still

within time of their contract.

MR. HALL: There's some

mumbling over there. Mr. Chairman, there are 50 ridings in the House

and there are probably going to be 49 speeches, so a lot of people

should settle down, listen and learn about what's going on.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: You never listen to anything, anyway, so what difference does it make?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask all members to come to order.

MR. HALL:

The word "ignorant" comes to mind. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have a

little conversation with the minister on my own. That's probably the

best way to handle this whole affair, having waited patiently since 2

o'clock.

I want to congratulate the minister for the

improvements in the traffic congestion around the Massey Tunnel and the

approaches on either side which affect the southern part of

[ Page 5799 ]

riding. Being one of the few members whose families travel through the

tunnel early in the morning, when the three northern lane procedures

are in operation, I want to tell him that it has certainly been quite

successful to date. I have a couple of questions about it, though.

has been my observation and the observation of people I talk to that

since the unfortunate accident six or seven weeks after it was started

— certainly the accident wasn't attributable to the fact that there are

three northbound lanes in operation; perhaps the accident was made more

severe by the fact that one of the two vehicles slewed into what was

then an oncoming lane — there has been a reduction in traffic that

selects the third lane coming from White Rock and south Surrey. That's

just a feeling. I can't back it up because I don't have access to those

little black boxes that you may or may not use in that area. There must

be a choice to make because commercial vehicles aren't allowed to go

through the west side of the tunnel — the side of the tunnel that will

have the opposing lane in operation. You can't simply confine all the

White Rock and south Surrey traffic into that lane; there must be a

choice. I think most people are making the choice to come onto what

they consider to be the safer side or the safer choice. I wonder if the

minister would look into that.

The second point is that the

backup of the southbound traffic in what is now a single lane is

stretching about threequarters of the way to the Westminster Highway.

It's now almost to Blundell, as my memory serves me. I'm wondering how

long it's going to be and what predetermination the ministry may have

made as to when it's going to be sufficiently tough and the pressure is

going to be on to have to reverse your field altogether. The staff of

the ministry is now moving in as efficiently and quickly as they can in

the mornings to cease the operation of the third lane. They're now

getting into operation perhaps as soon as 8:05 or 8:10. I'm wondering

what the parameters of that were.

The reason I ask is that I

thought the minister told me — he may have misled me in a

not-very-private conversation in a ferry car-park not too long ago — he

was thinking of changing the routing of the Queen of Alberni

from Tsawwassen to Departure Bay instead of to Swartz Bay. If we follow

this through and that truck ferry is going to go from Tsawwassen to

Departure Bay, what the minister is really saying is that he wants

commercial traffic to come from Vancouver to Tsawwassen instead of

going from Vancouver over the Lions Gate to West Vancouver. That means

that commercial traffic is going to be increased in the early hours of

the morning. If that's the case, I suggest — and I'm no traffic

engineer or planner — the backup going through the tunnel is going to

be heavier on the southbound side than it is at the moment. So I'm just

suggesting to him that he's got to race against time in that way. I

just want to point out that while that success is there now, it's

getting thicker and thicker on the southbound side and it's only a

matter of time, I think, before the pressure is going to be on. That

third lane isn't going to work much longer.

Changing the

subject completely to the Pattullo Bridge, there's a handrail on both

sides of that bridge. If an accident happens — only a minor accident —

a piece of the railing of the bridge can easily be knocked out and fall

from the bridge. A great expanse of that railing on both sides of the

river is over roadway, over pedestrians and over other travel portions

of roads and highways. Only a small portion of that bridge is actually

over the river. That constitutes a danger for the traffic underneath.

Obviously we can't do much about the tragic event of a whole vehicle

careening through that side fencing of a bridge — I don't think that

has happened yet. But we can certainly do something about portions of

the guard-rail falling following an accident. I'm suggesting to the

minister that he examine the possibility of running a cable through

that topmost part of the fence. That would at least keep the broken

part of the fence on the Pattullo Bridge and not on top of somebody or

somebody's car.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Next

question: when is there going to be a testing station in Surrey other

than the one in Cloverdale? I've got correspondence going back three

years. I can't get the dimensions of my riding through to somebody in

the ministry. I went the whole circuit with the minister, who then told

me that improvements would be made to serve the good people of Surrey —

and they were going to be made in Cloverdale. Most people in Surrey

don't even consider that Cloverdale is in Surrey. I'm sorry. I hope

that won't get out of this chamber, but it's true. They don't really

believe it's in Surrey. Certainly the 20,000 people who live within a

one-mile radius of Guildford don't think that Cloverdale's in Surrey.

