[ Page 1055 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation, Communications and Highways estimates.

On vote 211.

Mr. King –– 1055

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 1055

Ms. Sanford –– 1056

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 1057

Mr. Gabelmann –– 1057

Mr. Davis –– 1059

Mr. Passarell –– 1063

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 1064

Mr. Stupich –– 1066

Mr. Ree –– 1067

Ms. Brown –– 1067

Mr. Skelly –– 1069

Mr. Barnes –– 1070

Appendix –– 1072

THURSDAY, JULY 26, 1979

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION,
COMMUNICATIONS AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)

On vote 211: minister's office, $168,872 — continued.

MR. KING: Before the dinner hour I made the case for constituents who were adversely affected by a policy decision by the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways' (Hon. Mr. Fraser's) ministry to arbitrarily freeze their property under various designations — in some cases "avalanche hazards," in other cases "subject to slippage or mudslides," and so on. The case that I was making is that while it's fine to take that kind of action in the public interest for the protection of the safety of the public, in my view the minister has an obligation to make some arrangement so that individual property owner is not obliged to carry the single burden of protecting the public interest in British Columbia. I made the point that while their property has been frozen and immobilized, their taxation has continued to appreciate. In effect, they are being taxed increasingly on land they cannot use. It should be obvious to all members of the House that is a highly improper situation. The minister has an obligation to remedy it.

Some members have suggested the cost of buying this land would be too high. Others feel that perhaps the landowner would try to rip off the government, in terms of cost. If that's the minister's concern, all he has to do is to submit the dispute to arbitration and let an independent tribunal establish fair compensation value for the property.

In many cases, and in the cases I have dealt with specifically, owners are not all that excited about relinquishing their property. They don't particularly want to sell. If the minister would consider a trade of Crown land for their property, that would be another fair way to go. But to sit, as the minister has, on this untenable issue for three years, is unacceptable. I appealed to the minister before dinner to think about the matter and, hopefully, come back to the House with a commitment that he is at least prepared to sit down and negotiate with the people involved. That leaves him all kinds of scope. I don't think that would unduly restrict him in any way. It leaves the options open. But it is fruitless to go on with a discourse when the minister is not prepared to give a commitment that he will negotiate with a view to finding a solution. If the minister is prepared to give that kind of commitment, I would sincerely appreciate it. I will be happy to cease and desist on this particular issue that I feel very, very strongly about. So I ask the minister, if he has had a chance to reflect on it, if he would at least give the undertaking that he'll sit down and negotiate with the people involved. A whole variety of options are open to him. In the name of fairness, and in the name of good conscience, I strongly request that the minister give that commitment.

HON. MR. FRASER: To the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, I thought I had given a commitment. He asked me before the meal hour if.... I said I would. Then, of course, the MLA changed his position when I replied in that aspect. However, I have a little further information on this specific problem. I think I should relate to the committee what my ministry has done about this area.

First they identified the avalanche hazard. Then they denied a highway commercial access permit to the property owner. The regional district has denied a building permit, based on Highways' advice with respect to the avalanche hazard. The solution to this type of problem lies in identifying (a) ways in which the development may be made safe by control or diversion of the hazard, if feasible, or (b) identification of a type of land use — and I think this is the better alternative — that is safe, due to seasonal use or other considerations. The policy to deal with these problems involves other ministries — due to the range of natural hazards, one of which is flooding — and other levels of government, with their powers to control land use through zoning and building codes. In order to plan policies to deal with all possible aspects, I am prepared to meet with this property owner and any other affected property owners, so that we may present the most complete picture to the cabinet for deliberation.

To amplify a little further, I say to the member that if limited use could be made of it, say, in the summer months when there is no avalanche hazard.... If they can operate that way, then the Highways ministry would certainly consider that. But they have rejected use of the property when the avalanche hazard exists — it wouldn't exist in the summer months, as an example. So a certain type of use could be made of the property, if they would entertain something like that.

MR. KING: I appreciate the minister's information, and it wasn't my intention to try to change the groundrules of what I was asking for from the minister, when he said he would meet with the people. Obviously there's not much point in my advising constituents to travel all the way from the Interior to Victoria to have a chat with the minister unless there's the prospect of some serious negotiations and a solution to the problem. I think the minister can appreciate that. It's nice to come down and have a chat with the minister, but unless there's at least the commitment that the minister is willing to negotiate a solution, then it's an empty and costly exercise. I appreciate the minister's advice. There might be alternative uses for the land and that could be explored. However, the minister will appreciate that this restricts the use. Less than the optimum use of the land, in terms of value, has an adverse affect on the people. It should be considered.

I thank the minister for indicating that it might be possible to eliminate the hazard. In the public interest, would the minister consider some kind of joint cost-sharing with respect to a program of diverting the potential avalanche hazard? That is an approach that is taken by the federal parks people for the protection of the Rogers Pass highway. They have erected a series of earthfill piles as a method of diverting and deflecting a slide that would conflict with the highway. That might be a possibility. I think it would require an engineering appraisal to determine whether that kind of thing was realistic with the gradient.

[ Page 1056 ]

I would appreciate it if the minister would at least be open to that kind of solution, instead of imposing the total responsibility and cost burden on the individual landowner. At least give an indication that the ministry would be willing to assist in that kind of assessment, and possibly that kind of remedy.

HON. MR. FRASER: Regarding the last part of your question, certainly we'd consider that, because the highway is affected as well.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd just like to divert the debate for five seconds, if I may. It's the tenth wedding anniversary of the hon. the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), and I'm sure that all members present would like to express their compliments to him, and their very best wishes and condolences to his child-bride for tolerating him these many years.

MS. SANFORD: May I add my congratulations to the member for Kootenay, and add that the first ten years are the easiest.

I have a few questions for the Minister of Highways, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start by thanking the minister for agreeing to meet with the residents of Denman Island, who have been very concerned about a subdivision proposal on Denman Island which is completely contradictory to the bylaws and the community plan drawn up by the Islands Trust and the people of the island.

Mr. Chairman, this is a situation in which the Minister of Highways and his staff have had to decide whether or not a subdivision which has been ongoing since 1973 has in fact been on stream. The decision by the senior approving officer in the Ministry of Highways is that the subdivision was actually on stream. The minister, following a meeting with the residents of Denman Island — who, I might add, have been very concerned about this because of its complete contradiction of the plan and the hopes and the aspirations that they have for the future of the island — has agreed to get a second legal opinion with respect to the onstream status of that particular subdivision application.

Mr. Chairman, the minister has indicated that the second legal opinion that he wishes to obtain will not be available until at least September, because the lawyer that he wishes to consult is away on holiday. Now I want to thank the minister first of all for agreeing that a second legal opinion should be obtained, because, based on all of my reading of all of the documents that have been involved in this particular subdivision application, I feel the residents of Denman Island are correct and that the preliminary layout approval should not have been given in this particular case. I spent a number of hours going through the files that have been made available to me, and I agree with the Denman Islanders that the subdivision approval should not have been given by the senior approving officer. But I am hopeful that the minister will consider obtaining the opinion of a lawyer whose services might be made available before September. I know he's indicated that this particular lawyer is away on holiday and probably won't be back until the end of August.

Now I'm hoping that process can be speeded up because, needless to say, people who live on the Gulf Islands are very concerned about the future of their islands, and are concerned that a second legal opinion might take that long, although they are very appreciative — and I've mentioned this earlier — that the minister has agreed that a second opinion should be obtained.

One other issue I would like to raise with the minister relates to another very controversial issue within my constituency, and that is, Mr. Chairman, in relation to what is called the second crossing in the city of Courtenay, across the Courtenay River. I remember meeting with the city council when the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was Minister of Highways, concerning the need for a bridge in Courtenay, and I think the minister realizes at this stage the dire need which exists in that community for a second crossing. The minister at this stage probably has been informed that on July 2 of this year there was a six-mile line-up in order to get on to the bridge in Courtenay, and I think that he realizes that the situation is going to become more drastic and more dire in the future. I am only urging him to give this particular project a top priority within the ministry so that the design of the lift bridge which has now been decided upon can proceed without delay.

The city council in Courtenay has determined that, even though the minister has announced that tenders will be let, probably next spring, if a greater priority were placed on the particular designing, process and acquisition of property that is necessary for the lift bridge, tenders could be called earlier. I appeal to the minister to make this a top priority. In view of the fact that we had a six-mile line-up for the bridge one day, I think the minister would be willing to put this particular project to the fore, even though he has so many pressing requests put to him, I'm sure, every day of the week.

A couple of questions relate to the lift span which has been proposed for Courtenay. Will the lift span have a greater environmental impact on the Courtenay estuary than the previously proposed bridge would have? The other question that is posed to me time and time again relates to the possible dyking effect that will be caused by the road which leads off from the proposed bridge towards the Campbell River area. Engineers, people who have some scientific background, have expressed a lot of concern about the possible dyking and flooding effects that this new highway, which would be coming off the lift bridge that is now proposed for 17th Street, might have. I am hoping the minister will be able to give me some definitive answers on that tonight so that I can report back to the constituents in the area.

There is no doubt that the completion of the second crossing in Courtenay will make a great deal of difference in terms of resolving the traffic problems in that area. But, Mr. Chairman, I was concerned earlier today when the Minister of Highways recommended that the reporters who previously had complained about getting dust on their cars when they were travelling to the north Island, indeed, travel to the north Island at this stage because that new north Island highway is finally blacktopped from one end to the other. The only concern I have about that is that the minister should not, at this stage, be encouraging people to use that newly completed north Island highway, because in order to do that they have to drive on the completely inadequate highway that now exists between Parksville and Campbell River. There is such congestion on that highway now.... I don't know how many successive years I have raised this issue of the congestion which exists on the Island highway north of Parksville. I am sure that the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways is well

[ Page 1057 ]

aware, because he himself has quoted figures in this House, the tremendous usage that is made of the Island Highway, particularly between Parksville and Campbell River.

There has been concern in the Courtenay area that the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways intends to four-lane the existing highway, and I would like him to confirm tonight that is not his intention, but that his intention is to build a second alternative route to the existing Island Highway — in other words, a bypass route of all of those communities. I know the expense involved. I know the problems involved with respect to agricultural land, for instance, and the acquisition of private land. But I also have the impression that the minister, at this stage, is not making the so-called bypass a priority within his own ministry.