Whalley doesn't believe that Cloverdale is in Surrey. Even the people

in Newton don't think that Cloverdale's in Surrey. If somebody can give

me a badge, I think I can speak on behalf of the member for Delta (Mr.

Davidson) today. There's nobody in North Delta or Sunshine Hills who

believes that Cloverdale is serving them either. So, Mr. Minister,

we've got to get something to do with testing vehicles north of the

flats, north of 62nd Avenue, north of 72nd Avenue, north of 88th

Avenue. I really want it in North Surrey, and I'm sure that the member

for Delta may even put his seat on the line again and decide he wants

it in North Delta. I don't really care whether it's there or not, as

long as it's north of 72nd Avenue.

The next thing is that I

appreciate the straightforwardness of the minister yesterday, the day

before and again today — a hint of forthcoming legislation. But he

really is teasing us a little. I don't want to remonstrate with him at

all, but he's opening up a whole bag of something or other by some of

those remarks he made about forthcoming legislation. I don't know how

to deal with it, because some of the things he's mentioned have really

got some very draconian measures in them that I'm tempted to respond

to, but I'd be out of order, and I don't want to delay the estimates

going through. But I hope the minister will allow us, and will respond

to us in a private way by correspondence. I don't know whether

legislation is coming in this session or not. If it is.... He's nodding

his head and saying, yes, it is. In that case, we can await the

legislation coming in.

Mr. Minister, I would suggest that

we'd best leave that one alone and let's deal with it when it does come

in. He's raised it three times and I commend him for his interest in

and his anxiety about some of the problems. But it raises almost as

many questions when you do it this way. I would like to say to him that

impounding the vehicles of offenders and talking about probationary

licences at the moment is a bit frustrating for the people on this side

of the House. They can't get back at the minister by asking questions,

particularly when certain members on this side of the House have spent

a lot of time — sometimes longer than this member's been in the House —

talking about safety and things they believe in just as sincerely as

the minister.

[ Page 5800 ]

might also say that I'm impressed with the minister's record in matters

to do with safety and trucking in this province. I'm one of the members

who have read the history of the Fraser family in this regard. I've

seen pictures of the minister and his brother and his family in the

trucking industry, and pictures of the minister as a young man beside

1940, 1930 and 1920 vehicles.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Not that far back!

MR. HALL:

Oh, they were antique vehicles that he was showing off. I know that the

minister knows all the tricks there are in the trucking industry.

That's why I feel compelled to say to the minister that he's got to do

more than he's doing now — because he does know some of the games that

are played. For two years he's milked the announcements about unsafe

loads, and about how horrified he is to see the state of some of those

trucks.

I was making speeches when Mr. Bonner was the member

for Cariboo. Not many members here even know that Mr. Bonner was the

member for Cariboo. I was making speeches about truck safety when there

was a Minister of Commercial Transport in this province. But I'll tell

you that truck safety is no better now than it was then, and it may be

worse. I think I share that view with the minister.

I want

to know what the minister is doing about it. Is he going to arm his

staff with short penknives that cut through an air hose and tell them

to say to the driver of an unsafe vehicle: "You're not going to go any

further. Enough is enough. Get off to the side of the road and don't go

any further." That's what the FCC does in the States, and I think their

legislation is getting softer. I agree with some of the remarks of the

minister about that.

I think we've now got to really deal

with inspection of commercial vehicles. I said before and will say

again that the establishment of specific inspection areas on a

day-to-day basis in five points in this province would get 95 percent

of the commercial vehicles — using our weigh scales, with competent

people to do it. Where is our ministry, where is the Motor Carrier

Commission, where is ICBC encouraging the industry to set up programs

of preventive maintenance that would make sure there is a reward for

preventive maintenance, a reward for slowing down, and a reward for

making sure those vehicles go five miles per hour slower? That means

efficiency, savings and safety. I think those are some of the things

the minister's got to tackle on truck safety.

I'm as

appalled and horrified as he is about some of the figures he's

released. We should all be as appalled as the minister has been in his

statements, and know that this has been going around for a long time.

It's just simply getting worse, and the myth that somehow the truck

driver is the knight of the road and the safest person around has got

to be finished. He's not the same man that shared all those long night

drives with the Minister of Transportation and Highways 30 years ago.

The whole industry has changed. I was the member that got into trouble

in here when I pointed out that truck drivers were taking amphetamines

to keep up with the arduous schedules that were being foisted on them

by employers. That's what's happening in the province today, and I

think we should get after that. Enough of this public relations attack

on truck safety. Let's get some legislation.