I am hopeful the minister will indicate to this House tonight that he realizes the problems of congestion on the Island Highway north of Parksville, and that he will indeed commit his ministry to a priority status for the bypass route. We're not talking about 10 or 15 years down the road. I'm aware that even though the minister put a priority on this tomorrow, people would not be able to drive on any bypass in that area for at least five years. But I would like him to indicate that it is a priority, and that we can anticipate that within five to six years a bypass will be constructed, particularly between Courtenay and Campbell River. The usage of that highway is very, very high.

HON. MR, FRASER: I missed a couple of MLAs before supper, so I'll just go back to them for a minute and to try to give them answers. The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), talked about the highway signing to the ferry at Tsawwassen. We'll certainly look into that. I'd like his colleagues to tell him it was a good idea, and that we'll do something about it. I agree with that.

I'd like to thank the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) for his kind remarks — we put extra ferries on the Fraser River and so on and so forth. We're pleased to accommodate. Regarding the four-laning from Haney to Mission, the design is 90 percent complete, and we intend to get on with that. Funds are available, and so on, once the design is complete.

To the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), thank you for your remarks about the people from Denman Island. I probably have a little better news than I gave out before. Highways has already met the lawyer, who came back from holidays. I think that probably by mid-August we should have his opinion. They already, have had a meeting with him. He is back from holidays. It's a little earlier than I anticipated. We hope that by mid-August we can have his opinion.

Regarding the 17th Street crossing, there is lots of congestion, and I'm aware of that. Several times I've said it publicly through Courtenay and all the way to Campbell River. I'd like to tell the committee — I'm sure the members there know that — that the priorities were on the new road north in that area. Now that is completed, we can start the priorities further south. Regarding the 17th Street crossing, the engineers decided to go to a lift span because of the concern of the local residents over the mooring of boats and so on. Particularly what made our mind up to go to a lift span was that when we investigated the moving of those boats, everybody wanted about $2 million for a parcel of land to put them in. In other words, it was quite costly — the relocation of the boats and moorage in the wintertime — and the solution was lift spans instead of fixed spans. That is in design. We hope tenders can be called on that, as we said, during this winter sometime. I believe they plan about six months on design before they can go to tender call.

Regarding your concerns put out about the environmental impact and the diking effect, the engineers feel a lift span will have less impact environmentally, as well as dyking effect. It will be a benefit, not a detriment.

Dealing with the big issue, Courtenay to Campbell River, yes, that road is heavily used. I've said I think everybody who lives in Courtenay works in Campbell River, and that everybody who lives in Campbell River works in Courtenay. It's a constant stream of traffic, 24 hours of the day, seven days a week. It's certainly a worn road. We're fully aware of that. We are not going to four-lane the old road. We're going to have to improve the old road, though, with repaving and passing lanes. It's anticipated that it will take seven to ten years to have the other road built, the reasons being that they have to acquire the right-of-way, and I believe we're going into a lot of ALR.

These things cause problems, but it's the same as we have all over the province; the acquisition of the right-of way — let's forget the cost part, which is getting very high — is a really big problem to negotiate. They don't anticipate this area to be any easier than any other area. But it certainly is the plan to build a road separate and distinct and apart from the existing road between these two communities. I can't hold out and say that, as the member suggested, Mr. Chairman, will be five years. But in the meantime, we're going to have to put our emphasis on the existing road to make it a better and safer road by repaving and shouldering and improving the alignment in some places. But there's nothing of a major course; we're certainly not four-laning, as I know the people up there do not want it.

Then, of course, when we move on to the new road, this road will become a local service road for the hundreds of people who live along it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if I might just advise the members who are new to this House, who have not sat through the estimates before of the.... Order, please. Would all members please be seated? For members who have not previously sat through the estimates of Minister of Highways, his estimates are considerably different from other estimates in that almost every member has a highway passing through his or her constituency, and every member sends the Deputy Speaker or the Chairman of the committee a note saying they'd just like to be on their feet for five minutes.

It becomes very difficult, and at this time I would read from page 466 of Sir Erskine May: "When two or more members rise to speak, the Speaker calls on the member who first on rising in his place is observed by him."

MR. GABELMANN: Having anticipated your comments, Mr. Chairman, I had some springs built into my shoes earlier this evening.

Highways is one of those departments where, were we to spend the entire provincial budget dealing with the minister's programs, we would still not solve all the

[ Page 1058 ]

problems. The minister knows that and I think every member of the House knows that. What we're really doing in debates on Highways estimates is determining as best we can, the minister as the responsible member and the rest of us as members of the Legislature, which of the important priorities are more important.

As I view my job representing constituents in North Island, my task is to persuade the minister of the views of my constituents. Before I mention a couple of issues that I think are worth talking about this evening, I wanted to say first of all that I have a lot of good to say about the department and the minister. I'm not speaking for my colleagues because I haven't talked to them about it and I don't know whether they share my view, but I have found over the years that dealing with both the department and the ministry, one is given honest and clear answers, and answers that relate to the realities of the situation — not as so often happens when dealing with ministers of the government, political answers.

I want to say clearly and specifically to the Minister of Highways that I appreciate the largely non-political response. That's not to contradict at all the comments made by the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) when he talked about pre-election expenditures, because I think there's a tendency on the part of governments in preelection times to make sure that seats that can be won by the government get a little bit of extra attention. I don't agree with that. I don't like it, but I acknowledge that the Minister of Highways probably does a little bit of that on occasion, although I'm not going to ask him to comment on that.

I wanted to add my comments, Mr. Chairman, if you would come to order, about the bypass — so-called — of the area between just north of Campbell River and south to Parksville. We in Campbell River are particularly concerned about the area between Royston and just north of Campbell River, north of the river itself.

During the election campaign, if I were to assess which was the major issue in the election, apart from who were the good guys and who were the bad guys, I would say that residents of that area would say the bypass was the major issue. I should say to you, as I said to members or to constituents attending all-candidates' meetings, that I saw as the major highways problem in my entire riding the question of a bypass between Campbell River and Courtenay, even though that bypass is largely not in my riding. It's in that of the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford).

It is and has been the major issue. There was considerable concern about the possibility of four-laning of that highway between Campbell River and Courtenay, and I was pleased to hear the minister say tonight that it was not his intention to continue with any additional four-laning of that route. It is not what people in that area want. They would much rather that the money — and I realize that we're talking about vastly different sums of money — be diverted towards the beginning of a program to establish an alternative bypass route somewhat inland.

I appreciate all the technical problems that relate to that the need to keep that bypass close to the existing highway in order to funnel traffic away from the existing highway, the problem of doing that because of the ALR and a number of other factors. I don't mean to stand in my place and scream for an immediate start on a bypass under any circumstances. I think it needs to be carefully planned, but I would like a commitment from the minister as soon as possible — if not during these estimates, then as soon as possible within the next few months — that the actual public process will begin, so that people in that area know there is a commitment on the part of the ministry to begin to do the work that's required to construct that highway.

I do a fair amount of driving. I'm one of those people who like to drive, and I probably do 30,000 or 40,000 miles a year on average. I've driven probably every highway in this province, including most of the highways in the minister's riding. I would suggest to the minister that the very worst section of highway in this province without exception, in my judgment, is the section of highway between Campbell River and Courtenay. I consider myself a good driver, but I am afraid at night in the rain to drive that highway at more than 60 or 70 kilometers an hou, and it's an 80-kilometer limit. It is a dangerous, difficult road and must be upgraded. I know the minister knows that, but at the same time there must be an alternate route provided. That's all I want to say about that. I appreciated the minister's comment that he did not intend to four-lane it and that he does intend to proceed, I trust, with the bypass.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, that's the major issue in my constituency. I wanted to say a number of other things. But before I get to some specific constituency work, and small problems that relate to the Highways minister, I want to say a couple of general things.

If I were the minister responsible for the motor-vehicle branch and the licensing of drivers in this province, I don't think that more than one out of three drivers in this province would pass the test.

MS. BROWN: Shame!

MR. GABELMANN: I wasn't talking about the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) at all.

In driving around this province, Mr. Chairman, I guarantee that within every hour of driving there are three or four drivers who drive at a slow speed in the fast lane. And no amount of horn-honking or bright-light flashing or passing on the right seems to have any impact. People's driving habits in this province are atrocious. I'm not one of those people who drive fast — I haven't had a speeding ticket for some years. I've perhaps been lucky, but I haven't had one. So I don't believe in fast driving; but I am absolutely persuaded that a major cause — not the major, but a major cause — of accidents is the slow and inconsiderate and bad drivers, not the fast drivers. I know I will get support from members who live in rural and Interior ridings, because they drive those highways too. You're driving on an 80-kilometer section and somebody is driving at 79 kilometers an hour, they slow down for the curves and you can't pass them, then they move up to 85 on the straight, and you have to go 95 to pass them, and then you get a ticket. But the problem isn't the speeding, and the problem isn't hghway design. The problem is that people don't know how to drive their cars. They signal to turn left when they want to turn right, and they turn left from a right-hand lane, and on, and on, and on. I don't have to elaborate to the members of this House, because we've all had similar experiences. But driving up and down the Island Highway every weekend, as I do, and driving in the fast

[ Page 1059 ]

lane, as I usually do, I find I have to move into the slow lane to pass people.

I know the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has responsibility for law enforcement in this province, but I would hope — and I think I've heard you talk about this in years past, Mr. Minister — that you might talk to the Attorney-General about having the RCMP, or the local law enforcement officers where that's the case, pay more attention to the bad drivers. I'm not saying don't ticket the speeders, but pay more attention to those bad drivers, because they cause more frustration and more tension and ultimately more accidents. I wonder sometimes how people get their drivers' licences in this province. That's not a criticism of the staff involved; it's a criticism of the fact that somehow we treat drivers' licences as something that everybody can have. In fact, it's a privilege, and if you don't meet all the standards, you shouldn't have one. Any action you take in that direction, as minister responsible for the motor-vehicle branch, will get my very strong support.