Two more points, Mr. Chairman. The statistics the minister produces were of

particular interest to you and I, living in the two most dangerous areas to

drive a motor vehicle in British Columbia, possibly in Canada. I would like

those statistics somehow broken down by municipality, or at least by electoral

district. Those of us who are interested in what is happening about accidents

and road safety in our districts need that kind of information. We write to

our districts and police people, and we're not getting the kind of information

that's available quickly through the ministry if the statistics are kept

correctly. I do urge the minister to provide, if he can — so we can all take

part in the campaign about safety — those statistics presented on a municipal

or electoral basis. Those figures we've got in your report received the

other day need to be broken down even further.

One

of the most dangerous places in my riding is the corner of 104th and

King George Highway. There are more traffic lights there than there are

Christmas lights on most people's Christmas trees, but we're still

killing each other at the corner of 104th and King George Highway.

There are still more uncontrolled intersections in Surrey than there

should be. I have a simple question to the minister about that. With

regard to B.C. Railway and the B.C. Hydro railway, are there any

unsignalized railway intersections — intersections that are not

controlled by an electrically operated warning signal remaining in the

lower mainland?

Now my two final questions. I'm becoming

increasingly, perhaps irritated is the best word, by the assumption

made by commercial companies that they can park or leave commercial

vehicles on the side of highways any time they like and just leave them

for days on end. They leave them at the ferries. At the totem pole area

at the end of the Tsawwassen causeway, trailers belonging to commercial

vehicles frequently are left there for days on end. I'm all in favour

of trade and commerce, but that carries a responsibility and charge for

it. Just as I wouldn't like a heavy goods vehicle parked outside my

house — there are bylaws preventing that — I think there should be

provincial bylaws to prevent vehicles like that being parked at the

ends of causeways where we've erected information booths and where

tourists come and fishermen come to launch their boats. Recently a new

development has been happening. As we come off the ferries at Swartz

Bay, on the right-hand side of the road as we come round the corner,

just a mile away from Swartz Bay coming towards the city of Victoria,

these very wide mobile homes, usually half a unit, are being left at

the side of the road for up to two and three days at a time waiting for

somebody to come back and pick them up. Again, that's complete

ignorance, in my view, of what should happen. Those people should be

told to get those things to a commercial establishment and pay some

rent. There are lots of places along there that would be glad of the

business. They shouldn't just be allowed to park on the sides of the

highway.

Lastly, in terms of highway beautification

generally, would the minister have a look at the possibility of

cleaning up the Cloverdale works yard.... I'm not suggesting for a

moment that it is a mess, I'm saying could we use some of the seedlings

we grow at Green Timbers, further north in my riding, and plant some

trees around the Cloverdale works yard to cover up what is a most

unattractive view around that works yard. Just have some trees planted

around the outside perimeter. Thank you very much.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Chairman, to the second member for Surrey. I have a few questions

to reply to here. I appreciate a lot of his observations. Regarding a

testing station in the Surrey area. It's my understanding that plans for

[ Page

5801 ]

that

were cancelled some time ago, and there is no plan to put a testing

station in the Surrey area. There was, at one time, I think, before my

time, but that was cancelled, and they're going to concentrate on

roadside inspections. That's the information I have there.

Regarding

truck safety, Mr. Chairman, we can get press where it shows the horror

stories where 50 percent of the commercial vehicles don't pass these

mechanical inspections, but what are we going to do about it? We're

going first of all to expand outside the inspection areas. It's

generally been happening now in Vancouver and here on the Island. We'll

put out motor-vehicle inspectors in other parts of the province that

are mobile, so it won't only be confined there. In other words, we're

trying to expand this. The other thing that we've done, in cooperation

with the industry and the union, is to set up a committee to discuss

where we are going with this. Apparently it includes the unions that

represent the drivers — and I believe a great many are Teamsters — and

the industry itself. We've been dealing with the B.C. Motor Transport

Association, which represent a great majority of the commercial people

in the province. We've set up a committee with them to come up with a

solution — incentives or whatever — to what's going on, as you

mentioned. A lot of this, Mr. Chairman, is neglect of maintenance, and

we just have to get a better handle on that. So we're trying a total

approach to that. I hope that before the end of the year there is some

permanent solution, but in the meantime the inspections will continue.

I can't answer your question about whether we have any uncontrolled crossings

of B.C. Rail and B.C. Hydro in the lower mainland. They must be minimal, from

my observations, but I'm not too sure that there aren't still some uncontrolled

level crossings in the busy lower mainland area.

Commercial vehicles