I have just a few, very brief comments from here on in. We don't talk about staff often enough in this House. I don't mean the staff who sit in the House during the estimates, but the staff at the other levels of the ministry. I just want to say to the minister that he has an excellent staff in my area. The district engineer is first rate; I get first-rate cooperation from him. I'm very pleased to be able to deal with that. The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) knows....

MR. NICOLSON: We stole him.

MR. GABELMANN: We stole him; that's right. He's an excellent.... That's not a partisan or political comment. I don't know what his politics are, and I don't care. He is an excellent highway engineer, and with staff like that the minister will keep out of trouble for years to come. He won't suffer the problems that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has.

I want to say a couple of things about very small matters in terms of the province, but big matters in terms of the communities. We have two problems in Port Alice. One is the road from the community to the mill. It's just not good enough; there needs to be some continued activity on that.

As you drive to Port Alice from the Port McNeill highway, on the road from the Port McNeill-Port Hardy highway into Port Alice, I think if it's let go for another year you'll have to scrape alder growth off both sides of your car by the time you get to the end of the road. The maintenance is a little bit inadequate. I think you've had delegations from Port Alice in your office concerning that particular problem. All the road really is a road that the logging company thought was so bad that they'd give it up to the Highways ministry so that you could pave it and make it into a highway, while they built a nice straight road for the logging trucks down below it. It really is a terrible road and there have been — more seriously now, Mr. Chairman — a number of people killed on that road in recent months. It it really very bad, and I know that you are aware of that.

The road to Gold River from Campbell River is, first of all, located in the wrong place. It should not go down through the southern route; it should have gone, in the first place, along the Elk River timber road, a much shorter route. The logging road is faster; it's quicker, even although it is gravel. It's a faster, quicker, easier, less tensionproducing highway, and that's something that I'm not sure, realistically, that I can call for. I don't think, realistically, that I can ask you to relocate the highway, but despite the upgrading that is going on between Buttle Lake and Campbell River, the road is in atrocious shape and needs some very careful attention on the part of the ministry.

The final thing I'll mention during these estimates, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that by and large the ministry has been very good in terms of Highways ferries. The ferry improvement now between Port McNeill, Alert Bay and Sointula is appreciated and, I think, for the time being is a sufficient improvement. The ferry between Quadra and Cortes appears at the present time to be al1 right — I'm not going to complain about those — but there is clearly a problem between Quadra and Campbell River. The line-ups — and I've been in them myself — wait sometimes for two ferries to go by, which means two or three hours, depending.... And that's a problem that needs to be dealt with. Whether it is dealt with in terms of one larger ferry or small ones going back and forth is a problem that I would rather leave to the technicians.

Mr. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), I don't know whether you were making a comment to the Minister of Highways about the fact that on Friday, July 1 — or whatever the date was, prior to the long weekend — you may also have had to wait in line, if you didn't walk on. You probably walked on the ferry.

AN HON. MEMBER: He drove on.

MR. GABELMANN: He drove on. Did you wait?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: You didn't wait? You were very lucky that day.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I got there early.

MR. GABELMANN: You were very early. In any event, Mr. Chairman, as the minister knows, I don't need to persuade him of the fact that there is a continuing problem here.

The final thing is that there is too much smoking going on the decks of these ferries. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) is as concerned about smoking as I am, for our own personal health reasons. But there is, frankly, a more important reason as well, and that is that there is often gas leakage. Inevitably there is going to be gas leakage out of cars or whatever, and people....

I'm not blaming the Highways staff. In terms of loading those ferries, particularly when they are full all the time, that's a difficult job, and to try to control the drivers who get out of their car and have a smoke, standing on the deck, is difficult. But it is a very real problem and if we're not careful, Mr. Chairman, there will be, God forbid, a major accident with smoking and gasoline on the decks of some of these Highways ferries.

MR. DAVIS: I want to take a few minutes this evening because I want to talk about transportation policy in its broadest sense. I want to talk about the respective roles of government and the private sector in providing transportation services for our people. I want to talk about deregulation, and I want to stress the fact that competition,

[ Page 1060 ]

more than anything else, should determine the way in which our transportation needs are met in the future.

Technology, fortunately, is on our side. More modes of transport are being developed with each passing decade; some are cheaper and some are more energy-efficient than others; some are highly specialized and some are general purpose, moving people and products which were carried by ships, trains and streetcars in years gone by. We now have paved highways from coast to coast. We have aircraft which can go anywhere. We have pipelines which stretch from sea to sea. We have power lines. We have air-cushion vehicles. We have light rapid transit. In other words, we have a choice where once there was little or no choice at all. We can spend a lot or a little getting where we want to go.

Much the same applies to the movement of goods. The cost of moving freight has dropped dramatically, as compared to the cost of other things. Ocean-going vessels are much larger and much more specialized than they used to be. Pipelines move liquids far more efficiently than trains can. Air-cargo planes move, high-value commodities from one end of the country to the other in a matter of hours. The fact is that we as people are much more mobile than we used to be, and freight is a smaller component of the delivered cost of the goods we use.

Transportation as an item of expense is continuing to decline as an element of our gross national product. In percentage terms, it has fallen dramatically. It has fallen from close to 20 percent 40 years ago to around 10 percent today. It is no longer a major factor in most types of economic development. Costwise, it's far down the list. For many industries, it is now in fifth or sixth place behind such items as wages, interest rates, local taxes, energy and environmental protection. In other words, transportion is no longer a high-cost item.

Alternatives are available, so it is not a special public good. It is no longer a service of particular benefit to the user. As a rule, we should therefore pay in full for our own transportation. This is a concept which is being increasingly recognized in well-run economies the world over. "User pay" is the term. Usually the user should pay — usually, but not always. There are exceptions, of course; but they are exceptions to the user-pay rule.

Perhaps I should put it another way: transportation in Canada is no longer an infant industry. It is highly developed; it is multifaceted; it is multimodal. Where competition exists, transportation shouldn't be subsidized by government. Governments should back off. This applies to regulation by government bodies as well. My main concern about government is that it tends to perpetuate the past: it prevents change; it clings to old ways of moving people and shipping goods. Modem techniques can do the job much more efficiently and with greater satisfaction all around. I'm against excessive regulation of industries like trucking, railroading and water transport. Treating them like utilities tends to keep the rates up. It limits the user's choice. Often it adds to our tax burden. And it makes it difficult, if not impossible, to decide whether or not our transportation dollar is being well spent.

There are, I admit, instances where government assistance is necessary. Public transit in our larger cities and towns is one; opening up a large new area of the country is another. But these exceptions flow from exceptional considerations — external economies, as the economists call them, such as the need to save space and energy in our cities. The first industry into an area shouldn't have to pay for all the infrastructure, when other industries following in its wake will benefit from the first road, the first rail line, or the first airstrip to be built there.

Please note this, however. By making these exceptions public transit in cities on the one hand, and less than full-cost recovery from the first industry in a remote area on the other — I'm not departing from the basic idea of user-pay. The user should still pay for his or her fair share of all the cost associated with each transportation initiative, whatever form it might take and wherever it may be.

One may argue that there have always been transportation subsidies. Tax dollars have always been used to open up new areas of the country and to help alleviate congestion in our big cities and towns. But our new modes of transport are breaking away from the historic pattern. Pipelines generally pay their own way. The tug and barge industry here on the west coast is financially self-sufficient. Small plane operators get little help from government. And most long-distance bus operations are commercially viable. In other words, these modern activities are 100 percent user-pay. On balance, they're not subsidized at all.

Our major airlines are subsidized to a degree. Our railways are still subsidized some. Trucking, while it also comes close to paying its own way, still gets help from government in the form of free highways, free roads and free streets. True, it pays a lot of taxes: fuel taxes, sales taxes, income taxes; but they aren't sufficient to offset the expenditures of the Ministries of Highways and the municipalities which provide the thoroughfares across the nation.

Relatively speaking, subsidies are more important in some situations than in others. Urban transit is at one extreme; rarely is it more than 40 percent user-pay. By contrast, pipelines are 100 percent user-pay. Canada's rhajor railways, CN and CP Rail, are now about 95 percent user-pay. Air Canada and CP Air are about 90 percent user-pay.

The trucking industry, Canada-wide, is in the 80-90 percent category. The average for all transport, including the private automobile, is close to 80 percent in this country. To put it another way, the typical Canadian user of transportation and services in this country puts up 80 percent himself. He or she as a taxpayer puts up the remaining 20 percent through government.

In British Columbia the picture differs only in degree. Urban transit is roughly one-third user pay. B.C. Ferries and B.C. Rail are in the 50-60 percent category. The figure for motor transport is less than the national average because of the high cost of building roads and highways in this province. But otherwise we are on a par with Ontario. Twenty-five cents out of every transportation dollar comes from government in British Columbia, and seventy-five cents is put up by the user. How can we move closer to the economic ideal of 100 percent user-pay? How can we eliminate waste? How can we conserve energy in the transportation sector? How can we get more people into each vehicle? How can we get more ton-miles for each dollar spent? The answer, I believe, is in competition. There should be more competition between the different modes of transport which we use to meet our everyday needs.

We need a provincial transportation Act like the national Transportation Act of 1967. That Act proclaimed a

[ Page 1061 ]

hands-off policy on the part of the federal government. It set up the Transport Commission, whose principal job was to harness "the mechanism of the marketplace." We need a similar commission to the Canadian Transport Commission, which would replace our present Motor Carrier Commission. We need a commission which sees competition as the best way of cutting costs and reducing fares. Only in monopoly situations, where shippers are captive to a particular carrier, is the Canadian Transport Commission authorized to step in. Otherwise government at the national level has to be neutral. It has to let the different carriers fight it out. It has to let rates rise or fall as the market dictates. Not everyone has a choice, of course, so the government has to get involved in non-competitive situations. Rates must approximate cost under those circumstances. Profits must be reasonable. The carriers' books must be open to the Transport Commission. These are exceptional situations. They are monopoly situations, and they don't exist in the more mature areas of the country. They don't exist, for example, in the busy transportation corridor between Windsor, Ontario, and Quebec City, where the customer has all sorts of alternatives — highway, rail, St. Lawrence seaway shipping, and the airlines — to choose from.

Canada's new transportation policy has worked well. As a result our major railways are now financially in the black. They have concentrated on long-distance hauls and big volume transport. They do their best to avoid less than carload lots. They no longer try to compete with the trucking industry and the airlines for products where time is of the essence and handling costs must be kept to a minimum.

Contrast this with the experience in the United States. There the railways are still highly regulated. Unlike Canada they don't set their own rates. They are forced to carry all sorts of goods. They can't abandon losing lines, and most of them are on the verge of bankruptcy. This is why they haven't been able to modernize to the extent that our national railways have in Canada. This is why they are not doing to the job that our well-managed Canadian railways are doing.

Admittedly the CNR and CP Rail have some distance to go before they are free entirely from government control. The Crowsnest Pass rates, which were politically inspired in the 1920s, are still politically maintained. Grain still moves into Canada's export markets at tariffs which were in effect as far back as 1897. As a result the railways only get about 25 cents for every dollar of transportation service which they provide to the grain trade in this country. Export grain movements by rail, in other words, are only about 25 percent user pay. How do the railways make up the difference? They don't get a direct subsidy from the federal government, so they charge their other customers more. They charge more for lumber shipments, for potash and sulphur shipments, for the transportation of manufactured goods and the haulage of machinery and equipment everywhere. Their rate structure is distorted. It is twisted in favour of the prairie grain farmer, and it discriminates against producers and consumers of other goods which move by rail in this country.

Clearly the Crowsnest Pass rates hurt British Columbia. They penalize British Columbia's export industries, because our rail rates are higher than they would otherwise be. They hurt us as importers, because the railways, in recovering several hundred million dollars a year of grain-related losses, have to get their offsetting revenues wherever they can.

The real answer, if the federal government insists on subsidizing the prairie grain grower, is a direct subsidy either to the railways or to the farmers themselves. It should be a fixed amount. Ideally it should be voted a year at a time. It should be there for all to see. It should be tailored to meet the farmers' needs, not left as it is to distort our rail rates in a major way.

Turning to our own provincial scene, the B.C. government is more heavily involved financially in transportation than most other provincial governments are. We have B.C. Rail deficits and B.C. Ferries deficits. We have B.C. Hydro's deficits on its bus system. Our transport ministry spends between $300 million and $400 million a year on highway construction and highway maintenance. We have an airport-building program. We have B.C. Steamships, and we have an air service of our own. Add to this the fact that our private-sector truck and bus operators are more highly regulated than those of other Canadian provinces, with the possible exception of Saskatchewan. You can see that government involvement in the transportation sector in B.C. is considerable. It is high from a subsidy point of view, and it is high from a regulatory point of view. It is higher as a percentage of our gross provincial product than I would like to see it, certainly in the 1980s.

As far as truckers and private bus operators are concerned, I believe we should do away with rate regulation altogether. All our motor carriers should have to do is file their tariffs. After 30 days' publication, these tariffs should automatically go into effect. Competition, in other words, should govern it, not endless hearings and complicated rate formulas which are dated anyway by the rising cost uf energy, higher wages, expensive vehicles and so on.

Still on the motor carrier side I would make the conditions of entry into the industry easier. I would reduce the number of regions for which operating licences are granted to half a dozen. Each trucker should also be free to carry a wider range of goods. I would copy unregulated Alberta rather than over-regulated Saskatchewan. I would put my trust in the marketplace. I would deregulate our motor carrier industry as far as possible, with the interests of the user, not the carrier. primarily in mind.

B.C. Rail is in many ways a special case. Parts of its system are economically viable; other parts exist only because the B.C. government want them to exist. In my opinion the uneconomic segments should be supported directly by a vote or votes of the Minister of Transportation. This vote or votes should be debated each year, as with the federal subsidy for passengers carried by our national railways. These rail subsidies should be there for all to see. You and I would know exactly what we are paying in order to maintain these services at public expense. B.C. Rail as an operating entity would also be put on notice, would have to run the rest of its operation, its essentially economic operation, much as any other commercial operator has to do. B.C. Rail would have to recover the rest of its costs from current revenues. It would have to break even on capital as well as operating account. It would have to compete fairly in the marketplace, and our trucking industry would no longer be able to say it was losing business in the Cariboo and the Peace River area because B.C. Rail was being subsidized unreasonably by the B.C. taxpayer.

[ Page 1062 ]

The board of B.C. Rail has its own ideas. It has recommended that the corporation's present debt of $700 million be removed from B.C. Rail's account and assumed directly by the province. Our new auditor-general, Mrs. Erma Morrison, also says in her first annual report that "the net debt of the B.C. Railway Company guaranteed by the province should be recognized as a direct debt and recorded as such in the accounts of the province." How we deal with B.C. Rail's accumulated debt I don't much care. It could be assumed all or in part by the province, or it could be paid off over a period of years by way of an annual subsidy to B.C. Rail. In the latter case, however, the subsidy should be fixed in amount, it should be known in amount, and it should be paid off over a definite period of years.

Then B.C. Rail's board of directors would know exactly how to plan ahead. They would have to trim their sails according to the business which they had definitely in sight. Exceptional outlays may, of course, be made, but they would only be made if the B.C. Rail had a specific assignment from the government, and a specific vote in the Transportation minister's estimates was there to cover its exceptional costs. Passenger services which lose money, branch lines which also lose money, could be dealt with in, his way.

Essentially this is what Ottawa is doing now. That is why it created VIA Rail. VIA Rail carries passengers. VIA Rail is financed by a separate vote. VIA Rail uses CN and CP Rail facilities, and those two national railways are being paid in full for their costs. But Ottawa's rail passenger subsidy is now spelled out in our national accounts. So is the cost of maintaining money-losing branch lines on the prairies and elsewhere. As a result, they are no longer a financial burden to our national railways. This is the main reason why those railways are now operating in the black. These branch lines, these passenger services, are being maintained for sociological reasons. They are being paid for directly by the government. This is the way I think we should treat our uneconomic services and our uneconomic branch lines in B.C.

Moving on to B.C. Ferries, I find its organization and its financing more acceptable from a broad policy point of view. B.C. Ferries subsidy is provided by an annual vote of this Legislature. It is calculated on a highway mileage equivalent basis. It rises as the cost of living goes up, but otherwise it is fixed in amount. B.C. Ferries management, if it wants more money to build more ferries or add to its operating personnel, will have to raise rates or attract more traffic or both. It will have to manage on its own, in other words, with a minimum of interference from government.

Such criticism as I do have falls under the general heading of competition. I don't think B.C. Ferries should undercut the private sector unduly. It shouldn't carry trucks at rates which are a fraction of its costs. It shouldn't carry drop trailers across the Strait of Georgia or up the coast either. It shouldn't take business away from the private sector, especially when it comes to carrying large-volume freight. B.C. Ferries commercial rates haven't changed since the spring of 1976, but the cost of moving freight by water has risen everywhere.

B.C. Ferries rates for trucks and trailers should therefore be increased to competitive levels. They should at least be compensated. They should cover costs. Otherwise this Crown corporation is going to eliminate segments of our privately owned, privately operated coastal shipping industry, which is close to 100 percent user paid. It doesn't get any subsidy whatsoever.

While still on the question of freight, we say that our tug and barge industry is the most efficient carrier we have anywhere in the nation. It is also the biggest carrier tonnage-wise in this province. It carries more freight more miles than all our railways and our trucking industry in B.C. combined.

In other words, our coastal shipping mode is the best freight moving mode we have. It is unique to British Columbia. It gives us a big advantage, especially where movements to northwestern B.C., the Yukon and the western Arctic are concerned. It is much cheaper, for instance, to move goods westward from Toronto to Vancouver and northward by water than it is to ship them overland via Edmonton to much of Canada's northwest. It is cheaper also to ship them via Prince Rupert and into the northwestern comer of this country into ports like Stewart and Skagway. It uses B.C. rails, B.C. ports and B.C. shipping. Our transportation strategy, in other words, should be to take maximum advantage of our coastline, of our saltwater highway, of our low-cost ocean throughway to the north.

Pipelines are an exception. If we're talking about arctic oil and arctic gas, then the Alaska Highway route is the best route for eastward-destined traffic. It is the best economically and environmentally for the rest of Canada and the mid-continent area of the United States. It means that B.C. is the first province on line insofar as northern oil and northern gas also is concerned.

But otherwise our long-distance transportation strategy should have a coastal component to it — either that or it should angle up across the province in a northeasterly direction. Those responsible for the development of provincial transportation policy should always bear these hard facts, dictated by the geography of our province, our river valleys and our high mountain ranges, in mind.

Mr. Chairman, I could go on at length but I won't. I could urge the province to build more airstrips and provide more navigational aids for our small aircraft operators and small airlines. I could push hard for a STOL aircraft take-off and landing airstrip here in downtown Victoria. I could point out the advantages of several commuter trains running on CP Rail's tracks from Mission to Coquitlam, the SeaBus terminal at the foot of Granville Street in Vancouver. I could talk about the advantages of light rapid transit on the lower mainland. But these are all subsidized operations and my main theme is competition.

I believe in more competition rather than less. I believe in the principle of user pay, especially where people have a choice as to how they can get themselves and their goods from one place to another. I believe that government subsidies where they exist should be specific. They should be limited primarily to big-city situations and frontier areas where no proper means of transportation exists. Regulation of the private sector, meanwhile, should be kept to a minimum. This way we will not only hold public expenditures down but we will put the interests of the user of our transportation services ahead of those of the carriers which are supposed to serve them.

Mr. Chairman, our transportation budget at the provincial level is now of the order of $1 billion a year. If we recover two-thirds of that amount by way of fuel taxes, sales taxes, income taxes and fares, I will be surprised.

[ Page 1063 ]

There will always be a gap, of course, but it should be narrowed. It should at least be controlled; otherwise we as taxpayers will be subsidizing those who shouldn't be subsidized at all.

Fresh breakthroughs on the technological front will help us; so will the drive to save energy. Unless we have more competition and less regulation in this important sector of our economy, we're going to be wasting resources, which many of us in this Legislature agree could be used to supply other public services needed by our people, needed more urgently by our people here in British Columbia.

MR. PASSARELL: A decade ago, the first men went to the moon, and subsequently, on the voyages to the moon, they took moon-buggies, and the whole world saw the astronauts driving through the craters. I wonder why the Minister of Highways is discriminating against us up in Atlin for doing almost the same thing, for driving through craters. I guess one of the reasons why this could be is that I finally realized today why Highway 37 is in such bad shape. This realization came from some of the comments that the minister made in his opening remarks today. According to the Hansard Blues today, the minister said that Highway 37 travels 500 miles to Atlin. Highway 37 does not go to Atlin. It goes from Kitwanga to Watson Lake in the Yukon. Maybe one of the reasons why Highway 37 is in such bad shape is because the ministry thinks it's going to Atlin, when it's going in almost the opposite direction. But I think we can remedy that.

In the past three or four years, Highway 37 has been allocated $40 million to $80 million, and this has done some good. When I drove on it first four years ago, Highway 37 was a goat trail. But now it's getting better. We've upgraded the highway, and if we leave it as it is now, in another two or three years we're going to have to re-upgrade it. One of the remedies to that is to do some type of paving on it before the gravel bed, through all the transportation, becomes worse, and we have to redo the upgrading that we've done already.

I'd like to make another comment on the road to Telegraph Creek from Dease Lake. I don't know if the minister has ever driven that section of the road. Very few people do because they really don't like to take their lives in their hands driving to Telegraph Creek. I don't know if that section is even registered as a provincial highway. Is it?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes.

MR. PASSARELL: What's the number of it? I've never seen a sign. I thought it was just a logging road. But, Mr. Chairman, you drive on sections of that where you're on a plateau, a single-lane road, and if you're driving, you can look out your window and look down maybe 1,500 feet to the Stikine River. When you turn the comer, if you look out the right-hand side, you can see the Tuya River maybe 1,500 feet below. It makes a very interesting drive. I've heard there's a highway up in the Yukon called the Top of the World Highway, and I don't think we should give this distinction to the Yukon. I think we should give this distinction to the Telegraph Creek–Dease Lake Road.

I know a few weeks ago $15 million was allocated for Highway 37. The minister stated in the newspaper that $15 million was going to upgrade Highway 37. Living up there and having to drive on it, I would like to see this money go for paving. Mind you, $15 million isn't going to pave very much, but maybe we could start something at least on some of the good sections that have been upgraded, mainly from Dease Lake up to Good Hope Lake. They haven't been paved and they have been upgraded.

The second topic I'd like to talk about is communication. There is a need for earth receivers in the highway camps in the north. I know that there's one being set up at Honeymoon Creek, which might be a good place for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing to go and get some moccasins. I know of some of these earth receivers that you can buy in Terrace for $50,000. There's no transportation involved in taking them up. I was talking to some of the people in the highway camps today, as a matter of fact, and they said it would be very easy with a pickup truck and a trailer to pull up one of these receivers. I certainly hope the experiment at Honeymoon Creek becomes a reality for the other highway camps up north.

A television system was set up in the community I am from, Good Hope Lake. The Highways ministry maintains it. In three years we've seen television, I think, for an average of four or five months. The system is constantly on the blink. Landslides come down the mountain and rub out the cable. Helicopters have to be brought in from Watson Lake to remedy this situation. A lot of money is being allocated for this system and if we can put together $50,000 for an earth receiver, I think in the long run it would be beneficial and save the taxpayers some money.

I noticed on vote 226, Mr. Chairman, on telecommunications, there's been an increase of $3 million, to $15 million and the cost of putting in a television fee for the four highway camps up on Highway 37 estimated at $200,000. Maybe $200,000 of the money could be allocated.

One of the reasons why it would be beneficial to put in television in some of the highway camps is the employment. At the present time, many of the highway camps ato having a low attrition rate. Men come up with their families, stay for a short time, and then leave. Maybe television in these camps could remedy this situation. It would also provide comfort and relaxation for the employees themselves.

The third question I would like to ask the minister is: could he give me some of latest developments on the Greenville bridge? I know we talked about this previously. School starts in September, and I know the people of Greenville find it not acceptable, but they can take the situation once the Nass River freezes in December. I'd like some comments from the minister on that if he has them.

The fourth question is ferry service to Stewart. I know this has been kicked around, Mr. Chairman, concerning ferry service. The benefits for Stewart in the north is tourism. The second one is freight transportation in the north. It would help cut the cost, and I think the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) talked a little bit about this when he mentioned Stewart as a port. Stewart is the most northerly ice-free port in British Columbia.

In the next few years Alice Arm is going to be a big community up in Atlin with the new mine opening up, and Kincolith might be tied in on a new ferry system, helping out Stewart, Kincolith and Alice Arm.

The fifth topic I'd like to address to the minister is the bridges on Highway 37. To say the least, sometimes it makes driving difficult when there's no bridge. But they are

[ Page 1064 ]

becoming better. If you've got a four-by-four, it's okay. You just drive down through the water and back up onto the road. But sometimes, if you're in a small car, you get a little hung up in the water. That's becoming alleviated, because I have seen Highways put in two bridges at French Creek, and both are operational. That makes a good thing, because when you're driving down Highway 37 you have your choice of two bridges to go across French Creek instead of driving down through the stream. I would rather see one bridge put in than two, but I think we can get this fixed up.

Some of the bridges that are in — not the multiplates, but some of the old wooden structures — pose a safety problem. Some of the timbers on the bridges have broken over the years and they have a difficulty...breaking your tires. I know in the north it's beneficial to have busted up spare tires in the back of your truck, especially in winter when you have to burn them.

The sixth topic I would like to talk to the minister about is the air services branch. I notice that on the budget for this year there has been a bit of a reduction and I would like the comments from the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, on the reduction. The air services provide a very necessary health situation for the people of the north. When there aren't hospitals or first-aid stations you have to be flown down into the mainland.

The seventh topic I would like to talk about is the big increase in local airport assistance through your ministry budget — the airport assistance program. Maybe the minister can tell about the increases for Atlin. I'm talking specifically in regard to the rumour that Cassiar might have a grant of some sort for jet services from Cassiar to Prince George.

MR. BRUMMETT: Where are you going to land the planes?

MR. PASSARELL: We'll work that out with a big grant. I've just noticed the Premier here and if I could, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read a letter I received the other day. This is addressed to Al Passarell, MLA: "In recent weeks I had to travel the Cassiar road to the Stewart cutoff. The road, to say the least, is undriveable — the worst I've seen in four years that I've lived in Cassiar." It goes on to say how much Cassiar pays in taxes — $26 million — and so on. "In addition to the Cassiar Asbestos Corporation, what about the 2,000 residents in Cassiar?"

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Just wait a minute, Mr. Premier; we're coming to your part. It's a lovely part, and you'll love it. "Al, I have but one wish this year" — and I hope the Premier can help him out here — "I want to give Premier Bennett a ride in my truck with his head out of the window on a hot, dusty day following a semi-truck when that semi-truck passes another semi-truck going the other way." I don't know why this man — and his name is Mr. John Harley — would say something....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, sir, I will give this as notice. I want you to see it because Mr. Harley really wants to take you for a ride to Cassiar — and maybe even farther, as some other members have taken you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair presumes this has something to do with the administrative actions of the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, yes. The road conditions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good. Carry on.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, no. We're honourable about the situation. There is some honour left in this House, mainly from this section down — and my friend over there in the corner.

The second letter I'd like to read into the record is addressed to Hon. Alex Fraser, Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways. This is addressed June 26, 1979. It is from Local 31 of the Teamsters. Have you received this?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I believe so.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, then I guess I don't have to read it. But I will. The letter is written on behalf of 50 employees, Mr. Chairman, of Arrow Transportation. They say the sad truth of the matter is that the only new construction on the highway is nothing. They tell about the terrible conditions for truck drivers driving on Highway 37.

"Arrow spent in excess of $45,000 for tire chains. Now that we are into summer driving conditions, the big problem is dust. Even though these trucks are travelling at low speeds, the dust cuts visibility to near zero, which has already this year accounted for one fatal collision and several other vehicles going off the road. Is the dust control so expensive that people may die because of its absence?"

It goes further with some terrible comments, and it hurts me personally to read this letter about the conditions that the people up there have to relate to.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: No, no. Copy the letter fast. I want it back before you take off.

The last comment I'd like to make is on vote 216, Mr Chairman, and that concerns the government-owned residences. I know that in many highway camps highway foremen have their residences provided for them. This can also apply to mechanical foremen. The question that I ask the minister is: why the cut from $186,000 to $50,000? Those are the eight questions that I have. I appreciate talking tonight; it's been a real fun time. Thank you very much.

HON. MR. FRASER: I think it is about time we answered some of the members' questions here. I'll start with the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell).

First of all, Mr. Chairman, for the information of the member for Atlin, I've driven the whole road from Kitwanga to the north British Columbia boundary, including the branch from Dease Lake to Telegraph Creek, and I'm aware of the road and I'm aware of how it was then and

[ Page 1065 ]

I'm aware of how it is now. It's a long way and a beautiful part of northwest British Columbia — lots of country and not too many people. I think we're talking about over 500 miles, mostly gravel road, and our whole province had that a few years ago. I would say that a lot of work has been done. You were estimating pretty broadly there — $40 million to $80 million. I believe that since 1976 about $50 million has been spent on that road. I'm talking about Highway 37 from Kitwanga north. And I am aware that to get to the community of Atlin you have to go out on the Alaska Highway and follow along it and then take another of our roads from the Alaska Highway down south to get to the community of Atlin. I've been on that road.

Currently the major roadwork that is going on — and maybe we can be criticized for this — and will continue is from Kitwanga to Meziadin Junction. We have a large contract there that will be completed this year. There is another large one that is just really started. These are the rebuilding of existing roads, what we call "grading contracts." I don't know whether it will please the member or not, but the first paving contract on the south end has been awarded, and they are starting to pave this week, and will be paving from Kitwanga to Kitwancool, hopefully, before Labour Day. That contract is awarded. So that's not very much out of 500 miles.

This year the other emphasis on roads is going to be on the section from Meziadin Junction to Stewart. This member asked me the other day if I had given a commitment to the hauling contractor. I answered yes. I should have said that I also gave a commitment to the community of Stewart. It's their wish that section of that long road be upgraded. We are going to upgrade it by putting on crushed gravel. Hopefully we can get it on from Stewart to Meziadin — that's around 60 miles. Then from Meziadin north we are going to do some more crushed gravelling. The only answer is to put a binder in the crushed gravel in order to bring some of the dust and some of the loose gravel under control.

Regarding bridges, when I went up there I was amazed to find four major structures, beautiful bridges, that had never had a deck put on them, They had loose planks on them and $5 million worth of steel below them — it was a long way down. Just recently, at a cost of $2 million, those four bridges have all had adequate and safe steel decks placed on them. We've certainly moved on that. I believe there arc about 30-odd Bailey bridges on there yet as well.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Airy, fairy bridges — mostly air is what they were. That has now been corrected.

Regarding the earth receivers, I hope to get back to you on that. But about television, you are certainly in the right ministry. I'm interested in your remarks about the upgrading of television to the rural areas. To help communities, we make grants for television. They are on a one-third basis, but that might not be too helpful for that area. But there is a grant system to upgrade that situation. We also have very excellent engineers to help. I found that out recently when they couldn't get a decent picture on the Queen Charlotte Islands. I brought it to the attention of the engineers in this ministry, and they had it solved in ten days so that the people could get a decent picture instead of just snow.

Regarding the Greenville Bridge, we have offered to build a bridge at Greenville. We've offered that to the native band, and we have to have permission from them to build it. We've asked them for the right-of-way within the reserve. We have not had an answer. Possibly you could help us get an answer. But we are prepared to build a bridge at Greenville to overcome that very bad situation.

You mentioned a boat service regarding Stewart and Kincolith. I believe Kincolith is one of the communities where we have recently put on a freight service. I'm not sure about Prince Rupert, Port Simpson and Kincolith. To be quite frank with you, I haven't heard any discussion regarding Stewart, other than that there's a tug and barge in the private sector going in there, which is connected with this haul which is causing all the problems — or causing some problems to some people. I'm referring to the hauling of asbestos from Stewart to Cassiar, which I'll get to in a minute. That barge service is carrying in the fuel. The same trucks that haul from Stewart to Cassiar, a distance of about 300 miles, haul the fuel into Cassiar, and then bring the asbestos back and ship it out from there on the tug and barge service.

Air services reduction. I'm not sure, and I haven't had time to check that, but we haven't any plan for any severe reductions in air services; but I'll have an opportunity to look at the money part of that.

Regarding the airport assistance program, I think, Mr. Chairman, that was a new program last year — and a very popular program — to upgrade rural airports, as I mentioned in my opening remarks. I want to give credit tonight to the minister of that time who looked after it. He did a fine job and I want to thank him for it. That was the Premier of British Columbia, when he had charge of the airport assistance program. He got it going. Regarding your area, Stewart has had help under that program. Dease Lake is certainly scheduled — I don't know where they're at, but they're certainly on the list.

Government-owned residences. I'm going to double-check that, but I don't think the reduction in that vote is going to have the effect you think on Highways residences. I believe other reasons are behind what you're concerned with, but I'll have to double-check that.

While I am up, I would just like to thank the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), who gave us a very excellent talk on transportation generally. He's certainly bang-on on a lot of things. I'm going to ask the staff to get a copy of the Blues for when they are talking about the transportation policy that we're developing, because there were a lot of excellent ideas in that.

I might say, in dealing with just a detail or two in the member's remarks, that I'm inclined to agree with him regarding ferry rates as they apply to freight. At the present time on B.C. Ferries we have a rate of $1.10 a foot for trailers, and I believe it's double or two and a half times that in the private sector. I can say, on behalf of the B.C. Ferries board of directors, that we are looking into that now.

MR. LAUK: I'd leave that alone.

HON. MR. FRASER: Thanks for your advice, sir.

The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) is concerned about the new road. So are we. I might say that we've done a little more talking about it, and I understand our planning people are now dealing with the planning

[ Page 1066 ]

people in the regional district to get these things identified, and hopefully we'll get something settled. I'm not saying when, but they are working with the regional district on that. One thing you didn't mention is that there is something we could do just beyond Campbell River. I believe there's a bad intersection connected with the pulp mill that feeds into it. The engineers want to get something done about that in 1979. Maybe they heard what I said. We're really trying to get something done there. That's a very difficult situation.

I'm inclined to agree with some of your observations on driver habits and bad driving. I might say that when I first became minister I said that I thought we should be going after the slow drivers. I believe that they cause some of our accidents. Certainly the fast drivers do too. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I haven't been very successful in that. The RCMP say there is great difficulty in getting slow drivers. But you are quite correct and it is getting worse. They get into a fast lane and occupy it and don't let other traffic maintain the speed limit. Highways are going to have more intensified aircraft patrols, and that is going on now. It has had some good effects, but we intend to keep that up.

Regarding Port Alice and the clearing of the brush, I understand that is going on now. That will be looked after right away because that shouldn't have happened.

I appreciate your observations on smoking on ferries, and will take a look at that. You didn't really say to ban it entirely, but maybe that's what we have to look at. I'm referring now to Highways ferries, not the B.C. Ferries. If it's going to cause a fire hazard with gas fumes and so on around, maybe it should be banned, because they don't have really long trips on Highways ferries as they have on the others.

I think that covers most of the MLAs.

MR. STUPICH: I promised my colleague for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) that my questions and answers would be confined to a period of ten minutes in total. So I'd appreciate the minister's cooperation in trying to meet that deadline.

I sent a list of questions to the minister's office, and I do appreciate getting the reply today. While I'm expressing appreciation, may I say that in the last three years, I have taken to dealing with the minister's administrative assistant, Mr. Sproule, whom I've found very cooperative and very helpful in every respect, and I'd like to keep on dealing with him. I hope that my kind remarks will not hurt him in any way at all in the ministry.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Then we'd lose him. No, I wouldn't want that to happen.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the questions I did put to the minister, I don't intend to deal with all of them, but I would like to ask him again about this question of a bypass for Nanaimo. In my letter to him I questioned the practicality of a bypass and the need for one. The answers I've had from the Ministry of Highways over the years have been to the effect that very little traffic, in proportion to the total, is actually driving through Nanaimo. Most of it is going into town or coming out of town. I question whether a bypass is really the answer. I take it from the minister's answer, if it is the answer, that it is a very long range plan. It will be a long time before anything happens, and I raise the question again, as I did in my presentation about more arterial highways. I think something has to be done about the traffic into and through town. I don't think the answer is a bypass; I think it's an arterial, and I wonder if the minister would just comment about that.

There is the question about the road change at Cassidy, the main road to the highway. I know the people in the community are not particularly happy with what the minister said is going to happen there. I would like to ask him to agree sometime in the not-too-distant future to meet with the committee from that community. I'll follow that up.

In regard to the pedestrian crossing at Transfer Beach in Ladysmith, the signals and the warning signs have been provided. There is some concern expressed by the members of the council in Ladysmith that these have actually done more harm than good. They didn't go so far as to say they would like them removed. Their concern is that the warning signs give the children a false sense of security in crossing the Island highway. It's not so much that they want something done immediately, but rather, if that highway is going to be improved, and that is from the point of view of the Island highway, when any improvements are being undertaken on that stretch of highway, that they be preferably an underpass. I don't know whether the minister has anything in mind in the near future for improvements to that particular section of the Island highway.

I was going to comment on the question of slow drivers, but that has been handled very well by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). I have just one more thing; I'm intrigued by the plans, to start after Labour Day, on the intersection improvements north of Nanaimo. If I could just quote a line from Robert Service: "It's like a bunch of snarled piano wire." I don't know what you have in mind. I'm not even going to ask to look at the plans for that intersection, Brecon Road, Estevan Road, Departure Bay Road, the Island Highway. I don't even want to see the plans; I'll wait and see what you do with it. I just don't know how you can improve that short of doing away with the whole thing.

There is one other thing that I did want to raise, and I didn't have this in my letter. I understand there are to be some boundary changes between the Nanaimo and Alberni highways districts. I may not have the right description. Included in that change will be the transfer of the Lantzville community from the Nanaimo jurisdiction to the Port Alberni jurisdiction. Lantzville is just barely outside the city limits. As a matter of fact, it should have been within the city limits. There are some people in Lantzville who won't like me saying that, but it should have been that way. Whenever they have a question of the Ministry of Highways — and people in those communities always have questions — they will have to deal with the Highways manager in Port Alberni. Every call they make will be a long-distance call. The equipment, the men and everything else will be headquartered in Alberni rather than at the Cassidy yard or in Nanaimo. It's going to make it extremely inconvenient, and, if nothing else, from the point of view of representation, the boundary for the Nanaimo riding is just north of Lantzville. North of Lantzville we get into the Comox riding. Alberni is in a third provincial riding, and I wonder if it hasn't gone too far. Could some consideration be given to moving the boundary of the Nanaimo Highways district or area or whatever it is so that it includes Lantzville? Take

[ Page 1067 ]

it up to the constituency boundary at least. It isn't much of a change, but it would make it so much more convenient for the people in that community to contact the Highways ministry and also the MLA when they feel they have to go further than the Highways ministry.

MR. REE: We have a very short highway in our constituency. It is approximately three and a half miles long. I hope my comments will be as short as the highway. We have many thousands of people who come to North Vancouver-Capilano daily. They come there because it is an excellent location and an excellent constituency. They come to visit people, and we like them to come and stop and visit. But we have also many other thousands who are forced to stop in North Vancouver–Capilano by mechanical devices, These are located at the Westview and Upper Levels intersection, and at the Lonsdale and Upper Levels intersection. It's interesting to note that in the 150-mile stretch of highway from Hope to Squamish, there are five stoplights. There are three in Cassiar, which I understand are being looked at. Depending upon the stadium or complex construction — if it's decided to go in the PNE.... There are the two in a mile and a half stretch on the Upper Levels in North Vancouver–Capilano.

These are two of the longest stoplights in the province, I think. That stretch of the Upper Levels is one of the busiest stretches of highway in the province. If it is not the busiest, it is one of the busiest. We have in excess of 40,000 cars a day travelling on that portion of the Upper Levels Highway. I suggest that the slow-up time or the waiting time or the delay time caused by these stoplights, at a very conservative figure, might be three minutes for each vehicle. I might extend that in mathematics. If you had the equivalent of one and a half persons per vehicle and 40,000 vehicles, you would have 60,000 people. That's 180,000 minutes a day of delay or holdup time on that portion of the highway. Extended in working hours, it is one and a half years per day in working days on the highway. If we extend that further to average salaries on the low end, as MLAs are paid, it works out to roughly in excess of $1 million per year of waiting time that's wasted sitting for stoplights on that portion of the highway.

I might also extend that to the wasted energy on that portion of cars sitting there starting, stopping, and the depreciation and wear and tear on the cars themselves. I feel that overpasses at these two intersections would be economically feasible, as well as desirable. The people of North Vancouver–Capilano seem to feel that this portion of the highway is there only to get from one place to another. We happen to be between two areas, and it has not been constructed or designed to service the people of North Vancouver. Proper access and egress from the highway would be of major value to the people of North Vancouver. It would cut down the chances of tragic accidents at those intersections, which are not unusual, and it would further improve the quality of life.

On the Upper Levels Highway just east and west of Lonsdale, there is parking on the north side, and I feel this should be remedied. It should be remedied fairly soon, or we're going to have a fatality at that location. This is one portion of a four-lane highway in this province where you have residential parking. There is no protection for the residents on that street.

You'll recall that approximately a month ago I was speaking to you about this problem. You indicated at that time that you would initiate a feasibility study with respect to overpasses at these interchanges. I'm now asking whether this has been initiated. If it has been initiated, Mr. Chairman, what does it involve? I ask that if it has been initiated, this parking problem on the north side, east and west of Lonsdale, also be included in that feasibility study.

We have one further problem with respect to the highway in North Vancouver–Capilano. That is the question of beautification, Mr. Chairman, along the highway. With the traffic lights there, we get loud noises from trucks starting and stopping. This carries throughout the whole municipality. I understand there is a beautification project to be commenced soon on that portion of the Upper Levels Highway. I ask that this be implemented as soon as possible, in order not only to improve the aesthetic value of that portion of the highway through our residential area, but also, possibly, to reduce the noise level of transportation travelling the highway.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps we can solve this problem once and for all.

MS. BROWN: No, I'd prefer it not be solved right here or now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds address the Chair in the standard fashion which has been enjoyed by all parliaments for some great period of time.

MS. BROWN: I thought I'd collect them all at once.

I'm sorry the Chair is not in step with the changing times....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are discussing the estimates of the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I will concentrate on that, and we will deal with....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That applies to the cabinet benches as well as the opposition benches. Perhaps if you wish to discuss this matter, it can be discussed under a substantive motion or under vote 1. It certainly is not appropriate under this ministry. Please proceed.

MS. BROWN: I certainly accept the ruling of the Chair. Through you to the minister, as you know, Mr. Minister of Highways, the riding of Burnaby-Edmonds is one of those very strange ridings that, unfortunately, has five major throughways running through it. I just want to ask a couple of questions about the ministry's plans for some of those major throughways. I'm talking about the Lougheed, and Highway 1 and Kingsway and Canada Way and, of course, the new Marine Way.

MRS. JORDAN: When were you last there, Rosemary?

[ Page 1068 ]

MS. BROWN: Actually, I'm there every weekend, for the benefit of those who would like to see me in my constituency office, which is certainly more than can be said of many of the members of this House.

However, the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) has stated during the election that he was going to resign his seat unless a third crossing was completed. I'm wondering whether the minister will tell me whether the member for Delta is going to have to be forced to resign his seat. Is there really going to be a third crossing? Where is it going to be located? When is it going to be started and completed? I would like some kind of information about what it is going to cost.

I also want to know what is going to happen to Kingsway. As you know, Kingsway is essentially a one-way street. There is a light at every intersection and everyone is allowed to make a left turn at every intersection. It's one of the slowest highways — one of the slowest throughways — in the province today.

I want to know if the ministry has any plans for Kingsway. Are you going to upgrade it? Are you going to do anything about the congestion? I haven't gone to the trouble of the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) to prove that it costs $1 million every time you stop at a stoplight on Kingway. But I'm sure it's quite expensive. So maybe the minister will respond to that too.

What's happening with the new Marine Way? A number of letters have gone to the minister about the new Marine Way. The last reply I received from him was at the end of February of this year, and at that time no decision had been made as to where the exits and entrances were going to be. I want to find out whether any decisions have been made at this point in terms of the actual design. In your letter you said that you had not actually started a design of the facility and you couldn't really say anything about it in terms of where the exits and entrances were going to be. We are kind of interested because, of course, this impacts right on Burnaby South.

Is there any plan for upgrading Highway 1? Are you planning on putting on any additional lanes, maybe just for buses only, not specifically for automobiles? If so, when are you planning on doing this and what would be the cost involved? But we are primarily interested in knowing if you are planning on upgrading Highway 1, and when you would be planning on doing this.

The same thing applies to the Lougheed Highway. It is really very difficult for the member for Point Grey to be concerned about highways, because, of course, Point Grey has no highways running through it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You should know.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I should know, I've lived there for 14 years. I don't know why the government is so concerned about me leaving my home, but I don't intend to do that. That's where I live and that is where I intend to continue living, despite all the efforts on the part of the Premier to have me do otherwise.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I want you to live in Burnaby.

MS. BROWN: I live where my family lives, Mr. Premier, and if that upsets you I'm sorry, but that is precisely what I intend to continue doing.

In any event, I'm interested in knowing what plans there are for the Lougheed Highway. As you know, there is quite a bottleneck on that particular highway; it shouldn't even be called a highway at this point. It has turned almost into a country lane, and I want to know if you are going to put a bus lane on that would not be accessible to automobiles so that we could have some kind of fast transit on it.

What is in store for Hastings or the Barnet Highway? Have you made any decisions about those highways? If you are going to be doing any upgrading along there, we would like to know about that too.

The major concern, of course, to the people of Burnaby at this time is the whole Newcombe-Stormont interchange. There is a tremendous amount of opposition to the completion of this, and I want to know what decisions the department has made. Have you got any plans for a tunnel or are you going to insist on pushing that through? Exactly what plans do you have?

Is your department, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairperson, or Mr. Chair — whatever you want to be called — through you to the minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The matter of members addressing the Chair has now reached a time when I as the Chairman must make some type of recommendation to the House. It's not a matter of my personal preference. That has nothing to do with my decision. My decision is based on what is in the standing orders. The standing orders clearly refer to the fact that the member occupying the chair is to be referred to as the Chairman. As such, I would ask that all members in Committee of Supply, in addressing the Chair as they are required to do by our standing orders, refer to the person occupying the chair as "Mr. Chairman." With that, we can proceed.

MS. BROWN: Am I to understand that the person occupying the chair, even if it's a female, is to be referred to as "Mr. Chairman" too?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Unless the House is to determine a change in the standing orders, that is correct.

MS. BROWN: Well, of course, I'm not going to challenge the Chair on this issue, but I want to say that I am totally opposed to it.

MRS. JORDAN: We'll rewrite the rules again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, there are methods for members to change the standing orders, and if that is what is desired by the member, that is up to the member. However, I am duty-bound by this committee, which elected me to take this job, to enforce the standing orders, and I'm going to do so.

MS. BROWN: Well, as I have stated, I am not going to challenge the Chair, but I want to repeat that I am totally opposed to that ruling. In any event, I'll just refrain from saying anything to the Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you respect the rules of the House? Who do you think you are?

[ Page 1069 ]

MS. BROWN: I know who I am. Unlike you, I know exactly who I am, Mr. Minister. I have no questions about that, unlike you.

I want to know whether the government is going to be involved with any cost-sharing in the construction of Edmonds Street or whether this is going to be done completely by the municipality and if there is anything that can be done to ensure that this is not pushed through to be hooked up with Newcombe in terms of the final plans for the Newcombe-Stormont interchange.

What plans have the government made, Mr. Minister, regarding Highway 1 and Cassiar to the Second Narrows? I want to know not only what the plans are but when these plans would be implemented and what the cost involved would be. Has the government had any negotiations with the city of Vancouver regarding making access to Vancouver if the roads and highways in Burnaby are upgraded?

In any event, Mr. Minister, certainly the voters of the Burnaby constituency are totally opposed to any major construction going on in that particular area, but we would like to see some upgrading done on the existing roads. Of course, our commitment is to light rapid transit.

MR. SKELLY: I have very few questions to ask the minister. I would like to express my thanks the cooperation the minister and his staff have given to me over the past three or four years in helping to solve the problems of my constituents. I have been down to the minister's office. He told me on that occasion that I was the only member of the opposition ever to pay him a visit. There may be other reasons for that, I don't know, but I did appreciate some of the things he has done for me over the past few years.

The minister came to my riding during the last election. I was very unhappy about some of the things he said and did when he came to visit my riding. First of all, he didn't call on me. He had his picture taken with some upstart from the Social Credit Party in the riding. He went out on the highways and byways of the Alberni Valley and looked around and said he was going to fix this road and fix that road and blow up Angel Rock and attend the Coombs Fall Fair.... It's no longer in my riding; they've switched the boundaries on me. But the minister did say at the time.... We had a number of ministers through the riding at the time, and it looked like my riding was being declared a priority area — something like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You mean a disaster area.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, during the period of the election it was a disaster area. The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair) came in on the only day it rained, went to a crabfest, got crabs, came home and gave the riding a bad name. Then he got on the radio and he said he counted me among his personal friends and almost lost me the election.

Really, there are some things I'd like to ask the minister.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) came down during the nominating convention for the party of the other side. He took a look at the Cumberland Road, and he said that it had been allowed to become a bit rundown during the past few years.

So obviously he has never been up there and doesn't know a dammed thing about the Cumberland Road. But right there, on the spur of the moment, he promised to turn the Cumberland Road into a highway connecting Port Alberni and Cumberland. I thought this was the best thing since sliced bread, and so did the mayor of Cumberland. Then the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways came into town the next day, or shortly thereafter, and he was concerned about what the forest companies might think of him if he turned this road into a public highway, especially when MacMillan Bloedel is running trucks with 14-foot bumps over the road, and there is some danger to private cars attempting to use it.

The minister didn't appear for the 1978 estimates, but I asked him a question in 1977 about improvements to the Cumberland Road. That road promises to be an exciting tourist circle tour for people visiting the Alberni Valley. It opens up that whole southern area of Strathcona Park and Forbidden Plateau. It opens up areas leading out to the west coast near Tofino, Hot Springs Cove and Della Falls — the highest falls in North America. It's a very exciting area of Vancouver Island, one that should be opened for the tourists. I asked the minister how much money he was going to spend on the road that year in order to bring it in to some condition so it could be used by private passenger cars, rather than by 14-foot burnp logging trucks and motorcycles and four-wheel drives. He did say he would spend $10,000 or less on the road that year, which caused me some concern, since Mr. Vander Zalm said they would turn it into a highway within a few years. If you are planning to spend $10,000 or less a year, I estimate it will take 1,500 years. I realize you have trouble developing long-term plans in Energy and Environment, and I appreciate what you're doing with long-term plans in Highways, but we don't want it to take that long, Mr. Minister. Every time we call an election in Alberni the Social Credit Party and the Chamber of Commerce resurrect the Cumberland Road. They don't even want it to take three years. We would like you to take a look at the Cumberland Road and the vast tourist potential of that area. Spend a little more money on that route so that it can become a promising tourist circle, as it is, and has been identified as such by your ministry and by the Ministry of Tourism and other people in the province.

I would like the minister to give some priority to that Cumberland road to create that tourist circle and bring all those people from other parts of the world into the Alberni Valley to see the exciting attractions that we have there. So I would like to know what the minister has in his plans for the Cumberland road during the coming year. We don't want another $10,000 or less. We'd like to see a little more money spent on that road in order to develop its tourist potential.

Just a note in passing. When the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) came to Port Alberni he also promised to turn back tidal waves; so the less we see of him down there, the better it is.

Also, just before the last election a great deal of activity began to develop in the Alberni Valley around highways and highway construction projects. Suddenly just before the election was called, the minister announced that the section of Redford Street between Third Avenue and San Mateo Boulevard would be widened — sidewalks would be put in and storm sewers and all that kind of thing. I appreciate the fact that the minister awarded that contract, because we've been waiting for that for about three years now. It's good to see those improvements being done.

[ Page 1070 ]

But the minister also began a day-labour project on the Sproat Lake section of the highway, from the new highway construction between Tofino and Port Alberni. Between the end of that construction and the city we have a tortuous road there along Sproat Lake and along the Somass River, and the minister began a day-labour project in that area. But I noticed in the Albemi Valley Times of July 11, 1979, that the project ran out of money shortly after the election, and there is no work being done there at all. We wouldn't like to wait until the next election to get that project finished, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, because there is still a lot of rock and dirt. A lot of the grade construction has been done, and because of the rain problem on the west coast it will probably wash down on the existing road and make it even worse than it is.

So I'm wondering what plans the minister has to complete the construction of the Sproat Lake section of the Alberni-Tofino highway which he began, coincidentally, just before the last election.

I went out to the chamber of commerce at Ucluelet just after the last election and they gave me a list of projects that they would like to see done in highways in that area. One of the sections of the Tofino-Alberni highway that's deteriorating is the one that wasn't based on new construction. A large part of that highway was totally new construction that was done around 1971 and 1972 before the previous election, but the old section is basically logging road and the grade isn't all that good. It's a very winding section of highway. A large part of it fell into Kennedy Lake just after the 1972 election, and it needs a lot of upgrading to both the base of the road and to the pavement. We'd like to see the minister take a look at that section of highway and make some improvements to it. As the minister knows, there's something like 700,000 tourists visiting the Long Beach Pacific Rim National Park area each year, and that road is pretty heavily used compared to other roads in the province.

I've also received just within the past few weeks letters from citizens in the Ucluelet area who live south of the village boundary in the area of Amphitrite Point where the Coast Guard has just put in its new vessel-traffic monitoring station. A large number of Canada Department of Transport employees are working there monitoring oil tankers and shipping that come in through the Strait of Juan de Fuca in order to prevent the kind of accidents that we've been talking about should the Port Angeles oil port go in, or the Cherry Point oil port be expanded. Just within the last few days, 75 letters have been received from people who use that road on a daily basis and are complaining about the quality of the road.

Canada Department of Transport has built paved roads on their property up to the provincial road, and the road is paved within the Ucluelet village boundary, but there is a section of road that's pretty rough going, and it wouldn't require very much in the way of funds to pave it. The minister wrote me a letter on July 23, which just arrived today, in which he said that the road has been maintained consistently over the past two years, and he has no plans to pave the road within the next couple of years. Mr. Minister, I don't think that's good enough.

The problem with the west coast, again, is that it has a tremendous amount of rain, up to 200 inches of rain a year. Any type of maintenance you do out there in the form of grading of gravel roads is quickly eroded, and you end up with potholes a few days after the maintenance takes place.

I don't think the maintenance management program that you have for the whole province sufficiently takes into account the weather conditions on the west coast of Vancouver Island. As a result, we receive a lot of complaints about road conditions out there, especially gravel road conditions.

I would like the minister to take a second look at the situation between the Ucluelet village boundary, and Amphitrite Point and Spring Cove. As I mentioned to the minister, a tremendous number of people from Transport Canada use that road on a daily basis, and a tremendous number of fishermen also use that road. So it's quite an important thoroughfare, even though it's located on the far west coast of Vancouver Island.

There was another question. I received a letter from a lady in Beaverdell, and she talks about the fact that where uranium is being explored for in the Beaverdell area, Highways ministry trucks are taking some of the overburden as gravel, and I understand that some of that overburden has radioactive particles in it. Will the minister advise me what that gravel is being used for? Has he investigated the problem of the radioactive particles in it? The minister will know that after uranium and that type of mining in Colorado, the mine spoils or tailings were used to build buildings, to pave roads and that kind of thing, and now the government of the state of Colorado and the American federal government are being forced to pick up a lot of that overburden and remove it because it constitutes a radiation hazard to the people in the area. So I'm wondering if the minister has investigated this situation, and what conclusions he's come to, and what he plans to do with that radioactive material.

MR. BARNES: I'm only standing up because I want to talk about cycle paths in the constituency of Atlin. [Laughter.] I hear there's a place there called Eddontenajon, and I hear they have a problem there with their cycle program.

However, on a more serious note, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank the minister for accepting the suggestion that something be done about the sign problem that tourists face when coming to Victoria from the United States and seeing signs that say "Ferry to Victoria," when, in fact, it's a ferry to Swartz Bay. That's going to be straightened out, and I'm very pleased about that.

I would like to just briefly comment on the situation existing with respect to the Massey Tunnel. I hope that time doesn't run out; but I would just like to tell the House that in 1957, during my early years as a new Canadian, I was working on that tunnel with the designer, Mr. Ole Bentzen, who is a Danish citizen who happened to graduate from the University of Copenhagen in 1929, the year I was born. I was very pleased to have been part of that. That tunnel has considerable historic significance, having been the first trench-style design in North America, and it was put through the Fraser River. Many people perhaps don't know the history of it.

The point I wanted to raise is that, notwithstanding the fact that it was a marvel of its day when it was completed in 1959, it didn't look forward to the day the bicycle would be a problem. In 1973, when the New Democratic Party was elected, the former Minister of Highways (Mr. Lea) was very responsive to this member — who was at that time a backbencher of that government — suggesting that there

[ Page 1071 ]

should be some way by which people on bicycles could have a way of getting across the Fraser River.

At the present time we still have that service, Mr. Chairman, but it has been somewhat restricted in that there are only four crossings per day between the hours of 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., and this is seasonal. We had an odd-hour program going the year round, and I would suggest that our thinking was that in time it would catch on, that it would promote itself and would be utilized more. This is why we fought the critics who said it was too costly, and that the program would eventually pay for itself. If it had been continued at the pace we had established in 1973, we would today have a lot more volume going on. But the problem today, Mr. Chairman, is that the tunnel is not known to cyclists. People heading south, in fact, have to face a sign which says cycling is not permitted through the tunnel. If you're heading north, you have signs saying there are cycle paths and a route which you can follow.

However, you've got to get there between 9 and 3 o'clock. Otherwise you have to come back the next day. I think the minister should take a look at the trends of the times. More people are riding cycles. We are trying to encourage people to be more energy-conscious. Also, philosophically, we have found B.C. Hydro was incorrect in cutting back on transit services on the basis that the ridership was down. What happens, in fact, is that people use their cars more.

That philosophy is backwards. It's backwards with the Deas Island tunnel. Because the more you cut back, the fewer people know about it. Therefore the less use it gets.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest you advertise the tunnel by making it available, by doing an experimental project, by forgetting about the cost at least for a full-year period, and by spending some money to promote the idea that the tunnel is available. Let people know it is available and give it a chance to catch on. You've got to spend money to make money. You've got to let the people know the service is available. Otherwise, it's not going to succeed.

Mr. Chairman, would you ask the Attorney-General to please stop interrupting? I think a man in his position should recognize the importance of the subject I'm trying to bring before the House. He should not show the discourtesy to this member who has struggled very hard to retain his seat over the years, and suggest we should terminate debate before I've made my point.

However, under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that the committee rise and — is it progress or resolutions? In any event I move that this happen [laughter] and that we ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion "that this happen" would be out of order. I suggest the motion is that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills. I move that the report be read and received.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

I hear some nays. Sorry. The reason why I requested leave was because the ordinary time for this business to take place is after petitions and reading petitions. I don't have my order in front of me. I'm just taking it from memory. Let me just see whether not leave is required.

Yes, I'm afraid leave is required, and it has been denied.

Leave not granted.

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled an answer to question 8 standing in his name on the order paper. (See appendix.]

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:05 p.m.

[ Page 1072 ]

APPENDIX

8 Mr. Nicolson asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing the following questions:

1. Do the Directors of the British Columbia Housing Corporation receive any form of remuneration and/or expenses or per diem rates?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (a) in what form and in what amount and (b) in the case of each director what is their name and the total amount paid them in 1976, 1977, and 1978?

The Hon. J. R. Chabot replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. (a) Directors fees were established on the following basis and remained unchanged for the period in question:

(b)

"¹ Salary as President and Chief Executive Officer.

"² Salary as Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer.

"³ Salary at rate of $200 per diem as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer."